The good news and bad news at Wonders of Life
Many Disney related websites are reporting the same rumor regarding Epcot’s Wonders of Life pavilion. It appears as though we have good news and bad news. The good news, at least for those who like it, is the pavilion will not be closing. The bad news is the pavilion won’t be very accessible anymore. The Disney Enquirer had this to say…
Unfortunately, none of the current rumors will allow guests in the building in the foreseeable future. Rumors point to both Body Wars and Cranium Command to be walled up and the giant mural outside Body Wars’ entrance to be painted over. Everything else in the pavilion would be gutted and the entire space would be turned over to conventions and private parties, not to be used by guests anytime soon.
In the last 15 years or so, Disney has been fairly liberal with money over on that side Future World. Changing the World of Motion into Test Track and Horizons into Mission Space were both hugely expensive investments. I didn’t expect that same kind of commitment, though I certainly was rooting for it. However, this is as cheap and pointless as it can get.
Wonders of Life has performed poorly by all accounts, to the point where Disney only bothered to operate it on a seasonal basis when people may trickle in to get away from the heat and crowds. But if they don’t consider it worthwhile and the attractions within not good enough to operate year round, why would they bother to keep them at all? It is hard to believe they would invest anything, and turning it into a convention facility can’t be cheap, and not at least make the attractions better and more accessible. We couldn’t even find a Pixar character to throw over here? (Tongue planted firmly in cheek…)
Matt said,
June 22, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Ugh, I hate wasted space and using it for special events/conventions is wasted space. Tell me why it can’t be open? They’ll still spend money on it’s upkeep. I don’t see why it should be closed.
Jeff Pepper said,
June 22, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
It’s simple–there is no sponsor subsidizing the pavilion. Every FW pavilion is pretty much based on that financial dynamic. Disney did not throw money at Mission Space and Test Track, HP and GM did. Horizons would likely still be with us in some form if if GE had continued its sponsorship. Living Seas survived without a sponsor because its a little harder to shutter a large scale aquarium, and the Nemo-based retail shop helps offset some of the lost sponsorship $.
Turning it into a meeting space is relatively cheap–some gallons of paint and a few key redesigns, not a whole lot of $. Same thing they did with Millennium Village.
David said,
June 22, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
Jeff, then my point is correct…the tongue-in-cheek one. If they put an Incredilbes attraction in there, and “offset” the costs with a gift shop, wouldn’t that work?
Also, Horizons was not survivng with GE retaining its sponsorship. Bot it and World of Motion were on the list to be replaced with something more teen oriented.
Eric said,
June 22, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Doesn’t Epcot already have plenty of special event/convention space? The Odyssey comes to mind.
This is a very bad decision, IMO.
Jeff Pepper said,
June 22, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Dave, GE never renewed their sponsorship, after the initial 10 year contract they pulled out. Disney would have continued to run Horizons had GE renewed. It wasn’t ever a question of survival. Look at UOE–far less popular than Horizons but maintained for over 20 years because Exxon was willing to continue to foot the bill. Horizons was a great crowd-eater and its lack of lines reflected a high capacity-continuous loader, much like SSE, not necessarily a lack of popularity. GM in fact demanded the changes to WOM and because they were footing the bill, Test Track was born. In a conversation I recently had with Charles Ridgway, he pretty much said that nothing is able to be realized in Epcot without sponsorship deals. Its the business model upon which the park was based.
Eric–you’d be amazed at the sheer volume of convention/meeting business WDW does within the parks. While I agree that this shouldn’t be the fate of WOL, there is certainly a demand for that type of usage.
David said,
June 22, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
Eric, I really think we are not in any position to answer that. If Disney thinks they can fill it, they should build it.
Jeff, did you ever wonder what GE thought of Horizons?
Also, by 1992 WDI was openly debating the future of Epcot, and sponsors were part of that debate. Yes, GE could have insisted it stay, but we know how that ended. Also, Horizons attendance figures at the end were nowhere near comparible to SE. Yes, it ate lines, but people were not riding anymore.
Eric said,
June 22, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
What I guess I should’ve said was- doesn’t Epcot have enough visible meeting space? (Ie. space that to Joe Parkgoer, simply looks like an empty, unused building.) In other words, bad show.
I don’t mind creating meeting space if the need is there, but I don’t think it should be sitting out in the open for all to see, but only some to use. I think many guests just wander from structure to structure to see the next “thing” at Disney parks. How many have wondered over to Odyssey to find a locked empty building? Now, they are creating another such building.
Jeff Pepper said,
June 22, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
Dave–GE CEOs Reginald Jones and Jack Welch were big proponents of Horizons, and it furthered the partnership with the company that originated with Progressland at the 64-65 Worlds Fair. Although its just speculation, many feel that they didn’t renew the sponsorship because Welch was responsible for extensive layoffs with GE during the 90s and throwing money at Disney while at the same time canning employees might not make for very good PR.
Not sure about the open debate about Epcot in the early 90s that you speak of. Stock reports and company literature from the period indicate a steady as she goes philosophy of corporate sponsorship. A couple of quotes from company materials:
“Enhancements moving Future World into the 21st century will begin with its major pavilions presented by outstanding American corporations in 1992 during the Tenth Anniversary of Epcot.”
“Discussions and planning are underway with charter Future World participants (sponsors) and concept teams are developing renovation proposals for World of Motion, The Land, SSE, UOE and Horizons.” (This from 1991)
At that same time, a Space pavilion was being considered that would have been wholly separate from Horizons. And the fact that WOL had just opened in late 1989 with MetLife firmly affixed to the pavilion, pretty much demonstrated that sponsorship model was deeply rooted and not going anywhere.
I don’t think a real substantial debate about Future World’s direction really emerged until the whole Project Gemini proposal from the early 2000s.
David said,
June 23, 2007 @ 1:09 am
Jeff, Project Gemini began LONG before the early 2000’s. And the thought process behind changing Epcot into something more “exciting” was, I believe, tossed around during the now infamous “Disney Decade”.
Horizons is the “3rd Rail” of Disney debates. Touch it and you get fried. I guess I touched it. The fact is, the ride was a bore…
Lou Mongello - DisneyWorldTrivia.com said,
June 23, 2007 @ 2:56 am
With regard to GE and Horizons, the real issue I think was not whether GE liked the pavilion, or even the relative popularity of it. GE’s issue from the very beginning was that people did not even recognize that GE was the sponsor. References to the company throughout the ride itself were minimal, and in the post-show area (i.e. the walk out the door), there were even fewer. In fact, the original (albeit quite beautiful) mural was removed very early on, as Guests could not associate the attraction with its sponsor. Added visual elements such as the GE logo still could not alleviate the issue of people not being able to understand or see how GE technologies were utilized in the ride itself (although they were plentiful). That lack of branding and marketing inevitably lead to a poor ROI for GE, which I feel led to its not renewing their sponsorship agreement. The number of visitors through the turnstiles was likely less of a factor.
Corporate sponsorship always has been deeply rooted in both FW and WS, and has driven the growth and success of pavilions on both sides of the bridge. We all know that many WS pavilions never saw the light of day simply due to the lack of corporate interest (and/or dollars), and FW is no different. Lack of corporate backing can easily sound the death knell for an attraction.
With regard to “Project Gemini” - in name alone, it really did not exist before the birth of “today’s” internet, with the earliest references I can find online to it were back in 2002. Theoretically, the “Blue Sky” concepts of adding Soarin’, updating SSE and adding a new pavilion/attraction may have predated that time, but did not take shape in the form of Gemini until much later. In fact, I think that much of the whole Gemini “debate” started with the mention of the name simply taking on a life of its own on the internet.
I firmly believe that there were never any realistic plans to “gut” SSE and implant a roller coaster into the sphere. First of all, from an engineering perspective, it would likely be close to impossible (save for slicing the ball in half horizontally, scooping out the insides like a grapefruit, reassembling it.. you get the idea). I also don’t necessarily believe it was ever the intention of the Disney Imagineers and decision-makers about making Future World more exciting, and instead may have just been fueled by internet discussion.
Finally, with regard to meeting space, I know from conversations with Event staff at WDW just how much revenue is derived from corporate events. Venues that might otherwise have been updated or filled (i.e. the Diamond Horseshoe and Odyssey), remain in their current state (for the time being) partially due to the amazing amount of dollars Disney is able to secure for events in these spaces. From training, to team-building, parties, etc., many of these areas come at a premium and are booked months in advance. To have another large arena for Disney to allow big-ticket events in does not make bad business sense. While I am the first to believe in the Disney “magic”, we can’t lose sight of the fact that it is a huge corporation, driven by dollars and cents, that also has a responsibility to answer to its shareholders.
David said,
June 23, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
Do you guys really think Horizons attendance was not a factor? Please, take off your fans glasses for a minute. I loved it to, though I could see why others thought it boring. But I often walked throught the queue to find the CM’s waiting for me. We all know how Epcot’s attendance was suffering. Don’t you see the results? For better or worse, the general public did not agree with our assessment of the attraction.
From what I recall at the time, GE was not happy with the attraction and did not want to invest again in rebuilding it. WDI wanted something more exciting, and GE wasn’t interested in ponying up. Whether other factors came into play…we can only assume they did.
Also, “gemini” the name was probably first used right after the millenium celebration. My first memory of giving it a name was from Jim Hill, but I could be wrong. What I am referring to is the plan to make the park, specifically FW, something very different. That pre-dates 2000, as Test Track was not the only ride they wanted to move in that direction.