Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt 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. ;-)" LOL!! Thanks for sharing your thoughts Dean. We don't always agree, but I respect your passion. "The Theme Park industry thinks too "small"." I actually think that trying to tackle "the future" in a way that is tangible and believable with a bit of fantasy thrown in IS pretty big thinking, and perhaps too big of a concept for a global multimedia company to execute properly in one small segment of a theme park. SDL's TL is short on attractions, but I think the aesthetic is a step in the right direction. Imagine the same setup with the addition of an elevated transportation (Rocket Rods? People over? Automated electric automobiles?) system, maybe some kind of high tech train, and a few more elegantly designed buildings housing ships and restaurants. It would be pretty cool.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "TDL, DLP, HKDL, and now SDL ... are such crap ... that "the future" is static buildings .. where the only 'kinetics' is people walking." Have you seen Discoveryland at DLP in person? Design-wise it's the best TL there is, IMO, except that it isn't really TL.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Trippy ... as you saw for yourself, the decision was more economics, than public reaction .. that got that stadium cancelled. I liked the design myself. More than anything ... I want to see our boring world get away from "box" format buildings. When a building can have form, as that stadium design had ... it was a breath of fresh air. Hans ... No .. I haven't been to DLP. I hope some day I do get to see it. Only Disney resort I've been to other than DL is WDW. And if I ever do get the chance ... I'm actually concerned how a guy (like me) who struggles with foreign languages can have a holiday .. in China, Japan, or France. Design wise ... I wasn't knocking DLP's Discoveryland for that point. It was kinetics. It seems the 1970s was the end for any future Tomorrowland to contain an attraction or 2 ... that involves zipping people around .. within the land. That the Peoplemover did so well for both DL and WDW. By eliminating ANY kind of overhead ride (TDL was the start) ... it makes the land look very lackluster, and the area as conventional .. as a ordinary shopping mall. Mid 20th Century planning is still with us. When it comes to designing new Tomorrowlands for new 'magic kingdom' parks. SDL's is so modest. There's so little there. I will say this ... rather than do the typical 'Proscenium' format for the entrance (DL, WDW, TDL) ... I like how they at least attempted a different building layout/entrance. The open plaza layout is something different. And as you said .. if they can add new rides with some vertical structure to them ... add some sort of ride that circles the land .. then we have a land that looks like a winner. This? As I said .. too 'flat'. Buzz's building takes the cake. No different than a "1 story Strip Mall" format. Now .. if they did something like this for Buzz - <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://bedruum.com/futuristic-building-designs-the-future-buildings/futuristic-building-designs/">http://bedruum.com/futuristic-...designs/</a> ... of course ..on a smaller scale ... Then that gives Tomorrowland some form .. rather than this "flat" 1-story looking complex.
Originally Posted By oc_dean So, Hans, .... after reading through your comments here .. do you have any other opinions or observations. As you said - we don't necessarily don't agree with each other on some things. Anything I said you don't agree with? Not to butt heads ... but just for the sake of conversation.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Well I'm not Hans and probably not as well versed in architecture as he is. But I agree with your comments about vertical structure missing at SDL. The one problem I have with 'futurist' architects is that they tend to become "one trick ponies". Everything they design tends to look the same and starts to become trite after awhile. At first I really liked Frank Gehry's designs... but after a handful of museums and an orchestra hall all looked pretty much the same I became bored with it. I guess whatever the future holds, I don't want it all to look the same. And that becomes my problem... how do you design a cohesive land for a Disney Park that embraces a variety of related styles. I don't know that you can. Epcot's Future World did a pretty good job of it... probably the best that I have seen.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Well I'm not Hans<< LOL I wonder what other thoughts you have on SDL's Tomorrowland Trippy. Anything you want to add?
