Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 121
  1. #46

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    157

    Re: Tomorrowland Redo Should Not be a Return to the Past

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomorrowland_1967 View Post
    Something different would be nice. But what? If you google the words “Futuristic City” and look up images …. Lots of artwork show monster size buildings, at dusk or nightfall. And the color palette is rather dark and gloomy. If you use that as a prime example .. then Tomorrowland is doomed. Not just from the depressing dark monochromatic look, but from a scale that will dwarf the Matterhorn. Naturally … whatever they do, it’s going to be all about a POSITIVE environment that fits “Walt’s little happy kingdom”. Not to mention that fits to scale within this rather compact 80 acre theme park. It’s not like EPCOT, where you have this large “canvas” to work with.

    Now, all this being said – I like Zaha Hadid’s work. Not all of it. But she has some designs and shapes … that could work into a futuristic land. That is breathtaking, “bright”, and “positive” .. like the 1967 look was.

    But of course none of this is up to us. Disney is going to do what they want to do. And the complaint we’ve all been hearing for years, is Disney might opt for a science-fantasy design – As it’s obvious …. they don’t like to renovate the land on a regular basis … and just might go for a full-on “Fantasy” design … and just leave it for the next 50 years. Or longer! And my fear they might go for a “Star Wars” theme – Which I won’t be happy with at all. Same goes for a “Tron” land, which was once rumored. I don’t want to see ONE franchise “look”. I want Disney to stick to a design that matches Walt’s dedication plaque to the land! If they want to mess around with other Tomorrowlands with “Star Wars” or “Marvel” or “Avatar” go for it. But for Walt’s Original in Anaheim – They absolutely need to hold to a higher standard.



    That's not hard to understand. Or as they say .. This isn't "Rocket Science" ... or is that Rocket Rods science.

    Took a good look at what they debuted in May 1998, that’s still, largely, hanging on to this day.

    They took an attraction that replaced the Peoplemover …. and became history in just 2 years. Rocket Rods. 13 years have passed, and what do we have? - An abandoned track.

    They didn't really renovate the land properly. They just took the old 1967 Tomorrowland that was already there ... and just did the least amount of facade work as they could .... and called it a New Tomorrowland.

    They placed water fountains, with a granite ball in the center, and called it an Attraction – Cosmic Waves. And what it did, was ‘attract’ water onto surrounding seats from one ride to the next. Gone by 2003. Though the granite ball, and new planters installed in 2009 .. Now make it one confusing piece of Tomorrowland.

    There’s more to the botched TL:98 make-over in case you’re interested.

    So, now what we have is the 1967 Tomorrowland today … coated with remnants of the 1998 makeover … coated with silver and blue paint applied to a slight renovation in 2005. We have the Moonliner rocket from the ’98 renovation – which is really from the 1955-1966 Tomorrowland. A return engagement of the 1980s Captain EO. Architecture from the 1967 and 1977 buildings, add Buzz Lightyear's bland flat look, that came out of a retail space from your local mall, and Star Tours new 2011 marque – And there you have it – Frankenstien land. With various “patches” that don’t match each other.

    Add the lackluster exhibit named Innoventions, kineticless surroundings. Moody and dark atmosphere at night. Some other attractions that should have permanently retired by now (Captain EO), and the Starcade space, with it’s abandoned second floor space – since 1999.

    Now, do you understand why it’s hated? LOL

    We can argue forever how passé the 1967 Tomorrowland is (was) – But it will continue to be coveted as the best Tomorrowland Disneyland has ever had, because it was one “uniform” cohesive design from one building to the next, one attraction to the next … all tied together by the Peoplemover. A ‘multi-layered’ kinetic land, that was bright and colorful, with it’s colorful Peoplemover trains, among other dashes of color throughout.

    The future does not have to copy that – but it certainly should take cues from it!



