Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Hans, how dare you mention they change anything about the Peoplemover!" If they bring it back, I hope they add characters like Aladdin and Mulan. How cool would that be?
Originally Posted By mawnck Cool! Except I'm not sure I know who they are. What Pixar movie were they in?
Originally Posted By tonyanton They could make the new cars versions of those Disney matchbox style cars they sell in the parks...you know...one that looks like Stitch, one that looks like Jafar, etc....that would really bring the Disney Magic! to the boring Peoplemover.... ;]
Originally Posted By tonyanton They could make the new cars versions of those Disney matchbox style cars they sell in the parks...you know...one that looks like Stitch, one that looks like Jafar, etc....that would really bring the Disney Magic! to the boring Peoplemover.... ;]
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>People's ideas and wishes for DL, particularly TL, tend to be directly correlated to the year of their very first visit. Those who first visited back in the 60s/70s, want to go back to something like that, etc.<< I've gone on about this ad nauseum in the past, but that isn't exactly what i want. I really am not interested in bringing back old attractions or even updates to old attractions in TL. What I would like is the sense of excitement and kinetic movement and optimistic vision of the future that TL '67 offered. Since futurism isn't all that popular in this era, I'd be happy with any cohesive, immersive theme at all, instead of the jumble of cartoony attractions, defunct rides gathering dust (PeopleMover tracks, Motor Boat Cruise) and Captain EO. Having everything fit in the Star Wars realm makes sense. It's still wildly popular, Disney spent a ton to buy the rights. Why not go all in with that?
Originally Posted By Bellella Okay, I see what's going on here. I mention an opinion on something that's probably never going to happen at this point and everyone suddenly jumps down my throat about a justifiable screech that went down a while ago. Have I ever slammed anyone on this blog about their opinions? You know, having a different opinion than someone doesn't mean mocking.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Bellella, I hope you don't think I was mocking you. Where's your sense of humor?
Originally Posted By TMICHAEL It's firmly planted in It's A Small World, surfing next to Lilo and Stitch, singing Disney toon themes in counterpoint to the Rides Theme song. LOL
Originally Posted By mawnck >>singing Disney toon themes in counterpoint to the Rides Theme song.<< Wait, I thought the theme song was a counterpoint to the Disney toon songs.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Getting back to your thoughts Hans - about going as far as only giving a new "shell" - If that's not enough - then what? Something that goes really fast, like the Miniority Report film vehicles .. or the ones from the remake of Total Recall? If Tomorrowland were as big as Epcot's Future World .. then perhaps 'that's the ticket, laddy'. But Tomorrowland is a compact land that can be walked from one corner or the other within 2 minutes. A Minority Report/Total Recall type vehicle would be over in 30 seconds. (AKA Rocket Rods.) And aside from adrenaline thrills for the 10-30 age group ... what about the rest of the family, who are under the age or over the age for fast thrills? There's all these considerations .. which I try to take in. We are all so vague in our discussions about what we want Tomorrowland to be in a future remake. But because it is a compact land within several acres .. a 60mph Super Duper Adrenaline Rush Ride is not exactly the most family friendly idea in a family friendly theme park. It's so easy to get on these boards and call someone "too nostalgic" .. or "too old fashion" in some sense. I want something cool and futuristic ....just as much as the next person wants .. including yourself. But if the choice was a new shell, and a ride for the entire family .. or nothing at all ... are you going to select a Tomorrowland with nothing .. and just go back to the old format it was 1955-1966? That's something I'm hoping does not happen. If they go through with another ride (aka Rocket Rods) speed ... Oh sure .. the adrenaline junkies will love it. But this is a family park. And I want to see something the whole family can ride together.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt What you've described is vaguely science fiction, and I've forgotten what this topic is about, but I do recall that you're very opposed to a Star Wars remake of Tomorrowland. So, I'm wondering if there's a reason why you think this hypothetical new Peoplemover/Rocket Rods hybrid couldn't be part of a Star Wars land?
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>So, I'm wondering if there's a reason why you think this hypothetical new Peoplemover/Rocket Rods hybrid couldn't be part of a Star Wars land? << First of all, we don't know what Disney intends to do with TL. There's more speculation than facts. Second, if Disney did go full-tilt on Star Wars .. the Speeder Bikes from the movies is what they are more interested in. Since they are franchise-mad .. and care far less, where something original with no movie-in is concerned ... I'm worried. I have my hopes. But in the end .. the current regime will probably go in favor of branded attractions out of the movies. Is it better for the longterm? That's the big question on everyone's mind. Short term is what's on Disney's mind. Would I love to be wrong? Absolutely!
Originally Posted By berol The answer read to me like "It doesn't matter either way, cuz they would put in something like speeder bikes."
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I guess what I'm trying to understand is whether Dean is opposed to Star Wars, the lack of an elevated transport system on the existing PM track, or both.
Originally Posted By LP Watcher "I need to offer "examples" of why I think using a very old idea isn't all that forward thinking?" A good "old" idea that was a concept for the future that never got correctly implemented doesn't mean it's not futuristic. Almost EVERY concept of the future has been explored in some manner or other. And while some have may have been implemented, that doesn't mean that real significant improvements couldn't be made. Simple concepts like transportation are constantly being improved. We've gone from trains to automobiles to subways to monorails and now to Hyperloop. Until every aspect of future concepts have actually been developed and implemented on a grand scale, every "old" idea that can be improved on is ripe for future exploitation.
Originally Posted By oc_dean ^^^ Thanks LP Watcher. I always struggle to make that point, thanks for making it. I've heard similar wacko responses: Because we've thought of Space Travel .. it's now "ho-hum". Doesn't matter if we haven't actually gotten out of Earth's orbit .. the only thing that mattered .. is, it's been THOUGHT OF. By dreaming it, and putting it on paper, or in a science-fiction movie .. means, it's old hat now. No longer a "futuristic concept". Hans .... I had a feeling I wasn't understanding you correctly. At first read, I didn't quite get what you were getting at. Did anybody else have a hard time wrapping that paragraph around their brain? lol >>is opposed to Star Wars, the lack of an elevated transport system on the existing PM track, or both.<< Both. And as you know, I've been pretty explicit between the 2 subjects, separately. First, on the 2 year old rumor the PM track would come down, with no intent to build a replacement ride, in it's path. And then the "Star Wars" overlay rumors which have been more recent.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt >>is opposed to Star Wars, the lack of an elevated transport system on the existing PM track, or both.<< "Both." OK, so back to my original question, which was what reason would you have for opposing the same hypothetical attraction with a Star Wars themed "shell" since it would serve no other function than to follow the old Peoplemover course? Are you saying you'd dislike the idea because it would come in Star Wars packaging? I suppose I already know the answer, however it doesn't make sense to me.
