Originally Posted By mrichmondj That makes since if the Tomorrowland of the 1960s was paid for by Disney. It wasn't. The 1960s Tomorrowland was courtesy of General Electric, Alweg, RCA, Monsanto, Martin Marrietta, and a host of other American industrial giants. The U.S. doesn't have those kinds of companies anymore that want to sell you a vision of the future -- along with one of their products. If they do sign up to sponsor something, they prefer it to be more of a blatant sales pitch -- ala Innoventions. Or they want to sell you yet another home entertainment system like an XBox. So, Disney presses on with their own attractions and finances the attractions themself with the sales pitch for a Pixar DVD along the way.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Buzz Lightyear in Tomorrowland is about as futuristic as Mr. Incredible.< I don't know why it's so hard to view Buzz as a SPACEman, even if he is a cartoon (or to be more specific, a 3D model). I completely agree that it's not as real-world futuristic as ATIS was, but it still fits the spirit of the Tomorrowland theme. Mr. Incredible, being a more or less current (or even retro?) character, does not fit.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Mr. Incredible, being a more or less current (or even retro?) character, does not fit.> Right. So why theme the Peoplemover to 'The Incredibles'?
Originally Posted By hopemax I'm wondering if it's possible to use the style of the pods from the Incredibles (to get past the building codes), but don't do an Incredibles tie in. Not that I think Disney would do that, but just because you use the shape doesn't mean you would have to do everything else?
Originally Posted By avromark So you want it to be a homage not an outright product from the Incredibles, hopemax?
Originally Posted By avromark I think that would add authenticity to it. I mean the phone booth Superman uses doesn't say Superman on it does it? It'll say Phone, or Bell, or Verizon, or something else on it.
Originally Posted By hopemax It could be a "hidden Incredible," you know, like a hidden Mickey. I think a lot of people are getting tired of the blatent tie-ins. But something "those in the know" could point to and say, "Hey!" might help with the fatigue. But I doubt that many people within Disney would acknowlege that there is fatigue.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "The U.S. doesn't have those kinds of companies anymore that want to sell you a vision of the future -- along with one of their products." In a land that still features 20th century gasoline operated automobiles as a major attraction I see little appeal and few opportunities for a major technology corporation to showcase their products and identity. Any given technology company is at least two steps ahead of what Tomorrowland is offering today. If Disney created ambitious, inspiring attractions for Tomorrowland that were worthy of sponsorship I believe it would be a lot simpler to find organizations willing to foot the bill.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj You misunderstand how the Tomorrowland of the 50s and 60s worked. Disney never created attractions for Tomorrowland without a product to pitch. It wasn't about creating some great attraction and then asking a sponsor to slap their name on it. The attraction itself was all about selling the goods for the corporate sponsor. I don't think Disneyland guests would go for that these days. The days of the Carousel of Progress being a massive show to sell washing machines and light bulbs for GE are over. Innoventions hasn't gone over that well. Guests would rather ride the movies via Star Tours. The closest thing to an inspired attraction that is de-coupled from any product pitch in Tomorrowland is Space Mountain. The subs prior to Nemo were also pretty much sales-pitch free. Aside from that, Disney has always relied on sponsors to tell them what they wanted the future to be rather than Disney creating any visions of the future on their own.
Originally Posted By hopemax Yes, it is a bit of a chicken and an egg. However, when I see 7-11 spend how much to purchase the start time of a baseball game, or how much companies spend to simply have their name on a stadium, I can't help but think that there should be a market for plastering your name over something that millions of people will walk by every year and having an actual product showcase. It makes me wonder what is going on with Disney. Do the companies think that Disney is no longer is a good partner (the Test Track and Mission: Space fiascos don't help), or is Disney's asking price too high, does Disney actually not want sponsers... Does anyone have an idea what the actual operational expenses are for an attraction? Univ of Phoenix is spending $154.5 million for the naming rights to the Cardinals stadium for 20 years, and that's the Cardinals, a team the locals don't even support. Would $70 million initial construction, $35 million for a major rehab, $15 million for a minor rehab, and $2 million a year for operating expenses over the same 20 year period (70 + 35 + 15 + 40 = $160 million) be feasible?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Sponsoring a Disney attraction used to mean you would have Walt Disney himself on national televions telling the whole country about his fantastic attraction that pitched your latest product. Disney still gets the eyeballs in the park, but companies pay the big bucks to get the mass audiences on television and infomercials for Disney park attractions are no longer a staple of prime time TV.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: You know, ducklings, I'm worried about this idea of a pod thingy replacing the People Mover. I mean, what gonna' happen when those little egg shells vehicles break down and you can't get out of them--especially on a hot day if you happen to be claustrophobic. Hasn't anybody thought about that yet? ORGOCH: Not ta worry--in yer case, anyway, blubber buns. Yer so big ya won't even be able ta FIT inside one a them rotten eggs. Least ways yer not gonna' git stuck. It's all them reg'lar sized folks that's gotta' be worried! (Sounds of slaps followed by shrieks and moans...)
Originally Posted By Futurist ^^^^ I just took a trip into the future Orgoch ... and PodMovers did a "101" ... she was trapped without a key to unlock her egg/pod .. and I decided to dangle a Krispy Kreme outside the window to see her go crazy till she passed out - which she did .. and had to be taken into First Aid ... where I then made a quick get-away while she was still out cold!
Originally Posted By oc_dean "A witch from The Black Cauldren is wheeled off to First Aid - film at 11"
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: That wasn't the least bit funny, ex-Futurist Sweetie--unless, of course, this is your way of finally saying you've decided to throw in that sweaty towel of yours and admit you should have married me a long, long time ago! ORGOCH: Sure like ta play with fire, don'tcha, Futurist? Cain't just let a sleepin' witch alone. Well, this time I cain't promise ta protect ya none, Whatever Orwen does ta ya this time, yer on yer own.
Originally Posted By Dlmusic I'm a little confused by this movie-tie in attractions only belongs in Fantasyland concept. When Disneyland opened Adventureland it was a tie-in to True Life Adventure films, and then they added Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse. Frontierland was centered around Davy Crockett. I also don't get the whole, "fantasy" only belongs in Fantasyland either. Enchanted Tiki Room is totally fantasy, have you ever seen singing birds or talking tikis? Tomorrowland has always had it's goofy concepts. Did anyone really think that the flying saucers were an accurate depiction of anything? Mickey and the Gang used to do meet and greets in space suits as well. And there's always the ever futuristic Tomorrowland Art Corner. I guess what I'm saying is that the lands have always been rather muddy, so it's a little silly to start complaining now. In the end, what do the concepts of Disneyland have to do with each other anyway? Names aside, you have "exotic location land", "old west land", "technology land" and "fairy tale land." The only thread connecting the concepts are that they are all interesting concepts to people.
Originally Posted By markedward <"I am already bored with the pirates around the park. I hate the idea that they want to expand them. Talk about beating a clever idea to death."> I remember after the first movie, having the idea of - for a few weeks or a couple of months - highlighting Pirates - a Captain Hook and his men vs. Peter Pan atmosphere show in Fantasyland, Treasure Planet characters in Tomorrowland, Mike Fink river pirates vs. Davy Crockett in Frontierland, Captain Jack and a couple of his men doing a little show on a balcony somewhere in NOS or Adventureland, maybe Muppet Treasure Island characters in the Hollywood area of DCA. What a quaint idea, in retrospect. Be careful what you wish for, eh?
Originally Posted By markedward <Does anyone have a vision of the future that doesn't involve another product created by a multi-national corporation being purchased to fill more space in a dump? Innoventions is exactly that vision. > I know this was many posts ago, and has nothing to do with Tom & Huck sharing their island with Captain Jack, but ... I'm starting to think America is ripe for a resurgence in optimism about the future. I'm imagining a new "Home of Tomorrow" with renewable bamboo floors, smart glass that adapts to different lighting and heating needs, kitchens designed to bring friends and family together, a hybrid Honda in the garage - and within walking distance of mass transit (aka the Monorail). This would be a place that harkens back to the commercial aspects of early Tomorrowland, but with low energy regriferators and water saving washing machines replacing the latest and loudest media toys we associate with Innoventions. Very lefty, some would say, and certainly NOT something that is going to be built in cartoon-crazy Disneyland of today.
