Brad Bishop
Well-Known Member
You'll probably want to follow that up with Eddie Murphy in the Haunted Mansion movie.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Tower of Terror Relevance
- Thread starter Doodlyday
- Start date
You'll probably want to follow that up with Eddie Murphy in the Haunted Mansion movie.
Brad Bishop
Well-Known Member
I think that's key. ToT isn't a drop tower or any other kind of well themed off-the-shelf type ride but it's own entity. Your car takes you up an elevator, stops on a floor, then up some more through some scenes and then to the drop portion of the ride where you actually are sent downward at a speed greater than a natural fall. You yo-yo around a bit before exiting the ride and that yo-yoing effect is different each time.
That whole unique ride system will keep it around for a good long while.
Phonedave
Well-Known Member
The phrase "the Twilight Zone" is known to many - even if they are not familar with the series. Just like the phrases "the $10,000 question", "One of these days ......" "You are a meathead" and countless others. The set up for the ride tells all the back story that is needed.
As far as Rn'RC starring Aerosmith it could be rebranded "Rn'RC starring generic rock band" and it would still work. You could easily put a generic band in G-Force records, and use the same script. They would just have to change the on ride music.
-dave
As far as Rn'RC starring Aerosmith it could be rebranded "Rn'RC starring generic rock band" and it would still work. You could easily put a generic band in G-Force records, and use the same script. They would just have to change the on ride music.
-dave
blueboxdoctor
Well-Known Member
Embarrassingly, I didn't realize it was for The Twilight Zone, and I've been to WDW a decent amount. I think it fits though, a re-theming isn't really needed. From what I can gather (not my type of ride, so I have never been on it) it is really well designed and decorated throughout. Seems like they put a lot of effort into it and people still appear to really like the ride.
slappy magoo
Well-Known Member
I'd disagree with your comment that "No one watched black and white rerun TV shows at that time (nostalgia hadn't kicked in yet)." TV has always always ALWAYS relied on reruns and syndication as part of its growth. There have always been shows that took place in the recent past - think Happy Days, Laverne and Shirley, Wonder Years, to say nothing of even more way-back-when series like The Waltons or Little House on the Prairie. Before cable TV spiked, there were always local channels in most markets that relied on old programming, and major networks would sometimes air old shows during the day in lieu of game shows or soap operas, or late at night before sign off (back when stations actually signed off). By the time cable was becoming omnipresent in the mid 1980s, new channels were springing up all the time that had to rely on mostly old content along with a smattering of whatever new content they could afford to produce. One such network, Nickelodeon, started Nick at Nite in 1985 playing nothing but old shows that appealed to baby boomers; by 1996, the overnight programming block became its own network, TV Land, and yes, black and white shows aired on both of them, constantly.
As for The Twilight Zone, it had consistently been one of the most popular syndicated shows since it entered syndication. By 1994 when the ride opened, it had been on local stations for 30 years, there was a movie 10 years prior, followed by a new series a few years later. As others have written, you could have never watched a show and still known what the phrase represents, what the four main notes of the theme song meant if someone started doo-doo-doo-doo-ing it.
You can argue that now it's less popular, not because it's not good but because there is now SO much TV content to consume it's much easier to have never seen it or been impacted by it than 22 years ago. But it exists on Netflix and Hulu, it's still on syfy and other syndicated cable/antenna packages, any parent that wants to expose his children to its awesomeness can do so.
But the idea that no one was watching black and white old school TV programs in the 1990s is just not true.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
Sorry, it didn't take a head count, but, I do know that it wasn't the number one TV show by that time and was mostly on cable, which didn't have the audience it has now. It was more of a general phrase not intended to be taken literally, just within common sense.
World_Showcase_Lover007
Well-Known Member
I think the attraction as a whole is pretty evergreen and therefore will stay relevant. Honestly, I don't even think you need the Twilight Zone tie-in to make it work. Why couldn't the elevator passengers simply disappear and re-appear as ghosts? After all, it is a spooky old hotel from the 1930's with unreliable elevators. That's all the background needed to set the stage.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
However, I feel, and feel that way about most things, If it ain't broke... don't fix it.
slappy magoo
Well-Known Member
Well that's a weird way to write "OK, maybe I was wrong," but I'll take it. You're welcome.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
That would be because I wasn't saying I was wrong. In fact, I stood by what I said originally. I can't back that up with evidence, but, then again neither can you... so we should just let it go, don't you think?
slappy magoo
Well-Known Member
Of course. WDW opted to use The Twilight Zone as a framework for a major attraction, including the theme and soundalike narrator and imagery within the attraction, because it wasn't a popular franchise and nobody cares but they kind of knew what "Twilight Zone" meant. Not because of its enduring popularity, but despite a lack of it.
