New Tomorrowland @ Disneyland? Is this the year it finally gets announced? No, and that’s OK

[Mr. Sullivan]

I said this in the other thread, but the more I think on it the more I do see where they're coming from with this idea. On paper and in isolation it sounds like an odd choice to not just put them in Avengers Campus but in practice, seeing as how the movie's in a different universe and as we've seen it aesthetically borrows a lot from retrofuturism, I see how they got to this decision.

I would imagine they won't remain there forever and if we see them in the parks again, it'll be across the esplanade, but for now this may be fun!

 

[britain]

I said this in the other thread, but the more I think on it the more I do see where they're coming from with this idea. On paper and in isolation it sounds like an odd choice to not just put them in Avengers Campus but in practice, seeing as how the movie's in a different universe and as we've seen it aesthetically borrows a lot from retrofuturism, I see how they got to this decision.

I would imagine they won't remain there forever and if we see them in the parks again, it'll be across the esplanade, but for now this may be fun!

If they can have a Buzz Lightyear ride in tomorrowland and Toy story mania in California adventure, there’s no reason why they wouldn’t put a Fantastic Four attraction in tomorrowland.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

If they can have a Buzz Lightyear ride in tomorrowland and Toy story mania in California adventure, there’s no reason why they wouldn’t put a Fantastic Four attraction in tomorrowland.

Well I'm not really advocating for that exactly, I'm just saying I understand why this meet and greet is being done in Tomorrowland instead of Avengers Campus.

 

[Disney Irish]

I think a 60s retrofuturistic look may suit it well, especially if Fantastic Four does well this summer in theaters.

So it sounds like I may be right after all, will be interesting to see if it happens.

 

[DLR92]

Having a hiatus of 12 years. I have to say-Tomorrowland deserves a redo. Although I hope Space Mountain stays. It deserves a touch up. If the exterior has to change. Please be not like of Tokyo redo. I wouldn’t mind original renderings for Space Mountian.

Buzz Lightyear needs to be axed. Or I wouldn't engaging dark ride based on Buzz. The rest can be reimagined. Autopia should also be scrapped for new development.

 

[CaptinEO]

Having a super hero film inspired by Tommorowland be the basis of inspiring a Tommorowland redo is so stupid.

This company is clueless on how to be creative. Remaking 60s inspired Fantasic Four film Tommorowland is not the future and is so against what Walt wanted in having lands representing ideals and themes.

 

[Disney Irish]

Having a super hero film inspired by Tommorowland be the basis of inspiring a Tommorowland redo is so stupid.

This company is clueless on how to be creative. Remaking 60s inspired Fantasic Four film Tommorowland is not the future and is so against what Walt wanted in having lands representing ideals and themes.

Well the problem is you can't create a real updated "Tomorrow" land that looks into the future and can remain for at least a decade or two, because the future always comes. So at a certain point your "Tomorrow" land becomes "Today" land and then "Past" land, or more precisely, "Things that never happened in the future which now looks very dated" land. Its something I think even Walt realized after he opened it.

So if you want to present a land that is futuristic enough looking that could represent a "Tomorrow" look but can remain locked in time for at least a couple decades, why not use a retrofuturistic IP as your basis.

 

[McMickeyWorld]

I don't mind that it's driven by a superhero IP; in the end, I feel like they share similar values to what Tomorrowland represents — optimism for a better world and future. I'd even say it's also a celebration of humanity, though I'm not entirely sure about that last part. What concerns me are the creative limitations and how this might affect the final project. I feel like it's the best IP, along with Elio, that could fit into Tomorrowland. Now, once again, what truly matters is the final result.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

Having a super hero film inspired by Tommorowland be the basis of inspiring a Tommorowland redo is so stupid.

This company is clueless on how to be creative. Remaking 60s inspired Fantasic Four film Tommorowland is not the future and is so against what Walt wanted in having lands representing ideals and themes.

I think this conversation is putting the cart before the horse a little bit. All this is is a temporary meet and greet. We can have the conversation about F4 being actually integrated into the land and if that’s good or bad if they decide to do that in the future, but at the moment that’s not at all what they’re saying.

 

[chadwpalm]

Its something I think even Walt realized after he opened it.

We don't know that. He very much could have expected future imagineers to continually make changes over the years and continue to push it out into the future. That sad part is, that never happened.

