Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Perhaps it'll sail along okay and it won't matter, but one of these days the coward approach is going to bite them (Oh, wait...it already did...it's called DCA lol)." Maybe it's because I doubt that I'll ever set foot in the place I'm struggling to care whether it fails or succeeds. And it's not because I think it's crap. Frankly I'm just not that interested in another Magic Kingdom park, especially one in China. This is mostly because the cynic in me thinks this is just another corporate initiative to tap into relatively untapped territory. Which is fine and dandy, I guess, but how many different versions of basically the same thing does the public need? After HKDL I just stopped caring about Disney parks outside of the US and France, and I'm quite content visiting DLR now and then, which is within an 6-8 hour drive of my house.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Maybe it's because I doubt that I'll ever set foot in the place I'm struggling to care whether it fails or succeeds. << That's sort of my feeling as well. It's interesting to see how it does from a business perspective and a general interest in all things Disney, but I don't feel any connection to it. I'm kind of surprised China never had some sort of Nara Dreamland knockoff version before now. And selfishly, because I'll never go there most likely, I'd be rather depressed if Shanghai got all kinds of unique one of a kind cutting edge attractions like TDS. Send in the clones!
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt The pulse of the general public about some aspects of this park seems completely opposite to much of criticisms coming from the fan community. I'm not shocked, but I am a little surprised. For example look at the comments below this Tomorrowland video on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dKsvqCEbrI It's all overwhelmingly positive with some commenters practically begging for the Tomorrowlands in the States to be remodeled to be like SDL's. Who knows what the final reception will be, but I guess the online fan community isn't necessarily a good barometer of what the general public's opinion is about this stuff.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dKsvqCEbrI">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...svqCEbrI</a> *sigh*
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>It's all overwhelmingly positive with some commenters practically begging for the Tomorrowlands in the States to be remodeled to be like SDL's.<<< Maybe that's because the Tomorrowlands in the US parks look terrible, at least the one in Florida. I haven't seen the one in Anaheim yet, but judging from the visual style I like the look of SDL'S Tomorrowland. It only needs more attractions. >>> I guess the online fan community isn't necessarily a good barometer of what the general public's opinion is about this stuff.<<< I think so too. While the parks are booming and people storming the Disney Parks, so they really must like what Disney is offering, the online fancommunity, at least you can get that impression, doesn't like anything Disney is doing with the parks. Disney made many mistakes and I don't like everything either, but I still enjoy going to Disney. I just don't understand the people who complain all day long about Disney and still go there. If they hate it so much, why aren't they just quitting? Or go to Universal instead, because according to many they are so much better than Disney now.
Originally Posted By irishfan I've been quite impressed with what I've seen so far. Just in terms of opening day attractions Shanghai beats Hong Kong Disneyland's opening day roster hands down. This to me looks like a full day park already, especially when you throw in the two theatre shows and the night time one too.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I guess I'm an oddball because I really like the design of Tomorrowland at WDW. I'm not at all thrilled with the current mix of attractions, but I like the style just fine. SDL's Tomorrowland looks cool now, but I wonder if it will age any better than the original DL Tomorrowland did.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt From what I can tell it looks generic and nondescript, dare I say timeless, enough to last a long time. It all depends on the details, which are hard to see in the video. What happens when the inevitable expansion happens is another factor. For now it certainly has a more inttiguing and distinguished design than HKDL's TL.
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>SDL's Tomorrowland looks cool now, but I wonder if it will age any better than the original DL Tomorrowland did.<<< I don't think so. All Tomorrowlands aged badly, one exception might be DLP's Discoveryland if they hadn't put Buzz Lightyear into the land. HKDL's Tomorrowland doesn't look that bad either, but it has a comic look.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I also like the look of WDW's TL94, and agree that the current attraction mix is the bad part. It's also bad that they really only did the front part of the land, and left the plaza in front of Space Mountain and the area along Cosmic Ray's basically untouched. Had the Buck Rogers theme been carried throughout, it would have been a lot better I agree that DLP's Discoveryland has aged better than most, but it's also becoming clear that it was designed in the late 80's/early 90's. It's not too obvious, but if you look at the detailing on the buildings and some of the paint colors (particularly all that teal) it starts to look a little old. Still, having the whole thing themed to the past really helped it age more gracefully than the rest; WDW and DL both had major TL redevelopments by this point in their lifecycle HKDL's still looks pretty good, but it's so cartoony that it never looked particularly futuristic. It's got a distinct look that sets it apart, but not one that really fits with most other Tomorrowlands. I'm glad that Shanghai will be returning to that style, even if it doesn't age well (I'm betting that roof will look silly 10 years from now)
Originally Posted By Mr X ***it's so cartoony that it never looked particularly futuristic*** That was my major beef with it. With only three lands at the time of my visit (perhaps things are different now) I honestly felt like there was little to no transition between Fantasyland and Tomorrowland, leaving only Adventureland offering a different vibe. Again, that was a long time ago, and perhaps it has changed. ANYWAY, just to clarify, when I say "looks like crap" I'm speaking more about the roster of attractions than anything else. Obviously the place looks modern and up-to-date and it's not the overall architecture I have a problem with (in fact, that's probably the biggest weakness of TDL, being such a patchwork quilt and all), but just the fact that it seems, again, like a cheap cop-out when I'd rather see them swing for the fences to justify the cost of my ticket. I'm a little shocked at so many people confidently saying they'll "never go there". I guess I just don't really get that. All the Disney parks are located in fantastic vacation destinations in their own right, and I don't really understand why so many people just automatically assume they'll never "have the chance". I don't have the chance to visit Paris right now, but I hardly think it's a given that I'll *never* get there. To each his own though, I suppose. Personally, I plan to see whole chunks of the world before I pass on (all the Disney locales included). I might not, but I definitely don't rule it out.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I have never once thought to myself, "I should take a vacation in Shanghai". The addition of a Disney resort makes it bit more appealing to me, but not really. Now Paris on the other hand. What's not to love?
Originally Posted By Mr X That's definitely true for me too. Even though I live a lot closer than you do, it's not one of those Asian cities that I thought "geez, I gotta go THERE!". I would put Beijing, Seoul, Hanoi, and several Japanese cities I have yet to see above Shanghai on my "to do" list, but the addition of a Disney park certainly adds to the appeal. As for the other cities though, I must say to you - if you think "what's not to love" about Paris, you will surely say the same about Tokyo and Hong Kong.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Dean, what's your opinion of the new SDL Tomorrowland preview video?<< Firstly .. thanks for asking me my opinion. For comic relief (;p) imagine for a moment in Mommie Dearest .. any moment where Joan had a look of disappointment in her face. Any part of the film. Pick any scene. That should set things up .. to give you and idea of what I think. ;-) Futurism is my thing. Everyone here on LP knows that about me. Over the years sifted through many amazing architectural dreams on paper, canvas, and online .. if only they could come true. Slowly they are. Zaha Hadid ..one of my favorites is SO creative. And Disney could borrow/be inspired from so many amazing architects today to create wonders! That's what Disney does. (OR USE TO!) Look at the artists who created the Tomorrowland city in the film "Tomorrowland". I'll start off with a positive note to say .. the video is of low resolution CGI .. so the textures on the buildings is not yet known. The smaller details will help to make a difference. But from my view of the video ... my biggest complaint is .. Where's the iconic "Weenie" structures .. that work to lure people into the land? The way Space Mountain works, and the Astro Orbitor rides in each respective 'magic kingdom' park. You all know what I'm talking about. Established for every Disney park ... from the DLRR station before you enter. That takes your focus right there! To the castle .. to the TWA Rocket to the Moon .. to TL67's Rocket Jets .. to the Matterhorn ... to other iconic elements that draw our attention in .. Where is that in this Tomorrowland? Doesn't exist. The area is more "flat" by nature .. than any other TL ever conceived before. The elevated walkpath to the building front for Buzz reminds me of driving up to any "arrival" terminal in LAX. Do I like the "fresh" change in approaching a different TL design? Yes. But not "flat" structures ... that have so little to no vertical design about them. So much futurism is centered on architectural elements that "reach for the stars". And I'm shocked exposed metal canopies are being used for a land that's suppose to be more "futuristic". Exposed metal canopies are so 1990s ... I'm actually sick of them. LA has a big convention center that uses them. So common, really, in so many newer buildings around the world. Mission:Space queue has an exposed metal canopy. Correct me if I'm wrong ... seems Innoventions in DL had a corner or two upstairs using exposed metal canopies. I don't frikin get it! I'm not an architect .. I know nothing about it .. yet, I can do better in my imagination than use a "roof" technique that was new in 1990 .. and so over used .. and actually .. I think metal canopies are UGLY! It's a 'bare bones' look ... that I've never liked. And it infuriates me .. this is the most "iconic weenie" element of the land! The land is way too small. We got a little village here. With a ramp that works it's way around .. like LAX's "U" shaped terminal entrances. Like I said ... I hope the textures of the construction materials give a different impression .. up close. So... If they want a "garden" like park .. where the buildings take "supporting actor" role .. they will succeed. And threw away a great opportunity to create some iconic architectural elements that would point in various directions into the sky. The best we get .. is this rounded canopy that is very dated, from 25 years ago. I wish they did something new and different. If this is what WDI is capable of .. then leave Disneyland's 1967 infrastructure alone ... which will probably never be improved upon. In some ways .. it's taken on "classic" status to me. Some future designs from the past ... are better than some designs that have come along. I didn't really care much for the Universal Studios Spain "Star Trek" land concept art. I thought .. that's the best they can do? The Theme Park industry thinks too "small". At least in the real world (outside of theme parks - Disney, Universal, whatever) ... BIG things are happening. One project at a time.
Originally Posted By oc_dean My other complaint .. is a lack of kinetics. Very instrumental in a land about the "future". DL in Anaheim had it so great at one time. The Monorail, Peoplemover, Skyway, Autopia, Subs, Rocket Jets, watching CoP make a turn every 4 minutes. The land was FULL of movement. At least WDW's TL maintains the same amount of kinetics it's had all along. TDL, DLP, HKDL, and now SDL ... are such crap ... that "the future" is static buildings .. where the only 'kinetics' is people walking. That is reminiscent of any SHOPPING CENTER in this world. When we dish out a 100 dollars (or more) at the ticket booths ... isn't the idea to visit a world only a theme park can create? Shopping Malls that are designed to look like a "future'tech" environment is lazy creativity! And if we want a shopping mall vibe .. we don't have to pay 100 dollars to walk around them.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***DL in Anaheim had it so great at one time*** There's an amazing video out there somewhere. That's part of why I love DisneySea's Discovery Island, there's a lot of that same vibe in that space (but still not even close to DL back in the day!).
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>I honestly felt like there was little to no transition between Fantasyland and Tomorrowland, leaving only Adventureland offering a different vibe.<< I agree. But even Adventureland seemed more cartoony than the other versions of it worldwide, with its multicolored bamboo lanterns, cartoon tree focal point, and oversized thatched hut theater. It did have some authentic-looking details (statues and such), but overall it seemed to be in a similar vein as TL's concept And I agree that Port Discovery has some great kinetics (especially when the giant mobile is moving with the breeze and the Electric Railway is passing by), but everything there seems so compartmentalized. What made the movement of the TL67 (and TL59) stuff so exciting was all of the movement that overlapped and interacted with everything else around it. I sort of wonder if we'll ever see anything like that again in any park (not just Disney)
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "As for the other cities though, I must say to you - if you think "what's not to love" about Paris, you will surely say the same about Tokyo and Hong Kong. " I've been to all three. There's something about Paris though. I just adore that city and the people.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Futurism is my thing. Everyone here on LP knows that about me. Over the years sifted through many amazing architectural dreams on paper, canvas, and online .. if only they could come true. Slowly they are. Zaha Hadid ..one of my favorites is SO creative. And Disney could borrow/be inspired from so many amazing architects today to create wonders! That's what Disney does. (OR USE TO!) Look at the artists who created the Tomorrowland city in the film "Tomorrowland".>> Although if you get too far "out there" you always risk public backlash. There is an article at nbcnews.com today talking about Hadid's design for Japan's 2020 Olympic Stadium being scrapped because of public dissatisfaction and projected cost over-runs. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/japan-scraps-2-billion-2020-olympics-stadium-just-5-years-n393646">http://www.nbcnews.com/news/wo...-n393646</a>
