Originally Posted By oc_dean >>I'm all for some updates, but the kind of updating Walt's vision of TL would require is untenable.<< The sad thing ... I think you're right. The company's version of "vision" these days is exploiting IPs, and buying more Entertainment companies. Today, Marvel & Lucas Film ... Tomorrow .. the world!
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "The company's version of "vision" these days is exploiting IPs, and buying more Entertainment companies." Exactly, so why are we on the 200th topic speculating on what the next iteration of Tomorrowland will be? While the storytelling aesthetics may vary, it's apparent by HKDL and the little bit we've seen from SHDL that it won't be too different from what we have now. That is, it will be a collection of non-related movie property based attractions threaded together with classic rides like Space Mountain or a spinning rocket ride within the framework of some variation of retro mid-century "futuristic" architecture.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Exactly, so why are we on the 200th topic speculating on what the next iteration of Tomorrowland will be? << Is this a DISCUSSION board, or not?!! And since I do peruse the boards regularly ... It's been several months since we had a proper Tomorrowland topic.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Is this a DISCUSSION board, or not?!!" Go ahead and discuss. I'm not trying to stop you. I was simply questioning why the same topic keeps being brought up when we've all pretty much agreed over the years that Disney isn't interested in pursuing a strategy for TL that is even remotely "visionary". At least not in the way that Walt intended when he built DL. With that said, Dean, you know very well that predicting the general direction for the next generation tomorrowland isn't that hard: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.todayonline.com/sites/default/files/16565431.JPG">http://www.todayonline.com/sit...5431.JPG</a>
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Go ahead and discuss. I'm not trying to stop you.<< Thank you. I was getting ready to insert Steve Martin's "Well excuse me" from Youtube ... but I'll refrain. >>when we've all pretty much agreed over the years that Disney isn't interested in pursuing a strategy for TL that is even remotely "visionary". << Okay .. I see where you are going.... On a year to year basis ....... I feel .. nothing is set in stone. Things change. Attitudes change. MANAGEMENTS CHANGE .... so, it doesn't hurt to think that it's a mere possibility that 'Direction' could shift again. I prefer to be an optimist.
Originally Posted By oc_dean I forgot to mention Hans .... what made me want to bring the subject of Tomorrowland this time around, was the newest "wrinkle" to this saga. That being Miceage stating any Star Wars features for the land, are apparently OFF the table. Just when we were so certain it was going to happen ... I read that little bomb shell. And when you take it back a few years ... We've been through a few so called "confirmed" rumors .... *Oh, we are getting a Tron makeover for sure. ~Never happened. *Oh, we are getting a Marvel makeover for sure. ~Didn't happen. *Oh, we are getting a Star Wars makeover. (We felt so sure, because of Star Wars popularity for close to 40 years, now) ~Pulled the plug! So, I'm astounded by the number of ~sure~ TL makeovers, all in the last few years. So what's next? Disney buys Warner Brothers and Tomorrowland becomes Marvin the Martian Land? On a serious note ... My guess - The land's future is not tied to any I.P. At least for the moment. The future of it is as open as the Sahara Desert.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Why not convert TL into a retro TL? Here's what people thought the future would look like, kind of thing.<< To me, we still end up with a dated version of what people in a certain era thought people in another era thought the future looked like. Consider Discoveryland at DLP. It has all sorts of cool edgy exposed-structure 90's buildings that are decorated to vaguely look like something from the turn of the century. Remove the dirigible and this could be a past-its-prime shopping mall near you: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7460/9361929930_f5ab1bb1f7_z.jpg">http://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7...f7_z.jpg</a> Or consider the Buck Rogers-inspired redo of WDW's TL. We ended up with a postmodern take on the 30's/40's future. Yes, it's a little harder to decipher that it's dated, but the designs still look more like they'd belong alongside the Swan and Dolphin than in the 25th century <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2490/3820740781_d1b7bc4d13.jpg">http://farm3.staticflickr.com/...4d13.jpg</a> No matter what they do, TL will always look dated at some point. Perhaps I see it easier since I work with architects and designers all the time (ADA requirements and CA's fall protection are particularly obvious to me), but I think that everybody detects it to a certain level. If the design is going to end up dated either way, I'd rather it at least be fresh when it starts; although I question the attraction line-ups at HKDL and SDL, at least they used forward-thinking and current building designs. The undulating roof lines in HKDL will look dated soon enough, but for the time being they still evoke some sense of futurism >>The land's future is not tied to any I.P. At least for the moment. The future of it is as open as the Sahara Desert.<< You mean this Sahara Desert? <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lauracsortan.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/tips_bookertravels_cinematravel.jpg">http://www.lauracsortan.com/wp...avel.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I also found this really odd promotional photo from WDW's 'new' Tomorrowland. I guess they wanted it to look like it was populated by actual guests, but it's really strange looking. Everybody is just standing in little clusters looking bored; nobody is walking anywhere and they're not really doing anything (other than the kid in pink who is trying to get away from her mom). Looks like my idea of a fun family vacation! <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://progresslandblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/photo-7.jpg">http://progresslandblog.files....to-7.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "My guess - The land's future is not tied to any I.P. At least for the moment. The future of it is as open as the Sahara Desert." TL may not be tied to a specific IP at DL, but LucasFilm, Marvel, and Pixar already have big roles in a popular lineup attractions.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "My guess - The land's future is not tied to any I.P. At least for the moment. The future of it is as open as the Sahara Desert." TL may not be tied to a specific IP at DL, but LucasFilm, Marvel, and Pixar already have big roles in a popular lineup attractions.
