Is Future World, as a concept, a dead one?

[Tekneek]

Given the attractions that we have today, and the trend away from the educational/science/futurist oriented attractions that once characterized Future World, is it safe to say that the concept is dead?

I don't think of Future World as merely a name of a section of a theme park, but more reflective of a mission and purpose behind that section of the park. In my mind, the name should be changed once the mission/purpose has been changed/tossed aside.

[DisneyLuver91]

I'm pretty sure the concept is dead. Instead of learning, we are now getting thrills. It is still fun, but it's not what Walt would have wanted. RIP Future World.

[DizneyRox]

It's dead, but not for those reasons...

It's dead because of the current corporate culture of profit above all else! The idea could still be successful, however the boardroom doesn't want to see the expenses year after year to keep it fresh and new, as the original theme of Future World was supposed to be.

It's not about getting away from the educational aspect, it's about not haing to sink money into something that needs to change again sooner than later. It's about getting people into the park to spend their money, and that's all that matters on Wall Street.

[crltkcagle]

Couldn't agree more.

I'm pretty sure the concept is dead. Instead of learning, we are now getting thrills. It is still fun, but it's not what Walt would have wanted. RIP Future World.

[SandmanGStefani24]

as a hopeless WDW fan, and a fan of learning in general, I can't believe that it's a dead deal. There is still learning going on, and topics covered are ones that involve our future. (ellen's ride comes to mind.) Innoventions doesnt seem as cutting edge as it was back in 95 when I first saw it, and that definately is a shame. I remember it as being packed with kids my age (I was around 15 at the time) and we were all eager to see the new items. The dark rides seemed to be more educational which I loved but some could take or leave. Both of those have changed, but to say it's dead I think would be a bit premature. Learning has to be more fun to compete with all other media these days, and WDW knows it has to change the game a little. Hopefully they will get Innoventions back where it used to be and we can breathe a sigh of relief...

[Tekneek]

It isn't just about Innoventions, though. Think of Test Track and Soarin'. Think of Nemo & Friends... What are they bringing to the table?

Imagination was always a bit of an outlier, perhaps, but it definitely lost something when they cut the pavilion in half (by doing nothing upstairs) and turned the Imageworks predominantly into a store. Not to mention that the ride seems to have lost a lot of imagination itself (although I do enjoy it, it can't begin to stand up to the original).

Does the current slate in Future World really compare well to what was there 15 years ago? I am not saying they should go retro, or clinging too hard to the past. I expect change, which is what it was supposed to be about (I thought). The problem is the loss of focus. It has become more generic. Future World has become more of just a name on a map/schedule than having any real meaning. The Disney of today may not be up to the challenge this concept brings.

[tiggerbuddy]

I think this poster said it best:
I'm pretty sure the concept is dead. Instead of learning, we are now getting thrills. It is still fun, but it's not what Walt would have wanted. RIP Future World.

Terribly disappointed at all the bad decisions Disney has mad lately, They are slowly turning into six flags . As a lifelong Disney fanatic, I
am serriously going to consider taking my vacation $$$ elsewehere. I rememeber reading
another poster wrote somwhere..Whats next ? replace Carosel of Progress with Bungee Jumping ???:ack:

[SBETigg]

I'm pretty sure the concept is dead. Instead of learning, we are now getting thrills. It is still fun, but it's not what Walt would have wanted. RIP Future World.

I completely disagree. You can't know what Walt would have wanted. The whole vision of Epcot is so different from Walt's original vision as an actual living community in the first place, but Walt was a master at adapting a plan and he was a businessman after all. Who could say how he would feel about it?

There are a lot of elements of Walt Disney World today that Walt couldn't have envisioned, but I still think he would embrace and approve-- who knows? We end up imposing our own opinion on what we think he would have wanted. We can only speak for ourselves. Personally, I think there's a lot of learning and future left in Future World. I love it. I loved the former attractions, and I love the replacements. I've learned from both.

