Originally Posted By RoadTrip All the negative comments about DL turning into "Pixar Land" amaze me. All of the Fantasyland dark rides are based on old Disney cartoons. Old Disney cartoons are OK but new ones aren't?? Somehow I'm not following something here.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA RoadTrip, Disneyland's Fantasyland was built with the intent of having the Disney characters 'live' there. Peter Pan, Alice, Snow White, Dumbo, Storybook Canal Boats et al -- they're all in Fantasyland, where the Disney animated stories come to life. In Tomorrowland, at least as originally outlined by Walt Disney, was designed to be a showcase for dreaming about the future. Think of Disneyland's Tomorrowland of the late 60s early 70s -- PeopleMover, Rocket to the Moon, Adventure Thru InnerSpace, Rocket Jets, Carousel of Progress, Submarine Voyage -- all futuristic, none of them with any tie-in to Disney characters. The question posed here - and I suppose 98% of the guests who attend Disneyland don't give a rip -- but what does Nemo, Buzz Lightyear, Stitch and Mike & Sully [at WDWs Tomorrowland] have to do with the World of Tomorrow? Answer: Not much. But they're Disney characters and that seems to 'sell.' I always felt that Disneyland worked better when the cartoony fantasy [Fantasyland], lived along side of the the psuedo-realistic areas like Adventureland, New Orleans Square, Frontierland, and Critter Country. Again, maybe most people don't care, but that's where I think the 'complaint' comes from.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Again, maybe most people don't care, but that's where I think the 'complaint' comes from.<< I think a lot of this comes from a heavy reliance on surveys. You ask people what they want in an attraction, and most people will offer a variation of something that already exists at best. I've said it before, but no guest would have ever asked for Pirates of the Carribbean. Or perhaps even Tower of Terror (the original). >>I always felt that Disneyland worked better when the cartoony fantasy [Fantasyland], lived along side of the the psuedo-realistic areas like Adventureland, New Orleans Square, Frontierland, and Critter Country.<< I agree 100%.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Thanks Jim... I get where you are coming from now. But I think Disney abandoned the concept of dreaming about tomorrow when it remade the Tomorrowlands with a Buck Rodgers / Jules Verne look. To borrow a statement made about the MGM Studios, Disney is now presenting a tomorrow that never was and always will be. Disney discovered that when you try to predict tomorrow you are either going to be quickly out of date or completely wrong. Back in the 50's/60's people were envisioning automobiles shooting around our space-age cities in Plexiglas tubes. Both our cities and our homes would be radically different both in design and construction materials from what existed then. How much of it came true? Pretty much none of it. Instead the great technological advance of the last 50 years has been the personal computer, the internet, etc. All things never envisioned in Disney's original Tomorrowland. In other areas we really haven't advanced much. Automobiles, aircraft, housing and cities are all pretty much the same today as they were when Disneyland opened. The cars and aircraft are safer and much more efficient, but in most ways are pretty much the same. The houses of today tend to be significantly larger but still utilize pretty much the same construction methods and materials as the 50's. What would you present in a Tomorrowland dreaming about the future? Innoventions at Epcot does a pretty good job of presenting things that exist today that are likely to gain more widespread use in the future. But the rest of Epcot’s “Future World†has really backed away from the future for the same reasons that Tomorrowland has. I just don't know that anyone today has a vision of the future that you could build a land around at Disneyland.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<So then RT isn't really old?>> Well, I'm 54 which isn't all that old; but a good 90% of what I posted contained no exaggeration whatsoever. For better or worse, that is pretty much how it is. I was just trying to shake the image that some hold around here of RoadTrip being the Energizer Bunny…
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ Oops... how on earth did that get on this thread?? Must have hit one too many back arrows!! Sorry, I'll ask Admin to remove!
Originally Posted By danyoung >...but what does Nemo, Buzz Lightyear, Stitch and Mike & Sully [at WDWs Tomorrowland] have to do with the World of Tomorrow?< Buzz is a spaceman - totally Tomorrowland. Stitch is an alien - totally Tomorrowland. Nemo, and Mike & Sully - not so much.
Originally Posted By dresswhites ^^^i agree buzz fits in because he a space man. Nemo isn't in the future, but exploring the sea is still rather futuristic, because most people still don't travel in a submarine looking at sea life. yes it will be cartoon sealife, but who knows maybe it will get people interested in one of the last frontiers on earth. maybe it will make people more interested in preserving the oceans. now monsters at wdw, defintaely doesn't seem to fit. i will definately agree with that.
Originally Posted By avromark <<In Tomorrowland, at least as originally outlined by Walt Disney, was designed to be a showcase for dreaming about the future.>> I dream of a future without bumper to bumper traffic on the highway. They got the bumper to bumper part right (at least at the load/unload). They even got the road rage right. (At least with the bumping, when I was young I don't think I ever rode it without bumping the car ahead of me).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <now monsters at wdw, defintaely doesn't seem to fit. i will definately agree with that.> In the future, genetic engineering will make everyone monsters.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "What would you present in a Tomorrowland dreaming about the future?" I totally agree with your assessment of futurism in relation to today's perception of what would be entertaining for today's audiences. Even the terrific '67 version was practically out of date within several years of its debut. With that said, I do think that Disney should put forth more effort to create a new, ambitious futuristic vision that didn't include established (movie) characters and themes. Why not bring in outside consultants to create a timeless look and feel that evoked hope and promise for the future? The art of conceptualizing seems to be all but gone from the folks at WDI. The proof is in the very short-lived Tomorrowland '98 disaster. Another option would be to re-theme and rename the land to bring the current roster into some sort of unified whole with objective of creating a cohesive "story". Maybe it could take a turn and become a Sci-Fi themed area... as it is right now the whole area is kind of a thematic hodge-podge with very little reference to tomorrow.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Buzz is a spaceman - totally Tomorrowland." And all this time I thought Buzz was a toy.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Who cares if the '67 Tomorrowland didn't predict with perfect accuracy what the future would bring? It presented a vision, took a shot at wondering what the future 'might' be like. Good for them having the courage and chutzpah to ponder the possibilities like they did in 1967. It was an awesome place to see back then, magical in a different way than any other part of the park. This isn't done anymore. We tend these days to be very stuck in the here & now. I'd love for someone to do a little imagining at WDI at what the future 'might' be like. Instead of 10 or 20 years in the future, maybe project further down the road. Yes, it's unlikely to ever come true. But the point of the thing is to help inspire people to imagine, dream and wonder. Some little kid getting excited about the possibility, maybe he or she develops a love of science or engineering or futurism and grows up to expand on the seeds planted by a Tomorrowland that takes some guesses at the possibilities. Maybe that's passe, or maybe only Walt Disney would be able to 'sell' that idea to the folks necessary to make it happen. Maybe most guests wouldn't care about any of that stuff, and are quite happy with nothing but characters everywhere. To me, though, it runs very much counter to what Walt Disney had in mind for Disneyland, and Tomorrowland in particular.
Originally Posted By danyoung >And all this time I thought Buzz was a toy.< Hey, if you're looking for realism don't ride Pinnochio, cuz no way could a wooden puppet become a real boy. Forget Mr. Toad, cuz frogs can't drive. And by all means never go on Pooh, cuz silly ol' bears can't talk! Within Toy Story's mythology, Buzz is a spaceman, battling an evil emperor. Going with the story within a story is a step away from the norm, but it still completely works for me.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt ^^In that same regard one could argue that the premise behind Adventure Thru Inner Space (which ironically uses a similar ride system as Buzz) was far from being realistic too. Yet, that particular attraction dared to present a subject and experience that is both unusual and unexpected at a theme park. As Kartoonman said, it took incredible vision and ambition to create the kinds of things that Tomorrowland once aspired to. Buzz Lightyear is fine attraction, but it represents a different mindset within the company that indicative of how little regard is given to the integrity of the parks carefully crafted thematic lands. Sadly, the company seems more interested in synergy than risk taking.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Hey, if you're looking for realism don't ride Pinnochio, cuz no way could a wooden puppet become a real boy. Forget Mr. Toad, cuz frogs can't drive. And by all means never go on Pooh, cuz silly ol' bears can't talk!> Totally different discussion. The characters you describe are all part of the Disney animated character world, and work perfectly in Fantasyland. Buzz Lightyear in Tomorrowland is about as futuristic as Mr. Incredible.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I think the shift in Tomorrowland themes has a lot to do with the shift in the consumer climate in the U.S. In the 1960s, Walt Disney was able to sign up big corporate names who were getting high premiums for "futuristic" appliances like washing machines, electric powered transit systems, and "space-age" materials like nylon (Miracles from Molecules). Today, those things are all commodities, and the high margin items being sold are DVDs and other entertainment media. The future today looks more and more like something out of Fahrenheit 21 with the living-room sized televisions broadcasting fantasyland 24 hours a day. Things like human space flight, the automation of the household, and those miraculous molecules just don't hold the interest of the American consumer anymore. To put is short, Buzz and Stitch sell. Rocket engines and nylon don't.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <To put is short, Buzz and Stitch sell. Rocket engines and nylon don't.> Cheap way out, mrichmondj. Something 'sells' so they go with that idea? The problem with Disney right now, is that's all they do. They have no vision. No risk taking. Throwing Disney characters like Buzz Lightyear and Stitch into Tomorrowland is simply easy. It requires very little thought or creativity. Buzz is a spaceman. Stitch is an alien. Yeah, that's it, Tomorrowland.... And the Imagineers sound like a bunch of whining 11 year old boys 'It's too hard to predict the future!' -- 'Wull, YOU try making something futuristic!' -- 'Mr. Incredible is like a super hero who can fly and that's like tomorrowland...' If Disney is that devoid of new ideas, and they are so unable to create something that speaks to even the spirit of the future, I think they should just change the names of all the 'Tomorrowland' lands in all the parks and just be done with it. You know, make it easy. Make it sell.