Originally Posted By leemac <<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)>> HKDL's TL had a very difficult birth. Tom Morris was the original exec producer and when he was forced to hand it over to Tim Delaney a lot of the infrastructure placement had already been agreed. Particularly Space Mountain and the weird visible skirt to the attraction. Tim pleaded with Pressler and the rest of management to release funds to redesign the land but there was nothing left. So he did the best he could. I'm inherently bias but I love the comic book Buck Rodgers look to the land. I think it will stand the test of time. You just can't do the future in theme parks any more - it just doesn't age well. In Hong Kong you have so many incredible buildings like Norman Foster's HSBC HQ, I.M. Pei's Bank of China building and Pelli's IFC. The city has been the future for architecture for longer than any other. Ideally the land would not have been radial in design but that was already locked and loaded. Orbitron couldn't be raised on to a platform but it is still my favorite - particularly at night. The playfulness of the rocket out front of the Starliner Diner and the robots of the UFO Zone are fun - exactly what a theme park should offer. The only one I don't particularly like is the Comet Cafe but it was a very late addition with virtually no budget.
Originally Posted By leemac <<"The Theme Park industry thinks too "small"." >> Dean - you expect way too much from a theme park. This isn't a large scale Expo project with a focus on education. It is an amusement park where folks want to go and ride attractions and see shows. Disneyland was never in the business of predicting the future - sure there were a lot of elements like that in the first TL but that was simply a function of budget. SDL has been a disaster to work on from start to finish. When an ego like Bob Weis decides that the classic hub and spoke model is "outdated" and "outmoded" you know you are in for trouble which is why the park has such an odd shape and design. Bob's only ever masterplanning experience came with the original D/MGM Studio Tour and over 25 years later they still can't fix that mess. The MK model has been successful for a number of reasons but primarily that it is the most optimal for guestflow and that by pushing expansion pads and specifically E-tickets to the boundaries of the park you can manage the show buildings better. Weis doesn't believe that is true. TL's designer is Scott Drake. A decent designer but he has absolutely no experience with story and therefore determining what design is required for the situation. TL looks like every new airport to open in Asia and elsewhere for the past 15 years. Those long flowing roofs can easily be seen in HKG or MAD or LHR. There is no story to this TL - it is just architecture for architecture's sake. Sure it looks pretty but it doesn't put you in a time and place and that is what sets Disney theme parks apart. It isn't just a lot of design aesthetics slammed together - it is telling cohesive stories on a macro- and micro-level. And ramming Disney Town right up against the back of the park is a terrible masterplanning solution. It is so disappointing to commit so much time and effort to a project to see this as the outcome.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Design wise ... I wasn't knocking DLP's Discoveryland for that point. It was kinetics. It seems the 1970s was the end for any future Tomorrowland to contain an attraction or 2 ... that involves zipping people around .. within the land. That the Peoplemover did so well for both DL and WDW. By eliminating ANY kind of overhead ride (TDL was the start) ... it makes the land look very lackluster, and the area as conventional .. as a ordinary shopping mall. >> I think everyone likes visual cues in Disney theme parks and kinetic sculptures definitely draw the eye better than anything static. The problem is that when you have a large site it isn't always possible to join up the structures with transportation. DLP's TL is theatrical - it starts with the entrance and your eyes are immediately draw to Orbitron and the cannon on Space Mountain. That is probably the most stunning view in any Disney theme park, period. There are a host of other transportation cues from the Hyperion balloon to the Autopia to the Nautilus to the X-wing fighter outside Star Tours. Could there have been a Peoplemover? No. You would end up with a lot of ugly concrete supports to link up the buildings - and I prefer each building to have its own architectural design at you get at DLP's TL rather than the blocky design of the MK model.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Weis doesn't believe that is true*** Has he voiced any plausible, alternative explanation for why his way might be better? Besides everything that Lee mentions, there's also that old Walt Disney adage: "What you need is a weenie, which says to people 'come this way.' People won't go down a long corridor unless there's something promising at the end. You have to have something the beckons them to 'walk this way.'" Seems that Weis' viewpoint differs on that idea?
