Originally Posted By Socrates Futuristic dalamtians! Socrates "The unexamined life is not worth living."
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Yearly reminder: unless you're over 60, you weren't promised flying cars. You were promised an oppressive cyberpunk dystopia. Here you go.<< - Kyle Marquis, on Twitter https://twitter.com/Moochava/status/354986725388468224
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Heeeey.... I'm not over 60, but I do remember the Jetsons. They promised flying cars!! Which collapse into briefcases! I know durn well what I was promised, I tells ya'!!
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I don't know your age, but between 1967 to about 1980 Tommorrowland was about the most exciting land in DL" I'm 49. Yes, it was quite something back then. I particularly remember visiting WDW as a kid in the 70s and being completely blown away by it.
Originally Posted By Bellella >Tomorrowland should be DIVERSIFIED to contain many different types of experiences.< Let's see- Star Tours, Finding Nemo subs, Buzz Lightyear Astro Blasters- aw, gee. Tomorrowland is already diversified, and has one ride from each of these franchises. That's enough. (Quite honestly, the first two are way better than the third.) The rest of the rides in Tomorrowland have nothing whatsoever to do with characters or franchises, and that's how it should stay. I'm sure if they really wanted to, they could create some awesome new attractions to tie in with the theme of the future. Of course, that's if they REALLY wanted to. BTW, I used to think being an Imagineer would be a really sweet job. Now, nothing doing as long as their imaginations have to be stultified by corporate philistine a--wipes. Like so many have said- "those were the days."
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Recently it appears that the big boys and girls in Burbank are relaxing a bit and we're witnessing a sort of rebirth of Imagineering at DLR. However the current corporate mindset seems to be that budgets will be unleashed on quality projects so long as they are less risky self referential and "Disney" branded or have some kind of movie tie-in. I expect major future DL projects to look more like Fantasy Faire, New Fantasyland, BV Street, and Carsland than what was built at the resort during DL's first quarter century.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Why does there have to be a Tomorrowland anymore? Everyone seems to agree the theme is working anymore.<< Freudian slip tashajilek? You just said it's a concept that does still work? Admit it! Deep inside ... you know it's a concept that still works. You just said so!
Originally Posted By tashajilek Lol, yes my bad Dean. I still don't think the theme works though. "The rest of the rides in Tomorrowland have nothing whatsoever to do with characters or franchises, and that's how it should stay. I'm sure if they really wanted to, they could create some awesome new attractions to tie in with the theme of the future. Of course, that's if they REALLY wanted to" Yea Autopia, Innoventions and Captain EO are all wonderful attractions. the only original idea that's worth visiting in TL is Space Mountain. Sorry to say, but Star Tours and Buzz are both popular and decent attractions.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Tash, do you believe: A: Imagineering ran out of original, futuristic ideas? B: Imagineering do have original futuristic ideas, but their superiors are ordering them to foster franchise related content only?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros ^^I'm not Tasha, but I think that there's a combination of the two. It's just a lot more rare that people have truly original ideas these days. Look at the discussion boards a decade ago; people would come up with their own armchair Imagineering ideas of new attraction, just like they do now. But back then, some were franchise-related, and some were completely original; it seems like today, all of the ideas that people post are related to an existing property. To me, the original ideas are just as limited as the people who approve them
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Don't forget Dean, it could be a combination of both A and B coupled with C which is futuristic ideas aren't as appealing or popular as they once were.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Sorry, just read your 110 comment Ferret. I either... A... completely ripped you off because I can't come up with my own original comments or B... wanted to come up with my own comment but couldn't because my financial backers or LP "sponsors" refused to take a gamble on any new comment that hasn't already been tried and tested.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Don't forget Dean, it could be a combination of both A and B coupled with C which is futuristic ideas aren't as appealing or popular as they once were." Nailed it. It's a bit of the first, a smidgen of the second, and whole lot of the latter. We aren't living in the 60s any more and the whole idea of predicting an attainable future at a theme park is old fashioned and tedious.
Originally Posted By tashajilek "Tash, do you believe: A: Imagineering ran out of original, futuristic ideas? B: Imagineering do have original futuristic ideas, but their superiors are ordering them to foster franchise related content only?" Disney didn't purchase the Star Wars franchise for nothing. Why on earth would Disney pass on incorporating more Star Wars into the parks over an original idea? Disney is a business and in order for the theme parks to keep operating they need to keep making money and Star Wars is the obvious choice. I would love to see something original too, but its probably not going to happen anytime soon.
Originally Posted By Captain Neo The only rides in Tomorrowland right now that actually reflect the theme is Star Tours (Sci Fi & Commercial Space travel) and Space Mountain (Space Exploration). I'll never understand why there are rides for Toy Story and Finding Nemo in TL (and poor ones at that). Innoventions and Autopia should go too because innoventions is essentially just a best buy showroom and autopia is a bunch of old cars that emit noxious gases into the environment. That's not futuristic. And then there is the old mission to mars building currently occupied by a pizza joint curtesy of Paul Pressler, the skyway building sits empty and decays, the rocket jets clog up the entry way instead of being high on a tower in the back, and there's that empty motor boat lagoon area which is just grass now and used to be an attraction. So much land gone to waste.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip To a certain extent Disney has no choice but to respond to current preferences. Sure, "back in the day" they could be "taste leaders", and totally sell people on something they never knew they wanted. But that was before the 24x7 advertising of the current world; whether it is on TV, the Internet, or print media. People, especially children, expect and want what they have been told is good. Sad but true.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Disney didn't purchase the Star Wars franchise for nothing.<< I'm sure taht incorporating them into the parks was part of the reasoning behind the acquisition, but that doesn't mean that it's a good reason to put them into the parks. As I've said before, they should build things because they're good ideas, not because they incorporate a hot property. What made DL great to me was that it set the stage for so many different things, but allowed the individual guest to fill in the details; increasingly, it seems like we're expected to know the details before seeing the experience Star Tours operated for 25+ years without Disney needing to buy Lucasfilm; they're (supposedly) currently working on Avatarland, yet haven't shown any interest in buying out Cameron. If they really wanted to, they could have done these additions without buying Lucasfilm. But now that they have it, I think they feel obligated to use it, to feel like they got their money's worth
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>But that was before the 24x7 advertising of the current world; whether it is on TV, the Internet, or print media. People, especially children, expect and want what they have been told is good.<< Disney has a marketing machine like no other, and can make whatever they want popular. Just look at some of the truly terrible, yet incredibly popular things that have come out of the Disney Channel in recent years. If they want to do something that might not be expected, TWDC has the full capability to make it incredibly popular Who would have thought that a country singing teen would have spawned a multi-billion dollar franchise? Yet Disney's crew was able to make Hannah Montana the biggest thing since sliced bread. And when they grew tired of Miley and her antics, they dropped her into oblivion They just need to stop regurgitating existing properties and concepts created by committees (see also: Disney's live action studio). When they have good ideas that they follow through on, they can make something that original, well done, and popular. They're just too content to take the intellectually bankrupt approach