So if you want to present a land that is futuristic enough looking that could represent a "Tomorrow" look but can remain locked in time for at least a couple decades, why not use a retrofuturistic IP as your basis.

I completely disagree. I don't believe the one and only way to present the future is through IP-based sci-fi and fantasy. Sure, they can take elements from other works as inspiration, but honestly, all that means is that Hollywood and book writers have produced much more imagination than the employees at Disney that bear that word in their name.

Imagineering hasn't used their imagination for years and if they can't come up with ideas of the future that haven't already been written by Hollywood, then the phrase "As long as there is imagination left in the world...." doesn't apply to the imagineering department anymore.

 

[Gusey]

We don't know that. He very much could have expected future imagineers to continually make changes over the years and continue to push it out into the future. That sad part is, that never happened.

I mean Walt Disney greenlit the first New Tomorrowland because the original was outdated:
" As Walt would put it, “Tomorrow is a heck of thing to keep up with,” and from the beginning, Tomorrowland proved the most challenging area of the park to design and build."
"The new Tomorrowland was, as Alan Coats, former Imagineer and son of Disney Legend Claude Coats, describes, “certainly an improvement over the old ‘yesterdayland’ as Walt called the original. Looking back, we can see from the success of the World's Fair shows that Walt was incorporating new technologies, transportation systems, and corporate involvement with the thought of EPCOT in mind.”"
From the Walt Disney Family Museum: https://www.waltdisney.org/blog/next-stop-tomorrowland-walt-disneys-future-1967

 

[CaptinEO]

Well the problem is you can't create a real updated "Tomorrow" land that looks into the future and can remain for at least a decade or two, because the future always comes. So at a certain point your "Tomorrow" land becomes "Today" land and then "Past" land, or more precisely, "Things that never happened in the future which now looks very dated" land. Its something I think even Walt realized after he opened it.

So if you want to present a land that is futuristic enough looking that could represent a "Tomorrow" look but can remain locked in time for at least a couple decades, why not use a retrofuturistic IP as your basis.

I disagree completely. Tomorowland problem is something imagineers talk about but it only is a problem with no funding or creativity.

1) Futuristic technology and ideas are speculation, you can speculate way beyond whats achievable in the near future. (Flying cars and human commercial space travel still haven't happened but were thought of a very long time ago)

2) You can update elements that become a reality if and when they happen.

Imagineers and fans should try to dream vs be constrained by a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[chadwpalm]

I completely disagree.

I disagree completely.

We both completely disagreed to disagree completely......or something.

 

[CaptinEO]

I think this conversation is putting the cart before the horse a little bit. All this is is a temporary meet and greet. We can have the conversation about F4 being actually integrated into the land and if that’s good or bad if they decide to do that in the future, but at the moment that’s not at all what they’re saying.

This is based on speculation happening already about a Tomorrowland redo in the name of Fantastic Four.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

This is based on speculation happening already about a Tomorrowland redo in the name of Fantastic Four.

Speculation based on what though? There has been no credible source for that speculation other than an announcement of a meet and greet.

 

[Disney Irish]

We don't know that. He very much could have expected future imagineers to continually make changes over the years and continue to push it out into the future. That sad part is, that never happened.

We actually do as @Gusey pointed out, its the reason that he greenlit the first redo.

I completely disagree. I don't believe the one and only way to present the future is through IP-based sci-fi and fantasy. Sure, they can take elements from other works as inspiration, but honestly, all that means is that Hollywood and book writers have produced much more imagination than the employees at Disney that bear that word in their name.

Imagineering hasn't used their imagination for years and if they can't come up with ideas of the future that haven't already been written by Hollywood, then the phrase "As long as there is imagination left in the world...." doesn't apply to the imagineering department anymore.

I didn't say its the only way, I just said its one way. And if you disagree with that one way and think another way is better, so be it, its all a matter of personal preference. But with that said, really one of the only ways to prevent Tomorrowland from becoming a Yesterdayland is constant updates, something that I don't think Disney is really ready to pursue because that requires a funding streaming that just doesn't exist at this point.

One thing I took away from the recent SXSW presentation, and something I've picked up on many times before, is how much Studios feeds into ideas for the Parks, something we've all known. Pete Docter said it best when he said that Pixar uses the idea of their movies going into the Parks as a way to flesh out idea for the movie. So its not that there isn't a lack of imagination in WDI, as seen by projects like the Adventureland Treehouse, its that Disney has prioritized IP over originality when it comes to the Parks. And while I don't disagree with that, as it makes business sense and for the most part it works with few exceptions, I think WDI hasn't really been given a chance to spread their wings creatively to create a wholly original attraction or land.

 

[Disney Irish]

Speculation based on what though? There has been no credible source for that speculation other than an announcement of a meet and greet.

This really isn't even speculation at this point. Its more of a talking point more than anything, and one I started.

So I think you're getting your hackles up for no reason here. As yes there is no speculation, rumor, or announcement of anything F4 related to TL beyond a M&G.

 

[Disney Irish]

I disagree completely. Tomorowland problem is something imagineers talk about but it only is a problem with no funding or creativity.

1) Futuristic technology and ideas are speculation, you can speculate way beyond whats achievable in the near future. (Flying cars and human commercial space travel still haven't happened but were thought of a very long time ago)

2) You can update elements that become a reality if and when they happen.

Imagineers and fans should try to dream vs be constrained by a problem that doesn't exist.

As I said in a post above, I don't think there is a creativity problem, but I do agree its a lack of a funding problem because it would require constant updates.

I think the real reason why so many lean toward a retrofuturistic redo is because having a futuristic land based on retro ideas for the most part prevents that the "Yesterday"land feel. Time marches on, and so anytime you put a stake in the ground and say "this is our version of x year or y future", x and y always come. But if you look forward by going back you don't have to worry about that as much, other than normal wear and tear.

So if you prefer a real "Tomorrow"land with a more real look into the future, so be it and I can see some merit to that. I just don't think Disney is willing to do that because of that "Yesterday"land issue not because of lack of creativity, but that is just my opinion.

 

[CaptinEO]

As I said in a post above, I don't think there is a creativity problem, but I do agree its a lack of a funding problem because it would require constant updates.

I think the real reason why so many lean toward a retrofuturistic redo is because having a futuristic land based on retro ideas for the most part prevents that the "Yesterday"land feel. Time marches on, and so anytime you put a stake in the ground and say "this is our version of x year or y future", x and y always come. But if you look forward by going back you don't have to worry about that as much, other than normal wear and tear.

So if you prefer a real "Tomorrow"land with a more real look into the future, so be it and I can see some merit to that. I just don't think Disney is willing to do that because of that "Yesterday"land issue not because of lack of creativity, but that is just my opinion.

It doesn't have to be a strict prediction of the future and there can be some camp/fantasy in there too. But to me going back to the 60s is the laziest solution.

The Disney company makes way more than it ever did it Walt's lifetime and could absolutely afford to spend to keep tommorowland updated.

It's a sad state of affairs when going back to 60s Tommorowland is a better solution than what we currently have.

Disneyland certainly shouldn't just be a museum of its former self.

 

[Disney Irish]

It doesn't have to be a strict prediction of the future and there can be some camp/fantasy in there too. But to me going back to the 60s is the laziest solution.

The Disney company makes way more than it ever did it Walt's lifetime and could absolutely afford to spend to keep tommorowland updated.

It's a sad state of affairs when going back to 60s Tommorowland is a better solution than what we currently have.

Disneyland certainly shouldn't just be a museum of its former self.

I disagree, the laziest solution is to continue doing nothing, ie what they've been doing for the last 20+ years. If you want to call it "safe" sure I'll agree with you, but going retrofuture to me is not lazy as its a very popular theme that many like even if you don't. The more risky endeavor would be to try to do a more "future" look with Tomorrowland, even if its a camp/fantasy look at it.

As we all know, things are more expensive now and they are no longer a single park single studio company like back in Walt's day, so saying they have more money now is not being honest about the difference between the eras of the company. As you're looking at spending multiple Billions at x interval to keep the land refreshed. That is a large continual investment for what may not amount to a large enough return is not something most companies want to do. Whereas doing something that will last 20-30 years is more likely what they are looking at, which is why a retrofuture look is more likely what they look towards as that can last that amount of time whereas a more realistic future theme will get dated quicker.

Also not to be nitpicky, but you've done it now a bunch of times in multiple posts, its Tomorrow with only one "m", not Tommorrow.