Epcot (General Discussion)

[Parkscope Joe]

Apple had show space in Innoventions but never renewed after Jobs came back. Apple wouldn't sponsor an attraction for several reasons, one being they're not in control of staffing and design.

 

[WebHead1138]

Maybe an unpopular opinion: But, I think Disney is going in the right direction with Epcot. I like the fact that World Showcase is getting more rides. Disney should NOT waste there time or energy in building more countries until they have built attractions to all there existing countries. I like the fact that there IP attractions as well. Why? Because it showcases how those specific countries have inspired Disney themselves with there films.

As for Future World - I like the fact that there including more IPs as well. I completely understand the argument that Guardians doesn’t fit. But, people complain that the parks don’t have enough original non-IP attractions. Future World already has a decent amount of rides that don’t have an IP attached. Mixing it up with IP rides won’t hurt the park at all. If anything it will bring MORE people to park. In doing so they will be exposed to Epcot and everything it has to offer. Isn’t that the point?

The original idea of EPCOT -essentially was to educate people. I don’t believe Epcot will ever lose this. World Showcase uses the facades sometimes shows to teach people the culture of that specific country. So the original idea is not lost. Yes, a ratatouille ride doesn’t teach you about France and neither does Frozen. But, in a sense, those countries should be proud that Disney has used there country to make some of the best animated and live action films of all time. Is that in itself a celebration of culture?

Well I hope what I said made any sense. This is just my opinion.

 

[OrlLover]

Maybe an unpopular opinion: But, I think Disney is going in the right direction with Epcot. I like the fact that World Showcase is getting more rides. Disney should NOT waste there time or energy in building more countries until they have built attractions to all there existing countries. I like the fact that there IP attractions as well. Why? Because it showcases how those specific countries have inspired Disney themselves with there films.

As for Future World - I like the fact that there including more IPs as well. I completely understand the argument that Guardians doesn’t fit. But, people complain that the parks don’t have enough original non-IP attractions. Future World already has a decent amount of rides that don’t have an IP attached. Mixing it up with IP rides won’t hurt the park at all. If anything it will bring MORE people to park. In doing so they will be exposed to Epcot and everything it has to offer. Isn’t that the point?

The original idea of EPCOT -essentially was to educate people. I don’t believe Epcot will ever lose this. World Showcase uses the facades sometimes shows to teach people the culture of that specific country. So the original idea is not lost. Yes, a ratatouille ride doesn’t teach you about France and neither does Frozen. But, in a sense, those countries should be proud that Disney has used there country to make some of the best animated and live action films of all time. Is that in itself a celebration of culture?

Well I hope what I said made any sense. This is just my opinion.

I very much agree with your post.

 

[Disneyhead]

Maybe an unpopular opinion: But, I think Disney is going in the right direction with Epcot. I like the fact that World Showcase is getting more rides. Disney should NOT waste there time or energy in building more countries until they have built attractions to all there existing countries. I like the fact that there IP attractions as well. Why? Because it showcases how those specific countries have inspired Disney themselves with there films.

As for Future World - I like the fact that there including more IPs as well. I completely understand the argument that Guardians doesn’t fit. But, people complain that the parks don’t have enough original non-IP attractions. Future World already has a decent amount of rides that don’t have an IP attached. Mixing it up with IP rides won’t hurt the park at all. If anything it will bring MORE people to park. In doing so they will be exposed to Epcot and everything it has to offer. Isn’t that the point?

The original idea of EPCOT -essentially was to educate people. I don’t believe Epcot will ever lose this. World Showcase uses the facades sometimes shows to teach people the culture of that specific country. So the original idea is not lost. Yes, a ratatouille ride doesn’t teach you about France and neither does Frozen. But, in a sense, those countries should be proud that Disney has used there country to make some of the best animated and live action films of all time. Is that in itself a celebration of culture?

Well I hope what I said made any sense. This is just my opinion.

Their (possessive), they're (they are), and there (place).

 

[WebHead1138]

Their (possessive), they're (they are), and there (place).

Noted.

 

[Disneyhead]

Noted.

My post was, like, the second time that I have been the grammar police since I have been on the internet. And I have been on the internet since Al Gore invented it.

I just found you post hard to understand without stopping and figuring out what you were trying to say.

 

[WebHead1138]

That bad huh?

 

[shiekra38]

But, in a sense, those countries should be proud that Disney has used their country to make some of the best animated and live action films of all time.

Your American exceptionalism is showing

 

[shiekra38]

Apple had show space in Innoventions but never renewed after Jobs came back. Apple wouldn't sponsor an attraction for several reasons, one being they're not in control of staffing and design.

I wonder if Google would sponsor something...Maybe the new SSE?

 

[WebHead1138]

Your American exceptionalism is showing

Explain.

 

[Nick]

I wonder if Google would sponsor something...Maybe the new SSE?

Google has no incentive to do an in-park sponsorship. They will reach pretty much everyone on the internet anyway for free. The only reason to sponsor in-park is if you have something tangible to give to people to promote the brand.

