Looking for a past article about Tomorrowland

[DisneyPrincess4590]

I am writing a paper for a class called the "Disneyfication of America" about the problems associated with Tomorrowland. I am fairly sure that about a year ago Kevin wrote an article on Mice Age chronicling the problems with Tomorrowland in each Disney park. I have tried searching for this article but cannot seem to find it. I would appreciate if anyone could lead me to this article. Thank you!

[KevinYee]

Old stories get pulled off the server after a while.

It was 5/23/2007:

Futuristic Cartoon Land

I’m in the midst of preparing a larger argument about Disneyland and the Magic Kingdom and realized that some blithe commentary I’d written about Tomorrowland, there reduced to just a few sentences, wasn’t really doing justice to the problem (or, to put it more judiciously, to the mission drift) going on in Tomorrowland. So a wide-scale exploration of the Tomorrowland scenario seemed a better way to begin.

Let’s back up to the beginning. Walt originally wanted a park with five lands: Main Street USA, True-Life Adventureland, Fantasyland, Frontierland, and the World of Tomorrow (the names all changed to end with “land” later, at the suggestion of Herb Ryman). The World of Tomorrow was meant to be a straightforward, non-ironic, earnest and definitely hopeful vision of the future. The emphasis was to be placed on hope: things will always be getting better in the future (this made “progress” a natural fit for a theme in later years). This dream was infused with the post-WWII mentality of positivism, exuberance, and work for the future. The 1950s were characterized by a feeling of optimism and a can-do attitude, partly in response to the favorable outcome of the war a few years ago, and the “hope for the future” was refracted through the lens of the nuclear family in general, and the children (the next generation) in particular. Look no further than the family sitcoms of the 50s for evidence of child-rearing and hopeful optimism about the future.

Walt’s Tomorrowland, then, was meant to capture this zeitgeist. It was a mixture of what was possible but futuristic-seeming, such as flying model airplanes, and what seemed impossibly distant into the future, such as air-cushioned bumper cars or transportation networks on monorails or peoplemovers. But Walt’s dream was not present on opening day. Visitors in 1955 were treated to corporate exhibits on Dutch Boy paints, Kaiser aluminum, and the Bathroom of the Future. The Satellite View of America certainly seemed futuristic, but was Monsanto’s Hall of Chemistry?

As soon as he could, Walt moved away from the overt corporate presence (this is one of the reasons I feel that overt corporate presence in today’s parks is something Walt would prefer not to see, were he here today). The model airplanes, really a part of Hobbyland, bordered on such near-future (or even todayland) that Walt removed them quickly. The spinning ride was moved from a location on the ground, like Dumbo, up to the top of a gantry to be similar to the space program. The corporate exhibits melted away, and by the middle 1960s Walt had the Tomorrowland he wanted:

-a science-fantasy of shrinking down to the atomic level
-a futuristic (and unique) 360-degree film theater
-a spinner ride themed to space flight
-a monorail that was both thrilling and real transportation to the hotel
-a PeopleMover that gave a tour but showed how urban transportation problems could be addressed
-a theater show about traveling to the moon (later Mars)
-a show examining how progress in technology has changed life over the past 60 years

The over-arching theme seemed to be not one concept, but something split in two, which in truth actually went in opposite directions: one highlighted “real” futurism (PeopleMover, monorail, space flight) and the other highlighted “fantasy” futurism (Adventure thru Inner Space). Carousel of Progress belonged more to the realism side; it offered a realistic view of technology changes, not a fantasy view. As noted earlier, in some ways the Carousel of Progress provided a linchpin of the land’s theme: hope for the future, after all, depends on there being progress over time.

The introduction in 1977 of Space Mountain was in one respect nothing revolutionary: it was built in the same spot that the Flying Saucers once stood: both were future fantasy concepts that involved physical thrills. But Space Mountain’s popularity skewed the land’s theme away from “real futurism” and toward “fantasy futurism.” Before we jump to blame the post-Walt Imagineers for altering the purity of the vision, let’s remember that Space Mountain was a concept initially developed when Walt was around in the 60s, but the technology didn’t yet exist for his “Space Port,” as it was then called, to be built. In those pre-FedEx days, the ride might reasonably straddle “real futurism” and “fantasy futurism” – dare we call it “thrill futurism”? Of course, in the FedEx rehab of 1995, the ride skewed entirely toward aliens and silliness.

Speaking of the mid-90s, let’s turn our attention to Florida’s Magic Kingdom, where Tomorrowland since its opening in 1972 had been the same futuristic white color. Space Mountain opened here in 1975, and the theme is as inconsistent here as it was in California. TTA, Mission to Mars, and the spinner ride (also themed to Florida’s space flight culture) speak to “real futurism,” while the Tomorrowland Indy Speedway is an outdated version of real futurism (just as it was in California), and a couple non-future oriented attractions have a home here, too: Circle-Vision is here (just like in California) and a dark ride sponsored by airline companies celebrates the history of flight. Perhaps most poignant of all, the actual Carousel of Progress from Disneyland was moved here to create room for America Sings (another non-future oriented ride) and later Innoventions.

Sensing the staleness of the white Tomorrowland, cognizant of its inconsistent theme, and frustrated by the need to always update the future to something that is ever more futuristic, Imagineers cast about for an alternative vision. Foremost on their minds was to find a theme about “tomorrow” that didn’t require constant updating every few decades. One solution being developed at the time for Disneyland Paris was the Jules Verne treatment: a look at the future as it was conceived specifically from one highly-stylized point in the past. Since it was a historical view of futurism, it wouldn’t need updating. This vision played heavily in the late 90s update of Disneyland’s Tomorrowland, too, bringing the brown palettes of Disneyland Paris’s Discoveryland to Anaheim.

But in Orlando’s Magic Kingdom, a different direction was chosen. New to that park, and ultimately destined to be unique here, was Alien Encounter, a theater-based attraction that replaced Mission to Mars (and kept the same theater designs). This experience was meant to be a real departure for a Disney ride, as it was designed to actively scare children, something that works well over at Tower of Terror. The addition of Alien Encounter offered a chance to revitalize all of Tomorrowland into a new theme. What if, the Imagineers wondered, we could return to Walt’s idea of a Space Port but really play up this idea of aliens? WDI had moved in that direction already, in fact, back in Anaheim when Star Tours came at the start of 1987. The idea made some sense. The logical extension of the idea of a spaceport was to have it function as a transportation hub for many species, not just humans.

So the MK’s land was given a makeover. Out went the white color scheme, and in its place was burnished metals, grilles, and neon highlights of various colors. The striking effect had its fans. Certainly, at least, this was progress of some kind and better than the status quo of a white, stale, Tomorrowland with dualistic themes. The MK’s Tomorrowland unified behind the alien spaceport concept not just in color palette, but in decoration and murals, too. That became especially true when Stitch kicked out the unpopular Alien Encounter attraction, and design elements from Stitch took over large parts of Tomorrowland. There’s Stitch’s red rocket ship out in the plaza, looking to my eyes pretty similar to one in Little Einsteins. Stitch murals dot the stores in the land, and pay special attention to the Merchant of Venus. Here the interior walls are painted as though the walls were glass and you were looking out into the TL plaza, but what you see here are aliens walking around, not humans. Those whimsical aliens provide window displays in the tunnels of TTA as well.

The Timekeeper, a Circle-Vision movie from Disneyland Paris, certainly had futuristic themes but hewed more closely to the Jules Verne type of futurism. Still, our robotic hosts played well to the concept of a spaceport filled with aliens. Why not robots too?

While the refurbishment brought unity to the theme, it also solidified the land’s concept as one of “fantasy futurism.” Lost in the changeover to the alien-filled spaceport was any semblance of real futurism, which had still somehow been at the heart even of Walt’s Space Port / Space Mountain concept.