[Tekneek]

...Walt was a master at adapting a plan and he was a businessman after all.

I thought Roy was the businessman and Walt was the visionary.

Also, what would you say Test Track, Soarin', and Nemo & Friends are bringing that fits the supposed ideals of Future World?

[Joannelet]

Future World is definitely not what Walt would have wanted. I'm sure he would have wanted to change it constantly to keep up with the times.....
I'm sure Roy would have had a say in that though (money wise) :) So who knows if it would have ever been exactly what Walt wanted anyway. :)
But then again I think Walt always got his way...so maybe we would have had a true future world. We will never know :) :mickey:

[PharmD]

I'm not disagreeing that it has lost some of it's futuristic feel but I still believe it educates and shows us some glimpses of what the future holds. Here are some examples.

Ellen's Universe of Energy - It teaches us about energy and also what the future holds for new energy sources; fusion, solar, wind, etc.

Spaceship Earth - It teaches us the history of communication and also what the future holds in new types of communication. Granted this one is a little harder to stay ahead of as it is constantly evolving.

Mission Space - It also shows us about space travel and the whole concept of the ride is what space travel may be like in the future.

I think that the only way you can keep people and especially kids interested in learning is to make it thrilling. I think that is what is wrong with education now. It's all about the facts without making it interesting.

Seriously would you go if it was a park dedicated to nothing but exhibts about future technologies with some scientist rattling on about his therories. :confused: As much of a scinece fan as I am I wouldn't.

Epcot is my favorite park but if you really want to be technical about it the park is nothing like what Walt envisioned. It was actually supposed to be a community where people lived and worked while showcasing the cutting edge technologies available.

[Tekneek]

If they could successfully entertain and educate with the EPCOT of the 80s and 90s, why not try today? There is still a lot of love for the lost attractions of Future World out there, from those who were kids at the time as well as adults.

The attractions are still often wonderful Disney creations. They just seem to play fast and loose with the original intent of the park (and not talking about Walt here, but what they ultimately rolled out in the early 80s). Am I wrong that Future World was supposed to be about science and futurism from the start?

Ellen's Energy Adventure fits within that, I can buy that. Mission: SPACE is not a slam dunk for that, to me, but I can buy it with the story that it is supposed to be about future space travel that anyone can participate in. Test Track is a harder sell for me. Soarin' is hard to sell to me as even belonging in The Land, much less Future World. Nemo & Friends is just laying a Fantasyland attraction on top of an aquarium. Nothing futuristic or scientific about that part of it at all.

[SBETigg]

I thought Roy was the businessman and Walt was the visionary.

Also, what would you say Test Track, Soarin', and Nemo & Friends are bringing that fits the supposed ideals of Future World?

If Walt wasn't about the business, he wouldn't have made the very solid business plans he made, which aren't all creditable to Roy. Walt might have been a visionary, but he certainly had a solid mind for business as well. Nemo and Friends is a very small part of the Seas pavilion, which is very hands on and educational. Yes, it's cutesy and draws on characters, but why is that wrong, necessarily, when it interests young people in the ocean and draws them into the pavilion to learn about oceans, ecology, and marine life?

Soarin, again, perhaps a little frivolous-- perhaps not. To teach people about the land, you have to get them interested in it, in different terrain and ecosystems and how even one state can be so different and encompass so many different types of agriculture and conditions. Who could fail to want to learn more about our world after Soarin? Perhaps the fault is within yourself.

Test Track is no more or less educational than the pavilion that came before it. In fact, I think it's more forward-thinking than the World of Motion because that one looked back on what we had and pondered a future-- but it really was more a history. And though you sometimes have to look back to see forward, Test Track is more in the now. It looks at the way things work now and toward improvements coming in the future. I think you learn more in the current pavilion, in a more interesting way. I loved World of Motion, but for me, it was one of those once is enough kind of attractions. I do miss Horizons, but I think Mission: Space is equally educational and fascinating. And further, it's questionable how "successful" they were at it in the 80s and 90s. Weren't they losing business compared to other parks? Didn't they add some thrills to bring in crowds, because what they had was not working as expected?

