-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks (Part II)
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Omnispace
Well-Known Member
Exactly, though thinking about this since I'll concede it's not like it hadn't been done before for a similar subject...
This one is one of my all time favorites. I suppose the 1967 Tomorrowland was more likely to create some sparkle with the shiny metal surfaces, but that incredible orange wash that gives the scene a sense of excitement and movement is genius.
I also always privately smirk whenever I see the Imagination Pavilion rendering at Epcot with the "rainbows" rendered across the glass. Ironically, I had a box of laminated glass samples come across my desk one day. The layer sandwiched between created a rainbow pattern in bright light. It would be interesting if using such glass would create the intended rainbows for the pavilion. I wish I had held on to that sample box.
Omnispace
Well-Known Member
Thanks for sharing that. It certainly explains what happened in some respects though in reality one would never be able to achieve all those highlights that Eric applied to the rendering that give the rendering it's "sparkle". He also had to create an intense dark background to make all those dark value browns, copper, and turquoise to "pop-out". I don't want to diminish anything here though. The work is exceptional and the Orbitron itself does have the highlights in reality -- just not everything, which you explained.
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
Eric's work is always romantic without being a lie. Herb's work is abstract and usually is more about the emotion of the space than the literal architecture or color. He did a good job with the design he had to work from.
Herb Ryman's New Orleans work is both romantic and pretty literal and are some of the best renderings ever done at WED. "Specifically vague" he would call it. He'd put color where you'd least expect to find it and it worked. The orange in the Tomorrowland rendering shows that. I think the 67 Tomorrowland delivers on the art and in a way exceeds it.
Herb Ryman's New Orleans work is both romantic and pretty literal and are some of the best renderings ever done at WED. "Specifically vague" he would call it. He'd put color where you'd least expect to find it and it worked. The orange in the Tomorrowland rendering shows that. I think the 67 Tomorrowland delivers on the art and in a way exceeds it.
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
The colors and metallic paint finishes of Tomorrowland 86 are essentially the same as Discoveryland in DLP. Orbitron is a good example. It was not scenically painted and aged, but powder coated metallics. Metals were not rendered realistically, but symbolic in a bronze color. The "rocks" were scenic. Tony expanded that look into Disneyland. From what I understand, the real budget impacts discussed were in the scope of attractions, things like that, leaving the Rocket Rods being far less than imagined.
Omnispace
Well-Known Member
Since I brought it up in an earlier post... after some searching I found an example of an actual building that has the rainbow effect glass. It's a holographic film that is laminated between two layers of glass. (The glass itself isn't colored -- the light is broken up into different colors by the holograms.)
Wouldn't that be nice installed in the glass pyramids of the Imagination Pavilion at Epcot??
The only drawback I see is that much the pavilion faces north though perhaps the angle of diffraction can be adjusted so that it catches the glancing sun in the early morning and late afternoon, or perhaps even at noon when the sun's angle is greater than the slope of the pyramids. It certainly is an interesting application. Btw - this is the Šiauliai Arena in Lithuania. It looks very similar to another pavilion at Epcot....
Wouldn't that be nice installed in the glass pyramids of the Imagination Pavilion at Epcot??
The only drawback I see is that much the pavilion faces north though perhaps the angle of diffraction can be adjusted so that it catches the glancing sun in the early morning and late afternoon, or perhaps even at noon when the sun's angle is greater than the slope of the pyramids. It certainly is an interesting application. Btw - this is the Šiauliai Arena in Lithuania. It looks very similar to another pavilion at Epcot....
Omnispace
Well-Known Member
The light in southern California is very different from central Europe which tends to be very blue-gray overcast at times. I wonder how much that was considered. I remember reading in John Hench's book about how he felt there was a significant difference between California and Florida that he had to account for when selecting colors for WDW. I'm sure it's something they must have thought about when transferring the DLP colors to Anaheim. Did your work on DLP involve that?
Pixiedustmaker
Well-Known Member
It will be interesting to see Shanghai Disneyland's Tomorrowland being built. While Walt wanted to make the People Mover a reality, I think that a People Mover style ride, with theming, could still be a hit. DL's People Mover didn't have much in the way of story, they could use the People Mover ride system and theme it to an automated tour of a "Droid Factory", or just of Tomorrowland as if it was a tourism overview with stuff like, "Be sure to check in early for guests departing to the lunar hotel", with a 3-4 show scenes, in addition to the relaxing tour of Tomorrowland.
Hong Kong Disneyland's Tomorrowland is such a mesh-work of styles, a 1970's Space Mountain, which doesn't match the Discoveryland-style Astro-Orbiter type ride . . .
and Buzz is off doing his own thing . . .
Wikkler
Well-Known Member
Hong Kong Disneyland's Tomorrowland is such a mesh-work of styles, a 1970's Space Mountain, which doesn't match the Discoveryland-style Astro-Orbiter type ride . . .
and Buzz is off doing his own thing . . .
...Gawrsh. Really coherent theming there, Disney.
Omnispace
Well-Known Member
The Peoplemover was more of a demonstration than anything else but it did give a tour of Tomorrowland similar to what you describe, just without all the overt sci-fi references that eventually ended up on the "Tomorrowland Transit Authority" in WDW. Disneyland's Peoplemover seemed to maintain the original intent except for where it was taken over by the Master Contol Program in the Tron section. I did love the Peoplemover though. There is still a need for leisurely excursion-type attractions in the parks. Not everything has to be a thrill ride.
I wish that Tomorrowland would once again look towards a possible realistic future instead of looking back at a sci-fi one, ...or a cartoon one. But I'll admit that in order to take one out of the realm of today there has to be a certain level of science fiction involved -- just not of the cliche-type. Adventure Thru Inner Space was a perfect example of this. It was forward-reaching and dealt with a scientific theme but it was also full of "far-out" technology that was never fully explained, and in its context didn't really have to be. Think about it: people were put into pods and shrunk to a size smaller than an atom -- that's pretty crazy. But also think of someone who has arrived from 100+ years ago and experiences something as mundane as a microwave oven, "unexplainably" heating up water using no heat. Perhaps that quality of story can be applied to new Tomorrowlands and we can find out what it's like to travel in a Syd Mead time capsule...
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I think the biggest hurdle to this is that how we now conceive of the future has changed so dramatically. Past visions of the future had a lot of focus on the mechanical, especially transportation. Just think of Tomorrowland '67 with its rockets, PeopleMovers, monorails, submarines and Atommobiles. Discovery, learning, communication was all about going there in bigger and better ways. We don't do that any more. We don't have to do that any more. We don't have to send a man to Mars to study it, we can send robots to deal with the years long trek across space. The digital/information revolution is a genuine cultural revolution that has dramatically altered the larger view of the future.
Pixiedustmaker
Well-Known Member
I think most guests kinda thought of the People Mover as that slow moving ride above Tomorrowland where you can catch your breath, plus usually being a walk-on. Yes, Walt wanted to showcase the technology, but it also kinda became a ride and theming for Tomorrowland by making the place that much more kinetic.
While there are some People Movers, they're so ugly in that the track is an eyesore:
I think that part of the beauty of WDW's People Mover and Disneyland's People Mover is they look/looked good. Though we have a lot of technological improvements, there was this idea (as seen in Carousel of Progress) that the modern world would be clean, as well as designed from the bottom up, as well as being high tech.
There's not much difference between modern People Movers and elevated subways, at least in terms of appearance. The concept of a stylish/personal transportation system that isn't an eyesore, still hasn't been achieved. We've talked in this thread about personal People Movers, I think folks would line up for that instead of a subway for the morning commute, though it would cost more per person. It's not beyond our technological know-how . . . but beyond the financial resources of pretty much all communities.
I think that personal pod People Movers in Tomorrowland, with perhaps a choice of destinations: a restaurant, a show/ride, or the return trip, would showcase a technology that the world's wishes it had, but is currently too expensive.
I think that in a theme setting, you could build a pod car which has a transparent top.
Heathrow Airport has a cool system:
Heathrow's system cost something like $8.9 million per mile, plus $800,000 per station. Probably uses sensors in the ground . . . add on futuristic theming, maybe even special effects in the ride vehicles a la Indy, and some show scenes, and you've got a nice little ride.
