deleted

[Sharon&Susan]

IPs are pretty much predictably stable. Once installed, they last an extremely long time. Purists are not representative of most guests. Revolt like giving up an AP? Not likely.

You mean such IPs as Honey I Shrunk the X, Pearl Harbor (on the Tram Tour), or Reign of Fire (on the DSP Tram Tour)? I’m glad none of these IPs stayed past their relevance cycle!

 

[Disney Irish]

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.

Likely OLC offsets the cost of the attraction with what the sponsors pay. I doubt, but don't know for sure, the sponsors in that case have much input into any aspect of the attraction. So its really sponsor in name only.

 

[TwilightZone]

You mean such IPs as Honey I Shrunk the X, Pearl Harbor (on the Tram Tour), or Reign of Fire (on the DSP Tram Tour)? I’m glad none of these IPs stayed past their relevance cycle!

There's also many IPs with attractions that stood the test of time:
Matterhorn
Splash Mountain
Arguably space ranger spin
2000 Leagues under the sea
ALL classic fantasyland rides (and don't give me that walt era spit, because there's some classics that weren't supervised by him!)
ALL lands
and much much more if you really want to stretch it.

 

[Sharon&Susan]

There's also many IPs with attractions that stood the test of time:
Matterhorn
Splash Mountain
Arguably space ranger spin
2000 Leagues under the sea
ALL classic fantasyland rides (and don't give me that walt era spit, because there's some classics that weren't supervised by him!)
ALL lands
and much much more if you really want to stretch it.

What connection does Third Man on the Mountain have with the Matterhorn other than the Matterhorn being in that picture and it being made by Disney? Would the average guest in 1959 associate it with the film? Was it ever promoted as being based off Third Man on the Mountain in 1959?
I assume by all lands, you’re referring to all the land being key parts of a TV show that was based off Disneyland? If a book adaptation of a film came out a few months before the film it’s based on came out would you say the film is based off the book or that the book is inspired by the film?
And no, pre-existing IPs are not necessarily bad. But, they are not as stable as a foundation as they may seem to some. IP attractions are better at remaining timeless compared to any attraction with a celebrity playing themselves, though.

 

[TwilightZone]

What connection does Third Man on the Mountain have with the Matterhorn other than the Matterhorn being in that picture and it being made by Disney? Would the average guest in 1959 associate it with the film? Was it ever promoted as being based off Third Man on the Mountain in 1959?
I assume by all lands, you’re referring to all the land being key parts of a TV show that was based off Disneyland? If a book adaptation of a film came out a few months before the film it’s based on came out would you say the film is based off the book or that the book is inspired by the film?
And no, pre-existing IPs are not necessarily bad. But, they are not as stable as a foundation as they may seem to some. IP attractions are better at remaining timeless compared to any attraction with a celebrity playing themselves, though.

Good points there.
Matterhorn is just one of those commonly believed things that I'm not sure what evidence is there to support or not support it. Maybe I shall do that next year.

 

[DanielBB8]

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.

I’m not referring to sponsorships in name only. They become that way after the attraction was already designed. Adventures Thru Inner Space is exactly the type of corporate sponsorship attractions that don’t last because they are usually not tied to Disney IP, which do last. Carousel of Progress didn’t last at Disneyland. Despite many corporate sponsored attractions closing at Epcot, there’s still many examples still remaining that are up for more updates, but we already said goodbye to Maelstrom that had the good corporate decision of placing a representative oil platform in the attraction and the government chose to allow the attraction to deteriorate over the last decade with lack of funds. Kodak’s sponsorship of Imagination made it worse. GM’s sponsorship of Test Track made it better, but I doubt it will last much longer for a company that’s closing its operations in the US.

OLC is the owner of TDLR so it’s an entirely different model.

 

[DanielBB8]

You mean such IPs as Honey I Shrunk the X, Pearl Harbor (on the Tram Tour), or Reign of Fire (on the DSP Tram Tour)? I’m glad none of these IPs stayed past their relevance cycle!

A lot of this is the medium. 3D movie attractions will not last long. The tram ride is on it’s way out.

 

[Disney Irish]

I’m not referring to sponsorships in name only. They become that way after the attraction was already designed. Adventures Thru Inner Space is exactly the type of corporate sponsorship attractions that don’t last because they are usually not tied to Disney IP, which do last. Carousel of Progress didn’t last at Disneyland. Despite many corporate sponsored attractions closing at Epcot, there’s still many examples still remaining that are up for more updates, but we already said goodbye to Maelstrom that had the good corporate decision of placing a representative oil platform in the attraction and the government chose to allow the attraction to deteriorate over the last decade with lack of funds. Kodak’s sponsorship of Imagination made it worse. GM’s sponsorship of Test Track made it better, but I doubt it will last much longer for a company that’s closing its operations in the US.

OLC is the owner of TDLR so it’s an entirely different model.

You're surely entitled to your opinion but that doesn't mean you're right, just means you have an opinion just like the rest of us.

Just because you feel sponsorship based attractions don't last doesn't mean they won't or can't. For example CoP, not only did it last but has become a fixture in MK. The reason it didn't last in DL is because GE felt their money would be best spent at WDW where there would be more tourists, more return on their investment. So the whole attraction got moved in its entirety, again not because GE was unhappy with it or wanted to end their sponsorship, but rather because they actually wanted more people to see it. And even after GE ended their sponsorship, the attraction has continued to this day. Now its seen better days, and needs an update again. But overall its still is an example of how a sponsor can help create a stellar attraction that can stand the test of time. Which is my whole point.

You bought up another example of where a sponsor improved an existing attraction in Test Track with GMs sponsorship. Last I checked GM was still making cars. Even if they are closing some US operations they still plan to sell to the US market. So why would they end their sponsorship just because of closure of some US plants?

I'm the first to say IP based attraction can and do have their place in the parks, I've argued many times on this very site for their usage. But there is something to be said about the classic TL attractions that were created hand-in-hand with their respective sponsors. There is a reason why we're still talking about them today, because they are iconic and classic for a reason that goes beyond the sponsor. And I personally think the next generation TL needs the same thing. Now that's not to say an IP attraction can't have its place in the new TL, but I think just the right sponsorship can help create the next generations version of CoP or ATIS.

 

[DanielBB8]

You're surely entitled to your opinion but that doesn't mean you're right, just means you have an opinion just like the rest of us.

Just because you feel sponsorship based attractions don't last doesn't mean they won't or can't. For example CoP, not only did it last but has become a fixture in MK. The reason it didn't last in DL is because GE felt their money would be best spent at WDW where there would be more tourists, more return on their investment. So the whole attraction got moved in its entirety, again not because GE was unhappy with it or wanted to end their sponsorship, but rather because they actually wanted more people to see it. And even after GE ended their sponsorship, the attraction has continued to this day. Now its seen better days, and needs an update again. But overall its still is an example of how a sponsor can help create a stellar attraction that can stand the test of time. Which is my whole point.

You bought up another example of where a sponsor improved an existing attraction in Test Track with GMs sponsorship. Last I checked GM was still making cars. Even if they are closing some US operations they still plan to sell to the US market. So why would they end their sponsorship just because of closure of some US plants?

I'm the first to say IP based attraction can and do have their place in the parks, I've argued many times on this very site for their usage. But there is something to be said about the classic TL attractions that were created hand-in-hand with their respective sponsors. There is a reason why we're still talking about them today, because they are iconic and classic for a reason that goes beyond the sponsor. And I personally think the next generation TL needs the same thing. Now that's not to say an IP attraction can't have its place in the new TL, but I think just the right sponsorship can help create the next generations version of CoP or ATIS.

Yes, we are all entitled to our own opinions. That said, the idea that corporate sponsorships continuing is best relegated to the past or done sparingly. The exceptions to the rule are exactly that. EXCEPTIONS. So many corporate sponsored attractions moved or closed. Sure, they paid for them so they are there. But instead of salvaging much of them for future attractions with updating or even an IP fitting like Maelstrom, many corporate sponsored attractions just get Yesterdaylanded. Disney abandoned the practice at Epcot. We miss Siemens at Spaceship Earth. Heck, Disney won’t even accept free monorails from Siemens.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Why was this thread even started?

https://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/tomorrowland-love.919910/

Why don’t you pay attention to the subject and forum?

 

[Californian Elitist]

Was just getting ready to respond to Scud...but NVM, you guys missed my point!

What point? That you made a mistake?

 

[Disney Irish]

Yes, we are all entitled to our own opinions. That said, the idea that corporate sponsorships continuing is best relegated to the past or done sparingly. The exceptions to the rule are exactly that. EXCEPTIONS. So many corporate sponsored attractions moved or closed. Sure, they paid for them so they are there. But instead of salvaging much of them for future attractions with updating or even an IP fitting like Maelstrom, many corporate sponsored attractions just get Yesterdaylanded. Disney abandoned the practice at Epcot. We miss Siemens at Spaceship Earth. Heck, Disney won’t even accept free monorails from Siemens.

It’s just best to agree to disagree here, I see it differently. Just because you personally feel some practice should be relegated to the past doesn’t mean it can’t be reused in the future. But I do appreciate your opinion even if I disagree with it.

 

[Californian Elitist]

The point I was trying to make was that so much of this has been discussed in that thread already. Why make another?

But I don't have to answer too you anyway.

You just did answer to me.

The topic of discussion is Tomorrowland in DISNEYLAND, so the OP logically decided to create a dedicated thread in the DISNEYLAND sub-forum. The thread you linked has nothing to do with this one.

Come up with another point that makes sense.

 

[DanielBB8]

It’s just best to agree to disagree here, I see it differently. Just because you personally feel some practice should be relegated to the past doesn’t mean it can’t be reused in the future. But I do appreciate your opinion even if I disagree with it.

I keep saying that by abandoning corporate sponsorships, Disney will be forced to do a better job. Isn’t that the goal?

 

[Old Mouseketeer]

The Tiki Room, it's footprint is about the same as Peter Pan.

Heck, at one time, you couldn't even use an "E" Coupon, it had its own ticket, just like the Railroad.

I remember Tiki Room as an "E" ticket plus 10 cents, but I've also heard people quote 5 cents. I don't remember the SFDRR having a separate ticket, but I only started going to the park after they added ticket books and the Monorail. So even during my years when Retlaw still owned and operated the Monorail and SFDRR, they were "E" tickets (and my cousin worked for Retlaw in the '70s before going to security).

 

[Old Mouseketeer]

Here's the way I see it.

Very Likely:
Astrospinner gets moved. Any sane person knows that this was a mistake.

Subs/Autopia is removed and the land is split between Fantasyland and Tomorrowland for expansion. I said that Subs would die two years after Finding Dory came out (but I expected some scene updates from Dory). They take up too much land.

Adjustment of the traffic flow. They have continually encroached on what were very expansive walkways and created multiple choke points.

Probable:
Extensive modification of Innoventions or full replacement. I'm leaning towards demo and rebuild. But you'd amost certainly have to keep the tunnel or remove TL Terrace--there's a lot of support underground that would normally be housed in a backstage service alley.

Reuse parts of the existing steel structure from the buildings housing Buzz, Star Tours, Pizza Dump, and the SM complex (like they did in 1967 and also the 1983 Fantasyland).

Preferable:
Get rid of Captain Eo theater and open up the Space Mountain complex. I absolutely hate what this has become. It's one of the worse examples of infill at any Disney resort.

Remove PM track if they're not going to use it. (Alternatively. add six foot chain link and create a permanent RunDisney track with periodic LED screens with rotating themes. Hey--it would keep them off the city streets and allow CMs to get to work without massive detours!)

Unlikely:
Demo Space Mountain.

Close Buzz or Star Tours in the forseeable future as long as people keep riding them.

Unknown:
Remove TL Terrace and PM/Rocket Jets tower.

Timeframe, theme, and budget (overlay and rehash or blue sky). YMMV.

 

[TP2000]

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.

And the sponsors at Tokyo Disneyland are kind of random. And nearly every E Ticket, and some smaller rides, has a sponsor in both Tokyo parks. It's also not uncommon for shows and restaurants to also have corporate sponsors in Tokyo. Sponsors are just everywhere in Tokyo Disneyland and DisneySea, like it's 1966.

Pirates of the Caribbean, Presented by Kirin (a Japanese beer company)

Sinbad's Stoyrbook Voyage, Presented by Nippon Express Co. (the Japanese UPS)

Nemo & Friends Searider, Presented by Japan Credit Bureau

 

[BrianLo]

The point I was trying to make was that so much of this has been discussed in that thread already. Why make another?

But I don't have to answer too you anyway.

Why did the WDW people make a separate Star Wars Land thread - when the discussion is so similar...

Other than ours being bigger and opening first of course.

 

[BrianLo]

Hot take, tomorrowland sucks as a theme... there, I said it!

It doesn’t suck because they are lazy or can’t get it right. It sucks because nuclear family 50’s futurism is boring.

Either lean into Sci Fi or just truly redo it as something different.

There are 8 installations of ‘Tomorrowland’ and without fail they are all amongst the weakest lands in their respected parks. The only exciting attractions are the ones that really don’t even fit the ‘theme’.

Give me a pirate land, give me a Jules Verne land, give me dinosaurs or even magic. Anything but ho-hum corporate sponsored ‘science/edutainment’.

 

[Sharon&Susan]

I wouldn't be surprised if Disney rebrands Tomorrowland as Discoveryland at some point. Not necessarily the same design as Paris, but basically a catch all area for stuff that wouldn't really fit in any other area of the park.

Tomorrowland is too big of a brand at this point to ditch and the name hasn’t stopped Disney from alrady making it a catch-all area. I’d say that most (if not all) of the IPs in Tomorrowland around the world don’t really fit.