The most recent attractions, moreover, have shifted focus even further away from real futurism. In fact, they move along yet another new axis: one of cartoon whimsy specifically, and less specifically futurism. The arrival of Buzz Lightyear’s Space Ranger Spin meant less mission drift from an airline dark ride—as much as I loved it, If You Had Wings (aka Take Flight, aka, Dreamflight) moved in a different direction and did not contribute materially to the supposed theme of the land. But while Buzz brought more unity to the land, it happened to be a unity that revolved less around futurism than it did around cartoons. The whimsical alien cartoons—not just Stitch himself but the cohort of aliens in paintings and displays that he brought with him—joined with Buzz Lightyear to imply that Tomorrowland was now less about a possible future for humanity, and not even a “fantasy future” that will never happen but is fun to consider, and instead is about these Disney cartoon characters. There are science fiction elements to both characters, but “science fiction” isn’t exactly what the “fantasy futurism” had been previously (and certainly has nothing to do with the “real futurism” which had motivated Walt originally).

The very recent addition of Monsters Inc. Laugh Floor represents an even further digression toward cartoons (this one is barely science fiction—it’s just cartoons!) and away from futurism of any kind. Now there are three cartoon attractions in a row in Tomorrowland. Walking into the land, one could be forgiven for thinking it was Fantasyland. The neon and gleaming metal from the mid-90s refurb is still the operating design of the land, yet the large painted flats of the animated characters lend a completely different feel to the area. This isn’t futurism, real or fantasy. This is just escape into Disney movies now.

Even worse, these are specific kinds of cartoons. You’ve got Stitch, a petulant, Elvis-loving, mischief-creating monster with a heart of gold. You’ve got Buzz Lightyear, a hero so earnest that the movie (and ride) around him invoke a wink-wink irony about heroism. And now you’ve got Mike Wazowski and his monsters, who exist in this venue just to crack jokes. Put those samples together and you’ve got a range of aliens that is nothing at all like E.T.—maybe something more akin to ALF, perhaps, with his wisecracking ironic take on humanity. In other words, the aliens and cartoons of Tomorrowland now have an ironic or postmodern edge to them. I never thought I’d say this, but the aliens of Fox’s Futurama would be a pretty normal fit into today’s Magic Kingdom.

That’s a pretty far cry from the theme of hope, which started off Walt’s Tomorrowland. It’s no accident that the Carousel of Progress, right across the way from Buzz Lightyear, now seems highly anachronistic and outdated. You can’t put earnest hope and postmodern irony next to each other and expect the mixture to feel organic.

We got to this point pretty naturally. One thing simply led to another. The whimsical aliens concept probably dates back to the early 90s, when designers considered several themes for the Anaheim re-do (the Montana Future, for instance, would have installed heavy woods around pockets of technology). One leading concept was “Tomorrowland 2055,” with swirling purples, star designs, and brightly shining metal—a sample of this color palette was visible for years on the ceiling of Tomorrowland Terrace (for a while renamed as Club Buzz). In Tomorrowland 2055, the vacant carousel building was going to be replaced by a crashed spaceship. Inside, visitors would rotate through musical songs, much like America Sings, only this time sung by whimsical aliens. Plectu’s Fantastic Galactic Revue, it was to be called, may well be the creative ancestor to the Magic Kingdom’s current state of affairs.

The way forward and out of this thematic morass is less than clear. Removing the cartoon attractions completely is probably too difficult to justify, but perhaps adjusting the theme and tone of each to match might be one solution. Anything to restore futurism, and abolish the postmodern edge, would be an improvement.

Walt wanted a World of Tomorrow to focus on hope and progress. This has been lost, and any return to the centrality of this message would be most welcome.


Leave a Legacy Changes

Don’t get too excited: there’s no word yet on the hulking mausoleum-type slabs of granite at the entrance to Epcot. But papers filed with the relevant agencies have definitively stated the sales counter to Leave a Legacy (LAL) will be removed. And, better yet, the LAL display and defunct screens at the base of Spaceship Earth will be renovated into nothingness. I’m very excited by the latter point. This area was featured not long ago on this site as one of the Abandoned Areas of the parks—the recesses for computer monitors were simply empty and forlorn—and now, after many long years of enduring that stale, abandoned state, the area is going to look pristine and relevant again.

The LAL slabs themselves can’t be destroyed completely; when Disney sold the images to people, they promised the images would be around in some form or other until 2020. But there’s nothing stopping Disney from simply moving those slabs somewhere else. Perhaps they will drop them from a helicopter, one at a time, on top of Wonders of Life and thus kill two birds with one stone? In all seriousness, they do have another option in the contract: they could display the images in another format (including digital, I think) and thus don’t even have to keep the angular slabs at all. One can only hope. This area needs dramatic revitalizing. The stone monoliths literally bespeak of commemoration, which implies death. Not exactly the message one should strive for at the opening plaza of the “edutainment” park. (Well, OK, maybe it’s the “futurism” park. Or the “we’re all one big family” park. But the commemoration/death/memorial angle still doesn’t work).

On the horizon is also a new railing system out in front of the ticket booths, and a new way to handle security and bag checks. That project offers the chance to refresh the entire look of the Epcot entrance area, and I hope they seize it.


Book Review: Queens in the Kingdom

Jeffrey Epstein and Eddie Shapiro have put together a self-styled “ultimate gay and lesbian guide to the Disney theme parks,” and you know right when you see this book that it’s, well, “different.” The main cover image is a silhouette of Sleeping Beauty Castle, but with horizontal rainbow stripes. Cleverly, the book is even shaped differently from the usual; with this width one usually expects a taller book. The truncated height lends it a squattish air, but that’s not the point. The point is to highlight, well, “difference,” even in this small unconscious way. This is of course entirely in keeping with the theme of the gay and lesbian subculture.

This book, originally published in 2006, now has a second edition brand new for 2007. What’s in it? The back cover readily points out that you’ll find:
-guides to every attraction, restaurant, and hotel at the CA and FL parks
-info on the local gay nightlife (and a bit on nearby parks)
-details on Disney Cruise Line
-quick overview of international parks
-revealing interview with gay Imagineers
-over one hundred “Fairy Facts” exposing park secrets and trivia

After I read that list, I resolved first to find the interview with gay Imagineers. Flipping through the book, I couldn’t find it. Nor was it in the index. I did locate it, finally, buried within the introduction: a chat with Steven B. Davison (Creative Director for Disney parks) and Eric Jacobson (Senior VP for Creative Development at WDI). It’s a quick interview, with nothing earth-shattering in it, so my mind moved on to something else. What arose first in my consciousness was the mental observation I’d made while flipping through the book: the vast majority of the book seems to be dedicated to the parks – this is in keeping with bullet point number one, above, which claims it is an exhaustive guide.

Before I review this, let me allow Jeffrey and Eddie to do the talking. I’ll just flip to two random pages and re-type what I find there. I start on page 87 … and notice as I do so that the page numbers are all encased in a crown (or tiara?) diagram. Cute.

“it’s a small world”
Overall rating: ****
Attraction Debut: 1966

Yes, the song is incessant and annoying, and yes, it’s kind of weird to see Audio-Animatronics children of many nations dressed in adult clothing doing things like belly dancing. Still, this is required viewing, and we don’t just mean for NAMBLA members. This ride is simply a Disney classic. Although some of you disagree: “It’s an annoying world,” quips Michelle from Pontiac. “One stray cigarette and we’d be out of our misery forever,” agrees David from Boston. We still say you can’t make a trip to Disneyland without it. If you visit during the holidays, you can see the holiday version, which is beautiful, if a bit odd; the tykes all sing “Jingle Bells.” When was the last time you saw a sleigh in Egypt?

And then let me flip over to page 258, which is the description of Norway, before the authors discuss the attractions and dining in the pavilion:

Goddag! The walk-through portion of the Norwegian pavilion is one of the most diverse, featuring a Viking sailing ship, a replica of a Scandinavian castle, a 13th-century wooden stave church (containing Viking costumes), and a charming village. The shops specialize in warm, woolly, and wildly expensive sweaters (and kudos to anyone who can even imagine shopping for one in Florida heat). “Norway is great for anyone who’s into blonds,” observes Keith from Orlando. “Just walk around the shops and cruise the cast members.” Norway also qualifies as the only place you’ll actually find us shopping for trolls—there’s a whole store devoted to them.

As you can tell from these snippets, the operating metaphor and the overall tone of this book is one of fun and irreverence. The Canada description goes much further: “Hey, we try to like Canada, we really do. After all, they legalized gay marriage, and their strippers go the full Monty. But if there’s a pavilion in the bunch that doesn’t quite work, it’s Canada.”

And that star rating systems we saw in the review for Small World? It breaks down to this:

***** Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
**** You Can Fly! You Can Fly! You Can Fly!
*** Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah
** Give a Little Whistle
* Cruella De Vil

By now you’ve got the gist of the book’s entire premise: what do Disneyland and Disney World look like through the eyes of gays and lesbians? And more importantly for the straight readership, is there anything to be learned by considering the perspective of gays? The answer to the latter is a definite yes. First and foremost the work is a guidebook to the parks (and the local gay nightlife), and is meant to be helpful to first-timers, especially first time gay or lesbian visitors, and it steers them toward fun rides and restaurants that would appeal to the gay culture, and away from the ones that don’t. Sprinkled throughout, though, one is struck by the ways that different people see the same things through, well, different eyes. To my way of thinking, anything that helps me consider the parks through a new perspective is a good thing. Only by examining these cultural artifacts from all the facets of culture—including gay culture—do we come away with a more complete understanding.

Take those “fairy facts” which are found throughout the book. Some are straightforward trivia, but most have at least a “zinger” comment from the gay perspective. Take this example about WDW’s carousel: “look at the paint job that’s on the horse’s left (inside) side—you’ll see it’s much less detailed. All the glitzy stuff is reserved for the outside, which everyone can see, while the inside remains dull. Kinda like Paris Hilton.” But other fairy facts exploit humor to actually make an interesting point. Consider:

As you board [Norway’s Maelstrom], look carefully at the Vikings on the mural. One of them is accessorizing with mouse ears.

Ever wonder why Tinkerbell[e] waves her wand over the castle instead of Mickey? When Disneyland premiered on TV to announce and market the park, it was decided to keep Mickey out of the spotlight, just in case the whole thing was a bust. Typical. The fairy’s always expendable.

We hate to destroy illusions. No really, we do. But we think our dear readers deserve to know that, due to size requirements, almost every person under a Mickey costume is, in fact, female. So ladies, remember that the next time you see Mickey and Minnie holding hands or kissing, you know a secret.

See what I mean? Their zany commentary is fun, yes, but it also gives you pause and brings you to think about our larger society. In this fashion, Disney and the theme parks serve merely as a prism that refracts facets of our social and cultural existence, and renders some of the details more visible than they would have been without the prism. To me, that’s valuable cultural criticism, even if this book eschews such overt academic expurgations in favor of fun and frolicking.

Bottom line: if you find openly gay culture offensive, this book will not change your mind and you would be happier not exposing yourself to it. If you appreciate the kind of gay humor that has male authors referring to themselves as “queens,” you’ll probably situate the book somewhere between “interesting” and “uproarious.” I wish I could be more specific about what your likely reaction will be, but alas, everyone is… well … different.

http://www.amazon.com/Queens-Kingdom...9796415&sr=1-1



Book Signings: Queens in the Kingdom authors in Orlando

From their website:

Join Eddie and Jeffrey for their all new, hilarious reading "The Seven Gayest Attractions at the Disney Parks" when it comes to [Orlando]!
May 29: Orlando
Barnes & Noble, 7pm
2418 East Colonial Drive
407.894.6024
[Kevin’s note: I’m going to be here for this one myself!]
May 30: Orlando
UrbanThink!, 6:30pm
625 East Central Blvd.
407-650-8004
May 31: Walt Disney World
Virgin Megastore, 7pm
Downtown Disney
Orlando

[DisneyPrincess4590]

Thank you so much!