[PharmD]

If they could successfully entertain and educate with the EPCOT of the 80s and 90s, why not try today? There is still a lot of love for the lost attractions of Future World out there, from those who were kids at the time as well as adults.

The attractions are still often wonderful Disney creations. They just seem to play fast and loose with the original intent of the park (and not talking about Walt here, but what they ultimately rolled out in the early 80s). Am I wrong that Future World was supposed to be about science and futurism from the start?

Ellen's Energy Adventure fits within that, I can buy that. Mission: SPACE is not a slam dunk for that, to me, but I can buy it with the story that it is supposed to be about future space travel that anyone can participate in. Test Track is a harder sell for me. Soarin' is hard to sell to me as even belonging in The Land, much less Future World. Nemo & Friends is just laying a Fantasyland attraction on top of an aquarium. Nothing futuristic or scientific about that part of it at all.

I agree with you somewhat but lets look at the original attractions of Epcot that have been replaced.

Communicore - Became Innoventions which is very similar in design and presentation. It presents the new technologies and advancements available or currenlty being tested. There are exhibits for the home of the future, advancements in health care, weather research, etc.

Horizons - Replaced by Mission Space. This attraction was one that encompassed all of the themes of the attractions of Future World; sea, transportation, communication, human anatomy, energy, etc.

World of Motion - Replaced by Test Track. World of motion covered the history of transportation and some looks at future transportation. Test Track also presents some future advancements to transportation with the Bi-wire technology display of the fuel cell car at the end of the attraction.

Wonders of Life - This attraction was not replaced but sits empty. This attraction was one about the human body and did include some future technology in the field of medicine. At the end this attraction had very little foot traffic and I believe that it lost its appeal. The last few times we went it was like we had the place to our selves.

The only other attraction that I can think of that was replaced was Food Rocks which was replaced by Soarin. While Food Rocks covered some aspects of nutrition Soarin covers the different enviroments that are found in California. The interactive games in the queue line also have games that cover things like making things grow with interaction with the guests.

All in all the theming hasn't changed dramatically from the early days of Epcot. Even the living seas is still there they have just added the Nemo and friends theming to the attraction. The attraction is basically the same in that it does stick to the science of the seas but it adds the additional attraction to the kids of nemo. This makes it more appealing to the younger crowd. The main theming of the attraction is still the same. They still have the displays that tell about the research being done in under sea enviroments and still have the interaction with the sea cows and the marine biologists and the diver interactions.

I think all in all the theming and attractions are very similar to the original Epcot. We still have to remember we as guests to the parks determine what happens to the attractions. When the attractions no longer appeal to the masses then as a business, yes as magical as Disney is to all us faithful disney fanatics it is still a business, then Disney has no choice but to replace them. I agree with you and miss some of the old attractions that have been replaced but again we as guests drive it. I still think the name of Future World applies as I have pointed out in the various attractions but it's a fine line that has to be walked between what us fanatics, yes that's me :thumbsup:, like and what will draw everyone else in. Lets face it if they don't make a profit then we would lose the world we all love.

[Tekneek]

If Walt wasn't about the business, he wouldn't have made the very solid business plans he made, which aren't all creditable to Roy.

Walt's success was within his vision, not his business acumen. He was able to figure out what people wanted before people knew they wanted it (Steve Jobs has that talent today). Walt was charismatic and sold the ideas. Roy was the one who came in and counted up the money to finance it. They were a great partnership in that aspect.


Nemo and Friends is a very small part of the Seas pavilion, which is very hands on and educational. Yes, it's cutesy and draws on characters, but why is that wrong, necessarily, when it interests young people in the ocean and draws them into the pavilion to learn about oceans, ecology, and marine life?

I don't recall saying anything was wrong about it. I just don't think it fits.


Who could fail to want to learn more about our world after Soarin?

I really enjoy Soarin'. It's a wonderful attraction and you make a good case. It still seems a bit of a stretch to me.


Test Track is no more or less educational than the pavilion that came before it.

Test Track is mostly about today, aside from part of the post-show. It is a fine attraction that I enjoy, but I don't think it feeds the mind like World of Motion did.


I do miss Horizons, but I think Mission: Space is equally educational and fascinating.

Mission: Space is not a problem, per se. I don't particularly enjoy it and won't go on it again unless my son wants me to go with him, but it probably fits in Future World.


And further, it's questionable how "successful" they were at it in the 80s and 90s. Weren't they losing business compared to other parks? Didn't they add some thrills to bring in crowds, because what they had was not working as expected?

I don't know if those claims are true. They might be. I wasn't calling Disney a failure for any of it, really. I just think that they are not committed to Future World as it was once intended to be. They certainly don't have to be. It seems they are not entirely comfortable operating within the boundaries created by previous generations of WDI.

[Tekneek]

Communicore - Became Innoventions...

That's a wash. It is probably close enough and I certainly get the impression that they are trying.


Horizons - Replaced by Mission Space. This attraction was one that encompassed all of the themes of the attractions of Future World; sea, transportation, communication, human anatomy, energy, etc.

While Mission: Space can fit into Future World, it doesn't have the depth that Horizons did. It's a space flight sim, ultimately, and very good at it. I'm not sure what can be learned, or what hope/vision for the future can be gleaned from it.


Test Track also presents some future advancements to transportation with the Bi-wire technology display of the fuel cell car at the end of the attraction.

No doubt they are able to do something useful with the post-show. This is an attraction that I enjoy, but it seems light on the educational side as it doesn't bring any history to the table and little about the future. I suppose it fits quite a bit better in Future World than the Tomorrowland Speedway does in Tomorrowland, at least!


Wonders of Life...

I loved that pavilion and miss it, but I can agree about its status. The problem I have here is not about what it was, or what its state was, but that they just shuttered it instead of updating it. This, to me, is another display of their lack of commitment.


The only other attraction that I can think of that was replaced was Food Rocks which was replaced by Soarin. While Food Rocks covered some aspects of nutrition Soarin covers the different enviroments that are found in California. The interactive games in the queue line also have games that cover things like making things grow with interaction with the guests.

The last time I went on Soarin', there were no games in the queue that I recall seeing. Perhaps that is something they did a retrofit to be in there? Not sure how I could have missed it. Either way, that by itself does not make the attraction relevant. Those could be anywhere. It's a great attraction, but its connection to Future World seems tenuous at best.


Lets face it if they don't make a profit then we would lose the world we all love.

Even in the middle of this current recession, the parks were still posting profits. Are they really running so close to the edge that it is a major factor here?

[Tekneek]

It seems I need to clarify that because I believe they've lost their focus with Future World does not mean that I think they should be running the same attractions they opened with. It simply means that I don't think the replacements fulfill the goals of Future World as effectively as the previous attractions did in their time.

Disney doesn't have to operate within their own boundaries if they don't want to. After all, they put a Monsters, Inc. attraction in Tomorrowland.

[SBETigg]

I'm not saying you're faulty, just that failure to connect with an attraction might not be the fault of the attraction, but could be something in us that isn't making the connection. I wasn't pointing a finger, and I'm sorry you took it that way. But I do disagree with you, yes.

And whether Walt or Roy was more the businessman is not the point. The fact is that Walt used his vision in business. It wasn't just about exhibiting his work for all the world to enjoy. He was in business.

[Tekneek]

I'm not saying you're faulty, just that failure to connect with an attraction might not be the fault of the attraction, but could be something in us that isn't making the connection. I wasn't pointing a finger, and I'm sorry you took it that way. But I do disagree with you, yes.

I went back and removed that before I saw this reply. Apology accepted, of course, and my apologies to you for my own misunderstanding.


And whether Walt or Roy was more the businessman is not the point. The fact is that Walt used his vision in business. It wasn't just about exhibiting his work for all the world to enjoy. He was in business.

He was successful because he was able to see a few steps ahead of everyone else. From what I have read, it might have all fallen apart without Roy to take care of the financial side.

[dnickels]

To be fair, this portion certainly sounded a little 'finger-pointy' when i first read through it too.


Soarin? Perhaps the fault is within yourself.

But glad to see everyone has hugged and made up. :mickey:

I agree 100% that Future World has moved more in the direction from Educational Attractions about where we came from and where we're going to Thrillride type attractions designed to put butts in the seats. It's not a total transformation of the whole place, but I think it's significant.

For someone with a better memory than myself, does the initial walk-through at the Living Seas still include the older diving equipment that it used to or has that been replaced? I remember what it used to look like, and I've been there within the last year but for the life of me I can't picture anything in that section beyond knowing that it's really winding.

[diz_girl]

Not to mention that the ride seems to have lost a lot of imagination itself (although I do enjoy it, it can't begin to stand up to the original).

Since they're bringing back (at least for a little while) Captain Eo at EPCOT and the MSEP at MK, maybe the suits will decide to bring back JIYI to it's original version. We can dream, can't we?

[Tekneek]

Since they're bringing back (at least for a little while) Captain Eo at EPCOT and the MSEP at MK, maybe the suits will decide to bring back JIYI to it's original version. We can dream, can't we?

It would be nice if, instead of just bringing it back, they brought back the Dreamfinder and plussed out that attraction accordingly. It doesn't have to be the exact same attraction, but at least something that could be considered at least as good (instead of its cheapo-knock-off descendent, which is what it comes off as today).

[SBETigg]

It would be nice if, instead of just bringing it back, they brought back the Dreamfinder and plussed out that attraction accordingly. It doesn't have to be the exact same attraction, but at least something that could be considered at least as good (instead of its cheapo-knock-off descendent, which is what it comes off as today).

I'll agree with you there! :thumbsup:

[BrerGnat]

I think a big problem lies in the fact that, in the late 70's/early 80's, there was an OBSESSION with the future, and technology (just like space travel was an obsession in the 50's and 60's, when Disneyland opened, and you saw rides like Rocket to the Moon, flying saucers, etc.) It was easy to conceive of a "future" back then, before the major tech explosion of the 90's. Much of Future World of the 80's revolved around innovations in telephone communication (remember how the videophone was showcased in Communicore and it was THE coolest thing?) and computer advances. The stuff that was "future" back in the 80's is downright archaic now. I don't think anyone saw it coming the way it actually happened. I always think about Back to the Future II, and its "vision" of 2015 was SO out there, and SO cool, and now, to us, it's laughable. It's very difficult to accurately predict the future, and the way technology is going to advance. If Disney really tried to stay on top of it, they'd have to change the pavilions every year! And, I bet that would anger more than a few people.

Instead, I think Disney has done a good job of maintaining things that are popular while performing "tweaks" to pavilions to keep them promoting the newer technological advances. It's now more of a "Today's World" than a "Future World", so I do agree that the CONCEPT may be a dead one. However, I don't fault Disney for that. And, I don't think a name change would accomplish anything. It's a rather amusing way to look back 28 years and see how far we've come.

In the same way, "Tomorrowland", both at WDW and DL, is really NOT about Tomorrow, but today. Regardless, to young children, it IS about Tomorrow, and I think Epcot does a good job of reminding kids that the "future" really depends on what THEY, as a generation, choose to do in regards to our planet.

[Brer Mickey]

If they could successfully entertain and educate with the EPCOT of the 80s and 90s, why not try today?

