Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567
Results 91 to 98 of 98
  1. #91

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,069
    So, should the Statue of Liberty be stricken from Planet of the Apes because it is of the past and present? How about the Washington landmarks of Logan's Run? 1940's inspired fashin from Blade Runner?

    Let's face it, barring a nuclear holocaust or other global disaster, some things are eternal. And some things are fads. The problem with some approaches to Tomorrowland is that it tries to anticipate the passing fancies of the future. Certainly, trying to predict the fads of the future will result in requiring a brand new Tomorrowland every couple years. But just as certainly, under the adages of "everything old is new again" and "classics never die," Tomorrow will be built from the foundation of Yesterday and Today.

    Clearly, the Montana Future was wrong. Why? Because it didn't understand the fundamental difference between city and suburb. 1939's Futurama showed us a central city with everything we need in a city, a suburb that was as close as possible to living a simple country life, and transit that would get us between the two in the least amount of time. People of the 60s falsely thoguht we got all that, and it wasn't all it was cracked up to be. But, like Disney's TL 98 Imagineers, developers forgot the distinction between city and suburb, and both were blighted... Montana Future is perhaps where we want to live, and this suburban idea would be expressed well as a new House of the Future, perhaps installed in place of the Observitron, as part of a new plan for Innoventions, or built in the Autopia Zone. But the bulk of Tomorrowland has to represent a cutting-edge futuristic city, complete with public art, and visions of urban renewal and revitalization.

    Think of it this way... Odds are, the Hollywood sign will never be in danger again. People have recognized that it is worth saving, and have put their money where their mouth is. The LA Conservancy is saving everything from historic homes to movie palaces. Thus, Tomorrowland can't be afraid of containing elements of the past. It simply has to be presented in a context of something the future felt worthy of preservation.
    See, George Lucas? I'm not the only one! [<-- i.e. this is not my site]
    78 Reasons To Hate Star Wars Episode 1

    "There are fashions in reading, even in thinking. You don't have to follow them unless you want to."

    "A lot of young people think the future is closed to them, that everything has been done. This is not so. There are still plenty of avenues to be explored."

    -- Walt Disney

  2. #92

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by MickeyMania
    Tomorrowland is more science fiction than science fact. Plus, while the Louve may still be showing old paintings a hundred years in the future, those old paintings will still be in a museum, and not sitting out where their painters left them.

    I have no problem with keeping the murals, I just think they should be moved. As art, they're fine. As theming, they're inappropriate for their surroundings.
    Wasn't one of the original Planet of the Apes films' endings having the film's protaganist find the Statue of Liberty's torch sticking up out of the ocean near the shore of a beach? I'm not saying the murals in thier current state left as a sci-fi testament to the future is the way I'd want to see them, I just thought it was a funny image

  3. #93

    • Senior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by ModHatter
    So, should the Statue of Liberty be stricken from Planet of the Apes because it is of the past and present? How about the Washington landmarks of Logan's Run? 1940's inspired fashin from Blade Runner?

    Let's face it, barring a nuclear holocaust or other global disaster, some things are eternal. And some things are fads. The problem with some approaches to Tomorrowland is that it tries to anticipate the passing fancies of the future. Certainly, trying to predict the fads of the future will result in requiring a brand new Tomorrowland every couple years. But just as certainly, under the adages of "everything old is new again" and "classics never die," Tomorrow will be built from the foundation of Yesterday and Today.

    Clearly, the Montana Future was wrong. Why? Because it didn't understand the fundamental difference between city and suburb. 1939's Futurama showed us a central city with everything we need in a city, a suburb that was as close as possible to living a simple country life, and transit that would get us between the two in the least amount of time. People of the 60s falsely thoguht we got all that, and it wasn't all it was cracked up to be. But, like Disney's TL 98 Imagineers, developers forgot the distinction between city and suburb, and both were blighted... Montana Future is perhaps where we want to live, and this suburban idea would be expressed well as a new House of the Future, perhaps installed in place of the Observitron, as part of a new plan for Innoventions, or built in the Autopia Zone. But the bulk of Tomorrowland has to represent a cutting-edge futuristic city, complete with public art, and visions of urban renewal and revitalization.