Everything else can be done on the internet.

 

[Disneyhead]

That bad huh?

For the most part, your post was articulate and well thought out. The grammar mistakes were distracting, but the one sentence that caused me the most problem isn't even related to the things I mentioned. It is this one.

"I like the fact that there IP attractions as well."

It should read, "I like the fact that there are IP attractions as well."

But as far as the content of your post, I mostly agree. I also like IP attractions. But I think Disney needs to be more careful about their implementation. I don't like Frozen being the meat of the Norway pavilion. If they had a largish scale attraction that showed the real Norway AND the Frozen attraction, that would be better. I am fine with Mary Poppins going into the UK Pavilion and The Jungle Book going into the India Pavilion because their historical context is actually native to their countries. Ratattoui is pushing it but I can deal with it because the real France is well represented in the pavilion.

I don't like GotG going into Future World or Avatar going into DAK though. I take education seriously and I think it is important. And at a time when science and higher learning is literally under attack in America, I think it is more important than at any time in my lifetime.

 

[Scott W.]

Google has no incentive to do an in-park sponsorship. They will reach pretty much everyone on the internet anyway for free. The only reason to sponsor in-park is if you have something tangible to give to people to promote the brand.

Everything else can be done on the internet.

What about Facebook? Teaming up with Disney would be great PR that they could do with just now.

A full connect world and Spaceship Earth kind of go together.

 

[WebHead1138]

For the most part, your post was articulate and well thought out. The grammar mistakes were distracting, but the one sentence that caused me the most problem isn't even related to the things I mentioned. It is this one.

"I like the fact that there IP attractions as well."

It should read, "I like the fact that there are IP attractions as well."

But as far as the content of your post, I mostly agree. I also like IP attractions. But I think Disney needs to be more careful about their implementation. I don't like Frozen being the meat of the Norway pavilion. If they had a largish scale attraction that showed the real Norway AND the Frozen attraction, that would be better. I am fine with Mary Poppins going into the UK Pavilion and The Jungle Book going into the India Pavilion because their historical context is actually native to their countries. Ratattoui is pushing it but I can deal with it because the real France is well represented.

I don't like GotG going into Future World or Avatar going into DAK though. I take education seriously and I think it is important. And at a time when science and higher learning is literally under attack in America, I think it is more important than at any time in my lifetime.

Hey man I really appreciate your response. I’ll be the first to admit that I make grammatical errors all the time. Everyone does. I appreciate the constructive criticism. For the most part I agree with your points.

To be completely honest, I thought you were trying to get a reaction out of me. I put a lot of thought and effort on that post. And you responded with grammar mistakes. Personally, I appreciated the corrections. Thanks again.

 

[WAJAS]

Explain.

It's the idea that another country should be proud of something an American company is doing that makes it stand out to me. Most of these countries couldn't give two "Fast and Furious: Supercharged"s about their representation by Disney, and even if they do it wouldn't be on the scale of 'proud'. One of the rare exceptions to this rule is Norway, which was trying to attract more tourist, and Morocco, which had a leader who spent a ton of his personal money on the pavilion as well.

 

[WebHead1138]

It's the idea that another country should be proud of something an American company is doing that makes it stand out to me. Most of these countries couldn't give two "Fast and Furious: Supercharged"s about their representation by Disney, and even if they do it wouldn't be on the scale of 'proud'. One of the rare exceptions to this rule is Norway, which was trying to attract more tourist, and Morocco, which had a leader who spent a ton of his personal money on the pavilion as well.

I’m not gullible. I know that other countries could careless. I was trying to make a point to give some cohesion to why World Showcase can still be culturally connected. That’s all.

 

[WAJAS]

I’m not gullible. I know that other countries could careless. I was trying to make a point to give some cohesion to why World Showcase can still be culturally connected. That’s all.

And I wasn’t arguing against your point. Just explaining what you asked to be explained.

But I understand that actually wasn’t directed at me but the original account that commented on your post.

 

[WebHead1138]

And I wasn’t arguing against your point. Just explaining what you asked to be explained.

But I understand that actually wasn’t directed at me but the original account that commented on your post.

Sorry if it came off that way. I wasn’t arguing with you. I was just explaining myself. I appreciate your response.

 

[tielo]

To be clear, there are ton of people who actually don't care for Disney or hate it with a passion. In that respect it's like any company. It's not smart for any company to be associated with another company. You loose a part of control and companies don't want that.
Also Disney has a huge loyal following that visits the parks each year so the number of return visitor dilute the investment because they are for a large part preaching to the same crowd.

 

[Scott W.]

To be clear, there are ton of people who actually don't care for Disney or hate it with a passion. In that respect it's like any company. It's not smart for any company to be associated with another company. You loose a part of control and companies don't want that.
Also Disney has a huge loyal following that visits the parks each year so the number of return visitor dilute the investment because they are for a large part preaching to the same crowd.

True but this is the same Disney who wont build a new ride particularly in Epcot unless somebody else is footing the bill. Obviously this is changed times with Guardians and Rat but it’s probanly still happening.