News Tomorrowland love

steve2wdw

steve2wdw

WDW Fan Since 1973
Glass anyone? Love the curtains of glass Martin refers to....wish I'd taken different photos from different angles of both the north and south buildings all those years ago. There are from Feb 77, I believe. Who's for replacing/ressurecting all those lights below the PM track? Martin?
TL Mission to Mars & America the Beautiful.jpeg
 
The Visionary Soul

The Visionary Soul

Well-Known Member
trainplane3 said:
It's Your World, a multiplayer park simulation and general game...thing. It's kind of hard to explain. It got my attention because of the 1979 TL park. You can do Rocket to the Moon (featuring footage from @marni1971), the Star Jets, the PM, and (unofficially) the Skyway. It's a really neat project. There's bugs and weirdness (the PM railings not loading when you're close to them on ground level for example) but it's pretty awesome and I look forward to the future of it. You can sign up here and see if they let you in: https://yourworld.azurewebsites.net/

p0jPCY7.png

(tweaked FOV and resolution manually)

There's a test coming up soon but they aren't saying what it'll be. Is it a TL update, one of the other parks, or something completely different? They do encourage sharing screenshots of it as well (at least they did back over the summer). If it's a TL update and they allow sharing, I'll post a few to this thread.
Click to expand...
That looks like Theme Park Studio got a new name.
 
trainplane3

trainplane3

Well-Known Member
TheVisionarySoul said:
That looks like Theme Park Studio got a new name.
Click to expand...
Kinda sorta I think. Pantera Entertainment leads it I think but this is a separate thing. But it is going to work with parks created in TPS I think? I'm not quite clear. I remember TPS being pretty heavily criticized when it came out but I didn't follow that. I'm a Planet Coaster and No Limits 2 person.

I love the TL 1979 project and that's my main reason for following it.
 
yensidtlaw1969

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
tirian said:
THAT picture gave me chills. Old-school TL felt like you could really be traveling into the future. But FWIW, 1994 TL was a huge success too. The land didn’t start falling apart until (a) its Toonification and (b) reduced maintenance.

I’m happy to see a retro-inspired TL, but I also would’ve been happy with a fully restored TL ‘94.
Click to expand...
trainplane3 said:
I won't disagree with TL 94. They should've pushed the land overhaul out to SM to really wrap it all up instead of being all alien-futurey in the front and retro future in the back (party in the front, business in the back...a reverse mullet). I love the retro future style we're getting so I won't complain.
Click to expand...

I think the problem that I have with what they're doing now is that it feels like a wholesale trade in of Tomorrowland as a themed land for Tomorrowland as a commodity - as if instead of theming the place to any notion of Tomorrow (or some weird, cartoonified, gunked-up version of that) they've decided to theme the place to Tomorrowland™. It's becoming a playground masquerading as a hacked-up version of the vintage Tomorrowland, weirdly built on the grounds and framework of the original, with none of the meat that made that place work and offering no solution to the problems that caused it to be removed in the first place.

Not only is that a little too self-indulgent, but it's a relatively obscure reference. People like us can appreciate the new color schemes as a throwback, but does anyone else recognize that's what it is? I'd guess that most people - even people who visited back in the heyday of the original - wouldn't get it. So now the land continues to lack futuristic attractions to make the case for any tomorrow-ness, but now it also lacks any visual language that captures any culturally understood version of "tomorrow". At least you could say of the remnants of Tomorrowland 94 that they registered as futuristic-looking. '71 Tomorrowland isn't a large enough touchstone to communicate to the audience that it needs to speak to - unless you actively loved it the first time, you won't get it now.

Not to mention the even more obvious weirdness of the fact that their point of reference for design is now actively the past.

TRON at least suggests an arguably forward-looking aesthetic, but it makes it all the more surprising that they're trying to turn back the clock on the rest of the land instead of dressing things up to agree with the new neighbor. I feel like a "TRON-skinned" Tomorrowland would work much better than this retro palette they've literally painted the land in as a depiction of some version of Tomorrow, plausible or otherwise, and would work to actually unify the land and its old and new offerings. The work they've been doing throughout the land only seem to distance it further from TRON, rather than dress the space in a way that's sympathetic to the new construction. I figured that would have been the top priority of the reskinning.

If you're not building the land's content around the theme of "Tomorrow", at least let the setting sell that theme. Otherwise the name now truly means nothing.

