Tomorrowland is themed worse than most themed lands you will find at a Six Flags park

[Figment632]

thats the way SFA is. It's all mostly comic book characters with shows and rides, its annoying. I think the most original rides we have are Shipwreck Falls, and Renegade Rapids....those are the only 2 original rides that ARENT themed.

I dont really have a problem with the superhero theme its the fact that the superhero rides are spread out in lands that they dont fit in.

 

[jakeman]

Keep in mind, the Walt Disney Productions wasn't the huge entertainment corporation it is today so sometimes Walt had to work with what he got even if somthing was out of place in a land. If Walt had limitless resources we probably would've seen a practically perfect Disneyland back then.

You mean like the Matterhorn in 1959? Or the Submarine Voyage that same year?

I think we all know enough about Walt Disney to know if it really bothered him, he would have changed it.

However, since this argument has devolved into a WWWDD conversation, I'm not sure it is a benefit to continue it, at least on my end.

The bottom line is this, those in charge of thematic choices for Tomorrowland in WDW has been unconcerned with the consistancy of theme in this particular land since the opening of the park and those inconsistancies go back as far as the opening of Disneyland.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Some people have been good enough to admit as much, but I honestly think a lot of the criticism in this thread is based more on the quality of attractions like Stitch and Monsters Inc than their theming.

Nobody ever complains about Splash Mountain's location, even though the antebellum South is about as far from the pioneer West as you can get (geographically and thematically). It's a great ride and it blends in visually if you don't think too hard about it, so nobody cares.

As we've already covered here, Haunted Mansion gets it right from the exterior and if you want, you can ignore the jazzy soundtrack and imagine that all the interior action happened in colonial times without too much of a stretch. Plus, it's a great ride and a classic.

Pirates ransacking a Caribbean island town aren't really something you'd encounter along an uncharted jungle river or somewhere in the wilds beyond civilization, but this was one of Walt's babies and everybody loves it. It's "adventurous" and fun, so...discrepancies overlooked.

Carousel of Progress spends a bunch of time looking back over the development of 20th century technology before making a tacked-on wave toward a future that doesn't look all that futuristic, but it's a classic, so people say it fits because of a storyline that isn't even mentioned anywhere in the attraction.

Not trying to pick on people's individual arguments here, but I think the fact is that if Monsters Inc and Stitch had turned out to be unbelievably awesome experiences, people would be bending over backwards to justify their placement in Tomorrowland. It really does seem like the pattern here.

 

[GenerationX]

You make excellent points, Wilt. In DLR, PotC and HM are in New Orleans Square, where they fit much better than they do at WDW. However, they get very little theme-related complaints at WDW, because they are fan favorites.

I agree with PurpleDragon that Tomorrowland might be more accurately named SciFiLand. Or Technologyland (which would bring CoP into the theming fold). However, "Tomorrowland" sounds cool and the area certainly looks like the "tomorrow that never happened" from old science fiction stories. Works for me.

None of the arguments above will convince our illustrious OP that he is wrong. However, I look forward to his mocking response to this post.

 

[Jasonflz]

The Timekeeper was at least more relevant to even the Sci-fi genre than MiLF. Honestly, can anyone tell me with a straight face that this attraction wasn't just thrown together and placed here randomly to make a quick buck off of a well known movie?

Well said and I fully agree. MILF is a poor excuse for a filler and an even worse excuse for an attraction. At least TK would still be relevant if it were here today. As for low attendance, look at CoP. It always has low attendance but now that SM and TTA are closed it is thriving. I don't see those lines at SGE or MILF which apparently only appeal to a select audience. TK is for everyone and would have big crowds as well (AE maybe not so much). I hope MILF leaves soon.

 

[Mad Stitch]

Ha! :ROFLOL:

 

[ryno1982]

Congratulations on still missing the point. Of course, you would be correct in your assumption that SGE fits Tomorrowland, if in fact Tomorrowland was titled "Cartoony-Science-Fantasyland."

All the best,
Patrick

Exactly. The whole sci-fi = Tomorrowland argument is completely wrong. The land is supposed to be about the future, mainly told from the viewpoint of science fiction. Just because something is science fiction (like MiLF, even though it's more fantasy than sci fi) does not mean it fits in Tomorrowland. Disney had a great lineup of attractions that were both science fiction and future-based, but they shuttered them in favor of adding attractions based on their successful films. Judging from the lines at SGE, their strategy failed.

As for the quality of the attractions, I can speak for myself and many of my friends when I say that Alien Encounter was a definitive attraction for my generation. Every single friend I talked to growing up that went to WDW always told me how much they enjoyed Alien Encounter, or were completely terrified by it. Either way it made an impression on them. It's attractions like AE that create Disney fans. Very few kids today will become lifelong Disney fans visiting crap like Stitch and MiLF. Hopefully one day Disney wakes up and realizes this, especially if they plan on "reimagineering" another ride into retardation (SSE).

 

[imagineer boy]

Not trying to pick on people's individual arguments here, but I think the fact is that if Monsters Inc and Stitch had turned out to be unbelievably awesome experiences, people would be bending over backwards to justify their placement in Tomorrowland. It really does seem like the pattern here.

Actually there are plenty of people on the board who say they like MILF but still agree that it doesn't belong in tomorrowland. :shrug:

 

[musketeer]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. Are you people who think tomorrowland is awful believe that if there was an attraction of some sort, a ride, a show, whatever, and it was really really good, but didn't fit in with the area it was located, then you would dislike it?

I know it's all about great theming, but does the surrounding environment REALLY affect how much you enjoy a particular attraction? We all like to say it does, but if I were riding, say for instance, the Tower of Terror, I honestly would care if it were in the location it is right now, or in the middle of Death Valley. It's a great ride, regardless of where it is.

I admit that the surroundings to add some to the experience, but I don't believe it is enough to drastically change an opinion of an attraction.

I also admit that there are some obvious exceptions, you wouldn't have the Tomorrowland Transit Authority in Frontierland, or the Liberty Belle Riverboat going through Future World at Epcot, but for the most part, a ride is a ride.

So when I made my "just don't go" comments earlier in this thread, what I meant was that if the location of an attraction has that much negative effect, then maybe someone shouldn't bother if it is such a horrible experience.

 

[Pseybert]

Like I said on the first page if you want to see a badly themed park visit SF great adventure in NJ. It is mostly coaster park now with DC comic characters theming a lot of the coasters. Superman is part of the board walk and Bizzaro is part of Frontier Forest.

I had a season pass to Six Flags. The point of Six Flags is to thrill you. WDW should be held to higher standards.

 

[SirGoofy]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. Are you people who think tomorrowland is awful believe that if there was an attraction of some sort, a ride, a show, whatever, and it was really really good, but didn't fit in with the area it was located, then you would dislike it?

No I wouldn't dislike it. But that doesn't mean it still wouldn't fit. Most people, like or dislike, believe that MILF is out of place. Because it is.

It isn't everything, but when they start stretching stories of rides to the point of MILF, which has no discernible connection to Tomorrowland what so ever, they start to enter the realm of forgetting they are supposed to be the leaders in themed entertainment. The theming makes Disney, Disney. When they start saying, well an attraction is just an attraction, you start to enter amusement park territory.

 

[dxwwf3]

Some people have been good enough to admit as much, but I honestly think a lot of the criticism in this thread is based more on the quality of attractions like Stitch and Monsters Inc than their theming.

IMO, there's no doubt that the themeing is still fantastic in Tomorrowland. If it weren't for that, there would be very little left from the brilliant refurbishment that took place in the mid 90's.

To me MILF is the type of attraction that should be in a smaller location than the one it is in now. You could do the exact same show in a land area about the size of the old Skyway station. Not that I think the attraction feels right at all in Tomorrowland because to me it sticks out like a sore thumb. The attraction is decent enough for what it is: something I'll catch every two or three trips. But the worst part about it is that rather large show building is being used for an attraction of that caliber. While I feel The Timekeeper is one of the best overall attractions in WDW history, I wasn't outraged at its closing like I was when it happened across the street . But this is another example of what, IMO, is having attractions replaced with inferior replacements. MILF is nowhere near the same caliber of attraction that Timekeeper was.

To me, MILF is a B ticket type of attraction and should be shown in a building that represents that. There are so many things that could be done with our old circle vision theater. Most of the MK parks around the globe have a Buzz Lightyear dark ride in them. I just think that prime real estate in the park should be used for something more ambitious than a Turtle Talk spin off.

 

[durangojim]

I think that Tomorrowland should be a place that inspires people with rides based around what the technology of the future will likely produce, along with some other rides of whimsy (Buzz Lightyear). I think Disney has lost its way incorporating MILF and the Stitch attraction in Tomorrowland. AE went well because it was about teleportation, and Timekeeper (although I didn't really enjoy it) was about timetravel. Disney needs to get some more attractions that show us what could be and not what has already happened.

 

[Jasonflz]

IMO, there's no doubt that the themeing is still fantastic in Tomorrowland. If it weren't for that, there would be very little left from the brilliant refurbishment that took place in the mid 90's.

To me MILF is the type of attraction that should be in a smaller location than the one it is in now. You could do the exact same show in a land area about the size of the old Skyway station. Not that I think the attraction feels right at all in Tomorrowland because to me it sticks out like a sore thumb. The attraction is decent enough for what it is: something I'll catch every two or three trips. But the worst part about it is that rather large show building is being used for an attraction of that caliber. While I feel The Timekeeper is one of the best overall attractions in WDW history, I wasn't outraged at its closing like I was when it happened across the street . But this is another example of what, IMO, is having attractions replaced with inferior replacements. MILF is nowhere near the same caliber of attraction that Timekeeper was.

