That's really limiting the land of tomorrow by basing it solely on one franchise like either Marvel and/or Star Wars. I think Star Wars is fairly represented already with Star Tours and the Jedi Training Academy. But with both franchises on the Imagineers' drawing boards, it will be interesting to see what they come up with. I wonder if they will announce any of that at the next D23 expo.
Changing one of the original lands of Disneyland would be like painting hipster glasses on the mona lisa thinking it would appeal to a modern audience. Disneyland is a piece of theme park history, changing the name of any of its main lands would be considered heresy among fans and possibly even historians.How about instead of getting a cars land on the east coast they can have a star wars land instead at DHS. DCA would keep its variety among other parks and WDW would have a brand new attraction.
I say no to that. Tomorrowland is not to be touched at all. Plain and simple. I like Star Wars but no.
I would welcome it
Great idea!Originally Posted by APJ1127
I think it would be smarter to spread popular franchises like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and even (in the future) Marvel around to multiple parks. For example, when they build that third park, it would be a very smart move to put a new, proper, 'non-screen' Star Wars ride there. That way you make sure the diehard fans visit both parks.
Sorry, but Star Wars is only one of the futuristic franchises that Disney can now accommodate. here's Wall-E from Pixar, a scad of Marvel characters (Iron Man, the Silver Surfer, etc.), and even Pigs In Space from the Muppets. All of these can best be served by revitalizing (finally) a Tomorrowland, not a Star Wars land. There's plenty of underemployed acreage. Let a hundred futures bloom!
Or Disney could actually tap into some creativity and create something original... but why do that when you can fill a land with franchises?
"Every atom is a world, an infinity unfurled.
A world of inner space without an end!
A world of mystery, of endless energy,
with treasures more than man can ever spend!"
I would prefer originality myself. After all, Walt's original intent was to portray a vision of how the world might be in the futuristic year of 1987. And the remnants of that--Rocket to the Moon, the House of Tomorrow, the People Mover, the Carousel of Progress--were what made Tomorrowland my favorite land, long before Star Wars (or Buzz Lightyear) came along.
But as much as I love Tomorrowland, I also have to acknowledge that it's the one land where Walt had to compromise even before the gates opened in 1955; there just wasn't enough money to fully realize a vision of sincere futurism. Which is why he hauled out some old props from 20,000 Leagues and put them on display, and why large areas were filled with what were essentially trade-show displays--hello, Dutch Boy Paints' Color Gallery. Hello, Kaiser's Hall of Aluminum. The Phantom Boats were "futuristic" only if you squinted while looking at their tailfins. Autopia's future-centric only in the sense that it gives kids a preview of what it's like to be an adult (or at least a teenage with a learner's permit).
So, while my ideal Tomorrowland would be a breaktakingly immersive look at what the future might REALLY look like, I'm okay with an emphasis on things that whiz and zap and zing and whoosh. My seven year old son doesn't care that his Buzz Lightyear ray blaster is actually from a contemporary fantasy, or that his lightsaber isn't from a future fictive universe but one set "long ago, in a galaxy far, far away." He's playing spaceman. Getting this kind of whizbang right is one of the more expensive things the park can attempt--which is why DL lets large portions of Tomorrowland go un-used or under-used. If tie-ins with franchises are how they'll justify the expenditure, I'm okay with that.
Hey, Disney now owns Ant Man, and he's getting the big Marvel blockbuster movie treatment in 2015. Maybe he can be our host on a revamped Mighty Microscope experience.
id like a new star wars attraction or even a sub/mini land for star wars, it's a great topic! but a whole land seems like much
I agree with the Star Wars Land is a terrible idea thing. However not to be touched at all? It's already been touched so much that it is almost unrecognizable from it's original design. Let Tomorrowland grow and change as it inevitably will.
So on a related point. Disneyland is a great wonderful place. It was an integral part of my childhood and I remember it very fondly. There are many attractions (Peoplemover, Country Bears etc) that were a part of my childhood and that I do miss. That being said Disneyland is not about containing my childhood in a (insert expletive here) bottle to be preserved for eternity. It is a business that is looking to entertain families and family demographics grow and change constantly. As any good business does they change it up to suit the demographic as best they can.
So yes Star Wars land doesn't sound like the hottest of ideas, mainly because it pigeonholes the land into an all too specific film tie-in on an acquired intellectual property with probably too little growth potential to last beyond 15 years or so.
This doesn't mean we need to freeze Tomorrowland in carbonite because it's not like it was when we were kids.
Sounds better to me then adding a Marvel attraction.
Honestly I would say ok to this just to prevent that... x.x
Tommorowland needs a facelift. I dream of Tron and Wall-e attractions being added but obviously these dreams aren't coming true...
Star Wars has the legacy to honestly make this kind of thing happen. Even if it's a "niche" Star Wars is a huge franchise. To say that it wouldn't work because you're limiting it to just one franchise is just not true. Look at the sucess of Potterworld over in Orlando. Star Wars is not only older then Harry Potter but I do dare say it has a larger fanbase. I could be totally off but it does have more merchandise and tie ins then Harry Potter ever will I think. Star Wars is pretty much a piece of American film history and the largest name in science fiction. To say it can't handle it's own branch of the park kinda makes me chuckle.
It's not what I would prefer or necessarily want but honestly to me it's not the worst thing I could see happening to Tomorrowland.
Last edited by Lenimph; 12-02-2012 at 10:05 PM.
This!
Honestly, the whole idea of [Insert Franchise Here] Land is something I consider unworthy of DL.
You know, in 1955 Walt had the hottest franchise going in America: the Davy Crockett TV show. Yet he had the foresight to name it "Frontierland", not "Crockettland", and we're all the beneficiaries of that. By encompassing the spirit of the show, not just the show itself, he left room for many permutations over time.
A theme is a theme; it's not a brand.
This is a very valid point, Walt had the largest cash cow in television at the time with Crockett and in what I am going to guess was a brilliant act of foresight he realized that Davy Crockett was not going to last forever in the hearts and minds of America. Instead he made a very non brand name (Frontierland).
Although Carsland over at DCA might have just thrown that particular model of thought right out the window...
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Bookmarks