Does that mean Mission: SPACE is better suited for Tomorrowland? Not arguing, just asking.
I wouldn't really think so, since Mission: SPACE does have some educational value, and comparing to something like Space Mountain it is much more grounded in reality.
There is no part of a distinction based on intellectual property that is related to story content, just when the story was created. When a story was initially created and for what medium has nothing to do with the experience. It is an external metric. Tomorrowland and Future World were given a story-driven distinctiveness and that it has been ignored is not a failing of the distinction, it is instead the same lack of respect for themed entertainment as a medium that has seen theme and story ignored across the board.
Mission: SPACE is rather closely related to Mission to Mars. Should it not then be in Tomorrowland based on your criteria? While it is a fictional story, it is not really the sort of more fantastic story that is labeled "sic-fi."
How was/is Mission: SPACE a fantasy adventure? It is about space flight training. The hyper sleep conceit is the only way out there idea.
I'm sorry if my post was unclear but I was referring to Mission to Mars being a fantasy adventure when it opened in Tomorrowland, not Mission: SPACE at Epcot.
Yeah, well, technically that would be some kind of improved clone. Not removing it from Disneyland.
I think only the track needs replacement, not the whole building.
And Magic Kingdom's Space Mountain is the original that came before all the others around the world.Indeed. People really mean "unique" or "particular" or "iconic" when they misuse "original." Original meaning 'first' or 'from the start' is used in "Original Sin" and "to originate". The phrase "it's an original" should only be used for the thing that started it all, not for something unique.
And....... it's "hare-brained." As in "mad as a march hare" to bring it around to an appropriated Disney property.
Let's put it this way. Tomorrowland is a whimsical look at the future and Future World should be a serious one. Space Mountain is far from a serious look at future space travel. The current space pavilion should be replaced by one based on Cosmos.
I'm pretty sure that invisible oxygen domes are real.
Serious vs Whimsical is enough of a distinction. However, I'd say that Jim Hill's rumors of Dreamfinder and Figment being relocated to Tomorrowland as walk around characters would also better fit this whimsical vs serious approach. Would you be ok with those two moving to Magic Kingdom?
No because that's the one area of Future World that actually should be a bit whimsical. You can't have progress with no imagination.
Here's the thing, people want both Epcot and Tomorrowland to evolve but not too much. I want clear distinctions made between the two and for me a focus on Discovery is a true evolution that I can get behind.
And how does anything I said conflict with that?