    Well, that’s the message I’m trying to convey in my signature below. Something different, yet, still mimic the 1967 design in a way … where it’s a slow moving attraction that offers the entire family to ride together.

    And it’s more than just facades. If we want a New Tomorrowland that is different than the 1967 TL, along with the ’77 Space Mountain complex add-on …. What really needs to happen the next time around, there needs to be some serious demolition. They have been applying “new skins” to these old bodies long enough.
    I am not sure if I totally got the message across, but I was trying to convey a lot of the same feelings as you were. I just feel saying "I want Circlevision back" or "I want the Peoplemover back" would be a disservice to the concept of a Tomorrowland, just look at how the fan community reacted to the Nemo Subs as an example of this could backfire. However if Disney brought in modernized and futuristic rides with similar themes I think everybody here would be all for it!

    While I believe Disney should not copy the 1967 design, (for some reason I thought it was 1966), a prevailing ethos I have seen on this discussion board is that Disney should look at the reasons the 1967 design was made. Surely a modern design could capture both the optimistic view from 1967, while giving visitors the feeling of a true Tomorrowland. I think the Peoplemover is the prime example of this, guests still want it, OSHA will not let Disney put it back in, if anything is to be done Disney must capture the spirit of the original Tomorrowland and bring in an exciting and fresh new ride (I recall seeing blue sky concept art of a KUKA arm travelling around the land, I think that would be a good place to start).

    I also agree applying a single theme such as Star Wars, Tron, or any other brand would limit Tomorrowland's potential. Instead I think Disney should bring those franchises in through individual rides or as lands in a third gate.

    Also amen to the 'Frankenstein' name. I put the question as to "why is the land is so hated" to bring out such a response. Tomorrowland is one of the most attraction dense lands in Disney (not to mention Space Mountain and Star Tours are some of my favorite rides), yet Tomorrowland cannot hold a theme together for the life of it. The reason fans hate Tomorrowland so much is not because of the rides, but because it is the "Frankenstein" land, holding to much onto the 67 design with patchwork bits from the 98 refurb. If any progress is to be made the facades need to be redone as drastically as the Sunshine Plaza-Buena Vista Street conversion.

    A bit off topic now, but I was hoping a rebuilt Tomorrowland would view the 1967 design as a sort of historic past, the same way all modern cities have grown from older communities. It would make a great hidden mickey to see a timeline detailing a rebuilt Tomorrowland's history mirroring the real history of the 1955 version to the 1967 then through 1998 onto the rebuilt land. Plus that would be one of those details which would help establish a back story for the land. Plus us geeks would love it.
    Last edited by xboxtravis7992; 03-25-2013 at 06:58 PM.

  2. #47

    • Title: [scanning.....]
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Just down the road
    Posts
    1,902

    Re: Tomorrowland Redo Should Not be a Return to the Past

    Just a little of my opinion:

    I am not sure if I totally got the message across, but I was trying to convey a lot of the same feelings as you were. I just feel saying "I want Circlevision back" or "I want the Peoplemover back" would be a disservice to the concept of a Tomorrowland, just look at how the fan community reacted to the Nemo Subs as an example of this could backfire. However if Disney brought in modernized and futuristic rides with similar themes I think everybody here would be all for it!
    This may make an interesting update to the classic 360 feel of Circlevision:
    New Huss Ride Combines 360 Degree Virtual Environment with Circular Observation Cabin | InPark Magazine

    What I've found interesting about Tomorrowland is that given quite a few guidelines, many modern/post-modern ideas would work quite well in Tomorrowland. I don't think that there needs to be a single unifying theme, in fact as many have said, that would be a huge mistake. The problem is that many of the changes they have made of recent have been individual, without considering the aesthetic impact on the surrounding area. A white and pristine Tomorrowland would be nice, but it doesn't even need to all be that way. A little blending would go a long way to make the otherwise erratic exteriors much more appealing.