Because people are different today then they were in the 80s and 90s. We weren't exposed on a daily basis to all of the technology that bombards us today such as cell phones and texting, high speed internet, CGI, GPS, MP3, iPad, or high definition anything, just to name a few. Many of the technologies of the early epcot attractions (most of which were actually based on 70s technologies at the time the park opened) would simply not hold the attention of today's theme park attendees.

So, we can blame it on corporate greed, (corporate profit is of course what makes it all possible in the first place, and to blame the changes that take place at WDW on corporate greed is an oxymoron) we can blame it on boardroom suits, or unimanganitive imagineers or anyhting else, but what it comes down to is us! People in general today have very short attention spans and have to be mentaly, visually and audibly stimulated at ever increasing intensities. We demand a certain level of entertainment and expect to see constant improvements. If we don't get that, we stop attending the theme parks and then those 'greedy corporate suits' can't pay the bills and the parks close.

My point is, we welcome the changes and look forward to new and fresh ideas coming from the imagineers. Changes like Soarin' and Mission Space at Epcot, Expedition Everest at AK, Toy Story Midway Mania at HS, and many other additions to the parks keep us coming back year after year, and enable the magic to continue on.

[Tekneek]

Perhaps the flaw is in the original concept to begin with. Perhaps industry just isn't as interested in displaying items for people to test out and experience as WDI (and ultimately Walt himself) thought. The idea was that industry would want to do this. To demonstrate and test new ideas to a public that was anxious to be part of the test group.

[TheVBs]

I completely disagree. You can't know what Walt would have wanted. The whole vision of Epcot is so different from Walt's original vision as an actual living community in the first place, but Walt was a master at adapting a plan and he was a businessman after all. Who could say how he would feel about it?

Very well said. Thank you. :mickey:

I do find it kind of odd when people insist that he would be pleased or displeased with things. Unfortunately, there's no way to know.

[Tekneek]

I do find it kind of odd when people insist that he would be pleased or displeased with things. Unfortunately, there's no way to know.

I suspect he would have been displeased. The last thing he really wanted to do with The Florida Project was make theme parks. He reluctantly included the one Disneyland-ish park (Magic Kingdom) to get his board to sign on to his real EPCOT project. The reason he had it (MK) buried at the very end of the monorail line was because he wanted everything else to be the show. If you watch the EPCOT film, or look at the proposed layout, you will see what I am referring to.

Still, we don't know for sure how he would have felt at the time. We can only go off of how he was feeling in 1966 about it and all the evidence, that I know of, goes against wanting to make more theme parks.

[Goofy Texan]

I've always thought of Future World as Disneyfied version of my local Science Museum. For the most part Future World still fits that. I think Soarin' should have been built over by the American Adventure. It really fits better in that theme area. The remaining attractions do fit the science-museum-on-steroids concept. Now the name "Future World" doesn't fit. Maybe renaming that area would help. Just call it "The Epcot Pavillion" or "The Pavillion" for short. Something that allows the imagineers to grow the area in a way that fits visitors and board members.

One thing we need to remember about Disney's early days is back then it was a privately held company. Walt wanted to make money, not to get rich but to allow him to build his dreams. Now, with stocks and boards to deal with, new ideas have to survive a different, more difficult system. Boards and stockholders are very demanding and the executives at Disney have a tough task keeping them happy.

I don't think Disney has a "Six Flags" mentallity - at least not anymore. The success of Soarin' and Toy Story Mania has proved that you don't need to spend millions building faster and higher. "Fun for everyone" attractions can be just as much of a hit for the bottom line as a thrill ride.

That's my thoughts anyway!

