Tomorrowland's Future

[Californian Elitist]

...if you build quality things people will come. With or without the IP.

Yes, exactly.

 

[Figments Friend]

Don't forget -- Disney was in talks with JK Rowling and first in line to bid on Harry Potter. It went to UNI only after negotiations went sour. Tony Baxter was lead on the project and, from what I understand, a lot of his influence made it into what ultimately got built. This is not a matter of Disney following the industry's lead. Disney was tracking to do it first.

This is indeed true, particularly the part regarding Tony.
Much of what he and his team had come up with made it into the area that was eventually built by Universal.

Several people who used to be on the team for that project left WDI to work for Universal Creative and they remembered all of those original ideas.

Tony still has those original drawings of the area he was working on for Disney and keeps them in his own personal archive.
It would be a treat to get those out today and compare them with what was actually built...but I am sure that has already been done .....



-

 

[mickEblu]

Don't forget -- Disney was in talks with JK Rowling and first in line to bid on Harry Potter. It went to UNI only after negotiations went sour. Tony Baxter was lead on the project and, from what I understand, a lot of his influence made it into what ultimately got built. This is not a matter of Disney following the industry's lead. Disney was tracking to do it first.

Ya I remember reading that Disney has the first crack at Potter and it didn't work out. But do we have any evidence that Disney's plan was to create an entire land for Potter? Also, it seems odd that Baxter would give up all his ideas before any sort of deal was made.

 

[mickEblu]

"Keeping up with the Jones" sounds cynical to me because it makes the argument sound as if you're suggesting that Disney has sold out for expediency when in fact the company has no choice but to follow trends and hopefully adapt them in an artful and thoughtful "Disney" way. Single IP theme lands were inevitable at Disney Parks even if WWoHP had never come to fruition because of growing consumer demand for immersive experiences combined with Iger's aggressive and successful studio brand strategy. It won't surprise me if Disney or Universal announces entire theme park based on a single IP before long.

No I wasn't suggesting they "sold out" I'm suggesting that Universal did it first and it was a huge success so they wanted to get in on that action ASAP. It's an assumption to think Disney would have built a single IP land if Universal didn't do it with Potter first. There's no way we could actually know that. Even with Igers aggressive studio brand strategy and an increasing demand for immersive experiences, that could have just meant more IP attractions and not necessarily single Ip lands.

 

[mickEblu]

It's a series of popular action-RPG videogames that combines every Disney character imaginable into one massive fantasy epic. It's kinda steam-punky and edgy, and has built up a huge following similar to how Nightmare Before Christmas was several years ago -- Really popular with under-35 Disney fans who like seeing classic animated characters with a bit of "darkness" and "edge" to them. Began in 2002.

In a nutshell, a young man name Sora joins forces with Donald, Goofy, (eventually) Mickey and a huge array of Disney characters like Beast and Jack Skellington to defend classic Disney worlds from the goonlike "Heartless," who are being helped by Disney villains. The fate of the entire Universe is at stake, and you get to travel everywhere from Steamboat Willie to Tron. It gets really, really dark.

Parkwise, it would make a swell dark ride, and the games' central hub "land", Traverse Town, would be a Fantasyland-type village with a steampunk/sci fi twist. Since the town is a refugee camp for Disney characters whose worlds have been taken over, literally any character could show up on the streets.

And that's Kingdom Hearts. Tried to keep it short. A free mobile prequel called Kingdom Hearts Unchained X just came out on iPhone and Android. It's 2D (the main games are 3d modeled), and simplified, but captures the art style and music nicely.

Oh that sounds kind of cool. Thanks for explaining. If we never get the Forbidden Villains Forrest this could be a good substitute

 

[Deleted member 107043]

But do we have any evidence that Disney's plan was to create an entire land for Potter?

I think that element was Rowling's concept from the start, right? The entire premise was that visitors were to be transported into a fully realized world straight for the books/movies. Negotiations apparently broke down because the two parties couldn't agree on the terms of the deal. Someone else here who has more knowledge can probably give more details on the full story.

No I wasn't suggesting they "sold out" I'm suggesting that Universal did it first and it was a huge success so they wanted to get in on that action ASAP.

