Got my time on the afternoon of the 19th…wondering if “leaving early to ride a Guardians of the Galaxy ride” is an excuse that will resonate with my Northern-based corporate bosses haha.
Good question - on the surface, it does appear to be hypocritical.
Appreciate the response—this is the kind of in-depth conversation I really like about this place as I can’t really get it elsewhere.
Epcot has always been the "smarter" park, the one that had a little more thought and required a little more than the others. And Disney advertised it that way, back when "there's stuff for adults too" was considered a requirement for selling the resort.
So, I get this, but I think you have to look at the resort as a whole. There are more adult elements introduced to the entire property compared to when Epcot filled that specific need. I’d argue Hollywood Studios is just as “adult.” Epcot doesn’t “need” to be an adult park when you now have two other parks helping to fulfill that segment.
Now, are the attractions present “mature” or complex? I agree the answer to that is “no.” But I’d argue there’s no longer a large enough audience to sustain a “thought-provoking” park either—look at the movies that get wide releases these days. Tentpoles are dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator and the opportunity cost of seeing a movie is, what, $10 and a couple of hours? With a much larger barrier to entry, people aren’t going to want to take a chance of using their precious vacation time (and even more precious money) on complex ideas that their whole family may not appreciate.
I also would point out I take the same stance here as I do with IPs at HHN—nowadays, anyone can go through a [insert generic horror location here] haunted house, but Universal’s value proposition is in its IPs, and THAT will always be what separates it from other destinations. Epcot’s value proposition cannot be “the learning park” anymore—it will continue to elevate itself by letting guests experience their favorite IP exclusively.
Disney also frequently claims they're the best, "you can't touch us", invoke Walt, and say they're so popular you don't have to advertise. They are also claiming these changes and additions in Epcot are true to the theme and spirit of the park. It's not just not true, it's patronizing.
Yeah, Disney is patronizing. They’re also the only major corporation I can think of that has a devoted, borderline cult-like fan following. Proctor & Gamble, Comcast, Salesforce, etc. don’t need to satisfy anyone but their shareholders, and doing so doesn’t really take any creativity (in the artistic sense at least). I give Disney props for acknowledging the fanbase at all…as to just how disingenuous it is, I’ll take the approach we’re all taking for the Shrek replacement, Fear Factor replacement, etc….let’s wait and see.
"Well Epcot has to change". I agree!
"UoE was bad/terrible/old/Exxon propaganda/etc and should have gone." Yes.
"You just want Horizons back." No I don't.
"You don't want a coaster in the park." Another variant of the one above, I wanted a coaster in this park decades ago.
"You don't want IP in the park." There's been IP in the park for generations now, I don't have a problem with Nemo or Donald.
I just have an issue with this IP and its application in this park.
I actually agree with this, just like I agree with people who are okay with Spider-Man and Gringotts but are bored with Fallon and Fast & Furious. It’s not the screens themselves, it’s the application. The thing that bugs me as someone looking to read constructive theme park discussion as my nerdy hobby is that for Epcot, this is seen as a valid concern whereas with UO, this is brushed off as “well the GP likes it” and “if there were too many screenz why would attendance be getting so high?” By every observable metric from someone outside of the company (although I actually used to be in a position to have even more than that, for one resort more than the other), Epcot is ALSO doing very well with the direction they’re headed in. Whether we like it or not, that’s where the fun of the conversation comes in. But the discourse changes based on the narrative which hinders all of the good that could come from constructive discussion about the parks.
That’s also not to mention that I do suspect there’s some generational bias regarding what fits and what doesn’t. For all intents and purposes, Maelstrom hits all of the criteria for what Epcot purists DONT like about the new direction—it’s fantasy, it’s not thought-provoking, and it felt kind of shoehorned into a space. But because that’s what was there when we first visited, we blindly accepted it and the only thing making it still make sense is our memory’s acceptance of it.
Frankly, what Disney should do is rename the park and rededicate it. If Disney thinks "adult magic kingdom" is the way forward, then do it, but don't lie to our faces that it isn't what you're doing.
And this is where we get back to my original argument. Slow moving dark rides are no longer the most interesting way to learn things..not in this age of 1.) oversaturated digital media and 2.) huge innovations in ride technology that have generally skewed more toward thrill. But Epcot can still be unique while moving away from the outdated edutainment concepts. It’s still the only park grounded in reality in the sense that all of the World Showcase pavilions are based on real locations without any elements of fantasy (Norway aside, but this was the case when Maelstrom existed too). It’s the only park that consistently rotates it’s food and beverage offerings to appeal to a more local crowd (the cynic will say this is shameless cash-grabbing but I’m not alone in enjoying it a lot so I say, “who cares?”).
One ride doesn’t change this.
At the end of the day, Epcot needs more thrill rides. I’m just happy they built *a* roller coaster. If slapping Guardians on it is what will make the investment get its return, then so be it…at least it means there won’t be an excuse to stop investing more exciting attractions into the park. The ride could be terrible, but we have to stop barring it from the benefit of the doubt just because of the land it sits on.
ETA: Yikes…sorry for the diatribe. Can you tell I’m into this stuff?