Tomorrowland is perpetually troubled. So why is it so popular?

Why is Tomorrowland both troubled and popular?

  • It's not crowded! It's called a bottleneck, Bozo!

    Votes: 16 22.2%
  • Thrill rides, mostly Space Mountain.

    Votes: 42 58.3%
  • We're all crazy, Tomorrowland is actually amazingly done!

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • It's the first land on the right, just the way the traffic flows

    Votes: 13 18.1%

  • Total voters
    72

nevol

Well-Known Member
It is physically uncomfortable from a guest perspective. There is little shade, urban heat island effect, and bad industrial engineering and crowdflow-bottlenecks everywhere. People always talk crap about the astro orbiter and the rocks, but I never hear any of those complaints extended to the King Triton fountain, which is totally inappropriate 90s corporate BS that has no place in the neutral hub or as an entrance to tomorrowland. That area could be more neutral landscaping or, duh, parade and firework viewing.

I think people gobble it up still because the space thrill rides are forever attractive, and the addition of Buzz Lightyear astroblasters turned the area into an extension of fantasyland, sadly. The area does not speak to any contemporary vision of the future, and its architecture is junk. It really feels like a mix of a movie theater/mall entrance and LAX. But perhaps enough of Disney's guests are not familiar with or desiring futurist aesthetics. To people from more rural areas, I can totally see how delivering this bare minimum product would be enough for them, if they rarely think about technology, architecture, or inhabit urban spaces. Simply not spending a lot of time in locations with that level of massing, that scale of structures could result in the land creating some sort of impression/reaction in those guests. I think back to when I first moved to Chicago after high school, and it felt really massive. Within a few years, your body and mind adjust to the stimulation and not only do you pay less attention to your surroundings, but the scale feels less intense. Your focus narrows and suddenly the streets seem far too wide, buildings are taking up too much space resulting in boring vistas, there is not enough commercial or pedestrian activity along the sidewalk making walks feel endless boring, and the height of the buildings no longer elicits intrigue. To urbanists, the land is not showcasing anything interesting, and is instead feels like the type of place we came to Disneyland to avoid! Parking structure aesthetics, tree-less corridors, crowds, lack of shade. To people with rural backgrounds, it is different enough perhaps that even if it isn't attractive or intriguing, it is more likely to be, more likely to feel different, and far less likely to represent the places they experience in everyday life that they came to Disneyland to avoid. Instead, it joins things like the Mickey and Friends parking structure that has a completely utilitarian focus with no aesthetic or storytelling purposes as these buildings of a massive scale for which there is no need in their daily lives; it becomes part of the Disneyland experience, part of the spectacle.
 
Last edited:

Curious Constance

Well-Known Member
There really isn't a single thing worth saving, realistically, in Tomorrowland. Star Tours will seem lame compared to StarWars Land, Space Mountain isn't aging well, all of the stupid Jedi junk, Nemo is horrible, Buzz, while fun, could be so much better, an Autopia, while classic, is totally boring.

They could literally level that place, and aside from the sadness of losing the SM and Buzz nostalgia, there wouldn't really be that much lost.
 

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
There really isn't a single thing worth saving, realistically, in Tomorrowland. Star Tours will seem lame compared to StarWars Land, Space Mountain isn't aging well, all of the stupid Jedi junk, Nemo is horrible, Buzz, while fun, could be so much better, an Autopia, while classic, is totally boring.

They could literally level that place, and aside from the sadness of losing the SM and Buzz nostalgia, there wouldn't really be that much lost.

Agree with all of this except the lagoon ( not Nemo) and Space Mountain. And even though I never ride Autopia and think it takes up way too much space for the experience it provides, I would probably miss the fact that it's not there. Makes no sense, I know.
 

NiarrNDisney

Well-Known Member
I'm just wondering what they are going to do once Star Wars Land opens and they close Star Tours and Star Wars Launch Bay/Innoventions? They will be down 2 attractions and since the Super Heros will be infiltrating DCA what do the have to fill these open spaces?
 

nevol

Well-Known Member
I oddly felt that Anaheim's space mountain made me feel claustrophobic. The lack of airtime didn't make it feel like outer space, and it is so dark that I couldn't ever see stars. The seance room in Haunted Mansion felt more like outer space than Space Mountain to me! But, I don't know how this suddenly just happened, I went on SM recently and it was spectacular! The show is good, the ride is good, and I feel like any of the show quality stuff like the tunnels, lift projections, and blurry stars are all things that can easily be upgraded with new technology if and when they feel a need to (again).
 

rle4lunch

Well-Known Member
It is physically uncomfortable from a guest perspective. There is little shade, urban heat island effect, and bad industrial engineering and crowdflow-bottlenecks everywhere. People always talk crap about the astro orbiter and the rocks, but I never hear any of those complaints extended to the King Triton fountain, which is totally inappropriate 90s corporate BS that has no place in the neutral hub or as an entrance to tomorrowland. That area could be more neutral landscaping or, duh, parade and firework viewing.