    Either move the Astro Orbitor back to it's original location or just get rid of it altogether.
    If nothing else, it seems to cause a flow issue in its current spot... that and the rocks
    Buy Genius eau de toilette: Made with 1% Inspiration

    Happiness is returning after a much regretted hiatus!!!

    BOO!

  3. #48

    • Senior Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    8,890

    Re: Tomorrowland Redo Should Not be a Return to the Past

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomorrowland_1967 View Post
    Took a good look at what they debuted in May 1998, that’s still, largely, hanging on to this day.

    They took an attraction that replaced the Peoplemover …. and became history in just 2 years. Rocket Rods. 13 years have passed, and what do we have? - An abandoned track.

    They didn't really renovate the land properly. They just took the old 1967 Tomorrowland that was already there ... and just did the least amount of facade work as they could .... and called it a New Tomorrowland.

    They placed water fountains, with a granite ball in the center, and called it an Attraction – Cosmic Waves. And what it did, was ‘attract’ water onto surrounding seats from one ride to the next. Gone by 2003. Though the granite ball, and new planters installed in 2009 .. Now make it one confusing piece of Tomorrowland.

    There’s more to the botched TL:98 make-over in case you’re interested.

    So, now what we have is the 1967 Tomorrowland today … coated with remnants of the 1998 makeover … coated with silver and blue paint applied to a slight renovation in 2005. We have the Moonliner rocket from the ’98 renovation – which is really from the 1955-1966 Tomorrowland. A return engagement of the 1980s Captain EO. Architecture from the 1967 and 1977 buildings, add Buzz Lightyear's bland flat look, that came out of a retail space from your local mall, and Star Tours new 2011 marque – And there you have it – Frankenstien land. With various “patches” that don’t match each other.

    Add the lackluster exhibit named Innoventions, kineticless surroundings. Moody and dark atmosphere at night. Some other attractions that should have permanently retired by now (Captain EO), and the Starcade space, with it’s abandoned second floor space – since 1999.

    Now, do you understand why it’s hated? LOL
    Bingo. Excellent post, TL67!


    Quote Originally Posted by Tomorrowland_1967 View Post
    We can argue forever how passé the 1967 Tomorrowland is (was) – But it will continue to be coveted as the best Tomorrowland Disneyland has ever had, because it was one “uniform” cohesive design from one building to the next, one attraction to the next … all tied together by the Peoplemover. A ‘multi-layered’ kinetic land, that was bright and colorful, with it’s colorful Peoplemover trains, among other dashes of color throughout.

    The future does not have to copy that – but it certainly should take cues from it!
    As much as the 1967 Tomorrowland was a take on America's optimism for the future, it also was the product of a master designer (John Hench), the visionary studio boss he'd worked with for decades (Walt Disney), and a team of 1st-generation imagineers. The talent, vision, experience and teamwork that they represented is absent from today's Disney Corporation, with its marketing mall vision, product-promotion priority, bureaucratic hierarchy and beancounter management.
    "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


  4. #49

    • No Disassemble!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    791

    Re: Tomorrowland Redo Should Not be a Return to the Past

    Quote Originally Posted by xboxtravis7992 View Post
    When I browse this site I regularly notice speculation and desires for a Tomorrowland refurbishment. However I notice one desire which constantly confuses me, people expressing their wish to return to the 1966 Tomorrowland design, with Mary Blair Murals, Astro Jets, Peoplemovers, and Circlevisions. Yet every time I look at photos of 1966-1997 Tomorrowland I see the future as envisioned in 1966. 47 years have passed since then. The 1966 Tomorrowland in my view is dated, and any future refurbishment of Tomorrowland should not be a carbon copy of the 1966 version.

    This though begs the question, what exactly is wrong with the current Tommorowland? How could a land with a popular E-ticket coaster and an excellent D-Ticket simulator be hated by so many fans? It is all in the lack of details; while the minimalist approach worked in 1966, modern audiences have become used to highly detailed Science Fiction stories. Tomorrowland lacks the detail seen in other areas of the park (such as New Orleans, Adventureland, Cars Land, ect. ect. ect.), giving the impression the future is a city with nobody living in it. Returning to the minimalist 1966 design patterns would only further the lack of detail.

