Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31
  1. #16

    • Senior Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    8,890

    Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronco21 View Post
    Just because Disney has gotten lazy over the last 20 years in terms of Tomorrowland does not mean the theme is bad. Everyone keeps saying that its impossible to keep up with, but Space Mountain, Monorail, and Astro Orbitor/ Rocket jets are all just as relevant and popular as they were 30 years ago.


    The rides that have not retained the same level of lasting power are are Captain EO/ HISTA, Rocket Rods, Autopia, BLAB, and Innoventions. What was wrong with these attractions? All of them were either built originally or rebuilt on the cheap. 3D movies are cheap shows that have never had lasting power. Rocket Rods was built with a much smaller budget than it deserved. Autopia was relevant in the 50′s-80′s, and when it got rennovated in the 90′s, the majority of the money was spent on the ugly entrance/ queue area with very little enhancements added to the ride. BLAB was built as a clone of the attraction in WDW because it was cheap and popular. Innoventions was only built because Imagineering did not want to see the carousel theater go (and management complied because it was super cheap).


    The reason Space Mountain (1977), Monorail (1959), and Astro Orbitor/ Rocket Jets (1998/1967) is they were built with quality. In 1998, when Disney decided to revamp Tomorrowland to a half *** version of Discoveryland (what so many people want them to do even now), it failed. The paint scheme was awful, the place reaked of cutbacks, and the major new attraction was broken more than it was up. I do not blame the new theme they tried to push, I blame the execution.


    The idea that they cannot keep up with the theme of Tomorrow is the same as saying they can’t do any other theme. The key to a theme working is execution. Disney’s decisions in the past do not mean that the theme is undoable or irrelevant. Just as the rides under the original theme still work, the theme can still work.
    Very well said. Disney could make Tomorrowland fulfill its original theme, by designing an innovative and exciting land that looks to the far future of mankind. But they won't. They've spent the last quarter century replacing their world-famous heritage of innovation with marketeering, led by a management whose vision for Disneyland is a marketing mall for brands, brands and more brands. A company that's gotten as greedy as it is lazy isn't about to pass up the opportunity to turn Tomorrowland into an infomercial for whatever hot franchise the public is buying today.
    "With the acquisition of Marvel and now of Lucasfilm,
    Disney may have finally found the grail. You don't need
    imagination or art. All you need is a brand."

    - Neil Gabler


  2. #17

    • Knight that says Nee!!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Northern CA
    Posts
    2,647

    Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

    I disagree with rides being labeled as franchised if they had films/animated features made from their themes AFTER the rides were built. HM and PotC were original and very creative rides that are not franchised. They did, DECADES after being in operation in the park, inspire film(s) using their basic themes. I don't consider that the same as being franchised.

  3. #18

    • Insert Hilarious Title
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    At my desk
    Posts
    902

    Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

    Although, not the point of your OP, thought this needed to be brought up.

    Quote Originally Posted by lightofdarkness View Post

    Toontown:

    1. Roger Rabbit - Disney original franchise



    Roger Rabbit is not an original Disney franchise. The film rights of "Who Censored Roger Rabbit?", a mystery novel written by Gary K. Wolf, were purchased in 1981 (by then Disney WDC president Ron Miller). While the film bears almost no resemblance to the original novel, the original characters and settings were imagined/developed outside of Disney.
    Feel free to add me as a friend on Facebook (Just mention MiceChat)

    "The thing that makes us different is our way of thinking, our judgement and experience acquired over the years. Giving it 'heart.' Others haven't understood the public. We developed a psychological approach to everything we do here. We seem to know when to 'tap the heart.' Others have hit the intellect. We can hit them in an emotional way. Those that appeal to the intellect only appeal to a very limited group. Let's not let the mechanics get in here and foul the whole thing." -Walt Disney

  4. #19

    • MiceChat News Team
      MiceChat Round-Up Crew
      MiceChat Administrator
    • MiceChat Contributer
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,042
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

    Hey lightofdarkness! Thank you for reading the article. I really do appreciate it. You make some very valid points. But I think that you may have missed the point of my article or I may have not been clear enough.


    Quote Originally Posted by lightofdarkness View Post
    First, the notion that Tomorrowland was ever anything other than science fiction in it's purist form is ridiculous.
    You are 100% right. Tomorrowland was the land that was to mirror Walt Disney's optimistic hope in mankind's future and get folks to dream of a brighter tomorrow. But it also used story telling and fantasy to explore futuristic themes.