    Think of it this way... Odds are, the Hollywood sign will never be in danger again. People have recognized that it is worth saving, and have put their money where their mouth is. The LA Conservancy is saving everything from historic homes to movie palaces. Thus, Tomorrowland can't be afraid of containing elements of the past. It simply has to be presented in a context of something the future felt worthy of preservation.
    those were all movies though, Disney always does a "rose glasses" view of everything, so I don't expect to see ton's of old remains, I'm in the best street of a unknown city of the future, why would I see tons of old stuff? it doesn't make since because I'm in the new development area

    I do agree that a bit of suberbs would be nice

    I don't mind taking hints from some scifi and views of the past, most modern sci fi and views of tomorrow are still based on one of those perceptions anyways, but it's simply modernized

    Disney could easily try for a Star Trek type feel to the world of tomorrow, I still see Star Trek the next generation as very futuristic dispite the fact that it's becoming more and more aged all of the time, clearly Star Trek Voyager is futuristic dispite the fact that it resued tons of Genreration's props (which if I'm not mistaken are reused props from the Star Trek movies)

    if you can create your own style of space aged future that people can recognize you won't have to upgrade or change things as much (one could argue that, this is a problem with the new Star Wars films, George Lucas felt the need to redrawn and restyle all of the technology even though most of us would have perfered the feel of his old style technology better, this mistake was also made with Star Trek enterprise as both franchises stopped feeling like themselves and didn't make since...)

  4. #94

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,069
    Well, I'd say the bigger problem with Star Wars 1 and 2 was the poor writing, including the quaint characters like JarJar Binks. The story they COULD have told (Obi Wan's failure with Annakin, the slaughter of almost every Jedi) is great. Unforntunately, thanks to the original trilogy, we already KNOW key points of the story, and have certain expectations for how those points will be depicted. And, here's a crucial detail, we KNOW how episodes 1-3 will end, and we KNOW it's not happy. Tough to get too juiced up about it.

    That's a huge chunk of the problem with Tomorrowland 98. The story it chose to tell. RocketRods? What did that say? That even if it works, we'll still be going slower than we do today?

    If "old stuff" doesn't belong in Tomorrowland, then "the future that never was" never belonged there, because it's whole concept is old stuff, and even the paint scheme made it look old and uncared for. So, in that context, why not preserve an old thing that at least has some cultural value.

    Tomorrowland can, and in my opinion should, include a section for the suburbs. I will give the AgriFuture portion of the Montana Future a second chance there. But in the LA Basin, Tomorrowland won't be Laguna Beach. It COULD be Irvine, which provides some interesting opportunities. But whether it's Irvine or the more likely candidate, Downtown LA, Tomorrowland will represent a city of the future, not a suburb. And any city permanently installs public art. Tomorrowland designers could choose to use up-to-date art from 2055 or whatever time they try to represent. But that is when Tomorrowland looks trendy and dated. The better option is for Tomorrowland to look optimistically toward the future, but give a nod to its history. Show that, since New Tomorrowland, we have learned to recycle, we have learned that it is better to renew than it is to bulldoze, we have learned that a future without a past is like a house without a foundation.
    See, George Lucas? I'm not the only one! [<-- i.e. this is not my site]
    78 Reasons To Hate Star Wars Episode 1

    "There are fashions in reading, even in thinking. You don't have to follow them unless you want to."

    "A lot of young people think the future is closed to them, that everything has been done. This is not so. There are still plenty of avenues to be explored."

    -- Walt Disney

  5. #95

    • OM NOM NOM
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Coast Metro
    Posts
    1,304
    Sorry to break the intense art discussion here, but does anybody have any links that show the original art on the Star Tours building? I can't remember for the life of me what it looked like; all I can see in my head is the Star Tours mural (Which I like, by the way ^_^).
    Make something Idiot-Proof, and someone will build a better Idiot.


  6. #96

    • Hero-in-Training
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by ModHatter
    And any city permanently installs public art. Tomorrowland designers could choose to use up-to-date art from 2055 or whatever time they try to represent. But that is when Tomorrowland looks trendy and dated. The better option is for Tomorrowland to look optimistically toward the future, but give a nod to its history. Show that, since New Tomorrowland, we have learned to recycle, we have learned that it is better to renew than it is to bulldoze, we have learned that a future without a past is like a house without a foundation.
    This all makes sense, sure - but the problem is that 95% of the public isn't going to go through all of that interpretation when they see a mural on the wall. They're not going to be thinking that it is a fictional preserved historical landmark from a fictional past era in this fictional future era. They're going to think "Gee, that doesn't look very futuristic."