[PopeCharming]

These are a very interesting series of thoughts, and I'm glad Intercot is having this discussion. It's important. Future World was always my favorite section in Disney World, even when I was a boy. I do think that the concept of Future World is inchoate today, but its lack of theme is a symptom of some larger trajectories:

1. The lack of corporate backing. We are looking at a Future World where very few of its attractions have sponsors, let alone the sponsor it started out with. Kodak is still with JII, but its a marraige they are stuck with if they want to keep their monopoly on selling film in WDW. GM is with Test Track (although the chances of it renewing its sponsorship are almost nil). SSE is with Siemens instead of AT&T, and The Seas, Universe of Energy, and The Land are without sponsors, while Horizons and Wonders of Life both folded when sponsors withdrew.

Why does this matter? Its best to remember that the classic Future World is a linear descendant of the 1964 World's Fair in New York, just brimming with corporations and nations and NGOs sponsoring pavillions and rides. Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln was good fun and a fine history lesson, but it was intended to draw tourists to visit Springfield.

Classic Future World, then, always had in the back of its mind the desire to sell you something, and convince you of the quality, vision, and merit of the corporate parents of its rides. This is why telephone networks were emphasized in the early SSE and computing is emphasized in today's version. That is why UoE de-emphasized pollution and global warming in favor of fossil fuels and the dinosaurs from whence they came. (and it still does, although its last reboot came when Exxon was still on board. Disney would almost certainly take a different approach if self-consciously designing the ride without sponsorship.)

All together, these elements brought a common theme and atmosphere to Future World that just isn't there in the current environment of vague, absent, or rotating-door sponsorship. In theory, it was corporate America presenting its best face, a marketplace not only of goods, but of ideas.

2. The relationship between the attraction and the guest has changed. This is largely a conscious choice on the part of Disney to move the guest's role from education to immersion, from viewing something to experience something. In the old SSE, Horizons, and World of Motion, you were an abstract third-party, taking in audio-animatronic tableux on the history of transportation, or the future of desert farms. Today, you ARE the astronaut, you ARE the guy who tests cars. You don't watch Captain EO on a screen; instead, you are physically shrunk and the movie revolves around getting you back to normal. 25% of Spaceship Earth involves the guest entering personalized data into his or her ride vehicle and watching a customized result on THEIR future, rather than THE future. You aren't a guest at Sea Base Alpha any longer, you are interacting with Crush, and watching Nemo & Friends interact with real sea creatures. You don't watch a show about citruses singing classic rock songs; you experience the sensation of flight over the California landscape. Future World is less "taking a ride," than "having an experience."

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, you could argue that its a better idea than having guests passively receive knowledge as they often did in the 1980s and early 1990s. The problem is the lack of an overarching vision and strategy in doing this. Future World is less of a concept now, and more of a cartographic necessity to separate what is the World Showcase (which has kept its vision and purpose quite well, with few intrusive changes!) and what is not. It's not clear what Future World is, and Disney isn't expending much effort into telling us. If you have them, watch the old Disney videos they sent to prospective guests in the early 90s, or better yet, the Make Your Own Magic videocassette that GM distributed freely around 1990. The Cronkite SSE had "the Future World is born today," in its lyric, tying the whole idea home. Each of these is able to communicate common themes in Future World. No Disney promotional lit does this today.

And it also hurts that many of the attempts at interactivity and immersion are, at best, superficial. You are the Test Track dummy and you are the astronaut in Misson: Space, but nothing you can do will influence the outcome. Spaceship Earth's attempt to customize your future is a nice homage to Horizons, but the result is too humorous and Jetsony to take seriously.

Vanessa Schwartz, a first-rate historian of France, wrote a fine book called Spectacular Realities which shows how in turn-of-the-century Paris, the public went to great lengths to enjoy emersive experiences. Going to the morgue was considered a fun and respectable public outing. Parisians would visit panoramas of great vistas like the Grand Canyon, designed to make the viewer believe that they were actually there.

So, there is precedent here. If Disney comes up with a cogent theme for Future World, communicates it well, and makes the interaction more meaningful, the idea can be revived. In fact, if they really do it properly, they might be able to put Golden-age Epcot to shame!

I've gone on too long, I fear, but this is what happens when you're a historian....

[kemps@wdw]

The "Future World" concept is, IMHO, alive and well in theory. However, the "Future" part is changing and advancing so rapidly, in regards to technology, that it's hard to keep up with when considering upgrades and refurbs on the FW attractions. Knowing that the changes being proposed will probably be obsolete in a short time doesn't make it easy to plan. And obviously, some of the refurbs are not welcomed by the masses. It's all trial and error and alot of prayer. I, for one, applaud the Imaginears responsible for this dauntless task for theirs is not an easy job! :thumbsup:

[Victor Kelly]

Truth be told when I was younger I thought EPCOT CENTER as boring as all heck. It was not until I hit my late teens that I began to appreciate it more. Soon after the place started changing.

World of Motion evolved into test track, but I still miss World of Motion. Now it teaches us how cars are made and tested. Not great, but ok.

Horizons, miss it loved it. Mission space, have not been on it as it was being built last time I was there. Again still teaching, think about it Space is the new horizon for humans.

Universe of energy. Ellen's upgrade is vastly superior and more entertaining and not a snore fest like it once was.

Imagination...............well should have left it the way it was.

Land, waiting to see the renovations to judge it.

Living Seas, as a stand alone attraction not that great. I think Enhancing it with Nemo and company was a good way to interest children.

Communicore or Innoventions. I was bored with the old Communicore, even more so with Innoventions as late as 2005. But the Communicore was more................interesting to me looking back.

Future World is not dead, it has evolved. This coming from someone who was not able to appreciate it during a younger age. EPCOT is still evolving but so is everything Disney has. And not only evolving but innovating as well.

[Laughin' place]

Pope nailed it, in my opinion, by raising one word -- SPONSORSHIP. It did in Horizons, which was the very essence of Epcot, in the mind of many.
I think the lack of big corporate sponsorship is the major factor in what many see as the decline of FW/Epcot. Look at the talk about TestTrack and its uncertain future. Would Wonders still be open if someone were PAYING to keep it open -- you bet!
I also think there is some creedence to the idea that the future keeps coming faster every year, and that making portrayals of the "future" harder than they were "back in my day" (80's). The world has chnaged (and continues to change) so rapidly since Epcot entered, and maybe building and budgets and logistics can no longer keep place.
That being said, Im still afraid that the answer to so many questions is always the same -- Follow the Money

[disneymom2000]

I miss the Future World concept. I remember my first trip when my kiddos were 7 & 9. Their favorite area was Future World. There was so much hands on stuff to learn from the pavilion. It was the first time I understood how holograms worked. The best simulator ride was Body Wars and then we walked around looking at the world through a 12 year old boys eyes. Does anyone remember that? The concept cars they had on display were really concept cars - they looked so futuristic. Disney was so far ahead of the technical world that even today I am starting to see some of the stuff they had on display in the very early 90's come into being.

[azcavalier]

SSE is with Siemens instead of AT&T, and The Seas, Universe of Energy, and The Land are without sponsors, while Horizons and Wonders of Life both folded when sponsors withdrew.

Isn't The Land sponsored by Nestle?

[PopPhan]

Isn't The Land sponsored by Nestle?

Why, yes. Yes it is.

[PopeCharming]

Isn't The Land sponsored by Nestle?

see, wikipedia was saying that Nestle pulled its sponsorship in 2009. I checked the Land's website at disneyworld.com, and there's no mention of Nestle sponsorship. Their picture of The Land sign conspicuously lacks a corporate sponsor.

But I still could be mistaken. Can anyone give the final word here?

[Tekneek]

There is no mention of Nestlé on the Disney page for The Land (http://disneyworld.disney.go.com/parks/epcot/attractions/the-land-pavilion/).

I can't find any references to Nestlé associated with any sponsorship at disneyworld.com, unlike Siemens and Kodak (which did turn up connections to SSE and Imagination when I used the site search).