    Quote Originally Posted by lightofdarkness View Post
    Yes, it was meant to be the future, but so is Space Mountain, so is EO (a horrible interplanetary future, but the future none the less), so is Nemo (using technology to understand the creatures of the sea), so is Star Tours (so much technology in the forms of games, computers, animatronics, robotics, space ships, and government programs {lasers in the sky anyone?} are based on the wealth of vision in this series). Buzz Lightyear is so hard to defend it's ridiculous, so I won't try on that one, because it's not the point anyway. I argue that Tomorrowland, while in disrepair visually and argued to be failing, is no less futuristic than it ever was. The technology used in Star Tours wows the young and the young at heart in the same way attractions of old did.

    The discussion of all of these attractions brings up a very interesting question. I think that we can agree that Disneyland is, essentially, one big show or a form of storytelling. But what is more important, the story or the way the story is told? Should it be the place and time that makes the story futuristic or is it the technology used that give it a futuristic bent? I feel that there should be a balance. The technology used to create the ride should never outshine the story it is trying to tell.

    Space Mountain is a highly advanced steel coaster used to create the sensation of flying through outer space. It's an even balance of technology and storytelling. Captain EO is a little dicey as it is now an antiquated technology used to tell a Sci-Fi-Fantasy story. It's only thematic tie is that it takes place in space. Nemo, the weakest in the "tomorrow" theme, appears to take place during present day, but uses technology to allow guests to hear sea life talk. Star Tours is another strange one. Star Wars technically takes place "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away." but it allows guests to once again, experience space travel. Leaving us with Buzz Lightyear that is set somewhere in the galaxy and that uses impressive technology that allows guests to play a game throughout the ride.

    It is a weak point to argue that all of these attractions are set in the future, per se, but one can't easily establish that they all have a common theme.

    Quote Originally Posted by lightofdarkness View Post
    Second, Tony Stark. There hasn't been a better character in the last decade of film to better exemplify a current hope for future technology today than Tony Stark. To say he doesn't fit with Tomorrowland is like saying Snow White is too old a character for Fantasyland, or that cowboys are antiquated and no longer represent the frontier.

    That might be very true. Tony Stark is a wonderful fictional character that used innovation and technology to overcome adversity.

    Quote Originally Posted by lightofdarkness View Post
    To the point of renaming Tomorrowland because of it's franchise nature, I take great umbridge. I decided to do a point by point percentage assessment of the other lands for their "franchise" percentage scores as follows (updated as I forgot a few attractions in the original posting). There was some disagreement about rides turned into franchises versus franchises turned into rides, but regardless of how they became franchises, they are franchises now and forever forward.


    There are a few minor corrections I would make to your franchise list as noted below.


    Frontierland/Tom Sawyer
    :
    1. Big Thunder - Loosely based on the True-Life Adventures Television Series
    4. Canoes - Davey Crocket Television Show

    Fantasyland:

    1. Not Cinderella but Sleeping Beauty Castle - fairytale claimed by Disney Based on the film Sleeping Beauty
    9. Mr Toad's – Based on the film Wind in the Willows
    12. Matterhorn – Based on Third Man on the Mountain



    Quote Originally Posted by lightofdarkness View Post
    So… by no means is Tomorrowland any more franchise based than any other land. So stop it, everyone, especially Norman.

    You are incorrect when you assume that I am against franchises in the park. Franchises have been a part of the park since day one.
    People seem to forget that when Walt Disney was building Disneyland he effectively turned the construction of the park into a reality show. There was a weekly program documenting the developments as the park came to fruition. When the park was ready to open., guests streamed in to see what they had become so familiar with on television. Tomorrowland itself practically opened with an exhibit featuring props and set pieces from a current movie. The very icon of the park, Sleeping Beauty Castle, was a billboard for a film that was to come out four years later in 1959. Disneyland itself is one big commercial for the Disney brand. It always has been and should not be faulted for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by lightofdarkness View Post
    As to the point that Marvel isn't Disney, I firmly disagree. They are as much Disney as Pinocchio, Mulan, the Muppets, and every single Pixar franchise from before the merger. Disney has made them their own, and I for one welcome them.

    Marvel IS Disney now and vice versa. That is not a question. The question is, Is Marvel very Disneyland? It is a dubious argument to make in saying that the Marvel family of characters would fit anywhere in the park. Fortunately, they are considering a placement of Tony Stark into Tomorrowland.


    What was the point of the original article then? I wanted to remind everyone that another franchise attraction is nothing new, while at the same time expressing a hope that they utilize said property to further the original vision of Tomorrowland. Star Tours is a brilliant attraction, but one that does little to enhance the narrative of mankind's future. The same with Buzz Lightyear. Both of those are more Sci-Fantasy than science fiction. I feel that it's the infusion of the implausible that is what's at the root of the problem with Tomorrowland, and not franchises.

    I just hope that the Stark Expo feel is really capitalized on to forward the overall story that was once told in the land of tomorrow.
    "All my life I've had one dream, to achieve my many goals. ”
    Homer Jay Simpson



  5. #20

    • Parking Lot > DCA
    • Online

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4,282

    Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

    Nice post, Fishbulb.

  6. #21

    • Senior Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Splash Mountain
    Posts
    7,955
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

    First off.....marketing is only bad now...people had almost not problems back in the 50's with it.....they had Mickey Balloons and people were cool with them...because it's DISNEY land

    I do get bad tie in's throw like Jack on Pirates...I have no clue how that makes you more money, while WOC adding new segments for NEW movies makes sense telling you to go see them

    As for Tomorrowland it has ALOT of attractions and while some many not be marketing rides...the ones like Nemo and Buzz that tell boring story's I avoid...while Star Tours is for me a fun almost Fan made film...featuring less characters along with the big shots like Vader

  7. #22

    • -
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Uijeongbu
    Posts
    6,607

    Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishbulb View Post
    Matterhorn – Based on Third Man on the Mountain
    I would have to argue against this. While Walt saw the mountain when visiting the set of this movie, the ride was not really based on the movie. Other than the mountain itself, there are no other movie elements on the ride.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishbulb View Post
    Star Tours is a brilliant attraction, but one that does little to enhance the narrative of mankind's future.
    Again, I would have to disagree. While it may not represent man's immediate future, it does illustrate what could be possible in the far distant future. A future that takes place after we have mastered interstellar travel and made it affordable enough to take sightseeing tours ot distant planets. The stories are just being told with Star Wars characters, but there is no reason to believe we won't overcome the barriers that modern physics have set in place to be able to travel as cavalierly through the stars as this at some point in the future.
    "You can cut me off from the civilized world. You can incarcerate me with two moronic cellmates. You can torture me with your thrice daily swill, but you cannot break the spirit of a Winchester. My voice shall be heard from this wilderness and I shall be delivered from this fetid and festering sewer."

  8. #23

    • MiceChat News Team
      MiceChat Round-Up Crew
      MiceChat Administrator
    • MiceChat Contributer
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,042
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

    Re: "Matterhorn – Based on Third Man on the Mountain"

    Quote Originally Posted by calsig31 View Post
    I would have to argue against this. While Walt saw the mountain when visiting the set of this movie, the ride was not really based on the movie. Other than the mountain itself, there are no other movie elements on the ride.[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

    You know what? You are right. I stand corrected.

    Re: Star Tours is a brilliant attraction, but one that does little to enhance the narrative of mankind's future.

    Quote Originally Posted by calsig31 View Post
    Again, I would have to disagree. While it may not represent man's immediate future, it does illustrate what could be possible in the far distant future. A future that takes place after we have mastered interstellar travel and made it affordable enough to take sightseeing tours ot distant planets. The stories are just being told with Star Wars characters, but there is no reason to believe we won't overcome the barriers that modern physics have set in place to be able to travel as cavalierly through the stars as this at some point in the future.
    I can see your point here. But, if you are being a crazy purist, you would remember that Star Wars took place, "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away." While it does allow guests to experience alien worlds and space travel you can't argue that it is futuristic in the purist sense. But regardless of the time and place of the franchise the attraction does allow the guest to experience the thrill of space travel. So, disregarding the franchise and the time and place it was originally told in, I can agree with you there.
    "All my life I've had one dream, to achieve my many goals. ”
    Homer Jay Simpson



  9. #24

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,497

    Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishbulb View Post
    Marvel IS Disney now and vice versa. That is not a question. The question is, Is Marvel very Disneyland? It is a dubious argument to make in saying that the Marvel family of characters would fit anywhere in the park. Fortunately, they are considering a placement of Tony Stark into Tomorrowland.

    What was the point of the original article then? I wanted to remind everyone that another franchise attraction is nothing new, while at the same time expressing a hope that they utilize said property to further the original vision of Tomorrowland. Star Tours is a brilliant attraction, but one that does little to enhance the narrative of mankind's future. The same with Buzz Lightyear. Both of those are more Sci-Fantasy than science fiction. I feel that it's the infusion of the implausible that is what's at the root of the problem with Tomorrowland, and not franchises.

