So what do you think is preventing Disney from revamping Tomorrowland?

[Mr Wiggins]

There's no reason a new Tomorrowland needs to focus on household gadgets and urban infrastructures that will be dated in 25 years. The theoretical physics of today is already weirder, wilder and more spectacular than most science fiction. From n-dimensional universes to wormholes, Tomorrowland could take you from the beginning of space-time to the end of the universe, from the unimaginably small to the inconceivably large; from a present when peak oil looms, to a future when fusion power has transformed civilization and new technologies have taken mankind to the stars.

If Disney were to convene a think tank of the top futurists in their fields (similar to the science and engineering advisers they hired in the 50s for the Man in Space series), Tomorrowland could become an amazing showcase of future reality -- and a land that captures the optimism of its founding theme.

All of which, of course, is moot -- the Disney corporate hierarchy is committed to Michael Eisner's mandate that "Disneyland is all about turning movies into rides." Like Buzz Lightyear, FNSV, Little Mermaid and Carsland, if it isn't in a Disney/Pixar/Marvel/Muppets/Cameron/Lucas/Spielberg flick, you aren't going see it in Tomorrowland.

[Baloo]

Tomorrow land may have received the most attention in the last several years but it is the land with the most waste of space in the park. For years the land had a huge building sitting empty and when they finally decided to do something they turned it into a huge best buy. Then they had the subs rotting away and finally decided to bring them back to life. Circle vision and peoplemover had minimal crowds so they brought rocket rods which failed and replaced two attractions. Hista also went stale and they brought back an old movie that went stale fast and star tours needed a major rehab so they used that as a promotional stunt to add a new movie and new paint job. After all these patch attempts they have spent more money on that land then what it would have cost to design and build something that would make better use of the property.

that is the reason why Tomorrow land
Is always brought up as the land that needs help. It uses more property than other lands and half of that property Is wasted with EO, innoventions, rotting skyway tower, rotting peoplemOver track and a huge autopia that is outdated

[SpaceMtnAlum94]

In my opinion they need to take tomorrowland vertical with lots of bright neon lights. Tomorrowland needs to feel like it would be a great place to have a party.

[lightofdarkness]

That is the reason why Tomorrow land is always brought up as the land that needs help. It uses more property than other lands and half of that property is wasted with EO, innoventions, rotting skyway tower, rotting peoplemOver track and a huge autopia that is outdated

agreed. +1

---------- Post added 05-27-2012 at 05:04 PM ----------

Sadly, all these discussions about adding new anything are almost moot because of parking.
No PARKing - MiceAge.com

Until there is at least one if not two more structures the size of Mickey and Friends, all additions/changes are practically pointless.

[LadyNimrodelle]

Disney has to know that Tomorrowland is a wasteland, currently. You can see the vacant People Mover/Rocket Rod track gathering rust and bird droppings from the esplanade. They can see the low attendance numbers for Innoventions and Captain EO. They have to know that Tomorrowland is in dire need of refurbishment. What do you think is stopping them?

Is it a financial obstacle? Will going in and completely up-ending Tomorrowland, and starting from scratch be a multi-billion dollar project to rival Cars Land? Is it a creative obstacle? Do you think the Imagineers' concept of the future is just unachievable with current technology, and by the time that technology becomes available, it's already obsolete, mandating a new design? Maybe it's a logistical problem? Are they afraid that a land-wide renovation would become a foot-traffic nightmare? Or has Tomorrowland just become an impractical concept, and have they just given up?

Hmmm....

HAHA I think we've derailed your thread! I think the answer to all of your original questions is: yes.

Ultimately I think they do have to start from scratch - and that is not going to happen when they have two very popular attractions there (and several others that I wouldn't be bothered if they bulldozed, but I digress).

I'd love to see them do something along the lines of Walt's original idea for EPCOT...but that is not only a space issue but a money issue and the fact is its not going to happen, much as I think that is the best answer for a land of tomorrow.

[Bob Weaver]

Wow I'd go for that!

[planetsix]

"I think Tomorrowland when Walt first opened it, was trying to be more science factual. It was a time when the space program was just getting started, and there was incredible interest in the public in the future. Today, the world moves so fast, and things change so quickly, we're pushing towards more fantasy in our future." ~ Tom Fitzgerald - Executive VP Senior Creative Exec.