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>Tom Morris was the original exec producer and when he was forced to hand it over to Tim Delaney a lot of the infrastructure placement had already been agreed. Particularly Space Mountain and the weird visible skirt to the attraction. Tim pleaded with Pressler and the rest of management to release funds to redesign the land but there was nothing left. So he did the best he could.<<< May I ask why Delaney had to take over? In the Season Pass Podcast he doesn't give an answer on that. Wasn't this Tim Delaney's last project for WDI? Does anyone know what Tim is doing today, unfortunately he had to leave WDI. Is Tom Morris still with WDI?
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>SDL has been a disaster to work on from start to finish. When an ego like Bob Weis decides that the classic hub and spoke model is "outdated" and "outmoded" you know you are in for trouble which is why the park has such an odd shape and design. Bob's only ever masterplanning experience came with the original D/MGM Studio Tour and over 25 years later they still can't fix that mess. The MK model has been successful for a number of reasons but primarily that it is the most optimal for guestflow and that by pushing expansion pads and specifically E-tickets to the boundaries of the park you can manage the show buildings better. Weis doesn't believe that is true.<<< This doesn't sound good. Hopefully SDL will not be a failure. Since Disney is collaborating with the Chinese Government, I wonder how much Disney can decide on their own? In addition Shendi owns the majority and so is there a possibility that Disney might get kicked out of the project along the way. I mean doing business in China isn't that easy. I Know that from a friend who worked for a German company that did a joint venture over there and suddenly they were out of the project and their products appeared all over the country.
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>I think everyone likes visual cues in Disney theme parks and kinetic sculptures definitely draw the eye better than anything static. The problem is that when you have a large site it isn't always possible to join up the structures with transportation. DLP's TL is theatrical - it starts with the entrance and your eyes are immediately draw to Orbitron and the cannon on Space Mountain. That is probably the most stunning view in any Disney theme park, period. There are a host of other transportation cues from the Hyperion balloon to the Autopia to the Nautilus to the X-wing fighter outside Star Tours.<<< DLP's Discoveryland looks just fantastic. Tim Delaney, like all Imagineers who worked at DLP, did an amazing job. Not only is SM one of the best Disney coasters, the whole land is so beautiful. I just wish that they hadn't put Buzz Lightyear into the land. They should have kept at least the colour scheme of the rest of the land. The silver, grey and the other colours of the building are so out of place.
Originally Posted By leemac <<May I ask why Delaney had to take over? In the Season Pass Podcast he doesn't give an answer on that. Wasn't this Tim Delaney's last project for WDI? Does anyone know what Tim is doing today, unfortunately he had to leave WDI.>> Podcasts aren't my thing so I don't know what he said. Probably not my place to explain why. Tom had overall creative control for the park and sometimes it is a tough job to also EP a land. Tim is very busy - I talk to him most weeks. Tim's last executed project was HKDL but he had a number of smaller projects (like the queue at Soarin') after HKDL. He was primarily focused on the resorts side of the business at that time but sadly none of those projects like DC or NH got built.
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>Podcasts aren't my thing so I don't know what he said.<<< He didn't say anything, just that he had to take over. >>>Tim is very busy - I talk to him most weeks.<<< That's good to know, but I guess he is not busy with Disney. Is he still working in the themepark industry or did he change fields like Eddie Sotto.
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>Sure is.<<< Thanks for all the answers, Lee! I could have checked myself, apparently he was involved with Cars Land.
Originally Posted By leemac <<That's good to know, but I guess he is not busy with Disney. Is he still working in the themepark industry or did he change fields like Eddie Sotto.>> He sure is.
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>He sure is. <<< Does Tim have his own design studio? Is there anything out there I might know he designed for a themepark?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>The only one I don't particularly like is the Comet Cafe but it was a very late addition with virtually no budget.<< That's interesting, since that's the building that I immediately think of when I picture HKDL's TL. I think it's because it's a distinctive building (although it has some unique details, Space Mountain looks basically like the other versions) and is right on the main plaza. The other buildings are pushed back farther, and just aren't as visually interesting. There are some things that I would change on the Cosmic Café structure (finishing the underside of the roof better and doing something about the massive gutters/downspouts), but overall I think it fits very well That bland Buzz Lightyear building, on the other hand...