    Which is really what this issue is about - Tomorrowland isn't threoretical and cereberal, it's experiential. It's all about the gut instinct...concentrated futurism to give a more powerful impression of your environment. A realistic view of a Tomorrow that we would want to live in wouldn't be very interesting, since it would be packed to the rim with familiar artifacts. Instead, Tomorrowland should give us concentrated and idealized pure futurism. We can fill in all the blanks ourselves.

    It's almost easier to say "well, this is a spaceport on the Moon in like fourty bazillion years from now, so there's not much left from our era."

  7. #97

    • Senior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by ModHatter
    Well, I'd say the bigger problem with Star Wars 1 and 2 was the poor writing, including the quaint characters like JarJar Binks. The story they COULD have told (Obi Wan's failure with Annakin, the slaughter of almost every Jedi) is great. Unforntunately, thanks to the original trilogy, we already KNOW key points of the story, and have certain expectations for how those points will be depicted. And, here's a crucial detail, we KNOW how episodes 1-3 will end, and we KNOW it's not happy. Tough to get too juiced up about it.

    That's a huge chunk of the problem with Tomorrowland 98. The story it chose to tell. RocketRods? What did that say? That even if it works, we'll still be going slower than we do today?

    If "old stuff" doesn't belong in Tomorrowland, then "the future that never was" never belonged there, because it's whole concept is old stuff, and even the paint scheme made it look old and uncared for. So, in that context, why not preserve an old thing that at least has some cultural value.

    Tomorrowland can, and in my opinion should, include a section for the suburbs. I will give the AgriFuture portion of the Montana Future a second chance there. But in the LA Basin, Tomorrowland won't be Laguna Beach. It COULD be Irvine, which provides some interesting opportunities. But whether it's Irvine or the more likely candidate, Downtown LA, Tomorrowland will represent a city of the future, not a suburb. And any city permanently installs public art. Tomorrowland designers could choose to use up-to-date art from 2055 or whatever time they try to represent. But that is when Tomorrowland looks trendy and dated. The better option is for Tomorrowland to look optimistically toward the future, but give a nod to its history. Show that, since New Tomorrowland, we have learned to recycle, we have learned that it is better to renew than it is to bulldoze, we have learned that a future without a past is like a house without a foundation.
    Star Wars prequals have a ton of problems with them, I was just talking about how alot of people find it visualy dissatisfying just because they cleaned the slate of all the old visuals that made the origionals timeless and memorable

    Rocket Rods was a good idea as far as fast travel goes for the future, the problem is it never did feal that fast and it sacrificed efficency, the Peoplemover on the other hand is effecent but not overly exciting, obviously the best solution was WDW's were they added in scenes and experiences that made the Peoplemover a real tour of all the other rides in Tomorrowland (my ideas for that are in my Peoplemover/TTA thread)

    and your right, I don't think that the future that never was belongs in Tomorrowland at all, I could only tolerate that redo at night when it would look futuristic

    I'm not sure about your whole suburb thing in that now your reminding me of the land pravilian and such, this is Disneyland not Epcot (of course I am recommending to put some of the Land Pravilian into the farm area in DCA)

    and yes Disney can recycle and enhance parts from older Tomorrowland builds and that IS the thing to do when building up a future themed area, however you never should keep things around that are kept just for history's sake, they must still be relevent to the theme

  8. #98

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,069
    People want to feel some connection to the future. If you make the future too foreign, the guests can't relate.

    Again, the murals themselves did not have to remain part of Tomorrowland. Should they have been conserved in some way? Definitely. But it didn't have to be in Tomorrowland.

    But, just as something should not be kept just because it's old, it should not be destroyed just because it's old either.
    See, George Lucas? I'm not the only one! [<-- i.e. this is not my site]
    78 Reasons To Hate Star Wars Episode 1

    "There are fashions in reading, even in thinking. You don't have to follow them unless you want to."

    "A lot of young people think the future is closed to them, that everything has been done. This is not so. There are still plenty of avenues to be explored."

    -- Walt Disney

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567

Similar Threads

  1. [News] Mary Blair at TDL
    By TDLFAN in forum Tokyo Disney Resort
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-11-2009, 11:15 PM
  2. Mary Blair
    By Uzmati in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 07-22-2007, 01:07 AM
  3. Dec. 12, 2006: Mary Blair Tile Murals
    By Werner Weiss in forum Yesterland
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-16-2006, 04:04 AM
  4. Did you like, or dislike, the Mary Blair murals at Disneyland? Why?
    By Disney Wrassler in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 10-19-2006, 06:41 PM
  5. Mary Blair Murals in TL still underneath?
    By Kevie in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-15-2005, 04:08 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
  •