You can't argue with that kind of logic.
Literally. You can't.
Rescue Ranger
Well-Known Member
Arguably one of the greatest attractions on property....as far as the Twilight Zone theme, I LOVE it BUT if they removed it then I suppose they could just go the way of the 1997 movie? Or of course if the "NEW" movie is still a go and is a big hit, then it could be re-themed to that.
Just as long as the ToT stays the way it is, more or less, then I'm happy.
Just as long as the ToT stays the way it is, more or less, then I'm happy.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't even try too. That is exactly what I have been saying all along. Did you miss read my intent? If so, I apologize. My point has always been that whatever previous fame The Twilight Zone had, was relevant only due to its familiarity by association. It is a great base, it works well and will continue to long after the Twilight Zone property is forgotten. The identity of TZ is now part of our vocabulary and not dependent on TV memories.
slappy magoo
Well-Known Member
I got it.
I just disagree with it.
The Twilight Zone had been in syndication for 3 decades before the ride was opened, to say nothing of the 80s movie, revival series (which was on the air when Disney first started exploring the idea of a TZ-themed drop ride), and release of the original series on VHS. It was more than just a thing, a concept all people only kinda knew about but not really. Are there SOME people who are only associated with the Twilight Zone concept because it's part of the zeitgeist, without ever having seen an episode? I'm sure of it. I'm sure there are people who are more familiar with Twilight Zone references in pop culture than the show itself. But to say it's fame was "ONLY" relevance by association is ridiculous.
But as I wrote, Disney spent a chunk of change not just for the Twilight Zone name but for the theme and show-opening thematic elements, and Rod Serling's likeness - something that his widow sought to protect often - because Disney thought those elements had value, which wouldn't be true if all they needed was the name.
But basically your original opinion is fundamentally flawed: "No one watched black and white rerun TV shows at that time (nostalgia hadn't kicked in yet)..." The entire history of television production and distribution is based in part on shows having a second life in syndication. It's one of the reasons why previous little scripted TV is live. The moment studios and producers realized TV shows could be re-aired, the goal of any series was to produce as many episodes as possible to get it into syndication. In fact, most shows often don't turn a profit for their owners UNTIL they're sold into syndication. That 80s revival of Twilight Zone I mentioned before? It didn't do very well. they produced 2 seasons of 60 minute episodes. CBS then went on to quickly and cheaply produce a number of 30 minute episodes, and chopped those 60 minute episodes into 30 minute episodes, in order to sell it into syndication and recoup their losses. And that was far sighted; there have been moments of short-sightedness where shows were completely are almost wiped out by people who didn't see the value. NBC erased videotapes of hundreds of episodes of The Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson thinking there would be no resale value for it. Monty Python's Flying Circus? The BBC wiped those tapes too. It had been sold to PBS in the States in the 70s and it is those copies that persevere. Or did they? After all, nostalgia is a new phenomenon. Right?
So to say I can't back up my opinion with evidence? The history of TV syndication is my evidence. Do I really need to go to ebay, buy an old 1990s era TV Guide and scan the listings for all the old shows on cable or on syndicated channels or major networks in the early mornings or overnight, to make my case? You really think "nostalgia" for old TV content is a recent phenomenon, that somehow studios knew there would be a market for their old shows in the 21st century so they held on to their shows for decades waiting for this moment? You're 20 years older than I am per your profile - are you really telling me you never watched an old black and white show on TV years after it went off the air? That is, until the mid-1990s or whenever you think "nostalgia" for old programs became a thing?
I will say this, though - Disney clearly created an attraction that can be experienced and enjoyed by people who are not fans of the show or who never even watched an episode. But certainly at the time of its opening, the relevance of the show was more than just cultural zeitgeist-y.
Last edited:
Weather_Lady
Well-Known Member
I would argue that Twilight Zone is something with which one should have a passing familiarity, simply in order to be culturally literate.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
OK, in your mind nostalgia was a big thing back when the attractions was built. I made a general statement that nobody watched TZ at that time. It was no longer on regular TV, Cable had no yet blossomed into what it is today, therefore there weren't near as many opportunities to see it. It was, however, a recognizable IP and it would have been less impressive to those of us that were directly involved at the time that it was popular. That doesn't erase the fact that because of it's usage and the fact that by then culture had connected the words Twilight Zone with weird, scary and hair raising it wouldn't have stood on it's own. It also had to be paid for because of the use of the theme "Twilight Zone" because it was another persons IP that fit perfectly into the attraction. My point that you seem to want to ignore while concentrating on semantics, is that very few of the people that are currently the main contingent of fans of ToT, have had any extensive exposure to that TV show, the movies or anything other then the words Twilight Zone. Even I, a person much older then you, that had the prime time exposure did not watch it religiously and the only rerun that I ever watch was the one where the guy gets his wish to be the only person left alive on the planet so he could read without being bothered, then just at that moment broke his glasses and couldn't see to read. (Sorry, I forgot the name). However through social and cultural exposure I was familiar with what "Twilight Zone" meant.