I say this all passing no judgement on the people who like it, I'm just surprised to see Disney play it this way with their Tomorrowland Redo.
 
tirian

tirian

Well-Known Member
yensidtlaw1969 said:
I think the problem that I have with what they're doing now is that it feels like a wholesale trade in of Tomorrowland as a themed land for Tomorrowland as a commodity - as if instead of theming the place to any notion of Tomorrow (or some weird, cartoonified, gunked-up version of that) they've decided to theme the place to Tomorrowland™. It's becoming a playground masquerading as a hacked-up version of the vintage Tomorrowland, weirdly built on the grounds and framework of the original, with none of the meat that made that place work and offering no solution to the problems that caused it to be removed in the first place.

Not only is that a little too self-indulgent, but it's a relatively obscure reference. People like us can appreciate the new color schemes as a throwback, but does anyone else recognize that's what it is? I'd guess that most people - even people who visited back in the heyday of the original - wouldn't get it. So now the land continues to lack futuristic attractions to make the case for any tomorrow-ness, but now it also lacks any visual language that captures any culturally understood version of "tomorrow". At least you could say of the remnants of Tomorrowland 94 that they registered as futuristic-looking. '71 Tomorrowland isn't a large enough touchstone to communicate to the audience that it needs to speak to - unless you actively loved it the first time, you won't get it now.

Not to mention the even more obvious weirdness of the fact that their point of reference for design is now actively the past.

TRON at least suggests an arguably forward-looking aesthetic, but it makes it all the more surprising that they're trying to turn back the clock on the rest of the land instead of dressing things up to agree with the new neighbor. I feel like a "TRON-skinned" Tomorrowland would work much better than this retro palette they've literally painted the land in as a depiction of some version of Tomorrow, plausible or otherwise, and would work to actually unify the land and its old and new offerings. The work they've been doing throughout the land only seem to distance it further from TRON, rather than dress the space in a way that's sympathetic to the new construction. I figured that would have been the top priority of the reskinning.

If you're not building the land's content around the theme of "Tomorrow", at least let the setting sell that theme. Otherwise the name now truly means nothing.

I say this all passing no judgement on the people who like it, I'm just surprised to see Disney play it this way with their Tomorrowland Redo.
Click to expand...
After the bad forced perspective throughout New FL, the striped Innoventions paint job at Epcot, strangely edited night shows, and the odd decisions with SWGE — I’m more surprised when they get it right.

The years of DCA 1.0 and WDS Paris seem to have initiated an era where WDI has become unpredictable, giving us everything from Superstar Limo to Stitch to Pandora.

Even though the styles are retro, the latest mid-century-modern and googie architecture at TL and Epcot do feel like baby steps in the right direction. The renovations follow years of broken effects and clutter.

But I’ll always prefer the sci-fi TL ‘94 during its heyday. Space Mt., TTA, Carousel, Astro with spinning planets, DreamFlight, Timekeeper, and Alien Encounter made that land its own “park” over a decade before the industry started pretending single IP-based lands were theme parks. It still had a fully functioning Cosmic Ray’s and a large theater for shows and musical performances. Too bad the budget ran out behind Rockettower Plaza.

Apologies to Disneyland in the 1960s: WDW’s TL ‘94 was the most cohesive TL vision Disney ever put on North American soil.
 
Last edited:
sedati

sedati

Well-Known Member
Animaniac93-98 said:
Before we had glow-in-the-dark aliens...

Click to expand...

Another great work by Martin. I can't believe you captured the whole thing back in the day. We flew Eastern on our first trip. Thinking back, it seems odd to travel to the world of tomorrow to re-enact what we'd done the day prior.

The sponsored attraction was free back in the days of tickets. While both Wings and Dreamflight were imaginatively done, they were basically ride through promotional advertisements.
Screen Shot 2020-02-02 at 12.33.52 PM.png


And to be overtly snarky, it occurs to me that by using this same logic, EPCOT Center should have been a free park.

Anyway, thanks as always for the nostalgia trip and I hope I can get the song out of my head (though truthfully I have a copy on my playlist already.)
 
Last edited:
yensidtlaw1969

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
tirian said:
After the bad forced perspective throughout New FL, the striped Innoventions paint job at Epcot, strangely edited night shows, and the odd decisions with SWGE, I’m more surprised when they get it right. The years of DCA 1.0 and WDS Paris seem to have initiated an era where WDI has become unpredictable, giving us everything from Superstar Limo to Stitch to Pandora.

Even though the styles are retro, the latest mid-century-modern and googie architecture at TL and Epcot do feel like baby steps in the right direction. The renovations follow years of broken effects and clutter.

But I’ll always prefer the sci-fi TL ‘94 during its heyday. Space Mt., TTA, Carousel, Astro with spinning planets, DreamFlight, Timekeeper, and Alien Encounter made that land its own “park” over a decade before the industry started pretending single IP-based lands were theme parks. It still had a fully functioning Cosmic Ray’s and a large theater for shows and musical performances. Too bad the budget ran out behind Rockettower Plaza.

Apologies to Disneyland in the 1960s: WDW’s TL ‘94 was the most cohesive TL vision Disney ever put on North American soil.
Click to expand...

I really wish they'd just taken the opportunity to freshen up the parts of TL '94 that had fallen into disrepair and then dress up everything past Rockettower Plaza in a way that transitions from Buck Rogers to TRON. The new Carousel of Progress sign is a good example of a style that could bridge the gap.

I do agree that the last 20 years (can it really be that long???) have demonstrated WDI's ability to offer a mixed bag. Even things like the universally praised Hangar in Rise of the Resistance - is it really a show of strong design, or is it a show of money? This is sort of emblematic of a lot of Galaxy's Edge - for as much as they built, and how big it all is, most of it doesn't really "do" much. Though I do think overall Rise of the Resistance does impress, it's not entirely immune from this. New Fantasyland is different but achieves a similar result - it takes a few more design risks, but almost none of them pay off (you're right that the Beast's Castle manages to look smaller and more toylike than it actually is), though it's fair to say that everything looks like it had money behind it.

The missing element, then, is actual engaging design, which 1) Needs cash to work, but you can't make up for a lack of it with cash alone, and 2) Can't always be sourced directly from a film project or property, as has become the general trend. These things must be interpreted to work for the medium, which, despite all the connective tissue, is inherently different from film, and you need interpreters who understand that.

Tomorrowland '94 was created by people who knew how to make an exciting, vibrant, and engaging land for the guest experience. The theme spoke clearly and rang true, was dynamically executed, and featured a menu of offerings that were rich and carried through on the theme. It's only problems were that the money wasn't there to finish the job and that it got picked at over the years until it was a shell of its former self.

How I wish I could have been around to see DL's Tomorrowland '67. I'd rather see Disneyland turn their Tomorrowland into a land built in throwback to its heyday - not only do I think '67 DL Tomorrowland was noticeably stronger all around than '71 MK Tomorrowland and mnore deserving of a revival (though I agree MK TL '94 probably wins overall), but I think the culture of that park would let you make that reference and have it be understood. But then, I also think a significant mass of the land's problems could be solved by putting the Rockets back on the platform, doing something meaningful with the Carousel Theatre Building/Plot, and reinstating some sort of Peoplemover . . . though I get why these things haven't happened.

I also do agree overall that WDI fares better these days when they're given the chance to start from scratch than when they're tasked with some sort of piecemeal redo of an existing project. New Fantasyland, New DCA, New Fantasmic at DL, New DHS, New Epcot, the list goes on . . . they all fail in either concept or execution to integrate well with what worked about the projects as they existed before, despite the finished product indicating the project was sufficiently funded. They seem to have some sort of tendency to lose the forest for the trees.
 
Rich Brownn

Rich Brownn

Well-Known Member
sedati said:
Another great work by Martin. I can't believe you captured the whole thing back in the day. We flew Eastern on our first trip. Thinking back, it seems odd to travel to the world of tomorrow to re-enact what we'd done the day prior.

The sponsored attraction was free back in the days of tickets. While both Wings and Dreamflight were imaginatively done, they were basically ride through promotional advertisements.
View attachment 446196

And to be overly snarky, it occurs to me that by using this same logic, EPCOT Center should have been a free park.

Anyway, thanks as always for the nostalgia trip and I hope I can get the song out of my head (though truthfully I have a copy on my playlist already.)
Click to expand...
The original pre-EPCOT Center proposal has the Future World Theme Center sponsored and free of charge. So the idea was there originally.
 
MadTeacup

MadTeacup

Well-Known Member
yensidtlaw1969 said:
I also do agree overall that WDI fares better these days when they're given the chance to start from scratch than when they're tasked with some sort of piecemeal redo of an existing project. New Fantasyland, New DCA, New Fantasmic at DL, New DHS, New Epcot, the list goes on . . . they all fail in either concept or execution to integrate well with what worked about the projects as they existed before, despite the finished product indicating the project was sufficiently funded. They seem to have some sort of tendency to lose the forest for the trees.
Click to expand...
Just a friendly reminder that entertainment - including Fantasmic! - falls under Disney Parks Live Entertainment (DPLE), not WDI.
 
aladdin2007

aladdin2007

Well-Known Member
tirian said:
After the bad forced perspective throughout New FL, the striped Innoventions paint job at Epcot, strangely edited night shows, and the odd decisions with SWGE — I’m more surprised when they get it right.

The years of DCA 1.0 and WDS Paris seem to have initiated an era where WDI has become unpredictable, giving us everything from Superstar Limo to Stitch to Pandora.

Even though the styles are retro, the latest mid-century-modern and googie architecture at TL and Epcot do feel like baby steps in the right direction. The renovations follow years of broken effects and clutter.

But I’ll always prefer the sci-fi TL ‘94 during its heyday. Space Mt., TTA, Carousel, Astro with spinning planets, DreamFlight, Timekeeper, and Alien Encounter made that land its own “park” over a decade before the industry started pretending single IP-based lands were theme parks. It still had a fully functioning Cosmic Ray’s and a large theater for shows and musical performances. Too bad the budget ran out behind Rockettower Plaza.

Apologies to Disneyland in the 1960s: WDW’s TL ‘94 was the most cohesive TL vision Disney ever put on North American soil.
Click to expand...

Completely agree, it was a golden age of Imagineering that just doesnt seem to happen anymore. Being done piecemeal like others have said, and not much of a sense of direction,,,esp Stitch's lack of replacement, the 50th around the corner and yet no new attraction in there...I think time is probably too short now for that to happen?... Its almost like park management is making these choices and outsourcing designs and work all to save bucks with little to no imagineering. I dont know but to me its still not coherent and severely lacks compared to what use to be or could be. But most guests don't know what use to be, so Disney feels they can get away with mediocrity or half baked. I would just love to see the TTA get some true love, a themed narration, cleaned up, new scenes, etc, and work efficiently like it use to, its down way too much all the time now.
 
larryz

larryz

I'm Just A Tourist!
Premium Member
yensidtlaw1969 said:
I think the problem that I have with what they're doing now is that it feels like a wholesale trade in of Tomorrowland as a themed land for Tomorrowland as a commodity - as if instead of theming the place to any notion of Tomorrow (or some weird, cartoonified, gunked-up version of that) they've decided to theme the place to Tomorrowland™. It's becoming a playground masquerading as a hacked-up version of the vintage Tomorrowland, weirdly built on the grounds and framework of the original, with none of the meat that made that place work and offering no solution to the problems that caused it to be removed in the first place.

Not only is that a little too self-indulgent, but it's a relatively obscure reference. People like us can appreciate the new color schemes as a throwback, but does anyone else recognize that's what it is? I'd guess that most people - even people who visited back in the heyday of the original - wouldn't get it. So now the land continues to lack futuristic attractions to make the case for any tomorrow-ness, but now it also lacks any visual language that captures any culturally understood version of "tomorrow". At least you could say of the remnants of Tomorrowland 94 that they registered as futuristic-looking. '71 Tomorrowland isn't a large enough touchstone to communicate to the audience that it needs to speak to - unless you actively loved it the first time, you won't get it now.

Not to mention the even more obvious weirdness of the fact that their point of reference for design is now actively the past.

TRON at least suggests an arguably forward-looking aesthetic, but it makes it all the more surprising that they're trying to turn back the clock on the rest of the land instead of dressing things up to agree with the new neighbor. I feel like a "TRON-skinned" Tomorrowland would work much better than this retro palette they've literally painted the land in as a depiction of some version of Tomorrow, plausible or otherwise, and would work to actually unify the land and its old and new offerings. The work they've been doing throughout the land only seem to distance it further from TRON, rather than dress the space in a way that's sympathetic to the new construction. I figured that would have been the top priority of the reskinning.

If you're not building the land's content around the theme of "Tomorrow", at least let the setting sell that theme. Otherwise the name now truly means nothing.

I say this all passing no judgement on the people who like it, I'm just surprised to see Disney play it this way with their Tomorrowland Redo.
Click to expand...
My estimate: they're actually re-theming it as "Tom Morrow-land."
 
ChrisFL

ChrisFL

Premium Member
I barely remember seeing IYHW and loved Dreamflight, though I've heard a lot of people say they prefer IYHW...not sure if it's nostalgia or I'm missing something
 
Donaldfan1934

Donaldfan1934

Well-Known Member
trainplane3 said:
Now about the "legs"...
tomorrowland-visual-refresh-peoplemover-magic-kingdom-02032020-3.jpg


blogmickey.com

Tomorrowland Visual Refresh Continues at Magic Kingdom; Land Entrance Partially Complete

Walt Disney World news, photos, and reviews! We provide you with daily news from the Walt Disney World theme parks and beyond
blogmickey.com blogmickey.com
Click to expand...
Look on the bright side. The fact that the legs weren’t cheaply altered while under the scrims means there’s still hope for them to be properly removed later. My guess is their removal would also necessitate the removal of the red neon lights under the track, so I assume that process won’t begin until work on the supports is finally completed.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom