I know what you're thinking based on the title, but hear me out.
When WDW opened in 1971, Tomorrowland was the show case for technology of the future, modern architecture and design and sci-fi concepts. When EPCOT Center's Future World opened in 1982, the scale and ambition of the attractions put Tomorrowland's mix of sponsored shows to shame, while also making the overall asethetic look dated. In response, Disney embraced sci-fi even more and rebranded Tomorrowland in 1994 with a mix of original concepts. Ten years later, that approach was abandoned in order to more easily add attractions based on animated features.
Now DHS is getting a 14-acre Star Wars land that looks like it will put to shame all previous attempts by Disney at creating a science fiction enviroment, in the same resort that already has both Future World and an increasingly muddled and dated Tomorrowland. Disneyland will have a similar problem, made more obvious by having both Tomorrow and Star Wars lands in the same park, but does WDW really need 3 futurist/sci-fi lands? Animal Kingdom is differentiated from Adventureland by its focus on real animals and cultures, instead of the adventure of popular culture and literary works, but what's ultimately difference between the fantasy of MK's Tomorrowland and Star Wars land beyond branding and the obvious gap in quality and cohesion. Expanding Pixar's presence at DHS also makes Monsters Inc Laugh Floor seem more out of place.
IMO, Disney should keep Space Mountain, and maybe the Speedway and spinner, but scrap everything else. I too would miss CoP, but there's no denying Disney has no real idea of what to do with it or the rest of land beyond selling Stitch plush and Buzz Lightyear toys. It's a large spot of real estate that could be used for something more unqiue, orginal and engaging. Removing Tomorrowland also gives DHS the chance to expand it's sci-fi presence beyond Star Wars with GotG, BH6 or some other property, without any thematic trouble or making Tomorrowland look any worse by comparison.
At least, that's how I feel at this time. Does Tomorrowland still have potential...or a point?
When WDW opened in 1971, Tomorrowland was the show case for technology of the future, modern architecture and design and sci-fi concepts. When EPCOT Center's Future World opened in 1982, the scale and ambition of the attractions put Tomorrowland's mix of sponsored shows to shame, while also making the overall asethetic look dated. In response, Disney embraced sci-fi even more and rebranded Tomorrowland in 1994 with a mix of original concepts. Ten years later, that approach was abandoned in order to more easily add attractions based on animated features.
Now DHS is getting a 14-acre Star Wars land that looks like it will put to shame all previous attempts by Disney at creating a science fiction enviroment, in the same resort that already has both Future World and an increasingly muddled and dated Tomorrowland. Disneyland will have a similar problem, made more obvious by having both Tomorrow and Star Wars lands in the same park, but does WDW really need 3 futurist/sci-fi lands? Animal Kingdom is differentiated from Adventureland by its focus on real animals and cultures, instead of the adventure of popular culture and literary works, but what's ultimately difference between the fantasy of MK's Tomorrowland and Star Wars land beyond branding and the obvious gap in quality and cohesion. Expanding Pixar's presence at DHS also makes Monsters Inc Laugh Floor seem more out of place.
IMO, Disney should keep Space Mountain, and maybe the Speedway and spinner, but scrap everything else. I too would miss CoP, but there's no denying Disney has no real idea of what to do with it or the rest of land beyond selling Stitch plush and Buzz Lightyear toys. It's a large spot of real estate that could be used for something more unqiue, orginal and engaging. Removing Tomorrowland also gives DHS the chance to expand it's sci-fi presence beyond Star Wars with GotG, BH6 or some other property, without any thematic trouble or making Tomorrowland look any worse by comparison.
At least, that's how I feel at this time. Does Tomorrowland still have potential...or a point?
