Announcement

**frollofan** · 10-21-2012, 06:45 PM

Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

For the percentages for franchises, while Tomorrowland may have a lower percentage than say Adventureland, at least the franchises used in Adventureland like Indy actually make sense in the land. For Fantasyland, it is appropriate to have those movie tie-ins because they are all fairy tales that are relevant to the theme of the land. However, Tomorrowland has stuff like Nemo and Buzz which has absolutely nothing to do with the future., so those are examples of when movie tie-ins do not work for the land they are in.

**GhostHostJeff** · 10-21-2012, 06:53 PM

Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

I wouldn't necesassily consider Haunted Mansion nor Pirates a franchise in the sense of the other ones listed because the movies came after the rides. I do not, however, have any issue with Iron Man. Disney needs to compete with Transformers. There is a BIG super hero market out there. Now that Disney owns Marvel, Iron man is technically considered Disney.

I don't think the issue here is Iron Man. I think the real issue is the land itself. Space exploration is still something many of us cannot experience, but it's really no longer that distant of the future. I think Iron Man would be a positive addition to the land. I think the real weak areas are Autopia, gas powered cars the future? Also Nemo.

**Disneymike** · 10-21-2012, 07:16 PM

Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

How do you get 100% in NOS? As GhostHostJeff has said HM and POTC were franchises after the rides were already in existence. I also don't consider the following to be "Disney" franchises which doesn't entail the crass marketing from Disney:
1)Splash Mountain - no marketing tie-in
2)TSI/Pirates Lair-marketing tie-in AFTER the Pirates movies came out
3)Jungle Cruise-no marketing tie-in until AFTER the movie comes out

So I got:
NOS=0% franchise
Frontierland=0% franchise
Adventureland=50% franchise
Critter Country=50% franchise

**bisforbrittney** · 10-21-2012, 08:05 PM

Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

changing the names would be a travesty. "tomorrowland," no matter how out-dated it might seem in the present, was tomorrowland from the beginning and part of walt's vision. if they want to keep updating the attractions, fine, but don't change the name for franchise sake.

**MANEATINGWREATH** · 10-21-2012, 08:06 PM

Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

Sleeping Beauty Castle...

**mratigan** · 10-21-2012, 08:24 PM

Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

I totaly see where Norman is coming from
i agree with him
tomarrowland needs a unified theme like it did in the 1967 redue
many of use MiceChaters will say that was TL's best time
there were no franchises then

**wonton** · 10-21-2012, 08:41 PM

Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

change the land not the name IMO. but everyone is entitled to their own. I dont know who Norman is, but I doubt he has the pull to change the name himself so maybe you shouldnt get too worked up. It seems like this post took you a lot of time tho. It was interesting

**Disneylandfan85** · 10-21-2012, 08:47 PM

Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

Originally posted by lightofdarkness View Post

As to the point that Marvel isn't Disney, I firmly disagree. They are as much Disney as Pinocchio, Mulan, the Muppets, and every single Pixar franchise from before the merger. Disney has made them their own, and I for one welcome them.

Actually, Pirates and the Mansion were not originally movie-/franchise-based. Just saying. But yeah, I think takes this aversion to all those not-originally-Disney franchises mingling with Disney is getting tiresome. Look at the George Lucas-created attractions as an example. And those existed as early as the late 1980s!

Oh, and you can do a lot of things with Tomorrowland, but don't change the name.

**mratigan** · 10-21-2012, 08:52 PM

Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

Norman is fishbulb,a MiceChat photogragher and writer

**Trekkie Dad** · 10-21-2012, 08:56 PM

Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

The Matterhorn was inspired by Disney's Third Man on the Mountain. I'll let someone else recalculate the percentages.

**mickdaddy** · 10-21-2012, 09:36 PM

Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

The caneos are also Davey Crocket explorer caneos so that ups your percentage where ever you put them.

**Bronco21** · 10-21-2012, 09:58 PM

**Capt Hook** · 10-21-2012, 10:01 PM

Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

And it's Sleeping Beauty Castle not Cinderella wrong park you're at buddy.

**calsig31** · 10-21-2012, 10:21 PM

Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

Originally posted by frollofan View Post

Tomorrowland has stuff like Nemo... ...which has absolutely nothing to do with the future.

I beg to differ. While the talking cartoon fish may be stupid, the subs themselves are still very futuristic. Unless you know of a company somewhere that has affordable undersea tourism on nuclear subs available to the general public. That technology is still years away.

