-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
deleted
- Thread starter iHeartDisneylandCats
- Start date
TwilightZone
Well-Known Member
If they made a mars needs moms ride that's closer to the book (yes, there's a book) it might be a success.
Not that it's ever gonna happen.
SuddenStorm
Well-Known Member
This^^^
Let's not forget the classics from the 2000's that today's 20 year olds were raised on.
Mars needs mom's, chicken little, Meet The Robinson's all contain elements that would be incredibly fitting for Tomorrowland.
Travel Junkie
Well-Known Member
Maybe they can make a blockbuster movie about an optimistic vision of the future. They can get a George Clooney type to star and then Disney suits can have their IP while staying true to the original vision of the land. They can really be on the nose and call this new blockbuster movie Tommorowland.
oh wait
oh wait
Well, Bowler Hat Guy still shows up in the Halloween parade...
It's just a giant bouncy castle designed to make you lose money.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I hate to say it, but TL needs to return to its roots so to speak.
“Advertisementland”
Get some corporate sponsers, have them work with WDI. Split the land into three sections, Sea, Land, and Air (space).
Sea can focus on the last area left to explore on Earth, the very bottoms of the ocean.
Land can focus on technological advancements to save our planet.
Air can focus on off-planet exploration.
Now find some corporate sponsers like SpaceX and you’ve got an updated land.
“Advertisementland”
Get some corporate sponsers, have them work with WDI. Split the land into three sections, Sea, Land, and Air (space).
Sea can focus on the last area left to explore on Earth, the very bottoms of the ocean.
Land can focus on technological advancements to save our planet.
Air can focus on off-planet exploration.
Now find some corporate sponsers like SpaceX and you’ve got an updated land.
TwilightZone
Well-Known Member
Innoventions did that.
It failed hard.
Advertismentland just simply won't work in the internet age.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Innoventions is one "attraction" not the entire land. Also it failed because of execution. It was just a walk-thru with no real attraction tied to it, basically no pay-off. If it had the walk-thru and then an actual attraction it would have worked.
Well, you can see how well that worked out for Future World.
Well in my opinion Future World would work if they kept up with it. Instead like the rest of Epcot it never got any love to keep it fresh.
The reason, in my opinion, why TL 1955-early 90s worked is because of corporate sponsorship of the attraction. With the infusion of money from companies like GE, Ford, and Monsanto, and them wanting to showcase their products, it lead to great attractions. Its the infusion of money and corporate branding that is needed to make sure the attractions would be great again.
For example you wouldn't have had Adventures Thru Inner Space without the Monsanto sponsorship. The same with Carousel of Progress, without GE it wouldn't have existed. And who knows without Ford there might have never been a Peoplemover.
Point is I think if we really want TL to be back to its prime with original attractions then we have to hope that WDI is looking for corporate sponsors to help foot the bill. Companies like SpaceX for space, Cousteau Society for sea, and any number of biotech and environmental companies for land. Partnering with these companies can lead to a great overhaul of TL.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Because when its someone else's money being spent WDI has a track record of producing some of the most amazing attractions due to TWDC beancounters being less involved. Whereas when you have the internal beancounters fully involved well recently you get some not so stellar attractions. Hopefully SW:GE will prove that wrong. But you get my point.
Case in point all the attractions for TDLR paid for by TOLC.
This explanation doesn’t support corporate sponsorship in domestic parks.
TDLR attractions are IP or original attractions that are paid for my OLC that don’t sell a specific product or company. The attractions are amazing because they are Disney IP and OLC is willing to pay for quality.
Epcot and Tomorrowland attractions that are corporate sponsored will sell corporate ideas, products, and concepts that have short shelf lives. They must be constantly updated unlike the attractions developed for TDLR. The budgets are quite restricted unlike OLC. So you attribute corporate sponsorship to OLC, which isn’t a fair comparison. OLC is paying for attractions as a owner who asks a contractor to build it. Disney owns Epcot yet asks sponsors to help build it because otherwise it won’t. Thankfully, this model is broken and Disney is rightfully acting like the owner and using its own IP.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
My example of OLC is to show that when someone else is footing the bill besides TWDC amazing attractions get created. That is not to say when TWDC fully foots the bill amazing attractions can't happen. There are examples of this with Pandora and (hopefully) SW:GE. However its almost 100% amazing when someone else pays for the attraction. Its just we also get things like Pixar Pier because of the beancounters.
Since there is no OLC in the US sponsors would be the one footing the bill. And since its their brand likely being showcased, the sponsors would also want to make sure its a stellar attraction. The same as OLC would want to make sure its a stellar attraction for the money they are spending.
It is absolutely not true that a corporate sponsor will ensure the attraction is stellar. They have no ownership of the attraction. They are merely sponsoring it. Disney actually owns it. So it’s a partnership of mediocrity.
I tried to distinguish the difference between OLC and corporate sponsorships and you brushed it by.
BasiltheBatLord
Well-Known Member
Playing devil's advocate here but a looooot of TDR attractions have corporate sponsors actually. I don't know the extent to which that means that those sponsorships "pay for" the attractions in question, but just wanted to point that out.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I didn't brush it by, I just didn't agree with your premise that OLC and sponsors don't equate. What I think you are thinking of is when its a sponsor in name only. What I'm proposing is like the original sponsors of TL, meaning fully invested in all aspects of the attraction. So while the sponsors didn't own the actual attractions they had a vested interest to ensure that their brand is represented up to their standards. So for example Monsanto was fully invested in making sure Adventures Thru Inner Space was a stellar attraction as their name and brand was completely represented within the attraction itself. The same for GE with Carousel of Progress, their brand was represented in the attraction, so they had a vested interest to make sure the attraction was done well.
So what I'm talking about is beyond just a name slapped on the side of the attraction.