ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Is it so hard to believe that someone in WDI deliberately designed it to make the switchback to Tower relatively easy.
Yes it is as this project was driven by executive ego.
Is it so hard to believe that someone in WDI deliberately designed it to make the switchback to Tower relatively easy.
I, along with all of us, would love to find out Disney's end game with this ToT/ Mission Breakout fiasco. I'm sure it's for the upcoming Marvel land, but It's very interesting to me why they did it so hastily and just threw it up. Why? They haven't announced anything yet. I'm betting they spill the beans at D23 this year to settle everyone down. If they don't, that makes this even more strange.
I wouldn't say never. It's unlikely sure but stranger things have happened.The ride will not ever switch back to TOT, but it could very well be changed out for another IP down the line.
The exterior can be fixed. All you need to do is tear off al the pipes re-paint the thing and presto.Here's to hoping, just in case reviews are bad enough to warrant a change.. RIP to the exterior though.
The Executive will never publicly get the blame that's true but I think the Tom Staggs situation is proof that privately that might not be the case.Like most executive ego driven things I'm sure much money was spent to ensure that a switch back was not possible as if it was switched back it means executive was wrong. And that can never happen.
.
There is a rumor the original version will return after Hyperspace ends...When they modified Space Mountain at Disneyland Paris to turn it into Mission 2, only one prop was removed: the moon sweeper. The rest was either upgraded or for the physical sets not needed, covered up in black tarps. When they did the huge refurb in 2016 on it, they uncovered all the hidden props and effects, fixed them up and then recovered them... I wonder what for now?
Ah, The Spaceship Earth Descent treatment!The rest was either upgraded or for the physical sets not needed, covered up in black tarps. ?
Yes it is as this project was driven by executive ego.
At some point, artists want to stretch their wings. I think we are already starting to see signs of a weariness with constant dictates to copy this and copy that. I also think we are at the start of the end of the days of the accidental themed entertainment designer. One can now get a degree in themed entertainment design. I find it hard to believe that as the people who grew up wanting to be Imagineers and went to school specifically to get into themed entertainment become the industry veterans that there won't be a desire to do more than just movie franchises (even if they are very excited now to be working on their favorite franchises).What suggestion could you offer that would bring themed entertainment into the world of high art( I would imagine the original Epcot Center came the closest to this status)? Could you ever see a theme park that did not pander to children and was designed for a more progressive/adult audience? Because I think that is the crux of the matter and the mindset of many people. Theme parks are for children and it's fantastical. Which is also a big issue with taking any type of speculative fiction seriously.
The new trains all but confirm thisThere is a rumor the original version will return after Hyperspace ends...
I wouldn't say never.
To bad they will never understand the beauty of the original attraction.At least there's an excuse to sell Figment merch in CA now
Are you referring to a program like SCAD's MFA in Themed Entertainment or Carnegie Mellon's Entertainment Technology Center? I bring this up because I'm very skeptical of SCAD as an academic institution.I find it hard to believe that as the people who grew up wanting to be Imagineers and went to school specifically to get into themed entertainment
Both and both have also been relatively recent hosts of the TEA SATE Conference. It's definitely early, but the SCAD program seems to be doing well in getting people into the industry.Are you referring to a program like SCAD's MFA in Themed Entertainment or Carnegie Mellon's Entertainment Technology Center? I bring this up because I'm very skeptical of SCAD as an academic institution.
While there is a lot written, Architectural Modernism is dominated far more by a particular aesthetic style than the theory that is supposed to underpin that image. I don't think any single axiom better defines Modernism than Louis Sullivan's "form [ever] follows function." This simple statement does embody many of the criticisms of theme parks and it is all based on a fundamental misunderstanding of both Sullivan and themed entertainment. To Sullivan, function was not limited to just mundane, utilitarian tasks but also, most importantly, included an emotional reaction. The function of a theme park is not just be a store, restaurant or warehouse to hold a building; the function of a theme park is to tell a story. Everything in a good themed experience is there to support the story and anything superfluous to that aim is removed as much as possible.Interesting post. I've been toying with the idea of writing on this subject. But I'm curious about a couple of things in your post.
For both modernism and most versions of postmodernism, the text's willingness to critique is a crucial element. There's no reason that theme parks as texts couldn't perform that work, but to this point they typically haven't. I'm not even sure that EPCOT, which was certainly the most ambitious concept in park design, did that effectively. It tended to voice a pro-corporate agenda that seems opposed to the kind of critique valued by modernism and postmodernism.
Doesn't that lack of critique have a bearing on how these places are viewed by the critical establishment? Without critique, these places do struggle to move beyond echoing nostalgic and romantic attitudes, which can be comfortable but also shallow.
At the Guardians Mission Cashgrab reviews. Sounds like a winner
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.