In defense of the Wand, as the end nears
The smiles on the faces of Disney purists have glowed through all our computer monitors over the last couple of weeks. The news that the infamous wand on Spaceship Earth may soon be coming down has them jumping for joy.
Do you need some convincing about how happy they truly are? Take a look at some of the things the latest addition of Mouse House News had to say regarding the impending destruction…
The removal of the wand will certainly bring an air of credibility back to the idea of Future World.
I can only hope that the leadership of Epcot will be satisfied with the simple removal of the wand and do not feel the need to replace it with something equally as “whimsical”.
Or the online community’s most outspoken Disney World critic Kevin Yee during his June 14 report on MiceAge.com…
The demolition of the wand atop Spaceship Earth has apparently cleared its last hurdle: the fiscal 2008 budget decision and it’s a certainty now. The wondrous effects this will have on the futurism of Epcot, not the cartoonization of it, cannot be repeated often enough.
…Sadly, even Epcot has been cartoonized, but with the wand coming down, one little bit of futurism is reclaimed.
As you could probably already tell, I am not nearly as excited. Yes, I agree Spaceship Earth stood remarkably well on it own, without the help of the Mouse. But the venomous nature with which Disney fans referred to the Wand was almost frightening. For me, it just wasn’t all that bad.
When the Wand arrived, I truly liked it. For those who don’t remember, theWand was built as a tribute to the millennium celebration. What could have been more appropriate than the largest banner for the passing of this great milestone being placed on Disney’s finest architectural achievement and the most impressive tribute to our planet I have ever seen? And what’s more, Imagineering chose Walt Disney’s greatest character in his best theatrical role to be the star. It was big, beautiful, and magnificently appropriate.
But after the millennium festivities ended, the Wand quickly became a symbol of everything the purists hate about the “new” Epcot; the Michael Eisner influenced, characters included, Epcot. It seemed every few months a new rumor of its destruction would pop-up on internet forums, and it felt as though it was being done so everyone could air their collective hostility.
The general consensus is the Wand flies in the face of Epcot’s original plan of futurism, and in some ways it does. But that plan has been largely abandoned, as more attractions get updated to something less reminiscent of a World’s Fair, and now the removal of the wand seems somewhat counter to the changing winds at Epcot. If we did not have Nemo, Crush, the Three Caballeros, and who knows who else in the future, then removing the Wand would make perfect sense. But Epcot is not the corporate-driven sounding board for a hopeful future it once was, and is now a more family friendly Disney park. Seven years ago, the Wand didn’t fit the theme of the park outside of its tie-in to the millennium. But now, in a not-so-subtle way, it does.
Eric said,
June 26, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
I don’t really give a hoot about the past direction of Epcot (as any listener to our past few shows proves) but I’ll be glad to see the wand go. SSE is much more beautiful unadorned. The wand was a nice touch for teh Milennium celebration, but it should have come down shortly thereafter. In that respect, I put the wand slightly above the recent gold treatment the castle received for the Happiest Celebration on Earth.
Let’s not forget, SSE is an attraction. How would a wand work hanging on the side of ToT, or Space Mountain?
David said,
June 26, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Eric, your comment was caught up in a spam filer, and I HAVE NO IDEA WHY!!! As you can tell, I’ve been dealing with this pain in the neck for a couple of days now. Sorry, if it happens again, just email me and I’ll fix it.
As far as your question, the answer is no. It would not work on Space Mountain or ToT. But that is because they have a bit more arhchitectural detail than a golf ball. (Which is not a bad thing, so no need to flame…)
Is the Epcot Wand Coming Down? « Broke Hoedown said,
June 26, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
[...] wand is not, however, without its fans. Dave from MouseExtra defends the wand, arguing that in fact it supports Epcot’s current vibe and themes: The general consensus is [...]
Jon said,
June 26, 2007 @ 9:50 pm
The wand was crap. It was cool to see such a big landmark dressed up, but it was lame and had nothing to do with any element of Epcot. How are you going to slap a MAGIC wand on top of an attraction about communication and history? It didn’t make any sense, other than eye candy.
Kevin Yee’s opinion is annoying because he acts as if there will be some 1980s revival into what Epcot used to be. He complains that Epcot has been “cartooninized”, using it as a negative connotation, implying that all of Disney’s animated properties should be removed from the park. I might be going out on a limb here, but I have an inkling that he might have the nutty Jeff Pepper-esque “Let’s celebrate Epcot, but only as the way it was intended to be 20+ years ago” type mentality. Build a bridge and get over it guys!
Tomorrowland pretty much proved that a theme park with intentions to show the future will find itself constantly outdated. How is having the park revert to the way it was in the 1980s futuristic? The theme was ditched a long time ago, and $34 billion dollars later, I think Disney has realized that whatever their doing, they’re doing it right. The idea that Epcot has a future world, aside from namesake, is a fallacy. There is nothing cutting edge there anymore. Sure its fun, but so many of the exhibits and attractions are about technologies that are already mainstream today. What kind of future are these Disney purist trying to capture?