    Instead of looking to the past Disneyland should actually look to the future for Tomorrowland. Every facade other than Space Mountain's should be removed and reworked to a represent modern futurism. The Peoplemover track should be removed, and only replaced if a visually pleasing and OSHA complaint ride can be installed. Buzz, EO, Nemo, Autopia, and Innoventions should be seriously updated or replaced with new rides. Most importantly a redone Tomorrowland should carry detail galore, relying on Imagineering's famously complex prop setting and backstories (yet not the extent the land becomes cluttered like the WDW Tomorrowland). These details should convey the sense of a future people live in, not a sterile neutron bomb cleansed city from 1966.
    Great post and welcome to MiceChat.

    Re-futurizing Tomorrowland is as problematic as buying an Apple product (you spend a lot of money for one only to feel like you need to update to the newest version a year later because the technology is now outdated). So is the case with building expensive testaments (attractions) to future-concepts in hope that they have a long shelf-life. I have never been able to figure out how Disney can get around that problem without them turning Tomorrowland into another Fantasyland.
    Many Bothans died to bring you these fastpasses.

  5. #50

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Whittier, CA
    Posts
    180

    Re: Tomorrowland Redo Should Not be a Return to the Past

    I think a huge problem that keeps getting in the way is the fact that the name of the land is TOMORROWland. I'm not saying to rename the land, but I like the fact that Paris has Discoveryland which doesn't require their land from being based in a future world. Thats just my 2 cents.
    The music celebration puts some motion into my ocean!

  6. #51

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    314

    Re: Tomorrowland Redo Should Not be a Return to the Past

    Quote Originally Posted by AvidTurtleTalker View Post
    I think a huge problem that keeps getting in the way is the fact that the name of the land is TOMORROWland. I'm not saying to rename the land, but I like the fact that Paris has Discoveryland which doesn't require their land from being based in a future world. Thats just my 2 cents.
    Keep Space Mountain since the architecture is still amazing. Convert the rest to Star Wars and call it a day. It's pretty much like that already. We just need an Ewok dining place with good barbecue.

  7. #52

    • Special Agent
    • Online

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,152

    Re: Tomorrowland Redo Should Not be a Return to the Past

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomorrowland_1967 View Post
    I want Disney to stick to a design that matches Walt’s dedication plaque to the land! If they want to mess around with other Tomorrowlands with “Star Wars” or “Marvel” or “Avatar” go for it. But for Walt’s Original in Anaheim – They absolutely need to hold to a higher standard.
    But who is to say Walt's original vision for the land is even viable today? It isnt the content of the land that became outdated as much as it was the entire premise of the land. As time marched on people genuinely became more inteligent and less naive about what technology and progress really meant and the notion that technology would always be helpful was thrown out the window.


    Think of the future that Walt was excited to showcase at Disneyland and think of how politically charged these topics are today. Monsanto chemicals? Nuclear power? Space travel? People have learned the dangers of chemicals and nuclear power. People understand that spending money on Space travel is a luxury we cant't afford. We have learned that PeopleMovers and Monorails are too expensive and not flexible enough to be viable transportation options.


    Disneyland has to be entertaining and the last thing anyone should have to worry about is whether we should spend billions on a moonbase rather than pay for the sick and elderly here on earth. Or whether genetically modified food is a curse or a blessing that will feed the world's hungry. We shouldn't have to wonder if spending too much time on a computer or with our cell phones will make us sick, or if social networking will change our society in such a way that people wont be able to function in public anymore. We shouldn't have to wonder if all that white paint and flat concrete surfaces contributed to global warming. These are all too weighty of a topic for a theme park to try to tackle all while trying to be politically correct and appealing for everyone.


