Originally Posted By Moon Waffle ^Futurism may not be dead, but the general public could care less about it. Hence the reason TL is no longer about futurism...the general public doesn't care about it and Disney isn't going to waste $ pandering toward a small niche group of people, most of whom could probably care less about a theme park. And to say they should do it to spark people's interest is also a wasted thought because you can't make people care about something...they have to want to care in the first place and then have that interested nurtured. That's all TL did in the 60's and 70's...nurtured the public interest that already existed. People don't have those interests anymore. You can call it the dumbing down of society if you like but it is what it is.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “Guys, you need to stop saying futurism is dead, because it is not dead. I don't know where you are coming from on this, because this is still something going on today. It's actually a rather large concern of people. As I said, magazines, conferences, discussions, and so on. “ Yes, and people still practice ancient religions, use landlines, and watch reruns of the Brady Bunch. Just because some people are still practice something or hold a belief doesn't mean that it's still relevant to the public at large. Jon, I think what I and others are trying to say is that futurism as a topic, devoted to 14 acres of land at a theme park, may not be a justifiable concept in 2008. In that regard it IS dead. Walt Disney, for all his genius, was really a man of his time, and his vision of tomorrow for DL was firmly rooted in mid century futurism. If the WDC were to be serious about the subject today, there would really have to be a bold and different approach to the subject to make it resonate with a modern audience.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<The lands in Disneyland are all snapshots of a point in time when there was collective optimism about the respective topic.>> The 50's/60's version of Frontierland and Adventureland were every bit as naive and wrong as Tomorrowland. Come to think of it, Disney has kind of mucked up those lands as well. Just not as badly as TL.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<The 50's/60's version of Frontierland and Adventureland were every bit as naive and wrong as Tomorrowland.>> For all the talk of Walt being a visionary, his theme park was very much a creation of the time. He may have been visionary about some of his techniques, but his view of America's past, present, and future was no more visionary than a Norman Rockwell cover on the Saturday Evening Post. Disneyland is best enjoyed as a "period piece", because it's relevance to today is drastically limited. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I think it is one of the park's greatest charms.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>To keep claiming something is dead when it is not dead at all is really kind of odd.<< That's what Abe Vigoda keeps telling people!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Disneyland is best enjoyed as a "period piece", because it's relevance to today is drastically limited.<< That's sad. If that's true, it doesn't speak very well of the whole "as long as there is creativity in the world" concept. I don't think Disneyland needs to be a kitschy, museum relic. The blueprint was never that things would remain the same. But it also wasn't the bluebrint that the park would take the easy way out. Walt Disney had plenty of cartoon characters with hich to populate the attractions. But he had bigger ideas. Why have the ideas gotten smaller? Why does the least challenging, most pedistrian way seem to win out?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I wonder how much they could have saved in terms of $$$ had they simply leveled much of Tomorrowland back in '98, and created a whole new area? Instead, they seem to keep trying to shoehorn things into existing, 40+ year old buildings that were part of a whole different design. After awhile, it's a little like when a restaurant chain goes under, and other restaurants move into these locations. They might paint it a little different, but it's still recognizable as a Copper Penny.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan If the WDC were to be serious about the subject today, there would really have to be a bold and different approach to the subject to make it resonate with a modern audience.<< Of course. I can't believe that any Imagineer worth his/her salt wouldn't love a blank slate to tackle that. But then again, rather it be Toontown in Space, I'd be happy if they just gave up the whole idea of Tomorrowland if they aren't going to really, really go for it. And then design some new land and populate it with rides that bolster that theme.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<That's sad. If that's true, it doesn't speak very well of the whole "as long as there is creativity in the world" concept.>> "Creativity in the world" shows in the other Disney parks. Epcot brought Disney parks into the 21st century. Hopefully Disney will keep it relevant and avoid turning it into IOA. Disneyland is a period piece because the fans demand it. Any time someone even hints at modifying a "classic" the uber-fans scream bloody murder. Tear one down COMPLETELY to provide room for a new attraction and there would be rioting in the streets.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss Not that I would want it, but as has been suggested on the boards a few times, a Star Wars land would be popular. They've already got Star Tours (and hopefully an update is more than just a rumor), Jedi Training Academy, and the SW weekends. At WDW it could go head-to-head with Uni's Harry Potter land.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Well, that's true, sadly. Add to it the non-stop marketing message for the past 15 years cenetered mostly around "memories" and nostalgia and that's what you get, i guess.
Originally Posted By karlg Posts #58 and #71 by RoadTrip are beyond ignorant. They really must not teach much in school these days other than ultra left wing poppycock. Certainly they are not doing a good job of teaching history. #54>>>That sentiment has been lost because after investing untold billions in the Space Program we've seen very little of practical application to the "real world". We've got Tang, and not a whole lot else. <<< Yeah, only a few trillion dollars of electronics, computers, and telecommunications industries can trace much of their roots to the space program. Not to mention other advances in medicine and science, weather forecasting and planning. And this does not count the “can do†attitude it imbued America with. Then there were little side benefits like opening up communication between the US and the USSR with some cooperative space programs. Would some of this happen anyway? Sure but at a much slower rate. How many people would have died without all these advances? Perhaps millions. What hurt America in the 60’s was the war in Vietnam and the horribly destructive “Great Society†program (or what should be called the “Lyndon Johnson plan to buy the Black voteâ€). These are the horribly destructive programs that hurt America in the 60’s through to today. #71 >>> There are plenty of things that could be done here on earth that would serve as an inspiration and contribute to national pride. I don't think we need to spend billions and billions of dollars to send a few folks into space. That kind of money could make a serious dent in the homeless problem in the United States. There are about 744,000 homeless people in the U.S. today. Since many of these are mothers with children, let’s figure there are 372,000 homeless 'units'. <<< All that money would just buy you more poor people living in horrible drug riddled subsidized housing as it has in the past. All the Kum Ba Yah singing won’t make the outcome any different. So you build all these houses, who is going to maintain them? Who is going to supervise the kids? Who is going to stop them from taking drugs? Who is going to keep the kids from having more kids and just compounding the whole situation. What they money would by you is crime and corruption on a grand scale. Pouring money on these problems doesn’t solve anything unless you get at the root problem which is personal responsibility. Ever hear the adage, “give a person corn and they will eat for a day, teach them to grow corn and they can feed themselves for a lifetime.†Or as my brother says, “you have to realize that government welfare programs are never designed to help the people that need help, there are designed to help the people that help the people that need help†(ie. the government officials and their supporters). You want kids to grow up in a better world? Then fill there heads with grand visions and role models that are not just athletes and movie stars. Teach them personal responsibility and how by going to school and learning they can achieve many of these visions instead of music lyrics and roll models that tell them to have sex, take drugs, kill people, and drop out of school --- and wait for some goodie two shoes to give you more of that government welfare “drug.†Another appropriate saying is that “you get what you pay for.†If you pay for poor people you will get more poor people. I would rather see the government put the money into paying for more smart people like the real “rocket scientist†that figured out how to go to the moon. The space problem >>>The Apollo program cost $150 - $175 Billion dollars. <<< And by any RATIONAL measure it was probably one of the best investments the government made since the Louisiana Purchase. And while on the subject of Louisiana, you know why Katrina was such as disaster? It was A) because so many people were living on a coastline below sea level, and B) because in spite of Louisiana getting more money than any other state for federal flood control, the money never seemed to make it to fix the levies through all the corruption, and C) in spited of the space program weather satellites and Doppler radar telling them that the storm was heading their way? The poverty pimp mayor and governor sat on their hands not knowing what to do other than wait for help from someone else, such as the incompetent people put in FEMA and homeland security by Bush. You might as well burn the money as give it to this bunch of incompetent government officials.
Originally Posted By jonvn "the general public could care less about it." The general public never cared that much about it. "Disney isn't going to waste $ pandering toward a small niche group of people," Yes, that's why Adventure Thru Inner Space was so popular, everyone was so very much into chemistry. "people still practice ancient religions, use landlines, and watch reruns of the Brady Bunch. Just because some people are still practice something or hold a belief doesn't mean that it's still relevant to the public at large." Honestly, these are ridiculous statements. This is a branch of the sciences, not some ancient religion. I pointed out several sources to look at on this stuff. I suggest you go read about it. To say this is dead is like saying physics is dead. "I think what I and others are trying to say is that futurism as a topic, devoted to 14 acres of land at a theme park, may not be a justifiable concept in 2008" Why don't you explain to me exactly what you think it is that's so dead.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Didn't know we had any NASA contractors on these boards. ;-) At any rate, much educated and detailed analysis of the U.S. Space Program has indicated that manned space flight is a very poor investment; that we get much more scientific "bang for the buck" with our un-manned forays into space. The Congress certainly has come to the same conclusion, shown by the meager allotments made to NASA over the past decade of so. The program hasn't even had much presidential support until Bush came along and proposed a $400 billion boondoggle to Mars. Of course we all know that George like spending big $$ on stupid plans. As for the housing comparison, that was more just to show how danged much money $150 billion really is. The best way of eliminating homelessness would not be by purchasing the homeless housing. It would be most helped by spending significantly more on training, subsidized day-care for the working poor, and more money spent on mental health. And $150 billion would provide a LOT of that.
Originally Posted By karlg While I can agree with many of Jonvn’s sentiments, I can’t see how they will solve the problem of Tomorrowland. At lot has changed, particularly in terms of the information and technology people have access to. A theme park attraction has to capsulate everything to something that a typical child and average person with no background can appreciate in 10 to 20 minutes. Before the days of VCRs/DVDs, 50+ cable channels, and a computer in most people’s home with internet access, there were very few channels to see new technologies, so Disney could show them the wow things that they never seen before or may only have read about. A person interested in the future can find out infinitely more sitting in their home they will ever see in a theme park. In the 1960’s and into the early 1970’s you could put a TV camera up and a monitor and people would be fascinated just to see themselves on TV. People going to theme parks want experiences that they can’t get sitting a home. You can’t just demonstrate technology and expect them to enjoy it. If they like looking at technology, they can watch the Discovery Channel or the like. Another issue is that lot of the futuristic things just down lend themselves to theme park attractions without being pretty hokey. A lot of what “works†in theme parks are transportation systems since you can put the people in a vehicle such as a monorail, People Mover, or space craft. From 1901 to1966 (Walt’s lifetime) we went from horses to jet airplanes but the jets people fly on today go about the same speed as they did in the 1950’s. From a 1955’s viewpoint, the technology of transportation would just keep going, but for all intents and purposes not much has changed other than pollution control, better gas mileage, and better reliability. I don’t think Inner Space type attractions would work today and probably why it was replaced in the 1980’s by what became an incredibly popular Star Tours attraction in its day. BTW, when is the last time they built a futuristic attraction whose whole story line could not be summed up with “and then everything goes horribly wrong?†It seems like the “future†is all about everything going wrong, which seems to be many peoples attitude toward technology. The next problem that even Walt faced is that Disney is more about artists than scientists and most science fiction is way more about fiction than science. What did they get right, certainly not the monorail, people mover, or daily trips to the moon? Tomorrowland in 1955 was supposed to represent the future of 1986, and here we are 20 years after that time and they are not here. The next problem is purely practical. How do you do a “Tomorrowland†that is not instantly dated? To make a really compelling attraction takes some big bucks (“no bucks, no Buck Rogers†--- from “The Right Stuffâ€). To justify the money, the attraction has to last a long time, say 20+ years at a minimum. Simulating space travel for example is expensive, dangerous, and nauseating (see Space at Epcot). So taking all the above into account, I think they were on the right track with the Discoveryland concept of a “Retro Future†or Fantasy Future. Put the fantasy element into the future (as Star Wars did) and you can have a timeless attraction that won’t look dated by the time it is finished being built. The problem with their past conversions of DL and WDW Discoverylands, is that they did them on the cheap and didn’t get past the copper and blue paint.
Originally Posted By PetesDraggin "Yes, that's why Adventure Thru Inner Space was so popular, everyone was so very much into chemistry." But where is ATIS now? It did not sustain it's popularity, just as many are claiming that cartoon-based attractions will lose their audience after a few years. What is the point of filling TL with rides that will ultimately lose their audience after a few years. TL could easily be rethemed to a huge space port and use Space as their overall theme. This would mesh with Star Tours 2.0 and any additional Star Wars attractions, while leaving it wide open to add rides like the proposed WALL*E ride and others. Maybe Disney can renew the public's interest in the space program.
Originally Posted By karlg #95>>> At any rate, much educated and detailed analysis of the U.S. Space Program has indicated that manned space flight is a very poor investment; that we get much more scientific "bang for the buck" with our un-manned forays into space.<<< The investment in man space flight after the Apollo program is dubious to say the least. The Space Shuttle was a boondoggle from the get go, but the Apollo program was clearly a bargain. >>>The Congress certainly has come to the same conclusion, shown by the meager allotments made to NASA over the past decade of so. <<< Congress is a pandering body of people that seem dedicated to being re-elected and giving pork to their supporters. Their approval rating goes lower than Bush’s. They are hardly a body that takes long term benefits to the American people into account. This has nothing to do with payback but rather pandering to the masses. >>> As for the housing comparison, that was more just to show how danged much money $150 billion really is. The best way of eliminating homelessness would not be by purchasing the homeless housing. It would be most helped by spending significantly more on training, subsidized day-care for the working poor, and more money spent on mental health. And $150 billion would provide a LOT of that. <<< No, it would just get you built a lot more public housing slums with the corrupt politicians and politically based education unions. If you don’t fix these first, then you are just pouring more good money after bad. Spending money will not change the plight of the poor, it is a matter of changing attitudes and personal responsibility. To many “feel good†programs are all about the helpers making themselves feel good and superior by “helping†the poor stay dependent on them. I’m with Bill Cosby in that you first have to teach personal responsibility and a love for education. You have to expect MORE from people and not less. Otherwise you are doing about as much good as giving money to a drug addict.
Originally Posted By aracuanbird I'll go back to my earlier point, though I will try to rephrase it: TL'67 had a palpable point of view. It took the position that tomorrow was going to be a great place. That the future held almost limitless possibility. This wasn't a unique position to take amid the heady days of the space race. I think it is fair to say that TL'67 embodied a lot of the public sentiment about the future. But there's no way I believe that Walt was taking the "give 'em what they want" approach. He believed in the future, in the great big beautiful tomorrow. That was his point of view, and it was Disneyland's point of view, too. What is Disneyland's point of view in Tommowland today? Nothing. Nothing at all. It is simply a hodge podge of intellectual properties that point in every random direction and a single E-Ticket attraction that is a remnant of old TL optimism. Disneyland has very little to say anymore. The Mouse has muzzled itself. I agree with all of Karl's assessment above, including the Discoveryland solution. When that section of EDL opened, it had something to say. If Disney had the energy to embrace past visionaries and had the WILL to bring that approach into the present and the real tomorrow, that might be something. AB When in Cyberspace visit <a href="http://www.plausible-impossible.com" target="_blank">http://www.plausible-impossibl e.com</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan What is the point of filling TL with rides that will ultimately lose their audience after a few years.<< Because that's the way it's suppossed to be, especially in "tomorrowland." It should be the most ever-changing of all the lands at Disneyland. It should be practically ALIVE with energy and ideas and wondering. It shouldn't be simply cartoons in space. That's an attempt to make the area "evergreen" and needing less changes over time. That's not "tomorrow" at all. In this thread there have been dozens of ideas about what they COULD do. But the reality is, it isn't going to happen. They've given up on the concept. So the answer to the thread title is, yeah, it's kind of doomed in terms of the original concept. It'll do fine as a space-based Fantasyland/Toontown, but as far as getting anywhere near the bold, dynamic vision Walt Disney and his innovators dreamed of back in the day? Not even close. And to some of us, it's sad they won't even try.