And by insinuating that Disney's motives were only to exploit a trend is the part of your argument that sounds distrustful and therefore cynical. Again, single IP lands were an inevitable trend in themed entertainment and aren't just some fad that popped up at Disney parks solely because of WWoHP's success.

 

[mickEblu]

I wouldn't call most Star wars world boring and ugly. Most worlds reflect environments on Earth (swamp, snow, forest, desert). You also have the giant city scapes like Corescant or very alien looking worlds. Star Wars is not like Star Trek where they beam down to a world that looks like the same recycled rock planet for every episode. Star Wars can be anything the imagination comes up with. There is some beautiful landscapes in the EU. Disney was smart to give us something we've haven't seen before instead of here is a desert area, followed by a death star area, followed by snow area.

The few Star Wars worlds that aren't ugly like Corescant and Endor have issues IMO. Endor is basically Grizzly peak with Ewok tree houses and Corescant would be impossible to execute properly at a theme park. I honestly don't think they had a choice but to build a never before seen planet. There are too many planets to choose from (most ugly IMO) How else could they of built an immersive experience that they are aiming for? That was the issue with creating an immersive Star Wars Land for which they found a clever solution. The consensus before the plans were announced was they were base the Star Wars lands at different parks on different planets.

 

[mickEblu]

I think that element was Rowling's concept from the start, right? The entire premise was that visitors were to be transported into a fully realized world straight for the books/movies. Negotiations apparently broke down because the two parties couldn't agree on the terms of the deal. Someone else here who has more knowledge can probably give more details on the full story.



And by insinuating that Disney's motives were only to exploit a trend is the part of your argument that sounds distrustful and therefore cynical. Again, single IP lands were an inevitable trend in themed entertainment and aren't just some fad that popped up at Disney parks solely because of WWoHP's success.

Companies exploit trends all the time but why the word "distrust?" I don't have any trust issues with Disney or their decisions. I'm explaining what I perceive to be the chain of events that led to the trend of single IP lands.

Again we have no proof Disney would have created a single IP land if Potter didn't happen first. They may have. But we ll never know. Because Universal did it first.

Anyway, this wasn't even the main point of that long Post I wrote.

 

[Figments Friend]

Ya I remember reading that Disney has the first crack at Potter and it didn't work out. But do we have any evidence that Disney's plan was to create an entire land for Potter? Also, it seems odd that Baxter would give up all his ideas before any sort of deal was made.

The version of the tale i recall from some time ago was that J.K Rowling was seeking to be involved with a theme park that could create a fully themed, incredibly detailed area with stellar Attractions based on her Harry Potter series of stories.

Of course, Disney was one of the first to be considered.

Incredibly themed experiences was what 'Disney' was known for producing for it's Theme Park environments...thus why they had 'first dibs'.
She wanted to see what they could come up with, so Disney was tasked with coming up with proposals.

Tony strongly felt the Potter stories meshed perfectly with the Disney legacy of bringing magical worlds to life, and WDI set about coming up with concepts for how a themed area featuring those characters and places could be like.

At the time of when Disney was pursuing their version of the HP property, there was a lot of cost cutting going on in the Company.
We all remember the hard times the Parks went through in the late 90s.
Certain upper management types were focused on other things.
Unfortunately that mentality was still around when concepts were presented that were incredibly fantastic.
However, budgets were trimmed to basically make what was a spectacular concept into something far more subdued thanks to the 'sharp pencil boys' butting in.

What was originally a fully fleshed out, immaculately themed area with amazing and unique Attraction offerings was reduced to a severely downsized proposal that amounted to little more then a few shops, a restaurant, and a simplified 'flight simulator' if i am remembering correctly.
Yet again, a spectacular concept shot down out of the sky for narrow minded budgetary reasons because certain individuals within the Company at the time lacked foresight and vision.

J.K balked at the clearly diminished vision of the 'budgeteers' running things at that time, and it cost them.
There was also talk of Disney wanting more control over her characters, which was not something i was given the impression she ever really wanted out of her hands.
Smart gal.