    People got smarter and futurism eventually died out. That's why Tomorrowland eventually died. Thats why Future World at Epcot eventually died too. This is why Imagineers were saying it was too hard to keep it updated and fresh. This is also why they changed the theme of the land in 98 from a vision of the future to... a tribute of future visions. Jules Verne is easier to swallow than nuclear proliferation. They could try to make an attraction that spins cloning in a positive light, or they can build an Iron Man ride. Folks would rather relax and enjoy the Iron Man ride than be spoonfed some corporate propaganda about how awesome General Electric MRI machines are.


    A Star Wars land really is the safest bet and probably the one that would find a huge audience and make the most folks happy. I think I would rather have an Iron Man ride, but as long as it is entertaining Star War will work just fine.

  8. #53

    • Circle of Ancients
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Paris, France / Los Angeles
    Posts
    38,884
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Tomorrowland Redo Should Not be a Return to the Past

    /\
    You make a lot of good points but I'd be disappointed to see people say "Pull the plug on the future." When have we ever been so cynical?

  9. #54

    • Original Mice-Chatter
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    5,255

    Re: Tomorrowland Redo Should Not be a Return to the Past

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLiver View Post
    These are all too weighty of a topic for a theme park to try to tackle all while trying to be politically correct and appealing for everyone.
    Ugh- I don't want a politically correct DL- I have to deal with enough of that outside the gates and PC policing has damaged attractions already.

  10. #55

    • Sorcerer Supreme Bean
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,114

    Re: Tomorrowland Redo Should Not be a Return to the Past

    Good post MrLiver

    The original vision of TL was very admirable and was a great example of optimism and hope for the future, but the fact is, with a lot of things that try to be 'cutting edge' it ends up being obsolete by the time its finished

    Which is what we have with that version of Tomorrowland, especially these days with technology developing at such a rapid pace, any TL update would eventually be obsolete by the time it was finished if we followed the traditional TL model.

    Sad to say, science fiction is much more lasting of a 'theme' of the future since it mainly doesnt have to be grounded in fact (though I would argue most successful Sci-Fi has some basis in fact) which is why things like Star Tours or Space Mountain are so interesting compared to Innoventions, because they show a future yet to come, a future so inconceivable with current technologies; opposed to Innoventions displaying what we have now, again obsolete by the time its displayed mainly

    The way to have a lasting "Tomorrowland" is to give it that sci-fi element that isnt too grounded on fact that it still has a bit of imagination to it.
    There is no right or wrong in this debate. It is simply a matter of perspective.
    -Dr. Strange

  11. #56

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    849

    Re: Tomorrowland Redo Should Not be a Return to the Past

    Quote Originally Posted by Wren View Post
    Good post MrLiver

    The original vision of TL was very admirable and was a great example of optimism and hope for the future, but the fact is, with a lot of things that try to be 'cutting edge' it ends up being obsolete by the time its finished

    Which is what we have with that version of Tomorrowland, especially these days with technology developing at such a rapid pace, any TL update would eventually be obsolete by the time it was finished if we followed the traditional TL model.

    Sad to say, science fiction is much more lasting of a 'theme' of the future since it mainly doesnt have to be grounded in fact (though I would argue most successful Sci-Fi has some basis in fact) which is why things like Star Tours or Space Mountain are so interesting compared to Innoventions, because they show a future yet to come, a future so inconceivable with current technologies; opposed to Innoventions displaying what we have now, again obsolete by the time its displayed mainly

    The way to have a lasting "Tomorrowland" is to give it that sci-fi element that isnt too grounded on fact that it still has a bit of imagination to it.
    What separates sci-fi and sci-fact? Is time travel, aliens, cloning, space wars all so far fetched that we label it fiction? TL 67 would have been considered sci-fi 150 years ago. I say TL needs sci-fi...badly. But sci-fi grounded in reality. Or at least the illusion of reality. Its not enough for TL to aim 50 years into the future. It needs to aim hundreds or thousands of years into the future. The TL of old is dead. But the idea can still live on in a way that is more appropriate for the modern day and even last for years to come. The promise of a bright future is still the same whether it is 20 years from now or 200! The only difference is 200 years allows for a larger canvas to create ideas that will stay relevant for years to come.

