Disney's 1952 Film Retitled Tomorrowland!

[calsig31]

We're certainly getting a lot of Walt Disney biopics in the next few years, aren't we?

Do we know for sure it’s a bio pic? So far, they haven’t really told us anything about this other than it has to do with this mysterious chest. For all we know, Walt could be hunting vampires with Mr. Lincoln.

They are all giving the public what the public has already told them they enjoy and want.

How would they know that the public wouldn’t enjoy something that is original and no cross-merchandised with an existing property? They aren’t giving us the choice. Of course the public will ride these branded attractions if they are the only option.

[ALIASd]

How would they know that the public wouldn’t enjoy something that is original and no cross-merchandised with an existing property? They aren’t giving us the choice. Of course the public will ride these branded attractions if they are the only option.

Many people on this site probably think you just described the original version of DCA. Hundreds of millions of dollars and limited real estate are big gambles. Mr. Disney used his catalog for inspiration and product, not many in Burbank or Glendale seem to feel to need to stray far from that model.

[Mr Wiggins]

Mr. Disney used his catalog for inspiration and product, not many in Burbank or Glendale seem to feel to need to stray far from that model.

The number of brand-based Disneyland attractions in the pre-Eisner years was 'way in the minority, as has been shown by the numerous lists that have been compiled on this site over the years. The argument that "Eisner and Iger are just continuing the model Walt started" is historically inaccurate: the majority of pre-Eisner Disneyland attractions were Disneyland originals. It wasn't until Eisner came in with his "Disneyland is all about turning Movies into Rides" ripoff of Universal's "Ride the Movies" model that new Disneyland attractions became wall-to-wall brands.

Significantly, Disneyland's most world-famous and iconic attractions in the pre-Eisner era were all non-movie brands: Jungle Cruise, Pirates of the Caribbean, Haunted Mansion, Tiki Room, Mr. Lincoln, Small World, Submarines, Space Mountain, PeopleMover, Mark Twain, the Monorail, Autopia, Disneyland & Santa Fe Railroad. Hardly the model that Burbank and Glendale have followed since Eisner.

[Gyoza Dog]

Walt Disney created the Disneyland TV show to create an emotional connection to his new park.

If the Tommorowland movie creates an emotional connection to a new revamped section of the park then it seems very much in the Walt Disney tradition.

[Mr Wiggins]

Walt Disney created the Disneyland TV show to create an emotional connection to his new park.

If the Tommorowland movie creates an emotional connection to a new revamped section of the park then it seems very much in the Walt Disney tradition.

The Disneyland TV show was created as part of the deal to build Disneyland (ABC-TV was one of the funding partners). Even after mortgaging his vacation home, Walt didn't have the money to build it alone. And still he took the risks of doing something innovative and creatively daring. Compare that to today's Disney Corporation, which for all its deep pockets and humongous profits is notoriously risk-averse and creatively lazy.

Other than the name, there is essentially nothing today's Disney Corporation does that is "in the Walt Disney tradition."

[calsig31]

Many people on this site probably think you just described the original version of DCA.

One of the many complaints about the original CA Adventure is that it wasn't "Disney" enough - the park as a whole, not just the rides. However, the quality of the rides was a large complaint as well. Really, other than Soarin' and Grizzly there weren't that many Disney quality attractions on opening day.

Rather than change the quality of the rides, they tried to fix things the easy way by slapping Disney characters on everything and making every new ride character based. If they were to provide some really quality non-branded attractions I bet the public would take to them just as well as the branded ones.

[manifest]

And on the subject of non-industry professionals complaining about WDI's "inability to create anything original", anyone else wonder why there is no similar focus thrust at theme park competitiors such as Universal Studios Hollywood or elsewhere. Where would there profits past, present and future be without Universal Pictures' own Jaws, and Jurassic Park, Paramount's King Kong and Transformers or Warner Brothers' Harry Potter? They are all giving the public what the public has already told them they enjoy and want.

If the theme park is in a Motion Picture studio and their slogan is "Ride the movies" why would I expect anything different??