When the Company at the time refused to budget a more elaborate proposal, she turned tail and sought out other parties to bring a quality, fully immersive themed area based on her characters to life.
Around this time, i believe, there was a series of layoffs going on at WDI and many of those who worked on the original 'awesome concept' for Disney's version of a Harry Potter themed area went to work for Universal Creative.
They remembered all those great ideas they tried to get going ...but stopped by budgeteers.
Univeral on the other hand had no issues devoting a proper hefty investment in the themed HP area and presented concepts J.K was pleased with.
Several of those concepts came from ideas originally included in the 'awesome concept' Disney passed over in favor of a 'weaker concept'.

When will those naughty budgeteers / penny pinching uppers realize you need to 'spend money to make money'...?
That was a hard lesson back at the time, but we ended up with getting a worthy land after all in a long about way.

Tony is a big fan of the land(s).
'Forbidden Journey' is one of his favorites!

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Companies exploit trends all the time but why the word "distrust?"

Note that I said "sounds like". Maybe you didn't intend to be cynical, but your choice of words made it come across that way to me.

Let's not nitpick. I think we're pretty much in agreement on this, and at the end of the day I'm personally not a big fan of single IP lands either. I've accepted it though and understand that this is the future of theme parks. Plus I love Star Wars so for that project I couldn't be more delighted.

Again we have no proof Disney would have created a single IP land if Potter didn't happen first.

Whether it happened today or in 20 years the intersection of studio brand, a strong IP portfolio, and Disney theme park storytelling translated into fully immersive experiences (single lP lands) was inevitable, and no other entertainment company is better poised to drive this trend than Disney.

 

[mickEblu]

The version of the tale i recall from some time ago was that J.K Rowling was seeking to be involved with a theme park that could create a fully themed, incredibly detailed area with stellar Attractions based on her Harry Potter series of stories.

Of course, Disney was one of the first to be considered.

Incredibly themed experiences was what 'Disney' was known for producing for it's Theme Park environments...thus why they had 'first dibs'.
She wanted to see what they could come up with, so Disney was tasked with coming up with proposals.

Tony strongly felt the Potter stories meshed perfectly with the Disney legacy of bringing magical worlds to life, and WDI set about coming up with concepts for how a themed area featuring those characters and places could be like.

At the time of when Disney was pursuing their version of the HP property, there was a lot of cost cutting going on in the Company.
We all remember the hard times the Parks went through in the late 90s.
Certain upper management types were focused on other things.
Unfortunately that mentality was still around when concepts were presented that were incredibly fantastic.
However, budgets were trimmed to basically make what was a spectacular concept into something far more subdued thanks to the 'sharp pencil boys' butting it.

What was originally a fully fleshed out, immaculately themed area with amazing and unique Attraction offerings was reduced to a severely downsized proposal that amounted to little more then a few shops, a restaurant, and a simplified 'flight simulator' if i am remembering correctly.
Yet again, a spectacular concept shot down out of the sky for narrow minded budgetary reasons because certain individuals within the Company at the time lacked foresight and vision.

J.K balked at the clearly diminished vision of the 'budgeteers' running things at that time, and it cost them.
There was also talk of Disney wanting more control over her characters, which was not something i was given the impression she ever really wanted out of her hands.
Smart gal.

When the Company at the time refused to budget a more elaborate proposal, she turned tail and sought out other parties to bring a quality, fully immersive themed area based on her characters to life.
Around this time, i believe, there was a series of layoffs going on at WDI and many of those who worked on the original 'awesome concept' for Disney's version of a Harry Potter themed area went to work for Universal Creative.
They remembered all those great ideas they tried to get going ...but stopped by budgeteers.
Univeral on the other hand had no issues devoting a proper hefty investment in the themed HP area and presented concepts J.K was pleased with.
Several of those concepts came from ideas originally included in the 'awesome concept' Disney passed over in favor of a 'weaker concept'.

When will those naughty budgeteers / penny pinching uppers realize you need to 'spend money to make money'...?
That was a hard lesson back at the time, but we ended up with getting a worthy land after all in a long about way.

Tony is a big fan of the land(s).
'Forbidden Journey' is one of his favorites!