Dave, I think your opinion of why the wand should stay are sound, but ultimately, I think it needs to be taken down because it doesn’t support the attraction its attached to. Unless they plan on adding a magical Mickey robot into Spaceship Earth (tremble you die hard geeks!), it doesn’t support the ride. Epcot does have room for some cartoony theming and should add in things when they fit. The recent updates to Living Seas and Mexico pavilion made sense because they supported what was already there.
Jeff Pepper said,
June 26, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
“But Epcot is not the corporate-driven sounding board for a hopeful future it once was”
“But that plan has been largely abandoned, as more attractions get updated to something less reminiscent of a World’s Fair.”
I think Seimens would beg to differ with you on those points.
And really, Nemo is the only anomaly in Future World right now. It’s likely that Soarin’ will get a new film at some point that will tie in more closely with the Land’s overall theme. The Land, Test Track, MS, UOE, and Innoventions still retain that World’s Fair dynamic that you mentioned.
Look to what happens next to Innoventions, UOE and Imagination as an indication of what direction Future World will head. Based on the news coming out of Glendale about DCA, restoring consistency of theme looks to be a major priority of the newly restructured WDI. Just a gut feeling, but I think there is a good chance that futurism will return as a dominant component of Future World.
David said,
June 26, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
MS? How do you figure? Is HP selling chances to fly to Mars? And how does Figment fit a corporate sounding board, or HISTA? Nemo, Soarin, M:S? To me, the only attractions left that fit the old Epcot mold is SSE and Energy, which is thankfully better than the tedious infomercial it was 20 years ago.
I think you will see Epcot get more cohesive. But not back to what it was. That already proved fiscally challenging.
Jeff Pepper said,
June 27, 2007 @ 12:34 am
Uh, things are gettin’ just bit aggressive ’round here lately. I think I’m gonna take a breather for a while.
Gordon said,
June 27, 2007 @ 2:58 am
Dave, although I agree with your general argument about how Future World as a whole has undergone a change with the addition of all these new attractions, there’s one thing you forgot to mention. Nemo, Soarin’, M:S, and even Donald and his amigos are all kept within the confines of the original structures. Although the interiors of these pavilions have changed in order to accommodate new attractions, and I acknowledge that the M:S Pavilion is a totally new structure, the exterior architecture of the pavilions in FW have remained relatively untouched. That’s what makes the addition of the wand to the simple modern architecture of Spaceship Earth so jarring. It would be one thing if the wand were designed in such a manner that it would have flowed architecturally with the outlying pavilions. But it isn’t designed that way. Instead you have an “appendage” that appears at first glance and successive viewings as a quick, cheap, and in my opinion, tacky afterthought. I’m all for positive changes, but let’s at least try to keep some semblance of uniformity.
David said,
June 27, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
No, no, no Jeff. No aggression intended at all. The problem is you and I have two radically different views on Epcot. You are a lover of the original park, and I am a lover of what it has become. I hope you don’t think I was being aggressive towards your views. That is not the case at all. We just like different things.
You’re knowledge brings to these discussions to a level that readers all appreciate, especially myself. But in the end, we disagree on this. But what is the point of writing opinion, if someone like yourself isn’t there to smack it around a bit?
Jeff Pepper said,
June 27, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
Dave–I guess that my frustration here is that I’m beginning to be characterized as something I’m not. The snarky comment (not made by you) of “the nutty Jeff Pepper-esque “Let’s celebrate Epcot, but only as the way it was intended to be 20+ years ago” type mentality” truly misrepresents anything I have ever communicated on the subject.
Sure, I love the original EPCOT Center, I make no bones about it. But I am not in anyway a hardcore traditionalist. I have noted a few times that I feel that EPCOT as it was originally designed and presented had some serious flaws. The 10 year term sponsorship dynamic requires that the company take a very aggressive approach in re-inventing and refurbishing the pavilions in FW, They have certainly not been consistent in that regard as WOL demonstrates. Also, while WOM, Horizons and the original Imagination were all wonderful attractions in their day, I have in no way ever advocated that they should have continued their tenure. In fact, I feel that EPCOT Center had an overabundance of animatronic dark rides that created a bit of “sameness” to Future World.
For the record, I love Test Track. I love MS (I really do). Soarin’ is probably one of the most remarkable attractions WDI ever created. (I just wish we would get something more from it than just California–The Land Pavilion deserves something grander and broader in scope and subject.) And as I said, these attractions are still within the Future World/Worlds Fair mold. GM had a “test drive” attraction in the 1939 fair. If you look at guidebooks from both 39 and 64 Worlds Fairs, there was a diversity of attractions and exhibits that are not unlike much of what is currently at Epcot. Sure, HP doesn’t have a direct connection to space travel, but MS is definitely a future-themed endeavor, and many Fair participants stretched their subject matter similarly.
The fact that SSE is going to remain firmly with the future theme seems to indicate that the “Future World” theme isn’t going to be abandoned anytime soon. That to me is why I find the inclusion of Nemo so jarring–but hey, it’s a great ride and I really enjoy it. And that is part of what I often refer to as the “identify crisis” that has beset the park. Again, I just feel consistency of theme is important. If you want to reinvent FW, go for it. But the distinct contrast between Nemo and the new SSE, show that even though the park is evolving, it is doing it on a project by project basis,
Look I ‘ve fought enough battles over at Epcot Central to show that I’m not a purist by any means. And you’re not going to find a bigger fan of the Caballeros anywhere (well maybe Foxxfur). So if someone wants to label me as a nutty old timer, fine, but it should have some basis in my body of expression. Just because a person has warm recollections and nostalgia for the past, that doesn’t automatically mean they’re adverse to change and new direction. It not that black and white.
David said,
June 27, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
Well, I am certainly nutty, but I honestly haven’t seen anything to make me think Jeff is nutty. Lou maybe, but not Jeff! LOL!!
And I also wouldn’t want to be considered someone who hated the original Epcot. It bored me as a kid, but I certainly loved much about it. However, for this debate it seems I am the one out on a “modern” limb here…
Warm recollections and nostalgia are woderful things. I get very nostalgic for the original Figment, and others.
Eric said,
June 27, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
Side question: can somebody enlighten me as to why Epcot attractions must all have sponsors, while this doesn’t seem to be true at the other parks? I don’t think Everest or the Nemo Musical have sponsors. Why does it seem that Epcot is allowed to be less than it could because there aren’t sponsors? Can’t Imagineering just decide to put more than (what I think are) boring films in most of the WS countries’ pavillons?
Jeff Pepper said,
June 27, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
By and large because EPCOT was based on an entirely different model than MK, MGM and DAK. It was literally created as a showcase for American industry and international community. Its partnerships with corporations and foreign governments were the very foundation of the concept and an extension of Walt’s original plans for Epcot the urban center. As a result, much of the cost of EPCOT over the years has been underwritten by these partnerships. Right or wrong, good or bad, it’s the business model for EPCOT that Disney still tends to cling to.
biblioadonis aka George said,
June 27, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
The more I process all of these arguments about Epcot, the more I tend to agree with Jeff. I just want more family style attractions. My son and I (he’s
were watching the Epcot film that Walt did (from the Tomorrowland DVD) and I asked him what his favorite part of Epcot was. He immediately chimed in with World Showcase, which through me for a loop.
I asked him what he liked and he said it was all the different foods and the shops.
I quickly realized that I was imposing my view on him without asking about it.
Mission Space is a showcase for what HP computers are capable of and what they are doing in the real world. I agree that there needs to be a better connection between the rides, the companies and the technologies.
BTW, wouldn’t *you* like to be a pepper, too?
David said,
June 27, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
Oh No, Gordon…that was just shameless! LOL!!
Jeff, but it is rather puzzling that they have never changed that model to suit their needs more. I see Eric’s point, but it only makes sense if they think that they can build better attractions without sponsor restraints and then bring in more guests
Gordon said,
June 27, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
Oh, jeeze. Sorry about that Dave. My bad. I didn’t realize my comments on the wand had an element of double entendre. It was not intended. Promise. LOL!!
Jason said,
June 28, 2007 @ 4:32 am
I support the removal of the wand firstly because it’s very similar to the birthday cake castle. It’s fine for a little while, but then it’s just annoying.
The wand to me doesn’t symbolize the character integration Epcot has seen in the past few years, but more the wrong direction for Epcot. I support the addition of characters, but I think they need to be tailored to the Epcot theme. The wand itself suggests a Fantasyland feel, one that would have a better home in the Magic Kingdom. That’s why I hate what it symbolizes.
If something more in tune with Epcot’s theme was placed on SSE, maybe the grumbling wouldn’t be happening. I like the sorcerer’s hat in MGM because it fits that park. But I wouldn’t want to Cinderella’s castle in Epcot…it doesn’t fit.
Maybe it would have been better if Disney had made huge light-up continents for SSE and at night they would glow and illustrate the sense of community our world has. Sounds cheesy maybe, but better than the wand I think.
Mouse Extra said,
July 6, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
[...] understand that I am in the minority, but as I’ve said before I really don’t mind the wand. In fact, I may even miss it a bit. But what I won’t miss is [...]
Epcot Wand Demolition Continues « Broke Hoedown said,
July 29, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
[...] Dave . . . [...]