I stand by my point that World Showcase is not a showcase of point-in-time international politics.
Of course, Disney makes decisions based on business and political considerations. I never said they didn't. There have been no additions to World Showcase since 1988. The Disney parks and Resorts business sector has invested billions in capital elsewhere since 1988, while World Showcase has remained largely unchanged. That speaks for itself.
Who said anything about point in time politics? I said nothing of that...my reference was that a decision to build new country pavilions would be difficult to pursue because of the volatility of the world stage - and that is considered when they build anything. The accessibility of information heightens our sensibility to these things (if you bother to pay attention to it). You can disagree - you have your take, i have mine. But to dismiss as "mistaken" is completely naive and inappropriate. You basic argument is that Disney operates in this case without concern to the realities of the outside world. My contention is that they do not. I cannot prove you wrong...you cannot prove me wrong. Hence it's a difference of opinion and therefore subject to the courtesy and decorum of a debate.
You are mistaken.
World Showcase was supposed to include an attraction at every pavilion. The show building for the German boat ride and the "Meet the World" attraction in Japan were built but never used for their intended purpose. Equatorial Africa was originally supposed to be there on opening day. Then it was supposed to open "soon" as part of a second phase.
I concede that one to you. An exaggeration on my part. My thinking was that the showcase and futureworld was built
mostly as planned. And no...i'm not talking about Herb Ryman design sketches from 1970 or walt disney television speeches in 1966. In the late 1970's when things were moving. Things were eliminated, as you correctly point out. But because the German boat ride was not put in place or the Mt. Fuji matterhorn had to be nixed - that doesn't really represent a deviation from the vision of the park. Those things COULD have been added later. They weren't due to probably a slew of reasons.
By the way...you yourself stated that nothing has been added while billions have been invested. So why is that - exactly? The only reasons are operation or financial. Because that is always the reason. they're not withholding the Greece pavilion from us even though it would make money. Obviously, the analysis tells them something different.
but back to the point. EPCOT was built (at least the structure of it) as per the approved design. It is illogical to argue that the same can be true of AK, MGM, Studios Paris, California Adventure, or Hong Kong. I would argue that you might just be mistaken. Disney's construction of EPCOT was conducted differently. It is my contention that they continued to build when the numbers told them to stop. Every park since has been shorttracked and stop at a point of financial critical mass where the executive decision was to stop and throw open the gates. Eisner explained it away as a sorta long process of allowing the park to acclimate so more expansion could then be smoothly brought into the operation.
Hogwash...it was a penny-pinching plan that rolled out horribly and then became doctrine
Again..feel free to disagree...do not dismiss
By the way, we had newspapers and television in the 1970s and 1980s too. We even knew what was going on in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if the average American was more aware of the world 30 years ago than today. In today's era of Facebook and specialty sites such as DISboards, it's much easier to tune out the world than in the era of Walter Cronkite and newspaper editors who felt an obligation to print what the public needed to know.
I don't dispute that things were better in the simpler media world. Because now everything is solely about profit (like disney) and it has polluted what the news should be. But you also can't deny that there are infinitely more options available now...and that - good or bad, truthful or not, biased or unbiased, direct or ulterior motive - makes the plan of action for a company such as disney a different animal than would have existed 30 years ago...
again, you don't have to agree
But do you think it is reasonable to assume that the policy hasn't changed now from a time when there were 3 TV networks, am talk radio, and a vast majority of americans got the news 12-16 hours later in print?