Thanks for the info! I never knew the inside scoop

And I agree with you. You think that they would have learned their lesson from DCA 1.0! When they don't pinch pennies (aka Cars land etc.) good things happen.

 

[Figments Friend]

Thanks for the info! I never knew the inside scoop

And I agree with you. You think that they would have learned their lesson from DCA 1.0! When they don't pinch pennies (aka Cars land etc.) good things happen.

Well, I'm not sure how much of a 'inside scoop' that telling was...but you are welcome.

I find the story rather nice, as it shows that certain parties were 'right' all along...but were being ignored / passed over for all the wrong reasons.
Justice in the end.
Well played, karma!

The late 90s and early 2000s were just a horrendous time in some respects for getting any real quality projects realized in a good way instead of the 'cheap' way...such as DCA 1.0 that you mention.

DCA I beleive was being developed around the same time as the Potter proposals.
I'm trying to think back to the timeline....my memory is fuzzy on the matter at this late hour where I am currently.

Tomorrowland 98' was another project developed during this time period that suffered a similar fate - the original elaborate concept chiseld down by budgeteers to the very bare minimum.



Which should bring us back on to the topic of Tomorrowland.


Yes, I have a real desire to see a beautiful, bright new version of Tomorrowland.
It really is time.
There is no excuse now ...so much is happening in the world of science, technology, studies of the natural world, and thematic arts.
It could be incredible, but Disney just does not seem to show any interest whatsoever in pursuing it.

I suppose they may be unsure of how to tackle it...I mean, look at the mess Epcot has been over the last decade or so.
It's almost like they are afraid of attempting a 'new future' in Tomorrowland.

Nobody above a certain tier in upper management within the Company now seems to want to take a risk...exspecially a creative one.
The Company was created, existed, and prospered from such risks in the past.
These days it is a completely different game, but those risks should still take place.

It's time...more then ever....to take a chance.
Tomorrowland, and the dream of what could be, is worth the risk.

-

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

I know Tomorrowland 1998 was screwed by budget cuts, but I also feel like it was screwed either way because the concepts were generally awful. Even if they'd done it with a hefty budget, there'd be like, what, an alien show and a stupid car ride that worked better? It was entirely a disaster.

 

[Figments Friend]

I was under the impression that the Rocket Rods concept was pushed by upper management at the time, as they wanted a 'rad thrill ride' included in the package to make it more marketable and appealing to the theme park going public.
In particular, the young thrill seeking audience.

Eddie Sotto talked about this in the past, as he had come up with the original concept of a futuristic motorbikes ride that was proposed for early versions of the redo but was later adapted to mold into what eventually became the Rocket Rods concept requested by management.
I could be wrong, but I don't remember the Rods being a part of the original proposed 'Tomorrowland 2055' concept.

The sponsor for Rods backed out half way through development, and the version of the story I heard was a good portion of the budget money at that point had already been eaten up in R & D for the concept and modeling.
Requests for a infusion of additional money to cover the costs now not covered by the pre-existing sponsor were denied by management, and unfortunately nessesary changes had to happen to insure the Attraction was ready for the re-opening of the land.

One such change was ditching the plans to bank the curves on the PeopleMover track so that the Rods could race by to their full thrill-factor speed.
With the budget issues, the tracks could not be changed resulting in the Rods needing to be slowed down.
This of course reduced the speed and sense of a thrilling ride for many, not to mention putting unnecessary stress on the ride vehicles and pre-existing PeopleMover track.

The end result is what ended up in the Park - a diminished version of a concept that had more potential.

-

 

[Deleted member 107043]

I suppose they may be unsure of how to tackle it...I mean, look at the mess Epcot has been over the last decade or so.
It's almost like they are afraid of attempting a 'new future' in Tomorrowland.

They're hesitant because the skill and talent necessary to create the kind of Tomorrowland Walt envisioned, one that is entertaining, visionary and educational, is in short supply at WDI. They came pretty close to achieving this objective with TL '67 and again with EPCOT Center in 1982, but Disney's never proven that it can tell the story of "the future" in the same compelling way that it can translate the past or fantasy. Can you imagine what a sad state EPCOT the city would be by now if Walt had lived long enough to build it as planned? Let Google, Tesla, or Apple conceive and build these things and let Disney focus to what it does best - entertaining people with Hollywood showmanship.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

I know Tomorrowland 1998 was screwed by budget cuts, but I also feel like it was screwed either way because the concepts were generally awful.

I agree completely with this. So. Much. Brown. Paint.

 

[Figments Friend]

They're hesitant because the skill and talent necessary to create the kind of Tomorrowland Walt envisioned, one that is entertaining, visionary and educational, is in short supply at WDI. They came pretty close to achieving this objective with TL '67 and again with EPCOT Center in 1982, but Disney's never proven that it can tell the story of "the future" in the same compelling way that it can translate the past or fantasy. Can you imagine what a sad state EPCOT the city would be by now if Walt had lived long enough to build it as planned? Let Google, Tesla, or Apple conceive and build these things and let Disney focus to what it does best - entertaining people with Hollywood showmanship.

Indeed, although you have to admit it has been entertaining to see how Disney has presented 'the future' over the years.


It is a different time now....the old 'WED Way' of doing things seems to have been discarded and replaced with fast trends, flashy technology, and lots of screen based entertainment.
I am sure there are still some truly excellent talents in the halls of Flower Street but they are probably not in any real position of power to make immediate changes actually happen at the moment.
Others might not want to come forward for fear of upsetting the status quo or feel it may jeopardize their job for 'rocking the boat'.
Politics can really get in the way of real progress...and then everyone loses, exspecially the Parks.

This is the most disheartening thing...as the potential is indeed there but it is either ignored, underdeveloped ( purposely or unknowingly ), or said talent moves on to other career / creative opportunities elsewhere.
Corporate insists on everything being tied to a current product or film and anything 'original' has a slim chance of getting green lit.
So the output of projects cannot be blamed on lack of talent or creative skill at WDI in some respects, but moreso on what Coporate dictates is needed for the Parks.
They get that impression from Park Ops, Marketing, and Guest feedback.
Corp tells WDI what it needs or wants for a Park, hotel, or other place and WDI pitches concepts.

I think this is why we see no movement regarding a refreshening of Tomorrowland.
Corp feels there is no demand or interest in such a project from the public in general.
Within the upper management ranks, nobody seems to be willing or able to take on the challenge, and that is a real shame.

There are probably a lot of Imagineers that would love a shot at redoing Tomorowland but are held back simply because there is no interest or demand from those above them.
We have to remember that WDI only creates what is requested of them by the Company and requests / feedback from Park Ops.
If the public shows them that a demand for something better in Tomorrowland exists, then perhaps they will get the hint and then task WDI with coming up with a new plan.
One of these days.....

People talk about the old mentorship programs of yore that were embedded in WED / WDI culture and how important they were.
I sometimes wonder if that is even still going on now with the newer generation coming into the fold.
There are so darn few of the 'old guard' left now.....and does management even want the young bloods to learn the ' old ways' ( in their eyes, 'expensive ways' ) of designing things?

Things to ponder.

-

 

[Deleted member 107043]

It is a different time now....the old 'WED Way' of doing things seems to have been discarded and replaced with fast trends, flashy technology, and lots of screen based entertainment.

I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, especially if Disneyland as a concept is to remain relevant to current and future audiences. WDI has rarely succeeded at executing "the living blueprint" tomorrow concept as Walt envisioned, so it's probably a wise move to stop trying to tackle it.

 

[Phroobar]

I thought Rocket Rods where originally suppose to be Judge Dreed's motorcycle from the Stallone movie.

 

[Rich T]

I know Tomorrowland 1998 was screwed by budget cuts, but I also feel like it was screwed either way because the concepts were generally awful. Even if they'd done it with a hefty budget, there'd be like, what, an alien show and a stupid car ride that worked better? It was entirely a disaster.

Agreed. But, in Rocket Rods' defense: It was a fun ride (I only got to try it 3 times) for anyone willing to put up with the awful wait times. Even single rider took forever. Hey, anyone else remember the Rods' "Single Rider Passses?" They were, like, full-sized sheets of colored copy paper!