Save Disney TL Essay

[Kevie]

On www.savedisney.com is a photo essay concerning Tomorrowland that I'm sure most users on here have seen.

User merlinjones on these forums is also the writer of this photo essay.

I think that while it was obviously much more optomistic before, can we stop and think for one damn minute about what TL is about??? On the photo essay, they whine about new attractions replacing old, but WTF? All of Disneyland follows the procedure of taking out old for new every so often.

The whole point of Tomorrowland is PROGRESS. Why are we so willing to settle for some Yesterland attractions, especially in a land whose purpose is the future? Why should we be content with a dated (AND GLACIALLY SLOW) Peoplemover, an outmoded Skyway (okay, it was pretty, but almost no parks have these anymore, other than both Busch Gardens), and Rocket Jets.

I understand that Rocket Jets was more thrilling up high, but the elevator was kind of an eyesore. It was just plain metal. No, I don't like Astro Orbiter either. It blocks traffic. Perhaps put that ride (Rocket Jets, Astro Orbiter or w/e you want to call it) in the heart of the land.

Also, in the essay, it seems as though Merlin is sad when he says "The Circlevision building is currently closed to become a Buzz Lightyear ride." I don't like cartoon attractions either but it's better than an empty Rocket Rods queue!

I also think that maybe the essay exaggerates a bit. Mary Blair's murals were cute for history's sake, but they were irrelevant to the theme. Children playing has NOTHING to do with the future. I'm sorry, but I won't change my opinion on that. It's true. "Children are the future" is rubbish. While true in a sense, Mary Blair's murals had no futuristic touch to them. The current murals aren't good either, but more futuristic.

Also, the essay talks about how the Skyway, Rocket Jets, and Peoplemover created a sense of movement, fun, and wonder.

Okay, YES, they did create movement. I will agree that Tomorrowland is kinetically DEAD right now. Fun? How do little buckets, tram cars, and rockets make you feel fun when you look at them?? Wonder? They weren't futuristic at all! Except maybe the Peoplemover in its first decade or so.

Okay, I'm not bahsing the photo essay, it was well done, and the photos were SHOCKING. But why is it that in the old photos, MANY OF WHICH ARE POSTCARDS, there's always conviently a Monorail coming by if its track is in the photo, and in the new photos, they JUST HAPPENED to miss the Monorail *every time* it would come by? In other words, some things in the new photos aren't dead.

So those are my thoughts on the photo essay. Bash if you will. But Tomorrowland's about change. Merlinjones is smart in saying that these attractions added a kinetic flavor to TL, but it's stupid to say it should all stay like it was in 1967 just because it was the way Walt wanted it. WALT ALSO WANTED PROGRESS!

So...comments anyone?

[merlinjones]

I'm hoping to do an updated version once the Tomorrowland paintjob is done, maybe a "Then and Then and Now" version to track progress (the last one was taken nearly a year ago now). The new paint scheme is a much needed step in the right direction.

Never complained about Buzz Lightyear, only pointed it out. In fact, that's a great ride! I very much enjoyed it.

Bad design, color and derelict attractions are not good, though - - as you point out. How it took so long to address some of the obvious issues now (happily) being worked on or under consideration is a travesty. I'm glad the photo essay has been one of our most logged-on items.

Matt Ouimet is a great boon to Disneyland. I hope he stays long enough to really get the whole place fixed.

As to the Monorails, well, there are only half as many running today, aren't there?

[Big Drunk Dave @ DL]

The World of Motion

I can agree with the post, MBC2005.

I understand that Rocket Jets was more thrilling up high, but the elevator was kind of an eyesore. It was just plain metal. No, I don't like Astro Orbiter either. It blocks traffic. Perhaps put that ride (Rocket Jets, Astro Orbiter or w/e you want to call it) in the heart of the land.

That elevator, if I remember correctly, was a bright orange and white. Plus getting on and off the "launching pad" was a chore itself.

I personally liked the Rocket Rods and Disney needs to stop jacking around and figure out a way to fix these attractions instead of sc them all together. (ala Tower of Terror's 5th dimension room, the new Splash logs, etc.)

Thank you.

[Kevie]

But do you really think putting down all the things they had in 1967 would be a solution? Tomorrowland=Progress=NEW RIDES. New ideas. New concepts.

[dshimel]

How it took so long to address some of the obvious issues now (happily) being worked on or under consideration is a travesty.

The Tomorrowland of '55-'67 you seem to love, combined with the larger, if younger, brother EPCOT Future World IS the reason it is taking so long to address the issues.

TL '55-'67 was disaster. Whatever they stuck into that land (with the exception of Autopia) grew dated within 10 years, and within 20 years was pathetic. A budget that should have been used to build a land that would last for 40 or 50 or more years, instead hadn't even lasted 20.

EPCOT soon followed this pattern.

So, while Disney was trying to build additional parks in Florida to take advantage of all that land, they were being forced to rebuild Tomorrowlands and Future World.

There just wasn't enough money for all of it.

Finally, before a second Anaheim gate could be built, DL's TL HAD to be addressed. Something was slapped together and slapped on... Then work began on DCA.

Again, the budget for DCA suffered as DisCo was forced to continue rework of EPCOT Future World and MK's TL.

Because DCA had a tiny budget, Disney had to scramble to repair it... all the while pouring money into Future World.

Disney can't afford to rebuild lands and attractions every 20 years.... It can't afford to solve the planets transprotation troubles. It can't afford to build educational stuff that few people care to see more than once a decade. Tomorrowland and Future World were financial disasters and sewed the seeds for their own disrepair.

[merlinjones]

>>But do you really think putting down all the things they had in 1967 would be a solution? Tomorrowland=Progress=NEW RIDES. New ideas. New concepts.<<

Wow - - I loved all those things from 1967, so beautful, sylish and expansive in vision. It's the 1998 stuff that sucked: bad design, bad color, bad rides, or none at all.

New ideas are the best, so long as they are as artful or superior to what was replaced. New and crappy won't do, and is a travesty to the legacy, especially the high design aesthetics of the 1960's Imagineers.

Why can't there be great new things instead...? A good question for Disney management.

[Kevie]

I don't see the futurism in the Autopia, but hey, it's a classic.

The 1967 TL was overhauled primarily because it was stupidly dated. Why the heck was the Peoplemover so slow? You could make a professional oil painting of that ride before it moved. It was so slow!! It could go a little faster. Going down the runway took like 3 minutes. How about making Peoplemover go the speed the TTA in WDW goes? That speed is perfect. You can see everything, and yet you aren't waiting for your snail-pace train to get to something.

Also, the datedness of TL '67 became very apparent in the 1990's. In my 1992 visit, I remember how disgusted I was by the dated nature of things. Nothing in the land seemed futuristic. Face it: Peoplemover IS NO LONGER the future. That type of ride could be ANYWHERE. The Monorail and Peoplemover are too similar to me. Both could easily be anywhere, and are no longer futuristic. I didn't make a Monorail in my RCT2 disneyland because it's too much like the peoplemover.

[dshimel]

Why can't there be great new things instead...? A good question for Disney management.

Becuase all the money for that stuff is going to rebuild EPCOT Future World from the ground up.

[merlinjones]

>>The Tomorrowland of '55-'67 you seem to love<<

No, most all of the "before" photos in the essay are from 1967-1997 Tomorrowland, save a few from the 1959 expansion of the subs and skyway and such, but those things persisted during the latter years.

My own opinion is that it is the 1967 Tomorrowland, a World on the Move, and it's 1978 update with the original configuration of the Space Mountain complex that is the "classic" Disneyland Tomorrowland... ultramodern!

[merlinjones]

>>Becuase all the money for that stuff is going to rebuild EPCOT Future World from the ground up.<<

What in the world does the budget for EPCOT have to do with Disneyland?

[Kevie]

I want to see Tomorrowland be futuristic. It basically needs to be completely torn out and rebuilt. Including Peoplemover track, subs, etc. All of it needs to be redone from scratch.

It's just not futuristic. Buzz Lightyear does not "live" in the future, according to the Toy Story movies. He doesnt fit in TOmorrowland!!! That stupid annoying spaceman!

[dshimel]

What in the world does the budget for EPCOT have to do with Disneyland?

The company has limited capital. Like it or not, Parks and Resorts report as a single segment. Money spent in one area of the corporate segment effects other areas of the segment.

The need to rebuild Future World drains off limited corporate and segment capital improvement funds.

[dshimel]

I want to see Tomorrowland be futuristic. It basically needs to be completely torn out and rebuilt. Including Peoplemover track, subs, etc. All of it needs to be redone from scratch.

It's just not futuristic. Buzz Lightyear does not "live" in the future, according to the Toy Story movies. He doesnt fit in TOmorrowland!!! That stupid annoying spaceman!

This just isn't going to happen.... The company is not going to continue to spend large amount of money on "futuristic" stuff that will be stale in 10 years and pathetic in 20. IT CAN'T AFFORD TO!!!

It needs to rebuild Tomorrowland in a way that isn't futuristic, and therefore won't get stale in 10 years..... That means Buzz Laser Tag and Nemo Sub ride and Star Tours and Space Mt and cartoon-y car land.....

It sucks, but it works....

Walt's Tomorrowland is a grand vision, but it simply doesn't work in the real world.

[merlinjones]

>>The need to rebuild Future World drains off limited corporate and segment capital improvement funds.<<

Disneyland is more important, commercially and historically, so it should be the beneficiary of greater captial, IMHO. DCA, EPCOT, Animal Kingdom et al ultimately need to pull their own weight, not at the future expense of the cash cow Magic Kingdoms.

[Disneyphile]

If Tomorrowland always needed to be "futuristic", it would be in a constant tear-down/rebuild state, due to the rate of "progress" of our technology.

Take a look at Innoventions, for example - even there, they can't stay on top of technology. They can put something "new" there, and in a couple months it's no different than what can be found at your local Best Buy.

So, for a moment, take a look at some of the classic TL attractions:

• Adventure Through Innerspace - the concept of being "shrunk" to the size of an atom is still not part of today's "science" - perhaps it will be possible in the future?
• People Mover - this system could very well become a future mode of transportation in downtown areas of large cities - on this one, I recommend watching Walt Disney's original presentation of "EPCOT"
• Rocket Jets - (put them back up high where they belong) Still futuristic, because I don't see people flying around in personal rockets these days.
• Mission to Mars - still futuristic, until tours to Mars are offered to the general public

Sorry, but I see the "old" Tomorrowland to be very futuristic, in the fact that none of it has become reality to this day.

[Pizzapants]

I'm going to agree with Disneyphile...yet I'm going to agree with almost everyone here. I think people read into the name "Tomorrowland" too deeply. I mean, if you think about it, Fantasyland is more like Europeland, Critter Country is the 100-acre Wood, and New Orleans Square is really an irregular hexagon. Disneyland Paris had the right idea of calling their Tomorrowland "Discoveryland." That way they don't have to hear the criticism of things not being futuristic. But Walt's idea of Tomorrowland was "a land on the move," hence the Rocket Jets being up high and the Peoplemover (yes, slow, but also very fun) constantly going back and forth. People don't necessarily ask for the rocket jets and peoplemover to come back, but atleast put something up in the sky that moves. They were going the right direction with the Rocket Rods, but budget cuts put an end to that. But yeah, Tomorrowland will never reflect on tomorrow, it never really has, but man, it's such a cool land! And it's making a comeback! Let's just hope for the best and not read into it too much.

[dshimel]

Disneyland is more important, commercially

That is actually kind of funny...

Disney World has 20,000 hotel rooms cramed full of big spending out-of-towners.

Disneyland has 2,000 hotel rooms, and is 2/3rds full of locals visiting on hoppers and discounted tickets...

Disney World is so far in the lead in commercial importance, it can't even see Disneyland in its dust.

[merlinjones]

>>Disney World is so far in the lead in commercial importance, it can't even see Disneyland in its dust.<<

WDW would still be a commercially viable draw if EPCOT ceased to exist. Not so with Disneyland in CA. The public perception of Tomorrowland 98 and DCA really hurt business with the locals.

Historically, Disneyland is inarguably the MOST important. And more subjectively, this may be so aesthetically as well.

[Kevie]

Tomorrowland 1998, Merlinjones, WAS a bust with crowds--I agree.

I just dont see how, unfortunately, Disneyland will EVER get its magic back. Face it--the Magic is gone FOREVER. It's replaced with whatever looks like a cheap idea. Like Buzz Lightyear. That piece of garbage (Yes, the RIDE is junk, because it's cartoons), probably only went in because it was cheaper than a brand new, innovative, and futuristic idea!

The magic would only come back if Disneyland began getting BRAND NEW BRAND NEW ideas for itself constantly. And original ones. Not clones!

[The Mad Hatter]

Disneyland has 2,000 hotel rooms, and is 2/3rds full of locals visiting on hoppers and discounted tickets...

Why would locals stay at a Disney owned hotel, or any hotel for that matter?