Originally Posted By oneyepete " jeans, sneakers, and a t-shirt probably won't look very futuristic" What?! If they don't have jeans and t-shirts in the future, I don't want to be there.
Originally Posted By LP Watcher <I think the visionaries behind Tomorrowland have not been given the credit they deserve. There is no reason that similar vision couldn't be shown today.> The problem is that Disney's management isn't giving Imagineering the incentive to even LOOK at potential future concepts. Now days, everything has to boil down to an IP push. Just promote a Disney (Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars) film, even if it doesn't fall within a land's theming concept. I believe that Imagineers COULD come up with some outstanding future concept if they were actually given the opportunity. It's just that they AREN'T given it.
Originally Posted By LP Watcher <Go ahead and discuss. I'm not trying to stop you. I was simply questioning why the same topic keeps being brought up when we've all pretty much agreed over the years that Disney isn't interested in pursuing a strategy for TL that is even remotely "visionary".> If we keep hitting Disney with the idea that "VISIONARY" is a valid notion and that there IS real potential in future concepts, maybe it will eventually SINK IN . OR, maybe when new management eventually takes over, THEY will have the initiative to actually take advantage of "visionary" as a real potential concept.
Originally Posted By phruby >>If we keep hitting Disney with the idea that "VISIONARY" is a valid notion and that there IS real potential in future concepts, maybe it will eventually SINK IN . Believe it or not but you have NO influence over the decisions Disney makes. Period. In reality, the park is bursting at the seams. Disneyland is more popular now than at any time in last 60 years. 99% of the people in the park are not thinking about how tomorrowland looks dated or how that doesn't go with the theme of the land or how the cast member is dressed. (unless she is hot) The only thing they care about is getting on enough rides to feel they've got their money's worth and their kids are happy. What incentive does Disney have to shut down part of Disneyland for a DCA makeover when the place is packed. They lose money and capacity during construction. The only reason to do it is to expand it even larger so they can get more bodies in the door. Spending a billion and half on DCA paid ed off with more bodies entering the park. Disneyland doesn't need more bodies. It's packed as it is. Therefore no reason to every update the land unless the buildings start falling down.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Therefore no reason to every update the land unless the buildings start falling down. >> Where's a good earthquake when you need one? ;-)
Originally Posted By LP Watcher <Believe it or not but you have NO influence over the decisions Disney makes. Period. In reality, the park is bursting at the seams. Disneyland is more popular now than at any time in last 60 years. 99% of the people in the park are not thinking about how tomorrowland looks dated or how that doesn't go with the theme of the land or how the cast member is dressed. (unless she is hot) The only thing they care about is getting on enough rides to feel they've got their money's worth and their kids are happy.> Well, as true as that may be, it's certainly disappointing. But, then if that were their entire attitude, then nothing would be changed or improved in the parks. So there IS some level of concern where they feel they need to change things occasionally (usually just parades, fireworks, annual marketing slogan, etc) to keep people coming back. If they decide to entirely rely on the momentum of their existing offerings until attendance eventually starts dropping off (it WOULD happen), then they will suffer while trying to get their customer's confidence back. It's better that they listen to their customer base as time goes by than to ignore them and then try to figure out why they are losing them in the future.
Originally Posted By berol I don't know of the customer base demanding a new Tomorrowland, just us radical fringe types. Action comes when people don't spend because something isn't done and when Disney sees higher profits from something they can do. A land that has to be redone every 15-20 years is a mistake, throwing money down an eastside hole. They need to shoot for a few more decades than that.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Believe it or not but you have NO influence over the decisions Disney makes. Period." Yeah. We're not hitting Disney with any ideas. "It's better that they listen to their customer base as time goes by than to ignore them and then try to figure out why they are losing them in the future." Do you really think we're representative of their customer base?
Originally Posted By oc_dean I think the more correct term without a negative cynical "bite" to it is ... those who care vs. those who don't.