[Pinrar]

One of the many complaints about the original CA Adventure is that it wasn't "Disney" enough - the park as a whole, not just the rides. However, the quality of the rides was a large complaint as well. Really, other than Soarin' and Grizzly there weren't that many Disney quality attractions on opening day.

Rather than change the quality of the rides, they tried to fix things the easy way by slapping Disney characters on everything and making every new ride character based. If they were to provide some really quality non-branded attractions I bet the public would take to them just as well as the branded ones.

But the fact remains that the inclusion of characters is still one of the many demands the modern resort goer demands from disney. And one that was called for specifically among the many faults from when DCA was at its worse.

While I agree DCA's biggest problem was quality, the lack of disney characters was still enough of a fault to be mentioned by guests. More proof can be seen by the popularity of Cars land and the wizarding world of harry potter. People demand the characters they know and love and the great quality to go with it.

[swampymarsh]

After veiwing the larger twitpic I was able to find the blue book.
Twitter / BradBirdA113: The Box... opened. ...

MODEL RESEARCH: THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS 1915-1958: Alex Roland: Amazon.com: Books

Published by NASA.

This is a simple picture of a rocket engine.

[Gyoza Dog]

The Disneyland TV show was created as part of the deal to build Disneyland (ABC-TV was one of the funding partners). Even after mortgaging his vacation home, Walt didn't have the money to build it alone. And still he took the risks of doing something innovative and creatively daring. Compare that to today's Disney Corporation, which for all its deep pockets and humongous profits is notoriously risk-averse and creatively lazy.

It doesn't matter why Walt Disney originally made the deal with ABC. What matters is that he saw how well it worked and he kept doing it (even when he no longer needed to). You can say the current company is overemphasising this aspect of the Disney tradition but this seems like a real call back to the media strategy of the earliest days of Disneyland.

Also the modern Disney company does not seem incredibly risk averse to me. The recent DCA update was a huge expensive risk. It could easily have been throwing good money after bad. Shanghai and Hong Kong Disney were risks. The new
fastpass plus stuff is a huge risk. Misguided perhaps but risk adverse it isn't.

[Mr Wiggins]

Also the modern Disney company does not seem incredibly risk averse to me. The recent DCA update was a huge expensive risk.

Hardly -- not when the majority of the investment was in an entire land based solely on the Cars franchise, which for years has been a proven monster money-maker in merchandise. And let's not forget that the DCA "update" was a giant repair job, to fix the screwups of the Eisner regime.

The fact is that for decades in Disneyland, the Disney Corporation has refused to do anything that doesn't have a tie-in to a successful brand. If the Walt Disney Company had followed the same business model in Disneyland's creation and first two decades as the Disney Corporation has done for the last two decades, Disneyland wouldn't have been a world-famous success, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

No matter if one compares Disneyland's management vision, theme park business model, creative innovation or risk taking, there is, quite simply, zero similarity between Walt's Disney Company and Eisger's Disney Corporation. The WDC was a founder-driven company that was world famous for creative innovation; Disney Corp is a Wall Street style corporation that is world famous for making money. Claims that Disney Corp is in any manner following the standards, models, methods or philosophy of Walt's Disney Company are simply not supported by the reality of what the former is -- and what the latter was.

[Ezra]

I wonder how many rumors will come about due to the title of the movie... might not even have anything to do with Tomorrowland...

[janvincent_1313]

Since Disney is famous for creating alternate realities via their animation and even some of their live action movies [ie TRON],,, maybe this is a movie about that reality becoming a little too real???

[janvincent_1313]

Truthfully, Disney's new motto should just be... IF WE BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME, because good or bad Disney attracts millions of people no matter what they do.... films, attractions, vacation opportunities, events, collectibles. You name it, people go to it and spend lots of money doing so.

[Timekeeper]

Odd choice to rename a film called '1952' to 'Tomorrowland', but that must mean Disney has canceled the other 'Tomorrowland'-related film. I had this idea tucked in the back of my mind that I planned for the peoplemover that involved time-machines, a touring company and X-S Tech (downsized); but going back to the photograph of the open box, is that a photo of a young Walt Disney with Werner Von Braun or some other equally famous Rocket scientist?


Timekeeper