To me, MILF is a B ticket type of attraction and should be shown in a building that represents that. There are so many things that could be done with our old circle vision theater. Most of the MK parks around the globe have a Buzz Lightyear dark ride in them. I just think that prime real estate in the park should be used for something more ambitious than a Turtle Talk spin off.

:sohappy: I agree. MILF should at least be moved to DHS if they are going to build the Monsters Inc. coaster.

 

[yankspy]

It's true that most Disney attractions tend to leave you with a positive forward outlook. I love that about Disney.
Horizons and Comunicore certainly had a future theme.
But The Land, Living Seas, World of Motion......I don't know...... doesn't feel "future" to me. And Spaceship Earth, while it looks futuristic, is actually a history lesson.
Other arriving attractions also didn't have a "Future World" theme. Universe of Energy, Wonders of Life, Journey into Imagination.

It's not a big deal. Future World is Future World. I just think a better name could have been used, I'm just not clever enough to think of one myself.:hammer:

The Universe of Energy boasted about solar panels. In 1982 that was a big deal. That was the first time A boy of eight ever experienced something like that.

The Land also had some futuristic ideas about growing crops.

The seas, well if you watch that pre-show film it looks pretty futuristic from the eyes of someone living in 1984.

World of Motion used to have all of those futuristic looking cars when you got off the ride.

As far as SSE, I think it was intended to focus largely on the past because it conveyed the notion that we have already come so far. It asks the question, why can't we go farther?

Journey into imagination was not necessarily about the future but it focused on the most important ingredient needed to make all of those crazy futuristic ideas come true, imagination.

All in all, I just remember going there as a kid and experiencing things that I had never experienced anywhere before. Surely that can be recaptured.

Just like Dreamflight/If You had Wings?

Or perhaps America the Beautiful or American Journeys?

Maybe the Tomorrowland Speedway?

Or the stage: Disneymania! and Disney World is your World.

Or how about Flight to the Moon? Two years after we had already been there.

These are attractions from the very early days of the park in most cases.

I beg to differ on "If you had Wings". In the 70's air travel was still quite a novelty for many ordinary folk.

 

[PurpleDragon]

Everyone talking about how Tomorrowland should be reimagined around future concepts, so if that were done, where would that leave Futureworld in EPCOT? That was the point I was trying to make here, Futureworld fills that roll much better than tomorrowland can, so the rethemeing to a sci-fi/fantasy land was a natural progression. I don't get why you guys are so resistant to that idea, the attractions there all loosely fit into the sci-fi themeing that Tomorrowland now uses. Trying to change Tomorrowland into EPCOTs Futureworld is just..........well............dumb IMO.

 

[jakeman]

I beg to differ on "If you had Wings". In the 70's air travel was still quite a novelty for many ordinary folk.

Novelty and futuristic are two different things.

Indoor plumbing was a novelty in the 20's for many folks!

 

[yankspy]

Novelty and futuristic are two different things.

Indoor plumbing was a novelty in the 20's for many folks!

How did I know you would respond so quickly.:animwink:

Quite right. However, I am not necessarily looking at the strictest definition of the future either, perhaps that is a mistake on my part. Air travel was futuristic for many in the sense that they themselves had not experienced it yet. It was futuristic for them.

Another point about Flight to the Moon is that it was not futuristic in that we had already been there. However, space travel was still new and amazing for many as well.

 

[slappy magoo]

As referenced in the Disneyland tv show, Tomorrowland is a promise of things to come. Now within that guideline, there can be different takes on the future, such as realistic or science fiction, but either way it should be a vision of the future. Monsters Inc and Stitch do not, nor will they ever, belong in Tomorrowland no matter how hard Disney tries to justify it.

"A promise of things to come" could also mean "things we don't know about yet." Like another dimension where monsters live and need or screams or laughs. Or aliens from outer spcae who land on our planet to bombard us with chili dog burps. Or Toys that come to life when humans aren't around...

 

[imagineer boy]

Everyone talking about how Tomorrowland should be reimagined around future concepts, so if that were done, where would that leave Futureworld in EPCOT? That was the point I was trying to make here, Futureworld fills that roll much better than tomorrowland can, so the rethemeing to a sci-fi/fantasy land was a natural progression. I don't get why you guys are so resistant to that idea, the attractions there all loosely fit into the sci-fi themeing that Tomorrowland now uses. Trying to change Tomorrowland into EPCOTs Futureworld is just..........well............dumb IMO.

That's not what we're suggesting at all. Tomorrowland takes place in the future, but in a science fiction inspired version of the future. Future World is more realistic and displays new and current technologies and how they can affect our lives in the future.