Originally Posted By RoadTrip Disneyland's Tomorrowland is a MESS. It is the one section of the park where I greatly prefer WDW. No People Mover, no Carousel of Progress, and Captain EO (and the former HISTA) are at least as out of place as Stitch and Laugh Floor. And IMHO, WDW's Tomorrowland is prettier at night.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Yeah, the only thing DL's has going for it are Space Mountain and Star Tours. I guess you could throw the Subs in for their uniqueness, but I'm not really a fan.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>I'm willing to bet that in 20 years Cars Land will have held up a lot better than any of the Tomorrowlands have.<< Perhaps, but at least Tomorrowland can (in theory) evolve into whatever 'the future' is in 20 years. In 20 years from now, the Cars franchise will still be the Cars franchise; I really can't see them doing anything that's a huge departure from the films and shorts they've already done. Yes, TL has its issues (as do most of the themed lands), but it also has room for flexibility. The fact that it can have such a wide variety of attractions just shows how much leeway that have. I really don't see Cars Land ever having that much variety. And when you have a park of areas like that, it leads to a feeling of monotony throughout your visit. Early DCA visitors complained about the number of film-based attractions; it seems that these days we're getting bogged down with character-based ones. I guess everybody has their preference, but the current direction really isn't what I'd prefer.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Perhaps, but at least Tomorrowland can (in theory) evolve into whatever 'the future' is in 20 years." I think that's a bit of wishful thinking. We both know enough about Disney parks to know that there's never been a Tomorrowland that wasn't dated the day it opened or that accurately predicted things to come. Funneling resources to maintain Walt's original vision sounds exciting to me, but it's futile and clearly Disney has no stomach for it. Better to invest in a strong franchise like Cars and milk it as long as possible, which I'm sure will be a lot longer than the 5 years of mileage they get with each incarnation of Tomorrowland.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>I have to agree with that, things like a space station at L5, a space city with thousands of people living on it should have happened by now. << Rome was not built in a day. The future requires patience .. and a strong economy. Aside those from those two points - We have not even figured out how to achieve artificial gravity .. let alone ... dealing with radiation levels in outerspace. That's like expecting the latest Cadillac in Leonardo da Vinci's time. So may things ... are still "a dream away."
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^^True, but the fact remains that space exploration does not captivate our imagination anymore. We are far more enthralled by the latest iPhone.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<How is it any more of a mistake than themeing a large section of the park to something like "the future". What does that even mean? It's a topic so broad>> Exactly. It's a borad, sweeping, grand topic that doesn't creatively pigeon hole you into a set theme. "The Future" whether it be sci fi or more factual, is an ever changing and evolving theme, where as a movie franchise can be dropped by a fickle movie going audience very quickly. Star Wars is a great property, but for a Studios park. Not a Disneyland park. Disneyland parks are supposed to be archetypal, not completely based in current popular culture. << I'm willing to bet that in 20 years Cars Land will have held up a lot better than any of the Tomorrowlands have.>> Doubtful. In 20 years Cars Land will have a new name or theme, or be just as dated of a relic as Tomorrowland.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt “Exactly. It's a borad, sweeping, grand topic that doesn't creatively pigeon hole you into a set theme. "The Future" whether it be sci fi or more factual, is an ever changing and evolving theme, where as a movie franchise can be dropped by a fickle movie going audience very quickly.” 50 years and counting and Disney has yet to produce an iteration of Tomorrowland that has been a complete home run. The theme is so broad, with so many different interpretations and viewpoints that it is practically meaningless. At least in the 60s the designers could focus on space age technology, and thus the land was the perfect ying to Frontierland and Advertureland’s yang. While futurism is something that intrigues me, today’s theme park goers are entertained by Star Wars and aren’t interested in “a living blueprint of our future”, whatever that is. “Star Wars is a great property, but for a Studios park. Not a Disneyland park. Disneyland parks are supposed to be archetypal, not completely based in current popular culture.” I get what you’re saying, and maybe the original lands weren’t devoted to an entire popular franchise, but Frontierland was definitely in line with current pop culture in the 1950s and 60s. Fantasyland, with all of its Walt Disney fairytales, promoted films from Walt Disney’s studio, and the theme of Tomorrowland, with the signature Flight to The Moon attraction, was a tribute to the space age era of the 1960s and 50s. Even Adventureland capitalized on the popular tiki culture in the 50s with the creation of the Enchanted Tiki Room. “In 20 years Cars Land will have a new name or theme, or be just as dated of a relic as Tomorrowland.” A relic like Tomorrowland? That’s not even within the realm of possibility.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<A relic like Tomorrowland? That’s not even within the realm of possibility. >> How is it not? Cars could possibly end up as a classic piece of entertainment down the line, but I seriously doubt it. With (most likely) no more movies on the way and today's hyperactive attention spans, I don't see people in 20 years proclaiming how great and relevant Cars is like they do with the classic Fantasyland properties.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<I get what you’re saying, and maybe the original lands weren’t devoted to an entire popular franchise, but Frontierland was definitely in line with current pop culture in the 1950s and 60s. Fantasyland, with all of its Walt Disney fairytales, promoted films from Walt Disney’s studio, and the theme of Tomorrowland, with the signature Flight to The Moon attraction, was a tribute to the space age era of the 1960s and 50s. Even Adventureland capitalized on the popular tiki culture in the 50s with the creation of the Enchanted Tiki Room. >> But they still had plenty of Archetypal stuff. Cowboys and Indians, Davy Crockett, Steam trains and paddle boats, etc. These are all things we relate to the "good old days". I think if Tomorrowland adopted a retro futuristic, scifi feel, it would be a hit once again. They just need to actually try and make a unified vision like in '94 rather than the scatter shot approach they have recently.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "How is it not? Cars could possibly end up as a classic piece of entertainment down the line, but I seriously doubt it" To predict the longevity of the attractions in Cars Land all one has to do is look at Roger Rabbit's Cartoon Spin or Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. The principle characters from those films have been mostly forgotten, but the rides remain popular. Given its scale and scope, not to mention its enormous popularity, Cars Land won't need any major tweaking for a long long time. In fact, I wouldn't be too surprised if they expand it. "These are all things we relate to the "good old days"." They are themes that are universally understood, yes, however they aren't "trendy" today in the way that they were in the 50s and 60s, which was the point. If Walt Disney was still alive and conceived Disneyland today I'm pretty sure the five themed lands would be quite different from what he devised in the early 50s.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<To predict the longevity of the attractions in Cars Land all one has to do is look at Roger Rabbit's Cartoon Spin or Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. The principle characters from those films have been mostly forgotten, but the rides remain popular. Given its scale and scope, not to mention its enormous popularity, Cars Land won't need any major tweaking for a long long time. In fact, I wouldn't be too surprised if they expand it.>> But can't the same thing be said for things like Space Mountain? Or the TTA? Or Buzz Lightyear? If you build an attraction that is worthwhile, it won't matter if its view on the Future is dated.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "But can't the same thing be said for things like Space Mountain? Or the TTA? Or Buzz Lightyear?" Sure, but doesn't context matter? Are we saying Tomorrowland sucks because the rides are bad or because the theme is a mess, or both? Why IS Tomorrowland bad? "If you build an attraction that is worthwhile, it won't matter if its view on the Future is dated." It will matter if the attractions are attempting an accurate predicting of the future, which is what Tomorrowland originally set out to do and failed. Over the years new concepts have been introduced that don’t align with that vision, and what you have now is a thematic mess that doesn’t make any sense nor is it particularly entertaining. Aside from a few attractions, no one visits Tomorrowland in Florida or California and thinks, “Wow, this is impressive”, or “Disney really outdid themselves here”. I hate the term, but both areas lack Disney magic. In my opinion, the consensus seems to be that Cars Land has both appealing attractions and a solid, cohesive theme representing some of WDI's finest work ever at DLR. This is why I contend that Cars Land will outlive any of the Tomorrowlands built in California and Florida.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Aside from a few attractions, no one visits Tomorrowland in Florida or California and thinks, “Wow, this is impressive”, or “Disney really outdid themselves here”.>> But can't that be said about EVERY land at WDW? The only one that really wows me at Disneyland is New Orleans Square, but then there is very little in it.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "To predict the longevity of the attractions in Cars Land all one has to do is look at Roger Rabbit's Cartoon Spin or Mr. Toad's Wild Ride." Splash Mountain.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt But can't that be said about EVERY land at WDW?" I don't know... I think the new Fantasyland looks pretty cool, and certainly the iconic view of the Castle and Main Street are a wow. Maybe you're jaw doesn't drop at every turn, but Tomorrowland is a let down, especially compared to everything else. "Splash Mountain." Perfect example.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance " I fear that Cars Land (still a dumb name) will have the same issues in 5-10 years. Yes, they could broaden the theme with any one of those lands (generic under the sea, generic bugs/tiny perspective, generic cars/desert), but given how dedicated Iger's Disney is to shilling their properties, I don't see that changing any time soon (even if Iger is set to depart in a couple years)" How would broadening the theme change anything though? Would people start enjoying themselves more if the theme was broadened?
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<Sure, but doesn't context matter? Are we saying Tomorrowland sucks because the rides are bad or because the theme is a mess, or both? Why IS Tomorrowland bad?>> I'd say Tomorrowland is bad because the rides are bad, not the theme. A sci fi city of the future would be a great theme (as it was in '94), but the rides need to back it up. Basing everything off Star Wars isn't the answer.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I haven't been to WDW in ages, so I can't really comment with authority, but at DL, at least for me, Space Mountain is good and so is Star Tours and everything else in Tomorrowland ranges from OK (Buzz) to mediocre (The Subs and Monorail) to awful (Captain Eo and Innoventions). So, at least in California, there are a couple of strong attractions in the area.