^ Heard in the DLR Imagineering DVD in the Tomorrowland segment. As if anyone was doubting it, the creative team at least at that time, if not now, agrees that technology moves too quickly to focus on.

Imagineering Disneyland (5/6) - YouTube (4:13 for quote)

[ChurroMan]

They should make a ride based on Portal. It makes too much sense.

[Stitch626626]

Imagination. That and money.

[disneylandfan95]

"I think Tomorrowland when Walt first opened it, was trying to be more science factual. It was a time when the space program was just getting started, and there was incredible interest in the public in the future. Today, the world moves so fast, and things change so quickly, we're pushing towards more fantasy in our future." ~ Tom Fitzgerald - Executive VP Senior Creative Exec.

^ Heard in the DLR Imagineering DVD in the Tomorrowland segment. As if anyone was doubting it, the creative team at least at that time, if not now, agrees that technology moves too quickly to focus on.

Tony and Tom have very different views as to what Tomorrowland should be.

[Sambo]

There's no reason a new Tomorrowland needs to focus on household gadgets and urban infrastructures that will be dated in 25 years. The theoretical physics of today is already weirder, wilder and more spectacular than most science fiction. From n-dimensional universes to wormholes, Tomorrowland could take you from the beginning of space-time to the end of the universe, from the unimaginably small to the inconceivably large; from a present when peak oil looms, to a future when fusion power has transformed civilization and new technologies have taken mankind to the stars.

If Disney were to convene a think tank of the top futurists in their fields (similar to the science and engineering advisers they hired in the 50s for the Man in Space series), Tomorrowland could become an amazing showcase of future reality -- and a land that captures the optimism of its founding theme.

All of which, of course, is moot -- the Disney corporate hierarchy is committed to Michael Eisner's mandate that "Disneyland is all about turning movies into rides." Like Buzz Lightyear, FNSV, Little Mermaid and Carsland, if it isn't in a Disney/Pixar/Marvel/Muppets/Cameron/Lucas/Spielberg flick, you aren't going see it Tomorrowland.

Spot on again!

[Bob Weaver]

Maybe that's the crux of the whole problem - and the answer to the question posed in this thread... nobody knows what Tomorrowland should be. Nobody has any overarching vision of what it should be any more. Somebody's got to sit down and grasp the whole land and come up with a unified concept for it and a master plan for it. And hopefully still remain true to Walt's original theme for it. Atomic power and space travel have fallen out of favor, but that doesn't mean there is no future for us, and no solutions to current global problems. There are new ideas and new technologies and new solutions, and these could be showcased in this land. What it takes is someone within the company taking this on, and applying imagination, vision, originality and creativity to make it an entertaining "Disney experience" as well as enlightening and educational. It requires a bold and dramatic new master plan for the land and creative, original, imaginiative thinking. Someone has to decide what Tomorrowland should be. They can't just go on forever randomly dumping attractions into it like there's no Tomorrow.

[jibbly]

There's no reason a new Tomorrowland needs to focus on household gadgets and urban infrastructures that will be dated in 25 years. The theoretical physics of today is already weirder, wilder and more spectacular than most science fiction. From n-dimensional universes to wormholes, Tomorrowland could take you from the beginning of space-time to the end of the universe, from the unimaginably small to the inconceivably large; from a present when peak oil looms, to a future when fusion power has transformed civilization and new technologies have taken mankind to the stars.

If Disney were to convene a think tank of the top futurists in their fields (similar to the science and engineering advisers they hired in the 50s for the Man in Space series), Tomorrowland could become an amazing showcase of future reality -- and a land that captures the optimism of its founding theme.

All of which, of course, is moot -- the Disney corporate hierarchy is committed to Michael Eisner's mandate that "Disneyland is all about turning movies into rides." Like Buzz Lightyear, FNSV, Little Mermaid and Carsland, if it isn't in a Disney/Pixar/Marvel/Muppets/Cameron/Lucas/Spielberg flick, you aren't going see it Tomorrowland.

I would love some sort of new physics attraction.

[Bob Weaver]

I'd like to see a time-travel attraction. "The journey of a lifetime takes only a split second: travel a billion years into your mind."

[Sorcerer's Apprentice]

You wait, in 2019 when they add the hover-craft ride to TL, that place will finally get off the ground.