DEBATE: Would this Satisfy Us?

[Captain Crook]

Referencing Scoop's discussion about the possible resurrection of Epcot whereby the rumor has it that perhaps 300 million could be used to bring the ailing Park up to speed.

My question is "would this be enough?" Would it be enough to bring Epcot back if spent wisely & (hopefully) in conjuction with some new sponsor announcements?

Would it be enough to impress people to return to Epcot?

Would it be enough to convince DIS'ers that Disney is now ready to commit to the Parks?

 

[YoHo]

Bringing Epcot back up to speed? Yes, if Disney Spent that money and spent it well I would think they were back on course.

 

[toefungus]

Depends on what they spend that 300mil on. If it's to build a gate between WS and FW so people could dine at the restraunts, no.

If its spent to bring another country to WS with an attraction, and upgrade old technology in FW, then Hell yeah!

 

[Eeyore2U]

As with most things discussed on the board, some will say it's enough, some will say it's not.

As YoHo said, if it's spent well is the key.

 

[Galahad]

Epcot is my favorite park, even in its current state. But if they are really going to be spending $$ on it.....

Both FW and WS need a bit of a boost, but FW more so. There's too much "present" and "past" in Future World. Doesn't necessarily need more "rides" but needs more innovative ways of showcasing technology, science and futurism.

WS's biggest draws for us is the live entertainment/interactions as cultural stuff from each "land". No more cut backs on street performers. Less emphasis on selling trinkets that could be purchased anywhere. Change things up a little more often. New countries might be a great idea. Or using the Millenium Villiage area as a "rotating" exhibit that changes every few months. Perhaps focused on a country, or some other cultural thing.

Oh, yeah.... and make the Wine festival year round......

 

[EUROPA]

...I'm going to buck the trend here and say NO. They need to spend 300 million on each park. Epcot is not the only park or area of Disney World that needs help.

Now I do think that it's a great start if they spend the money and spend it well.

 

[scooby-the-doo]

300 million is a nice start, and a nice gesture. Like a scrap of meat being thrown from the table to the dogs, it'll get them moving but it won't last long.

How much of that money will be eaten up by administration and the like? You could probably get two world-class 'E-Ticket' rides out of that money for Future World and, quite frankly, it needs it. Spaceship Earth needs major, MAJOR help. And I don't mean turn it into a damned indoor coaster, but let's just give it a facelift with today's technology and not stick with what we have from the late 70s. The only reason it still operates is because it is EPCOT's eblum.

And all this talk of segrigating Future and World is quite scary. Could the bean-counters think that Mission:Space is enough to keep Future ticking over for the next 5-10 years? Future world needs to constantly evolve, and not become present or past world as it is now. Junking Horizons was good. But what wasn't good was the fact they didn't have a replacement waiting in the ways to take the concept into the 21st century.

 

[YoHo]

Actually, Spaceship Earth has seen a couple updates even in the 90s.

 

[YoHo]

I need to see some cost figures for Various rides and remodels in the parks. Inflation adjusted of course. Then and only then can I tell you if $300Mil is a meaningful amount of money. Truth be told, in this day and age it may not be. :/

 

[scooby-the-doo]

$300 million is a nice start. If we want state-of-the-art new rides and refurbs, it will simply not go a long way. If we want something along the lines of DCA, then yes, $300 million will do EPCOT nicely until its 30th anniversary.

Original sums spent? I was recently reading a newspaper article from '81 or '82 that quoted a sum of $100 million for Spaceship Earth alone. Calculate that into today's amounts.

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

Original sums spent? I was recently reading a newspaper article from '81 or '82 that quoted a sum of $100 million for Spaceship Earth alone. Calculate that into today's amounts.

I don't have any credible info on the dollar amount either, but I would surmise that a good portion of the $ necessary to build SE most likely went into the actual SE structure. It's an engineering marvel. The ride (yes, it is one of my favs too) didn't actually encompass a myriad of new technology or innovation (other than a boatload of AA figures). Put the actual ride into a one story building and I bet the costs would have gone down dramatically...

 

[raidermatt]

Since the original premise is that the $300 million will be spent wisely, then yes, its probably enough to turn Epcot's lagging attendance around. (of course, there are varying opinions about what "wisely" means in this case...)

But that's only a piece to the overall puzzle. For instance, if the $300 million means virtually nothing is spent on the other three parks, what happens in three years? Epcot may have several new attractions and a better feel, but what will the state of the other three parks be? How will MGM be doing if it gets no major additions or changes? What about an AK where the newest significant attraction is a 3 year-old DR?

That doesn't mean every park needs $100 million a year in capital improvements, but if you ignore parks for years at a time, they will, and all at once.

Now since this money was supposedly earmarked for a 5th gate, the other parks should at least get their planned capital expenditures, whatever they may have been. But will that be the case, and is that enough?

If you want four parks generating gobs of cash, you have to invest in all four. Sure, the amounts can vary, depending on need. But you can't neglect one or more, for if you do, you'll be scrambling to solve another problem once you fix the current one.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

My question is "would this be enough?" Would it be enough to bring Epcot back if spent wisely & (hopefully) in conjuction with some new sponsor announcements?

Capt.!! What a thoughtful question! Isn't Peter usually in charge of thinking?


Anyway, I have an answer. First you say that it is "spent wisely". I will suppose that this means "wisely" according to the LandBaron's Standards (which happens to mirror Walt's ) so that we don't stray to far from the original question. With this thought in mind:

I would be happy!! I would be thrilled!! I would be on the verge of an org... Well, let's just say, I'd be happy!!!!

It would show committment. It would show resolve to "fix" things. Heck, my sea going friend, I'd be happy with a ten dollar investment. If I knew they were serious about creativity. If I thought they cared about the SHOW! If I was sure they finally "got it"!!!

 

[d-r]

Can somebody remind me how much mission:space is costing again?

 

[smithdaddy]

i like epcot like it is.. i wouldn't object to having new pavilions or counties - not in the least, but this park offers me the most in as far as interacting with people from different parts of the world, the latest in technology, and the most spectacular fireworks display any where. (it's not like i can go outside my backdoor and see such a display as the one at epcot!) is it familiar? yes. is it in need of something more? probably. but, to me this park has the hardest task of being the most "futuristic" when technology is changing everyday. walt may not have realized that changes would have happened so rapidly when he imagine a "community of tomorrow." that could be the reason that epcot is not really the epcot that walt dreamed of initially. think.... if epcot was being planned/designed now for a future opening, how would the planners prepare for it? what would it be? i think this is where everyone gets caught up in "what disney ought to be." epcot is optimistic in its view that the world should be united for the best opportunities for everyone. it's also a capitalist endeavor. so, what else can i say?

 

[scooby-the-doo]

Has anyone here seen the original plans for The Living Seas? The idea that the pavillion itself was encased within a huge 'glass bubble' and then that would have been submerged within a massive tank. So, basically, you have the illusion that you really are within a city at the bottom of the ocean. Everywhere you look you would have been completely surrounded with the going-ons of life beneath the sea.

The idea is completely stunning yes, and was of course thrown out due to cost considerations. But this is along the lines of what I demand of EPCOT or any new Disney attraction: I want to be stunned. Visually and mentally amazed by something I have not seen anywhere before and, just as important, could NOT see anywhere else.

 

[Tik Tok]

I think a $300 million investment by Disney would be great, but what I really think Epcot needs to get back on track is more corporate sponserships. Disney needs to get off it's butt and go court corporate America (and the rest of the world), and try to get as many sponsers back into Epcot as possible. It's only when they get outside money that we see innovative attractions like Mission SPACE.