    I see so many people scoff at sci-fi in TL but it seems that walt's TL and a sci-fi TL are not mutually exclusive.
    Last edited by Pinrar; 03-26-2013 at 11:26 AM.
    In the quest for quality, I have no problem with the characters footing the bill.

  12. #57

    • Circle of Ancients
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Paris, France / Los Angeles
    Posts
    38,884
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Tomorrowland Redo Should Not be a Return to the Past

    I always found it annoying and redundant that Disney World has EPCOT's Future World and Magic Kingdom's Tomorrowland. And neither really acheive futurism.

  13. #58

    • Not on the Jedi Council
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    677

    Re: Tomorrowland Redo Should Not be a Return to the Past

    I'll have to agree with MrLiver to a degree. I actually want a future in which we all figure out how to get along, and can go to the stars, but the political climate won't allow it. We are seized up too much with the immediate to see the future.

    A truth spoken of by comedians is that we all have in our hands access to the sum total of human knowledge. It's the Star Trek library computers made real. What do we use our smart phones for? To upload pictures of cats and argue with random strangers.

    In Walt's time, more or less by three years, they went to the moon on 2k of computing power. Not 2 gigs, not too megs, but with less computing power than it took to render individual graphics on this web page. As Jerry Pournelle pointed when I was a kid, if you could drag one asteroid into orbit, we could allievate all precious metal shortages here on earth.

    I grew up reading futurists like Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, and magazines like Popular Science that regularly looked at the future. I wish I could find people and places like them now.

  14. #59

    • Dead men tell no tales.
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    185

    Re: Tomorrowland Redo Should Not be a Return to the Past

    The current Tomorrowland is far too steam-punk for my liking and the old version is just plain retro, and not in a good way. I like your ideas for the new one though.

    However, as timeless and amazing the exterior of Space Mountain is, in a lot of ways, it fits in better with the old TL than this one. Imagineering will have to find a way to blend it in well with the new TL.

  15. #60

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    229

    Re: Tomorrowland Redo Should Not be a Return to the Past

    A lot of people have addressed what Tomorrowland should represent, but nobody has yet addressed what it should be about. So when you say it should represent a spirit of optimism - a beautiful tomorrow - then Ok, but how are you gonna represent that optimism.

    Do you focus on the idea of space habituation (I think this is a bad thing. It gives the false impression that space is a solution. The grass is not greener off earth).

    Do you focus on environmentalism, that we find a way to improve Earth because a healthy Earth improves us (But then everybody starts screaming about the hippie message and a Tomorrowland full of tree houses contrasts with everybody's view of the future as some sort of garish Tron-like electro-overload world).

    Do we focus on science and technology? Can science convey optimism? Is it even entertaining? (A generation of declining interest in it would say otherwise).

    One of the weird things is that the original Epcot tried to do all these things: pavilions focused on Space (Horizons), pavilions focused on Earth's habitats (the Land, the Living Seas), pavilions having to do with science (Wonders of Life, Energy) and then threw it all under the banner of "Future World." Make of that what you will.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 80
    Last Post: 07-12-2007, 09:06 PM
  2. Replies: 98
    Last Post: 10-06-2006, 10:11 PM
  3. Some people should not be parents.
    By OogieBoogie in forum MiceChat Main Lounge
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 09-15-2006, 12:04 PM
  4. Tell me about the SIMS and why I should or should NOT buy this game...
    By TheOtherVillainess in forum Disney Interactive and Game Industry Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-10-2005, 12:04 PM

Tags for this Thread

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
  •