Originally Posted By Bellella Actually I find it kind of quaint. Although I hope in the future we all can wear clothes made of organic fabric. One thing that kind of reminds me of the Tomorrowland I'd like to see are the space-age Looney Tunes cartoons. You know, "Mad as a Mars Hare", all those Marvin the Martian flicks, and "Duck Dodgers in the 24 1/2 Century!" The studios really had some awesome ideas about space travel before we really went to the moon. The theme to the new Tomorrowland should be- realistic optimism. And yes, they must bring back Walt's amazing Progress City model, intact.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt How about a new interpretation of the Progress City model? One that, you know, would be relevant to people living in the 21st Century.
Originally Posted By PeterPan1313 >>>That's roughly what many have estimated that park cost in 2001. The park's overhaul was rumored to be 1.1 billion, so considering all this I'm straggling to see how Disney would be willing to invest that much into a single land. $800 million is a ridiculous amount of money even it is Star Wars.<<< Avatarland is estimated to cost around $600 million, and that's basically an investment which will only get a return with ticket sales at Animal Kingdom. Iger, (preparing investors and industry observers for the annoucement) has referred to the Star Wars bet as something that will be done 'significantly' and will pay-off better for the company than past 'bets', ahem . . . DCA 1.0 which costed around 1.0 billion over a decade ago.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer This is what Tomorrowland should make us feel like: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://vimeo.com/108650530">http://vimeo.com/108650530</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Not so sure. Some of that stuff would be at least 100 years in the future (remember, it has been 45 years since U.S. astronauts walked on the moon, and where have we gone since?). And by that time, I think all of our technology knowledge will be geared to keeping the earth inhabitable. Most of what was shown in that video has ZERO chance of ever occurring.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I would rather see something about how we are able to handle the oceans rising due to global warming... how will our huge coastal cities survive? How will we address large-scale desalinization of water to help solve the increasing fresh water crisis? I think any semi-realistic scenario of how we will solve looming problems would be fascinating. Totally unrealistic dreams of travel to Jupiter and Saturn, not so much.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer And then we'll have a Tomorrowland that is just looking a metaphorical day or two ahead and not inspiring a generation of young to reach further than the limited dreams of the generations who are ending their story on Earth. It was totally unrealistic two hundred years ago that we would have instantaneous communications with any point and any person on the globe. Or that we would carry the sum total of human knowledge and art in our pockets. Or that humans would have a permanent presence in an orbital space station, or that we would send machines beyond the boundaries of our solar system into interstellar space. Or that we would land robots on every solid planet and orbit every gas giant. Or that we would be able to not only see but manipulate single atoms. It is entirely possible that the things in the video will happen. There's nothing shown that our technology is more than a generation or two away from being possible. Tomorrowland should be about awe and wonder, about inspiring young people to grasp for the things that their elders think are impossible. Manned flight. The internet. Smart phones. Autonomous cars. Landing a robot on a comet. Performing open heart surgery. Replacing organs that have failed. Singularity. Saving coastal cities and desalinization are challenges that have more to do with engineering and funding than they do with innovation and inspiration. The answers already exist; the will does not.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Thank you Tom. I could have never put all that together as beautifully as you just did. Copy & Paste that to executives at Disney!
Originally Posted By PeterPan1313 The new AO actually has a smaller spinning radius than the old one, hence the old one has more steel weighs more, sorry kids, but plastic planets and jewels verne embellishments don't make the new AO heavier. Anywho, they've kept the old AO system oiled and in working condition, and at least a month ago they were thinking about putting in a 'rocket-pack' spinner on top of the old PM station, re-engineering what is there. This would obviate concerns about issues with cameras and such, and would make for a whole lot more exciting ride than just a spinner. Get ready for some pictures of the rocket-pack guy taking off in TL from decades past if this goes through . . .
Originally Posted By PeterPan1313 Something tells me they might even put some photos of the rocket-packs from the Tomorrowland movie in the queue too! It seems we've reached the point where every ride needs a Disney cultural reference to legitimize it . . .
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I think that a jetpack version of the spinner has all but been confirmed for Shanghai. I suspect that it will open there long before it makes its way stateside
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The new AO actually has a smaller spinning radius than the old one, hence the old one has more steel weighs more, sorry kids, but plastic planets and jewels verne embellishments don't make the new AO heavier.> Wrong on all counts. The AO is larger than the old RJ, having 16 rockets instead of 12. That obviously also makes it heavier, quite apart from the additional ornamentation (plus more guest weight as well). Daveland, a very reliable source, confirms this: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://davelandweb.com/astrojets/">http://davelandweb.com/astrojets/</a> " This version remained open until 1997, when it closed for renovations with the rest of Tomorrowland. The new form of the attraction opened one year later as Astro Orbitor. The Astro Orbitor was planned to be placed where the Rocket Jets were, but weighed too much for the current building."
Originally Posted By PeterPan1313 >>>Wrong on all counts. The AO is larger than the old RJ, having 16 rockets instead of 12. That obviously also makes it heavier, quite apart from the additional ornamentation (plus more guest weight as well).<<< Seems like some space cadets might have gotten some info wrong, AO has *12 jets*, I believe this is standard for similar attractions in Disney castle parks worldwide, and RJ of course had 12 rockets/jets as well. >>>" This version remained open until 1997, when it closed for renovations with the rest of Tomorrowland. The new form of the attraction opened one year later as Astro Orbitor. The Astro Orbitor was planned to be placed where the Rocket Jets were, but weighed too much for the current building."<<< Hilarious. The support structure for the Rocket Jets are welded together, and secured to the structure of the PM tower, it makes absolutely *no sense* to use blowtorches to cut it apart and then try to piece it back together. Oh, the support structure for the AO is, of course, different as it rest upon a different type of foundation. Heck, are they going to get a crane to move down these massive pieces and pay for reconstructive surgery when it was cheaper to just build a new one?!? What exactly is salvageable? The motor? Makes no sene to pay extra to try to incorporate this into a new design. Prime example of how fans (probably most without any imagineering, engineering, or understanding of logistical issues and construction) come up with their own ideas for 'why things happen' in the park.
Originally Posted By PeterPan1313 As there are 12 jets on AO, maybe there are four others hidden around TL, though of course they're not in use anymore, ;-) <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://disneylandreport.blogspot.com/2013/05/throwback-thursday-rocket-jets.html">http://disneylandreport.blogsp...ets.html</a> Seriously, though, I bet that some guests who have ridden both AO and the Rocket Jets will realize that the Rocket Jet load/unload platform is larger than the AO, younger age and small size nothwithstanding . . .
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I went to the Walt Disney Family Museum yesterday to view the special Walt and Trains Exhibit, and the one thing that was repeated over and over throughout the show was how important scale and authenticity were to Walt. He was notably very particular about details when he and his Studio Shop guys were planning and laying out the Carolwood Pacific Railroad in his backyard. It was all very fascinating, and his vision for perfection was remarkable. Then, I come here and read, "Heck, are they going to get a crane to move down these massive pieces and pay for reconstructive surgery when it was cheaper to just build a new one?!?". That when I realize just how far DLR has drifted from Walt Disney's genius and vision.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>>Wrong on all counts. The AO is larger than the old RJ, having 16 rockets instead of 12. That obviously also makes it heavier, quite apart from the additional ornamentation (plus more guest weight as well).<<< <Seems like some space cadets might have gotten some info wrong, AO has *12 jets*, I believe this is standard for similar attractions in Disney castle parks worldwide, and RJ of course had 12 rockets/jets as well.> See the other thread (Miceage Demolition), space cadet. AO has 16 rockets. So does Dumbo. <Heck, are they going to get a crane to move down these massive pieces and pay for reconstructive surgery when it was cheaper to just build a new one?!? What exactly is salvageable? The motor? Makes no sene to pay extra to try to incorporate this into a new design.> This is a non-sequitur. They couldn't put the AO where the RJ was because it's larger and heavier. <Prime example of how fans (probably most without any imagineering, engineering, or understanding of logistical issues and construction) come up with their own ideas for 'why things happen' in the park.> The irony, it burns. This coming from a guy who initially insisted the reason they moved the AO was because if they didn't, cell phones would be flying off the old platform like crazy. But several people demolished that one pretty quick, and at least you (I think) dropped that "real reason."
Originally Posted By PeterPan1313 >>>See the other thread (Miceage Demolition), space cadet. AO has 16 rockets. So does Dumbo.<<< Dumbo's has a larger turning radi and has 16 RV's, AO has *12*, probably why there is the error in those websites. Wiki got it right and says 12. Maybe you should log-on right away and correct Wiki, ;-) <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrrbiter">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A..._Orbiter</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 All those websites aren't wrong. You are. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/MsgBoard-T-130623-P-3.asp">http://mb.laughingplace.com/Ms...-P-3.asp</a> And by the way, the Wiki article you linked to ALSO says "The Astro Orbitor was planned to be placed where the Rocket Jets were, but weighed too much for the current building. Instead, it was relocated to the entrance of Tomorrowland, and placed on ground level, thus making the ride the new focal point as guests step from the main plaza of Disneyland into Tomorrowland."
Originally Posted By berol Wait, wait, wait. Back up, people. "AO has 16 rockets. So does Dumbo." DUMBO ROCKETS! I want a Tomorrowland where we fly in rocket-powered elephants. This is our future!