So can we please stop arguing the same side of the argument and get on with the thread?
Matt_Black
Well-Known Member
Time Enough At Last, starring Burgess Meredith.
slappy magoo
Well-Known Member
No, in my mind, syndication is one of the most important factors, if not THE most important factor, in the evolution of TV. Up until the prevalence of home video and now streaming, it's the reason shows continued to be known, AND popular, after their initial run. In MY mind, the reason Twilight Zone had any sort of cultural significance worth exploiting in a theme park attraction is because enough people continued to watch it - in syndication - to afford it value. You're arguing that "nostalgia" is a new thing. You're wrong.
By 1994 cable had blossomed plenty. One of the reasons it's blossomed MORE since then is because there is more content to air (and syndicate), but in the mid 1990s there were still plenty of cable channels to watch old black and white content - including The Twilight Zone - to say nothing of local channels that might be accessible on a local cable package, as well as VHS.
As I wrote, I agree it had significance beyond any then-current or prior fans. But again, it's because of those fans who were or had been watching that it still had significance. It's why it was The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror and not One Step Beyond Tower of Terror or Boris Karloff's Chiller Tower of Terror or Tales of Tomorrow's Tower of Terror.
But why? After all, it's only the name that has any cache. They didn't need that theme or the iconic show open - hey, why am I calling it iconic? No one cares about anything except the title. They could have opted not to use Rod Serling's likeness, not hired a soundalike. Hey, they could have animated the lobby sequence and made Mickey Mouse the narrator. It's almost like they thought more than the show had any sort of value or something. But theme park attraction developers - what do they know about developing an attraction in a theme park?
or pointing out you're factually wrong. tomaytoh tomahtoh
NOOOOOOOOOO, because you were arguing from the beginning that "The Twilight Zone was a dead concept at the time that ToT was built. There were no TV shows, the host and developer had been dead for many years. No one watched black and white rerun TV shows at that time (nostalgia hadn't kicked in yet), but, the Twilight Zone concept is easily understandable no matter what." Why shift the goalposts NOW from "at the time" to "currently the main contingent of fans of ToT?" It almost seems like YOU don't know the point you're making.
Ah. And as you go, so goes the nation. Look, I'm not the biggest fan of the Eagles, in fact I can't stand most of their music it's fingernails on chalkboard time for me, but I can do better than say I'm familiar with who they are; I can say that I know they are popular and they have fans and gain new fans as evidenced by their albums still being sold. I'm not myopic enough to think if I don't own Hotel California, nobody does. Likewise, the fact that TZ is still on local channels, and syndicated classic-TV packages, and on SYFY TV and on Netflix and Hulu and iTunes and Amazon, means it has and potentially gets new fans all the time. Who knows? Maybe people start watching the show AFTER going on ToT.
Sure. As long as we both know your original argument is flawed, by all means. Here. Let me add to the original topic.
Tower of Terror is an attraction that is so well done it stands on its own, and I say that as (somewhat obviously) a TZ fan. And as the original concept of the theme park is further diluted from its original concept as a celebration of all things movies and TV in a theme park that doubles as a working movie studio, perhaps it's not necessary to keep it tied to the Twilight Zone. However, there's also no immediate need to remove the reference - part of me suspects one of the reasons Disney made its TV-movie was to create a "history" of the ride independent of the Twilight Zone. Granted, it was only a TV-movie, but if it had rocked the world, they probably would have seen about removing TZ language from the attraction and replacing it with pre-show content featuring a teenaged Kirsten Dunst and the Gutte warning you about the history of the haunted hotel. But it didn't so they didn't. But hey, the Twilight Zone is a concept that lives beyond its viewership (even though one of the reasons it lives on is BECAUSE of its viewership, its fans and its history. I think the show's IP helped attract people to the ride and now the ride attracts new people to the show, as evidenced by DVDs and other TZ merch being sold in the gift shop. Like a smaller-scale version of Marvel's contract with Uni, they serve each other.
But they don't serve Man.
Because IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!