Omnispace
Well-Known Member
Those are very astute observations. You are correct that our entire view of the future is going to change over and over again. It's why I love the TV series "The Day The Universe Changed" because a simple discovery or action can have a profound impact on everything that comes after. James Burke, (the author of the series), also made an interesting analogy about how books that were once limited-access large volumes chained to desks are now available inexpensively to everyone as paperbacks. It's pretty much the same information revolution that has happened with computers. But communication and knowledge only address particular human needs of which there are many more -- such as personal experience. It's why there are now more people climbing Mt Everest than ever before and why there is still consideration of sending people to Mars... ...and partly why we visit Disneyland.
Pixiedustmaker
Well-Known Member
Nuclear subs, the freeway system, rockets to the moon . . . all new technology in 1967 that promised to change the world.
There is still a drive to innovate new means to transportation: Google cars that driven themselves, private space tourism, high speed rail . . . I think people have a vision of the future where transportation is easy to use, cheap, and ubiquitous. Ask anybody sitting for hours on the freeway during a commute.
Pixiedustmaker
Well-Known Member
It's why there are now more people climbing Mt Everest than ever before and why there is still consideration of sending people to Mars... ...and partly why we visit Disneyland.
The airline industry is expected to grow in the coming decades. People are traveling more and interested in that personal experience, be it Machu Picchu or the Louvre. Airline tickets are cheaper than they once were, but what if transportation got so cheap (and fast) that you could basically travel as much as you wanted? And if it was cheap? You could make a decision between going to Rome for the weekend or the mall.
In the news recently there was the idea of a "hyper loop" which would let somebody travel from L.A. to New York in 30 minutes!
What if in 100 years you've got people who live in New York, but commute to Madrid for work each day?
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
I was just at Heathrow last week and forgot to seek out the Pods! Rats!
Omnispace
Well-Known Member
I guess when you get shuttled about in limos there's no need to take a Pod to the spotty car park.
The ride looks a lot smoother than Dallas Airport's old AirTrans which used a similar type of guideway, though having the Peoplemover music would add a lot to the experience. By the way, is that Judi Dench's voice on the announcements??
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
I guess when you get shuttled about in limos there's no need to take a Pod to the spotty car park.
I wouldn't know. I took a Taxi ;-) I would have loved to try that Pod but did not have a car in London to place me in that car park.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Those are very astute observations. You are correct that our entire view of the future is going to change over and over again. It's why I love the TV series "The Day The Universe Changed" because a simple discovery or action can have a profound impact on everything that comes after. James Burke, (the author of the series), also made an interesting analogy about how books that were once limited-access large volumes chained to desks are now available inexpensively to everyone as paperbacks. It's pretty much the same information revolution that has happened with computers. But communication and knowledge only address particular human needs of which there are many more -- such as personal experience. It's why there are now more people climbing Mt Everest than ever before and why there is still consideration of sending people to Mars... ...and partly why we visit Disneyland.
Yes, the actual experience is still very important, but Mt. Everest in the future will probably still be a lot Mt. Everest today. Cities will change and grow, but that is not an experience of futurism. As you stated, so much of Tomorrowland 67 was a prelude to EPCOT, a city where everybody had to work. The economy drives a lot of technology and even futurism. That is part of where the issue becomes. We're so wired now that for some, there is no allure in something like supersonic air travel because a flight is time where one currently must disconnect. Tomorrowland is not any geographic place, it is based purely in ideas. Even Adventureland, as a celebration of the exotic versus a certain place/time has known imagery with which to create its tableau. Tomorrowland as futurism has to create its own distinct image based in exciting ideas that are still desirable.
In many ways I think the "Montana Future" side angle of Tomorrowland 98 was on to something. It was about connecting to places and it only works if done right, for the proper place. Imagine a Tomorrowland that understood its geographic place and was truly built for that environment, with highly sustainable structures that in their very orientation teach us things, even small things like just throwing up louvered shades on your windows doesn't automatically make you "green" (a particular ire of mine).