Originally posted by GhostHostJeff View Post

Space exploration is still something many of us cannot experience, but it's really no longer that distant of the future.

I think space exploration is very much in our distant future when one considers that in over 50 years of manned space exploration we have ventured no further than our own moon. Travel such as that depicted in Star Tours or Space Mountain is still centuries away.

**Mr Wiggins** · 10-21-2012, 10:24 PM

Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

Originally posted by Bronco21 View Post

Just because Disney has gotten lazy over the last 20 years in terms of Tomorrowland does not mean the theme is bad. Everyone keeps saying that its impossible to keep up with, but Space Mountain, Monorail, and Astro Orbitor/ Rocket jets are all just as relevant and popular as they were 30 years ago.

The rides that have not retained the same level of lasting power are are Captain EO/ HISTA, Rocket Rods, Autopia, BLAB, and Innoventions. What was wrong with these attractions? All of them were either built originally or rebuilt on the cheap. 3D movies are cheap shows that have never had lasting power. Rocket Rods was built with a much smaller budget than it deserved. Autopia was relevant in the 50′s-80′s, and when it got rennovated in the 90′s, the majority of the money was spent on the ugly entrance/ queue area with very little enhancements added to the ride. BLAB was built as a clone of the attraction in WDW because it was cheap and popular. Innoventions was only built because Imagineering did not want to see the carousel theater go (and management complied because it was super cheap).

The reason Space Mountain (1977), Monorail (1959), and Astro Orbitor/ Rocket Jets (1998/1967) is they were built with quality. In 1998, when Disney decided to revamp Tomorrowland to a half *** version of Discoveryland (what so many people want them to do even now), it failed. The paint scheme was awful, the place reaked of cutbacks, and the major new attraction was broken more than it was up. I do not blame the new theme they tried to push, I blame the execution.

The idea that they cannot keep up with the theme of Tomorrow is the same as saying they can’t do any other theme. The key to a theme working is execution. Disney’s decisions in the past do not mean that the theme is undoable or irrelevant. Just as the rides under the original theme still work, the theme can still work.

Very well said. Disney could make Tomorrowland fulfill its original theme, by designing an innovative and exciting land that looks to the far future of mankind. But they won't. They've spent the last quarter century replacing their world-famous heritage of innovation with marketeering, led by a management whose vision for Disneyland is a marketing mall for brands, brands and more brands. A company that's gotten as greedy as it is lazy isn't about to pass up the opportunity to turn Tomorrowland into an infomercial for whatever hot franchise the public is buying today.

**Goofy Daddy** · 10-21-2012, 10:34 PM

Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

I disagree with rides being labeled as franchised if they had films/animated features made from their themes AFTER the rides were built. HM and PotC were original and very creative rides that are not franchised. They did, DECADES after being in operation in the park, inspire film(s) using their basic themes. I don't consider that the same as being franchised.

**Timicus** · 10-22-2012, 07:59 AM

Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

Although, not the point of your OP, thought this needed to be brought up.

Originally posted by lightofdarkness View Post

Toontown:

1. Roger Rabbit - Disney original franchise

Roger Rabbit is not an original Disney franchise. The film rights of "Who Censored Roger Rabbit?", a mystery novel written by Gary K. Wolf, were purchased in 1981 (by then Disney WDC president Ron Miller). While the film bears almost no resemblance to the original novel, the original characters and settings were imagined/developed outside of Disney.

**Fishbulb** · 10-22-2012, 08:49 AM

Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

Hey lightofdarkness! Thank you for reading the article. I really do appreciate it. You make some very valid points. But I think that you may have missed the point of my article or I may have not been clear enough.

Originally posted by lightofdarkness View Post

First, the notion that Tomorrowland was ever anything other than science fiction in it's purist form is ridiculous.

You are 100% right. Tomorrowland was the land that was to mirror Walt Disney's optimistic hope in mankind's future and get folks to dream of a brighter tomorrow. But it also used story telling and fantasy to explore futuristic themes.

Originally posted by lightofdarkness View Post

Yes, it was meant to be the future, but so is Space Mountain, so is EO (a horrible interplanetary future, but the future none the less), so is Nemo (using technology to understand the creatures of the sea), so is Star Tours (so much technology in the forms of games, computers, animatronics, robotics, space ships, and government programs {lasers in the sky anyone?} are based on the wealth of vision in this series). Buzz Lightyear is so hard to defend it's ridiculous, so I won't try on that one, because it's not the point anyway. I argue that Tomorrowland, while in disrepair visually and argued to be failing, is no less futuristic than it ever was. The technology used in Star Tours wows the young and the young at heart in the same way attractions of old did.

The discussion of all of these attractions brings up a very interesting question. I think that we can agree that Disneyland is, essentially, one big show or a form of storytelling. But what is more important, the story or the way the story is told? Should it be the place and time that makes the story futuristic or is it the technology used that give it a futuristic bent? I feel that there should be a balance. The technology used to create the ride should never outshine the story it is trying to tell.

Space Mountain is a highly advanced steel coaster used to create the sensation of flying through outer space. It's an even balance of technology and storytelling. Captain EO is a little dicey as it is now an antiquated technology used to tell a Sci-Fi-Fantasy story. It's only thematic tie is that it takes place in space. Nemo, the weakest in the "tomorrow" theme, appears to take place during present day, but uses technology to allow guests to hear sea life talk. Star Tours is another strange one. Star Wars technically takes place "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away." but it allows guests to once again, experience space travel. Leaving us with Buzz Lightyear that is set somewhere in the galaxy and that uses impressive technology that allows guests to play a game throughout the ride.

It is a weak point to argue that all of these attractions are set in the future, per se, but one can't easily establish that they all have a common theme.

Originally posted by lightofdarkness View Post

Second, Tony Stark. There hasn't been a better character in the last decade of film to better exemplify a current hope for future technology today than Tony Stark. To say he doesn't fit with Tomorrowland is like saying Snow White is too old a character for Fantasyland, or that cowboys are antiquated and no longer represent the frontier.

That might be very true. Tony Stark is a wonderful fictional character that used innovation and technology to overcome adversity.

Originally posted by lightofdarkness View Post

To the point of renaming Tomorrowland because of it's franchise nature, I take great umbridge. I decided to do a point by point percentage assessment of the other lands for their "franchise" percentage scores as follows (updated as I forgot a few attractions in the original posting). There was some disagreement about rides turned into franchises versus franchises turned into rides, but regardless of how they became franchises, they are franchises now and forever forward.

There are a few minor corrections I would make to your franchise list as noted below.

Frontierland/Tom Sawyer:
1. Big Thunder - Loosely based on the True-Life Adventures Television Series
4. Canoes - Davey Crocket Television Show

Fantasyland:
1. Not Cinderella but Sleeping Beauty Castle - fairytale claimed by Disney Based on the film Sleeping Beauty
Willows

You are incorrect when you assume that I am against franchises in the park. Franchises have been a part of the park since day one. People seem to forget that when Walt Disney was building Disneyland he effectively turned the construction of the park into a reality show. There was a weekly program documenting the developments as the park came to fruition. When the park was ready to open., guests streamed in to see what they had become so familiar with on television. Tomorrowland itself practically opened with an exhibit featuring props and set pieces from a current movie. The very icon of the park, Sleeping Beauty Castle, was a billboard for a film that was to come out four years later in 1959. Disneyland itself is one big commercial for the Disney brand. It always has been and should not be faulted for that.

Originally posted by lightofdarkness View Post

As to the point that Marvel isn't Disney, I firmly disagree. They are as much Disney as Pinocchio, Mulan, the Muppets, and every single Pixar franchise from before the merger. Disney has made them their own, and I for one welcome them.

Marvel IS Disney now and vice versa. That is not a question. The question is, Is Marvel very Disneyland? It is a dubious argument to make in saying that the Marvel family of characters would fit anywhere in the park. Fortunately, they are considering a placement of Tony Stark into Tomorrowland.

What was the point of the original article then? I wanted to remind everyone that another franchise attraction is nothing new, while at the same time expressing a hope that they utilize said property to further the original vision of Tomorrowland. Star Tours is a brilliant attraction, but one that does little to enhance the narrative of mankind's future. The same with Buzz Lightyear. Both of those are more Sci-Fantasy than science fiction. I feel that it's the infusion of the implausible that is what's at the root of the problem with Tomorrowland, and not franchises.

I just hope that the Stark Expo feel is really capitalized on to forward the overall story that was once told in the land of tomorrow.

**explodingboy** · 10-22-2012, 08:59 AM

Re: Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

Nice post, Fishbulb.

Announcement

Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

Get Away Today

[Chat] Tomorrowland name change: Response to "In the Parks"

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Get Away Today Footer