I think people gobble it up still because the space thrill rides are forever attractive, and the addition of Buzz Lightyear astroblasters turned the area into an extension of fantasyland, sadly. The area does not speak to any contemporary vision of the future, and its architecture is junk. It really feels like a mix of a movie theater/mall entrance and LAX. But perhaps enough of Disney's guests are not familiar with or desiring futurist aesthetics. To people from more rural areas, I can totally see how delivering this bare minimum product would be enough for them, if they rarely think about technology, architecture, or inhabit urban spaces. Simply not spending a lot of time in locations with that level of massing, that scale of structures could result in the land creating some sort of impression/reaction in those guests. I think back to when I first moved to Chicago after high school, and it felt really massive. Within a few years, your body and mind adjust to the stimulation and not only do you pay less attention to your surroundings, but the scale feels less intense. Your focus narrows and suddenly the streets seem far too wide, buildings are taking up too much space resulting in boring vistas, there is not enough commercial or pedestrian activity along the sidewalk making walks feel endless boring, and the height of the buildings no longer elicits intrigue. To urbanists, the land is not showcasing anything interesting, and is instead feels like the type of place we came to Disneyland to avoid! Parking structure aesthetics, tree-less corridors, crowds, lack of shade. To people with rural backgrounds, it is different enough perhaps that even if it isn't attractive or intriguing, it is more likely to be, more likely to feel different, and far less likely to represent the places they experience in everyday life that they came to Disneyland to avoid. Instead, it joins things like the Mickey and Friends parking structure that has a completely utilitarian focus with no aesthetic or storytelling purposes as these buildings of a massive scale for which there is no need in their daily lives; it becomes part of the Disneyland experience, part of the spectacle.

Your thoughts on "rural Americans" are laughably misguided and is exactly why we will never live in LA or NYC. You do realize that the vast majority of astronauts (the ultimate space fans) are from those "rural" areas that you've disparaged.

I guess we slow simple folk from small town America just couldn't grasp having our tomorrowland too future theme focused. Just give us our astroblaster lasertag game and we'll be set. Don't want us to get scared or confused at anything that could possibly be halfway intellectual or educational, right?
 

nevol

Well-Known Member
Suddenly extremely curious how many Disneyland visitors would describe themselves as "urbanists."

1 million annual passport holders, a majority of visits are made by socal locals. They don't need to describe themselves as urbanists. Maybe could have used a different word, but I'm referring to anybody that lives in a metropolitan area.
 

nevol

Well-Known Member
Your thoughts on "rural Americans" are laughably misguided and is exactly why we will never live in LA or NYC. You do realize that the vast majority of astronauts (the ultimate space fans) are from those "rural" areas that you've disparaged.

I guess we slow simple folk from small town America just couldn't grasp having our tomorrowland too future theme focused. Just give us our astroblaster lasertag game and we'll be set. Don't want us to get scared or confused at anything that could possibly be halfway intellectual or educational, right?

I used myself as an example in this speculation. I spoke from my own observations of myself, and how my perceptions of Chicago changed between when I first moved there and when I left 5 years later. Your perceptions change. Anybody who frequents disneyland can speak to the same phenomenon. You go from overloaded and the place being a blur, to being able to slow down and observe and notice smaller details, to being sort of desensitized at some point by some of the stimuli, even if you still crave it (think of the scale of certain structures, like the expanse of cars land or the height of the tower as two potential examples, though it can be different for everybody). I have lived in rural and urban areas spanning california, massachusetts, the illinois/wisconsin border, central illinois, and minnesota. The core of the theory is simply one of Proxemics and very real human behavior/survival instinct. People in Minnesota will stand in line 5 feet behind the guest in front of them at starbucks. people in chicago have a smaller sense of personal space. People in most of the country would love to live on a quarter-to-full acre of land, if not more. Areas of massachusetts that I lived in were far from boston and people's yards were over an acre. In chicago, the same houses were on a half acre. In new Dallas suburbs, even larger houses are on quarter acres and divided with cinderblock walls. In LA, people's yards are measured in square feet, not acres! And I doubt most people would ever get used to that, but it is a condition of our reality that the people who do choose to live here need to deal with. Some just ignore it and some genuinely adjust to that scale, with smaller spaces over time feeling more comfortable, and small yards the size of a backyard porch anywhere else in the country feeling like an island oasis with the right landscape border to block out neighbors and create a private interior.

We create narrative everywhere we look and we base that on patterns of observations. Those observations are taking place to promote survival. I went to NYC once with a group of classmates from Minnesota and they walked around shuffling the entire time, looking up and not ahead, bumping into people. In an unfamiliar place with a higher level of stimulation than somebody is accustomed to, your senses and mind focus on everything. With time, our brains start to ignore inputs/stimulation that is constant. Even kinetics. Though they are in motion, if we know what they are and understand them not to be a threat, we omit them from our attention. If people are not used to a certain level of population density or crowds (I love being in crowds, at theme parks, music festivals, etc but I have plenty of friends who despise it and feel that it is unpleasant) then the collage of stimuli and sensory detail is going to be more pronounced. I really don't think that is an offensive statement. This is not, I clarify, about content. This is an observation/theory of how our species reacts biologically to changes in environment and stimuli. I haven't disparaged anybody. I'm sincerely sorry that it came off that way, but in this moment, I am clarifying what the rationale was for my theory. If you want to not accept my clarification and apology or genuine intent to deliver fair and objective, emotionless speculation that lack malice, and continue to view me as some antagonist of a rural-to-urban conflict, that is your choice. Like I said, I've lived in cities of 4 million people/regions of 10 million and I've lived in towns of 10,000. I've lived in cities while attending college with higher population counts but which were a magnet for people from rural/agricultural communities, and I have had to navigate those cultural differences cautiously but successfully and with an open mind, and in face-to-face interactions, I know that all people are willing and able to be open to one another.

Another set of supporting observation for my theory was that of the place feeling like LAX, etc. If people in LA are at the airport frequently, around mid century modern architecture and malls and movie theaters all the time when life is at a frenzy and we begin to experience these locations under unrelated levels of stress, then not only are we desensitized to the aesthetics of mid century architecture and urban infrastructure, but we have also come to generate negative associations with those aesthetics. They become intrinsically tied to physical and mental discomfort, and the antithesis of what we desire and aspire to when we need to relax, at which point, the aspirations that kick in are the opposite form of environment; natural, rural, desert, outdoors, etc. Which is when we hit the beach, Big Bear, a national park, etc. These escapes become the reset buttons we turn to when urban life becomes claustrophobic. So not only is the scale of and architecture of tomorrowland not interesting on a biological/sensory or even cultural level, suddenly it elicits anxiety and discomfort. Perhaps it does for everybody, but I know from a trip to India that a level of over-stimulation coupled with newness/unfamiliarity creates a level of intrigue and a rush of adrenaline that is really exciting, high energy, and encourages engagement with these surroundings, rather than familiar stimulation that would either be ignored or exhausting.

I'll also be fair and concede that some urban people can harbor preconceptions about other cultures, and it is only fair to acknowledge that rural people do this as well, and at times these divides aren't geographical but political/ideological, yet there are correlations but no guarantee between the relationship of living environments and ideologies. I know people in market research who use massive datasets that cannot be refuted to inform media mix and advertising strategies. One such example I will sight has to do with the advertising for video on demand of a war movie that came out a few years ago. There was about a dozen different commercials running. There was one that focused on the soldier as a hero/protagonist that played extremely well in rural areas of the country and led to higher conversion rates of viewers of the trailers into renters/purchasers of the film. This in communities that send a lot of young people to serve in our military and who vote for politicians who are more "supportive" of troops/combat publicly. The same commercial played poorly in urban/blue areas, where instead, commercials focusing on the life of this soldier's wife and family, narratives that focused less on fetishizing war or the soldier-as-hero dimension, but instead on familial/relationship narratives, emotion, love, loss led to higher conversions. I know a lot of people that are digital designers, art curators, entertainment designers, architects, technological philosophers, and they have a preconception about theme parks. I, on the other hand, think they are the technological sublime. Masterful blends of technology, narrative, design and fabrication techniques, that exist for no reason other than to create pleasure. So many incredible inventions have come from aerospace, defense, and silicon valley, but they don't really blow me away because I understand that they have broader utility in society. What surprises me more and is more intriguing is the very existence of the application of billions of dollars of investment and invention just to create pleasure. I can't stand the VR buzz and can't stand when digital/entertainment designers and architects reach to VR as this unexplored way of creating more realistic, immersive worlds, while simultaneously shutting themselves off from theme parks.

Separate theory for it being crowded is that they extended a family attraction, Buzz lightyear, into the land, which is essentially turning Tomorrowland into a fantasyland dump for any IP with any relationship to outer space. That has nothing to do with rural people or their taste. Unrelated argument altogether so, I'm sorry for those appearing together.

All contemporary consumers seem interested in IP attractions and Space Mountain. Those are universally shared interests. This is not a rural attack to say that people like buzz or star tours. Urban consumers and socal residents are massively obsessed with entertainment and fiction. Comic books, film, sci-fi, animation, etc. So despite the unanimous agreement that Tomorrowland is not inspiring, scientific-realism, visionary, making any deeper philosophical statement or a statement about the direction of our country or of humanity, and it looking like crap, we still tend to gobble up what is there. You just won't see me hanging out in Tomorrowland unless I'm grabbing a fastpass.

Disney even harbors/has harbored this bias. When they made the Anaheim resort district, they just could not imagine the place being a landscaped escape from Anaheim. They couldn't envision a west coast walt disney world, so they embraced urbanism, which I think was a huge mistake. Surface parking lot, property interlaced with anaheim's, little attempt to isolate people from evidence of the outside world. I think this was really silly and lazy. One needs to look no further than the rivers of america to see that it is feasible to create interior spaces that feel endlessly expansive, and to confirm that even a 10-foot wide planter of trees is enough to block the outside world. They embraced a sort of contemporary architecture rather than the type of themed architecture for the resorts that Orlando has. I for one don't think it would be problematic at all to create a collage of architectural styles right next to one another. Coronado/victoriana adjacent to mission style, adjacent to contemporary, adjacent to rustic/wilderness/craftsman. That has proven not to be problematic in theme park design so I see no reason to show restraint with the anaheim resort district.
 
Last edited:

vancee

Well-Known Member
I used myself as an example in this speculation. I spoke from my own observations of myself, and how my perceptions of Chicago changed between when I first moved there and when I left 5 years later. Your perceptions change. Anybody who frequents disneyland can speak to the same phenomenon. You go from overloaded and the place being a blur, to being able to slow down and observe and notice smaller details, to being sort of desensitized at some point by some of the stimuli, even if you still crave it (think of the scale of certain structures, like the expanse of cars land or the height of the tower as two potential examples, though it can be different for everybody). I have lived in rural and urban areas spanning california, massachusetts, the illinois/wisconsin border, central illinois, and minnesota. The core of the theory is simply one of Proxemics and very real human behavior/survival instinct. People in Minnesota will stand in line 5 feet behind the guest in front of them at starbucks. people in chicago have a smaller sense of personal space. People in most of the country would love to live on a quarter-to-full acre of land, if not more. Areas of massachusetts that I lived in were far from boston and people's yards were over an acre. In chicago, the same houses were on a half acre. In new Dallas suburbs, even larger houses are on quarter acres and divided with cinderblock walls. In LA, people's yards are measured in square feet, not acres! And I doubt most people would ever get used to that, but it is a condition of our reality that the people who do choose to live here need to deal with. Some just ignore it and some genuinely adjust to that scale, with smaller spaces over time feeling more comfortable, and small yards the size of a backyard porch anywhere else in the country feeling like an island oasis with the right landscape border to block out neighbors and create a private interior.

We create narrative everywhere we look and we base that on patterns of observations. Those observations are taking place to promote survival. I went to NYC once with a group of classmates from Minnesota and they walked around shuffling the entire time, looking up and not ahead, bumping into people. In an unfamiliar place with a higher level of stimulation than somebody is accustomed to, your senses and mind focus on everything. With time, our brains start to ignore inputs/stimulation that is constant. Even kinetics. Though they are in motion, if we know what they are and understand them not to be a threat, we omit them from our attention. If people are not used to a certain level of population density or crowds (I love being in crowds, at theme parks, music festivals, etc but I have plenty of friends who despise it and feel that it is unpleasant) then the collage of stimuli and sensory detail is going to be more pronounced. I really don't think that is an offensive statement. This is not, I clarify, about content. This is an observation/theory of how our species reacts biologically to changes in environment and stimuli. I haven't disparaged anybody. I'm sincerely sorry that it came off that way, but in this moment, I am clarifying what the rationale was for my theory. If you want to not accept my clarification and apology or genuine intent to deliver fair and objective, emotionless speculation that lack malice, and continue to view me as some antagonist of a rural-to-urban conflict, that is your choice. Like I said, I've lived in cities of 4 million people/regions of 10 million and I've lived in towns of 10,000. I've lived in cities while attending college with higher population counts but which were a magnet for people from rural/agricultural communities, and I have had to navigate those cultural differences cautiously but successfully and with an open mind, and in face-to-face interactions, I know that all people are willing and able to be open to one another.

Another set of supporting observation for my theory was that of the place feeling like LAX, etc. If people in LA are at the airport frequently, around mid century modern architecture and malls and movie theaters all the time when life is at a frenzy and we begin to experience these locations under unrelated levels of stress, then not only are we desensitized to the aesthetics of mid century architecture and urban infrastructure, but we have also come to generate negative associations with those aesthetics. They become intrinsically tied to physical and mental discomfort, and the antithesis of what we desire and aspire to when we need to relax, at which point, the aspirations that kick in are the opposite form of environment; natural, rural, desert, outdoors, etc. Which is when we hit the beach, Big Bear, a national park, etc. These escapes become the reset buttons we turn to when urban life becomes claustrophobic. So not only is the scale of and architecture of tomorrowland not interesting on a biological/sensory or even cultural level, suddenly it elicits anxiety and discomfort. Perhaps it does for everybody, but I know from a trip to India that a level of over-stimulation coupled with newness/unfamiliarity creates a level of intrigue and a rush of adrenaline that is really exciting, high energy, and encourages engagement with these surroundings, rather than familiar stimulation that would either be ignored or exhausting.

I'll also be fair and concede that some urban people can harbor preconceptions about other cultures, and it is only fair to acknowledge that rural people do this as well, and at times these divides aren't geographical but political/ideological, yet there are correlations but no guarantee between the relationship of living environments and ideologies. I know people in market research who use massive datasets that cannot be refuted to inform media mix and advertising strategies. One such example I will sight has to do with the advertising for video on demand of a war movie that came out a few years ago. There was about a dozen different commercials running. There was one that focused on the soldier as a hero/protagonist that played extremely well in rural areas of the country and led to higher conversion rates of viewers of the trailers into renters/purchasers of the film. This in communities that send a lot of young people to serve in our military and who vote for politicians who are more "supportive" of troops/combat publicly. The same commercial played poorly in urban/blue areas, where instead, commercials focusing on the life of this soldier's wife and family, narratives that focused less on fetishizing war or the soldier-as-hero dimension, but instead on familial/relationship narratives, emotion, love, loss led to higher conversions. I know a lot of people that are digital designers, art curators, entertainment designers, architects, technological philosophers, and they have a preconception about theme parks. I, on the other hand, think they are the technological sublime. Masterful blends of technology, narrative, design and fabrication techniques, that exist for no reason other than to create pleasure. So many incredible inventions have come from aerospace, defense, and silicon valley, but they don't really blow me away because I understand that they have broader utility in society. What surprises me more and is more intriguing is the very existence of the application of billions of dollars of investment and invention just to create pleasure. I can't stand the VR buzz and can't stand when digital/entertainment designers and architects reach to VR as this unexplored way of creating more realistic, immersive worlds, while simultaneously shutting themselves off from theme parks.

Separate theory for it being crowded is that they extended a family attraction, Buzz lightyear, into the land, which is essentially turning Tomorrowland into a fantasyland dump for any IP with any relationship to outer space. That has nothing to do with rural people or their taste. Unrelated argument altogether so, I'm sorry for those appearing together.

All contemporary consumers seem interested in IP attractions and Space Mountain. Those are universally shared interests. This is not a rural attack to say that people like buzz or star tours. Urban consumers and socal residents are massively obsessed with entertainment and fiction. Comic books, film, sci-fi, animation, etc. So despite the unanimous agreement that Tomorrowland is not inspiring, scientific-realism, visionary, making any deeper philosophical statement or a statement about the direction of our country or of humanity, and it looking like crap, we still tend to gobble up what is there. You just won't see me hanging out in Tomorrowland unless I'm grabbing a fastpass.

Disney even harbors/has harbored this bias. When they made the Anaheim resort district, they just could not imagine the place being a landscaped escape from Anaheim. They couldn't envision a west coast walt disney world, so they embraced urbanism, which I think was a huge mistake. Surface parking lot, property interlaced with anaheim's, little attempt to isolate people from evidence of the outside world. I think this was really silly and lazy. One needs to look no further than the rivers of america to see that it is feasible to create interior spaces that feel endlessly expansive, and to confirm that even a 10-foot wide planter of trees is enough to block the outside world. They embraced a sort of contemporary architecture rather than the type of themed architecture for the resorts that Orlando has. I for one don't think it would be problematic at all to create a collage of architectural styles right next to one another. Coronado/victoriana adjacent to mission style, adjacent to contemporary, adjacent to rustic/wilderness/craftsman. That has proven not to be problematic in theme park design so I see no reason to show restraint with the anaheim resort district.
Are, or were you, a English major? It seems like you could write a huge book.
 

rle4lunch

Well-Known Member
I used myself as an example in this speculation. I spoke from my own observations of myself, and how my perceptions of Chicago changed between when I first moved there and when I left 5 years later. Your perceptions change. Anybody who frequents disneyland can speak to the same phenomenon. You go from overloaded and the place being a blur, to being able to slow down and observe and notice smaller details, to being sort of desensitized at some point by some of the stimuli, even if you still crave it (think of the scale of certain structures, like the expanse of cars land or the height of the tower as two potential examples, though it can be different for everybody). I have lived in rural and urban areas spanning california, massachusetts, the illinois/wisconsin border, central illinois, and minnesota. The core of the theory is simply one of Proxemics and very real human behavior/survival instinct. People in Minnesota will stand in line 5 feet behind the guest in front of them at starbucks. people in chicago have a smaller sense of personal space. People in most of the country would love to live on a quarter-to-full acre of land, if not more. Areas of massachusetts that I lived in were far from boston and people's yards were over an acre. In chicago, the same houses were on a half acre. In new Dallas suburbs, even larger houses are on quarter acres and divided with cinderblock walls. In LA, people's yards are measured in square feet, not acres! And I doubt most people would ever get used to that, but it is a condition of our reality that the people who do choose to live here need to deal with. Some just ignore it and some genuinely adjust to that scale, with smaller spaces over time feeling more comfortable, and small yards the size of a backyard porch anywhere else in the country feeling like an island oasis with the right landscape border to block out neighbors and create a private interior.

We create narrative everywhere we look and we base that on patterns of observations. Those observations are taking place to promote survival. I went to NYC once with a group of classmates from Minnesota and they walked around shuffling the entire time, looking up and not ahead, bumping into people. In an unfamiliar place with a higher level of stimulation than somebody is accustomed to, your senses and mind focus on everything. With time, our brains start to ignore inputs/stimulation that is constant. Even kinetics. Though they are in motion, if we know what they are and understand them not to be a threat, we omit them from our attention. If people are not used to a certain level of population density or crowds (I love being in crowds, at theme parks, music festivals, etc but I have plenty of friends who despise it and feel that it is unpleasant) then the collage of stimuli and sensory detail is going to be more pronounced. I really don't think that is an offensive statement. This is not, I clarify, about content. This is an observation/theory of how our species reacts biologically to changes in environment and stimuli. I haven't disparaged anybody. I'm sincerely sorry that it came off that way, but in this moment, I am clarifying what the rationale was for my theory. If you want to not accept my clarification and apology or genuine intent to deliver fair and objective, emotionless speculation that lack malice, and continue to view me as some antagonist of a rural-to-urban conflict, that is your choice. Like I said, I've lived in cities of 4 million people/regions of 10 million and I've lived in towns of 10,000. I've lived in cities while attending college with higher population counts but which were a magnet for people from rural/agricultural communities, and I have had to navigate those cultural differences cautiously but successfully and with an open mind, and in face-to-face interactions, I know that all people are willing and able to be open to one another.

Another set of supporting observation for my theory was that of the place feeling like LAX, etc. If people in LA are at the airport frequently, around mid century modern architecture and malls and movie theaters all the time when life is at a frenzy and we begin to experience these locations under unrelated levels of stress, then not only are we desensitized to the aesthetics of mid century architecture and urban infrastructure, but we have also come to generate negative associations with those aesthetics. They become intrinsically tied to physical and mental discomfort, and the antithesis of what we desire and aspire to when we need to relax, at which point, the aspirations that kick in are the opposite form of environment; natural, rural, desert, outdoors, etc. Which is when we hit the beach, Big Bear, a national park, etc. These escapes become the reset buttons we turn to when urban life becomes claustrophobic. So not only is the scale of and architecture of tomorrowland not interesting on a biological/sensory or even cultural level, suddenly it elicits anxiety and discomfort. Perhaps it does for everybody, but I know from a trip to India that a level of over-stimulation coupled with newness/unfamiliarity creates a level of intrigue and a rush of adrenaline that is really exciting, high energy, and encourages engagement with these surroundings, rather than familiar stimulation that would either be ignored or exhausting.

I'll also be fair and concede that some urban people can harbor preconceptions about other cultures, and it is only fair to acknowledge that rural people do this as well, and at times these divides aren't geographical but political/ideological, yet there are correlations but no guarantee between the relationship of living environments and ideologies. I know people in market research who use massive datasets that cannot be refuted to inform media mix and advertising strategies. One such example I will sight has to do with the advertising for video on demand of a war movie that came out a few years ago. There was about a dozen different commercials running. There was one that focused on the soldier as a hero/protagonist that played extremely well in rural areas of the country and led to higher conversion rates of viewers of the trailers into renters/purchasers of the film. This in communities that send a lot of young people to serve in our military and who vote for politicians who are more "supportive" of troops/combat publicly. The same commercial played poorly in urban/blue areas, where instead, commercials focusing on the life of this soldier's wife and family, narratives that focused less on fetishizing war or the soldier-as-hero dimension, but instead on familial/relationship narratives, emotion, love, loss led to higher conversions. I know a lot of people that are digital designers, art curators, entertainment designers, architects, technological philosophers, and they have a preconception about theme parks. I, on the other hand, think they are the technological sublime. Masterful blends of technology, narrative, design and fabrication techniques, that exist for no reason other than to create pleasure. So many incredible inventions have come from aerospace, defense, and silicon valley, but they don't really blow me away because I understand that they have broader utility in society. What surprises me more and is more intriguing is the very existence of the application of billions of dollars of investment and invention just to create pleasure. I can't stand the VR buzz and can't stand when digital/entertainment designers and architects reach to VR as this unexplored way of creating more realistic, immersive worlds, while simultaneously shutting themselves off from theme parks.

Separate theory for it being crowded is that they extended a family attraction, Buzz lightyear, into the land, which is essentially turning Tomorrowland into a fantasyland dump for any IP with any relationship to outer space. That has nothing to do with rural people or their taste. Unrelated argument altogether so, I'm sorry for those appearing together.

All contemporary consumers seem interested in IP attractions and Space Mountain. Those are universally shared interests. This is not a rural attack to say that people like buzz or star tours. Urban consumers and socal residents are massively obsessed with entertainment and fiction. Comic books, film, sci-fi, animation, etc. So despite the unanimous agreement that Tomorrowland is not inspiring, scientific-realism, visionary, making any deeper philosophical statement or a statement about the direction of our country or of humanity, and it looking like crap, we still tend to gobble up what is there. You just won't see me hanging out in Tomorrowland unless I'm grabbing a fastpass.

Disney even harbors/has harbored this bias. When they made the Anaheim resort district, they just could not imagine the place being a landscaped escape from Anaheim. They couldn't envision a west coast walt disney world, so they embraced urbanism, which I think was a huge mistake. Surface parking lot, property interlaced with anaheim's, little attempt to isolate people from evidence of the outside world. I think this was really silly and lazy. One needs to look no further than the rivers of america to see that it is feasible to create interior spaces that feel endlessly expansive, and to confirm that even a 10-foot wide planter of trees is enough to block the outside world. They embraced a sort of contemporary architecture rather than the type of themed architecture for the resorts that Orlando has. I for one don't think it would be problematic at all to create a collage of architectural styles right next to one another. Coronado/victoriana adjacent to mission style, adjacent to contemporary, adjacent to rustic/wilderness/craftsman. That has proven not to be problematic in theme park design so I see no reason to show restraint with the anaheim resort district.

I've had the fortune of living all over America and been around the world to 11 different countries. But I gotta be honest, I stopped reading your post after the second paragraph. Sorry.
 

nevol

Well-Known Member
I've had the fortune of living all over America and been around the world to 11 different countries. But I gotta be honest, I stopped reading your post after the second paragraph. Sorry.

I think that was far enough for an explanation. If you are interested in the tomorrowland topic, keep reading.
 

nevol

Well-Known Member
Are, or were you, a English major? It seems like you could write a huge book.

No, but I do talk a lot, read a lot, listen to podcasts, and write fast. I was a terrible writer and terribly slow reader before I studied urban planning and public policy, where I was forced to learn to read more efficiently when having to read an endless list of books and academic articles. My comprehension improved as well. More recently I have been focusing on theme park design, with secondary subjects of entertainment design more generally (film) and architecture, technology, futurism, ecological discussions. I'm definitely long-winded and could learn to edit still, but listening to short stories and programming on NPR has helped me more than anything with that. On Sundays I think they broadcast orated short stories and they usually have a really strong narrative arch that is more easily identifiable audibly than in long news articles, academic research papers, or magazine articles. The goal now is to feel as comfortable with the adobe suite, autodesk, other modeling software, and game engines as I am with writing.
 
Last edited:

rle4lunch

Well-Known Member
You would have seen the apology, had you kept reading.

No need for an apology. I could care less what people think of other people, especially on an amusement park message board. I don't need to analyze and try to dissect the different psyches' of 350 million people in an attempt to try to understand why some people like or don't like crowded areas, or why some people like to decorate their lawns with pink flamingos while others think it's gaudy (me). Nothing against the OP, but I don't have time to read a 2000 word breakdown on why someone likes red paint over silver paint. I've lived long enough, had enough college, had enough work experience, had enough life experience to know what I like doesn't matter to the dude sitting next to me in my office. Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure all the people that you all work with could give two poops about you either. People fake their way through life, being faux cordial to one another, only to turn around and gossip about them 2 seconds later to their other "friend", who in turn, will do the same thing to them 2 seconds later. Once people realize this glaring fact, they end up being happier with themselves, and pretty much leave other people alone. And, in turn, end up actually being nice to others, because they no being mean/cruel/vengeful/etc. won't get them anywhere in life, other than back to the gossip wheel they were on before.

I come to these boards to see the other 'like minded' folk talk about the good/bad/ugly of Disney properties. To delve into some philosophical conversation is absolutely not necessary.
 

Californian Elitist

Well-Known Member
No need for an apology. I could care less what people think of other people, especially on an amusement park message board. I don't need to analyze and try to dissect the different psyches' of 350 million people in an attempt to try to understand why some people like or don't like crowded areas, or why some people like to decorate their lawns with pink flamingos while others think it's gaudy (me). Nothing against the OP, but I don't have time to read a 2000 word breakdown on why someone likes red paint over silver paint. I've lived long enough, had enough college, had enough work experience, had enough life experience to know what I like doesn't matter to the dude sitting next to me in my office. Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure all the people that you all work with could give two poops about you either. People fake their way through life, being faux cordial to one another, only to turn around and gossip about them 2 seconds later to their other "friend", who in turn, will do the same thing to them 2 seconds later. Once people realize this glaring fact, they end up being happier with themselves, and pretty much leave other people alone. And, in turn, end up actually being nice to others, because they no being mean/cruel/vengeful/etc. won't get them anywhere in life, other than back to the gossip wheel they were on before.

I come to these boards to see the other 'like minded' folk talk about the good/bad/ugly of Disney properties. To delve into some philosophical conversation is absolutely not necessary.

So you somewhat care. You cared enough to initially respond.

There was nothing fake about what nevol wrote. No one analyzed anyone, they simply stated something based on their own observations, but you somewhat don't care to read.

You said you would never move to Los Angeles and New York City, I'm assuming because you believe the people in these two cities think they're better than others? If so, you're judging millions and millions of people based on, what? What you've seen on television? Maybe you've come across some people who were snooty. Whatever it is, you're doing the same thing you condemned someone else of doing. But it doesn't matter, since people are fake, mean, and gossips, and you don't care enough to read long posts.
 

rle4lunch

Well-Known Member
So you somewhat care. You cared enough to initially respond.

There was nothing fake about what nevol wrote. No one analyzed anyone, they simply stated something based on their own observations, but you somewhat don't care to read.

You said you would never move to Los Angeles and New York City, I'm assuming because you believe the people in these two cities think they're better than others? If so, you're judging millions and millions of people based on, what? What you've seen on television? Maybe you've come across some people who were snooty. Whatever it is, you're doing the same thing you condemned someone else of doing. But it doesn't matter, since people are fake, mean, and gossips, and you don't care enough to read long posts.

I'm not trying to get your dander up. I've lived in San Diego, Phoenix, Philadelphia, and now the suburbs of DC. All big cities. I lived in different spots of California for 11 years (product of the military moving me around), and for what it's worth, it's a great state to visit, but I wholly reject the overarching attitude of the socialist collective that California is trying to instill on the culture. Before you start condemning me for my words (cause god forbid I have my own opinion), maybe you should stop and think before typing something with your feelings instead of logically asking my background. Nevertheless, this conversation is stupidity in action, and I've wasted 3 minutes replying to you. I don't wear my heart on my sleeve, I don't have time for that nonsense.

What I've seen on TV.. lol.. I love you youngin's and your militaristic attitudes to those who don't agree with your world view. This conversation is done, BTW..
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom