I think one of the main issues people have who saw the film is how LITTLE time is actually spent in Tomorrowland itself.
This is something many assumed we would be spending a lot of time in and viewers likely expected to see more of that setting.
Many found this to be a big letdown after all the exciting concept art, stunning visual preview peeks, and overall promise it all seemed to hold.
All that is shown is the quick fly though at the beginning with young Frank flying about in his jetpack, and Caseys amazing 4+ minute visit via her pin experience.
After that, most of the story focuses on real word settings. Then when we finally DO get back to Tomorrowland it is a desolate wasteland thanks to Nix kicking out all the creative thinkers.
If i went into the movie theater expecting this to be a fantasy/sci-fi picture that mainly took place in that alternative world, i would have been fairly disappointed too after seeing it.
When a film is called 'Tomorrowland', the assumption is that will be the case.
I think many were unpleasantly surprised when they realized that was not going to be the case.
So i can understand some of the critical response reflecting that disappointment.
It was a marvelous 'teaser'...that beautiful, futuristic city...one we ALL wanted to explore further, but it was decided to keep the peeks on the short side.
Of course i also wished there was more exploration of the city, but the scenes that are present in the final cut work for me In the context of the story being told.
I found that the short 4+ minute tease when Casey visits the 'perfect' Tomorrowland fitting as it actually sets up what becomes that characters' main drive during the course of the film
It gives the audience a fantastic tease that whets the appetite to explore that world further.
We just don't get the opportunity, or at least, not enough of a opportunity in some opinions, thus the disappointments.
So after that magnificent and tantalizing glimpse of the pristine version ofTomorrowland, Casey's character then spends the rest of the film trying to get back there to that world.
EXACTLY when we, the audience, desires to do.
WE all want to go back and see more of that fantastic alternative dimension, too ,so we the viewers now have the same emotional drive as her character does.
So to me, those short scenes 'work' in the context of the story.
The other 'big issue' critics and those who did'nt really like the film seem to have is they find it too 'political' of 'preachy'.
I cannot really grasp where they are seeing the 'political' angle in this story, but my guess is the environmental issues touched on in some scenes.
David Nix's 'monologue' is often specifically pointed out as being 'too preachy' and 'cringe worthy'.
We have discussed this previously here, which was good.
Perhaps the film just hit a nerve with some people who did'nt get the message, or interrupted it as a movie telling them point-blank that they are too lazy or un-inspired to change their own futures in a positive direction?
Perhaps the environmental tones irritated some people, or maybe brought on some inner guilt?
Perhaps they felt some of the perceived 'statements' being made were just messages they did'nt agree with or want to hear in the context of what they thought was going to be a family friendly fantasy film...?
That is what is great about films....everyone has there own way of enjoying or not enjoying them, and having their own interruptions and opinions about them.
This is good, as it makes great conversations.
Let's see if we can get some folks who did'nt like the film to talk more about the 'whys' behind it.