    I just hope that the Stark Expo feel is really capitalized on to forward the overall story that was once told in the land of tomorrow.
    Furthering the Tomorrowland vision is not the best response to the fragmentation of the original vision and the ignorance of the current attractions.

    Tomorrowland's future will always be available for today's enjoyment. It is where we enjoy what we could be in an alternative universe, which is my way of looking at Tomorrowland's potential. It provides a contrast to yesterday's Frontierland or Main Street, or the imaginary realm of Fantasyland.

    Sometimes what we wish couldn't happen. That's why EPCOT never did end up as a Community of Tomorrow (yet why not a DVC Community of Tomorrow?), but we will still want something to happen.

    Tomorrowland could happen or it may not, but it can reflect something more than wishful thinking, which is my concern about the "Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow." Yawn.

  10. #25

    •   
    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    752

    Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

    I can't believe everyone's here splitting hairs over what's a franchise and what's not. To what ends? How does it even matter? If it's a non-franchise ride from before, sure enough there'll be a movie to make it a franchise at some point so,...

    What happened to "Is it fun?" or "Does it fit in well with what we perceive to be Walt's vision of the park?" This thread gives me a headache.

  11. #26

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,268

    Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishbulb View Post
    The technology used to create the ride should never outshine the story it is trying to tell.

    Space Mountain is a highly advanced steel coaster used to create the sensation of flying through outer space. It's an even balance of technology and storytelling.
    Hi Fishbulb, I enjoy your column, but I have some small bones to pick, as I guess others have as the assessment of Tomorrowland is pretty subjective.

    I have always thought that Space Mountain is kind of short on the storytelling, certainly when you compare Space Mountain to Splash, there isn't much of a story. I remember the queue used to have "Crazy Eddy" or something like, who was a used spaceship dealer. That's about all I can remember in terms of story. Remember, a story has to have a developed beginning, middle, and an end.

    There is a Space Mountain inspired film in the works, perhaps elements of the film could be added to queue, or even ride, to develop a story. As is, Space Mountain is primarily a roller coaster through darkness dressed up to look like space, IMHO.

    Also, is Space Mountain really a "highly advanced" steal roller coaster? When it came out it was a novelty, but decades later roller coaster technology has advanced. I think that the Iron Man attraction will have the most advanced ride system when it is built.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishbulb View Post
    Captain EO is a little dicey as it is now an antiquated technology used to tell a Sci-Fi-Fantasy story. It's only thematic tie is that it takes place in space.
    A lot of the current, and former, rides in Tomorrowland can be classified as being "Sci-Fi/Fantasy" rides in that they mix elements of science fiction along with fantasy. One prime example is the old Subs ride, a nuclear powered sub was futuristic at the time as it was a new thing, but the ride also mixed in mermaids, Atlantis, and a silly sea monster. This is a pretty clear mixing of Sci-Fi and Fantasy in my mind.

    While nuclear sub technology is now dated, (you might know somebody who has served for months aboard a nuclear sub), the Sci-Fi part of Captain EO is very much out of reach at the moment. Not that I'm a big fan of Captain EO, but you could argue that Captain EO makes more sense in Tomorrowland than the old sub ride.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishbulb View Post
    Star Tours is another strange one. Star Wars technically takes place "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away." but it allows guests to once again, experience space travel. Leaving us with Buzz Lightyear that is set somewhere in the galaxy and that uses impressive technology that allows guests to play a game throughout the ride.

    It is a weak point to argue that all of these attractions are set in the future, per se, but one can't easily establish that they all have a common theme.
    Star Wars is technically set in a Galaxy a long, long, time ago, but for most of use earthlings, the technology portrayed in Star Wars is very much Sci-Fiction, and since we don't have light sabers, Death Stars, and spaceships that everybody owns like cars, I would say that the development of the Star Wars Universe from our stage of development is very futuristic. Couruscant sure looks like a city of the future to me. The stories in the Star Wars universe don't focus on the use of futuristic technology, and are often classified as Sci-Fi/Fantasy, as opposed to pure Sci-Fi like Star Trek.

    Buzz Lightyear is sort of little kids' version of Star Wars, from a certain point of view. You've got the good guy using laser guns to fight the evil emperor, and it is Sci-Fi/futuristic as it involves space travel and aliens.

    Buzz and Star Tours sure look like they have a similar theme to me, Space Travel/Aliens/Futuristic gadgets/weapons. Certainly, Buzz and Star Tours both belong more in Tomorrowland than in any other land in Disneyland.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishbulb View Post

    People seem to forget that when Walt Disney was building Disneyland he effectively turned the construction of the park into a reality show. There was a weekly program documenting the developments as the park came to fruition.
    I wouldn't call the Disneyland show on ABC a reality show as the show was completely scripted. A Disneyland reality show, if it was done today, could involve unscripted footage of castmembers working in the park. The show utilized quick snips of documentary footage, but that isn't the same as a reality show.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishbulb View Post
    Disneyland itself is one big commercial for the Disney brand. It always has been and should not be faulted for that.
    I would say more precisely that there is synergy between Disney parks and other elements of the business. It sure didn't start out this way, Walt had to use Tinker Bell, and Jiminy Cricket because the company didn't want him sullying Mickey Mouse's good name if the park went down hill. So, Disneyland has not always been a big commercial for the company's other properties, and these days sometimes the "tail wags the dog" as films are being based off of existing park attractions, rather than putting a movie tie-in into everything.

    Walt Disney used to say that Disneyland is the star, and I think that is still very much the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishbulb View Post
    I wanted to remind everyone that another franchise attraction is nothing new, while at the same time expressing a hope that they utilize said property to further the original vision of Tomorrowland. Star Tours is a brilliant attraction, but one that does little to enhance the narrative of mankind's future. The same with Buzz Lightyear. Both of those are more Sci-Fantasy than science fiction. I feel that it's the infusion of the implausible that is what's at the root of the problem with Tomorrowland, and not franchises.
    Inventing Tomorrowland has always been a bit of an issue, when the park first opened the future looked like a lot of flags. The space race was exciting, and surely some folks in the 1950's thought that the country would be like the Jetsons in a couple decades. I think what you want is a preview of a great, big beautiful Tomorrow, with attractions that hint at what is right around the corner.

    Nothing wrong with that, only the future of science/exploration so permeates society that it is no longer novel. We've got a rover on Mars, China is planning on going to the moon, and nobody bats an eyelash because we've got realistic videos games that grown men and women spend hours on to blow up aliens.

    A Journey Through Inner Space ride, even if updated, might bore a lot of guests, especially young people who might be using molecular computer modeling programs in college. It's just not the future anymore. So, I think that is why Disney works hard to update Tomorrowland, and why attractions based on "implausible" technologies are a safe bet because they will never come to fruition in our lifetimes.

    Will anybody build an Iron Man suit like in the films? Doubtful, but there could very well be that sense of optimism with the Stark Expo part of the ride, hopefully that will be enough to quell the naysayers.

    I get the argument you are making, that Tomorrowland should be more like Epcot's Future World. What if they built a lavish Living Seas Ride, like the old ride at Epcot, and plopped it down on Innoventions, in addition to bringing back the People Mover. I would love all of these changes, but I also realize that guests want to relive being their super hero, being Iron Man, and little kids love seeing Buzz more than styrofoam snowflakes.

    Ironically, Iron Man might well replace one of Epcot's, now defunct, pavilions in the future.
    Last edited by chesirecat; 10-22-2012 at 12:54 PM.

  12. #27

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Hanford
    Posts
    3,262
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

    Why wouldn't they put an Iron Man ride in California Adventures? His home is in Malibu if I'm not mistaken?


  13. #28

    • Senior Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Splash Mountain
    Posts
    7,955
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

    Quote Originally Posted by krystledm View Post
    Why wouldn't they put an Iron Man ride in California Adventures? His home is in Malibu if I'm not mistaken?
    Well he has houses...everywhere...he's a Trillionaire

    But in the Comic's New York is the hot Spot for Ironman, the Avengers, Spiderman, Fantastic 4...etc

    Also...Ironman has more to do with Tech and the Future then CA...anyway

  14. #29

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,268

    Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

    Quote Originally Posted by krystledm View Post
    Why wouldn't they put an Iron Man ride in California Adventures? His home is in Malibu if I'm not mistaken?
    Because Stark Expo will be the queue, and this fits very well in Tomorrowland. Hope nobody has a heart attack if they put in the Stark Expo "flying car" from Captain America.

  15. #30

    • Senior Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Splash Mountain
    Posts
    7,955
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

    ^Yeah.....I really hope the Q...gets MANY props from the movie and has a lot of interesting things to look at while you wait 3 hours...to ride Ironman

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. DVC at the Contemporary- name change
    By rikkis_playpen in forum Disney Vacation Club
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-03-2008, 09:56 AM
  2. DCA name change in the making already?
    By Disney Analyst in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 05-10-2006, 09:26 PM
  3. Name change?
    By DOOM BGI in forum The Tech Lounge
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-16-2005, 12:17 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •