Tomorrowland, er um Pixarland

Post by **Dr. Ravenscroft** » Oct Fri 12, 2007 10:06 am

yodiwan1 wrote:mission space would have fit in really well there, that way they could ahve kept horizons!!!

Now that is really true!!! How much more futuristic can you get than space travel. I was just about to write about how this idea of Sub's should be something along the lines of a trip to another planet. Basically a trip to another planet, not Mars but a Made up planet or something where they (the narrator) could tell you about the worlds newest colony in space with all the newest technologies and what not. This way the ride could actually take you from sky to surface to underwater in one ride.

yodiwan1 · Post by **yodiwan1** » Oct Fri 12, 2007 11:14 am

it can take passangers to PLUTO!!!!! LOL

kronk's angel · Post by **kronk's angel** » Oct Fri 12, 2007 6:34 pm

Two words: flying cars.

yodiwan1 · Post by **yodiwan1** » Oct Fri 12, 2007 8:57 pm

i hope youre not refering to another dumbo ride....

Captain Schnemo · Post by **Captain Schnemo** » Oct Sat 20, 2007 6:08 am

Mission: Space is the logical descendant of Mission to Mars and would have been the perfect shot in the arm to turn Tomorrowland back towards its original purpose. It actually makes less sense in Future World (do you really learn anything other than what it's like to be nauseous?).

Also I don't agree that Buzz Lightyear makes sense in Tomorrowland. He's a toy of the present (last century, if you want to be technical about it) and it's got more of a Fantasyland feel to it. Admittedly, it does fits in a lot better than MILF, which is just an insult.

I'd also like to point out that the Star Wars theme is categorically unfuturistic, but I know no one really cares.

By the way, if they weren't so anxious to cram Pixar into every nook and cranny, they could have waited and put the Nemo attraction in a marine-themed area of DCA (along with The Little Mermaid). I don't suppose either is really themed to California's coast, but they aren't really sticking to the concept there either.

Or they could have just reformatted MGM as the Pixar bucket and saved all the other parks a lot of grief.

In regards to the comment that the MK is "for kids", nothing could be more antithetical to the original reason Walt created Disneyland.

DisBeamer · Post by **DisBeamer** » Oct Sat 20, 2007 9:26 pm

Captain Schnemo wrote:Mission: Space is the logical descendant of Mission to Mars and would have been the perfect shot in the arm to turn Tomorrowland back towards its original purpose. It actually makes less sense in Future World (do you really learn anything other than what it's like to be nauseous?).

I agree with this in principle, and would have loved it if they could have done this and spared Horizons. That said I don't think Mission: Space would fit in TL. Not from the theming aspect, but physically. Looking at overhead shots of the parks, the only way I can see them shoe-horning an M:S-sized pavillion into TL is to bulldoze CoP... or possibly the old Alien Encounter building and its attached stores, though that'd probably be the end of the PeopleMover. There's not a lot of open real estate in TL, in any event.

Also I don't agree that Buzz Lightyear makes sense in Tomorrowland. He's a toy of the present (last century, if you want to be technical about it) and it's got more of a Fantasyland feel to it. Admittedly, it does fits in a lot better than MILF, which is just an insult.

I think it depends on how you're looking at the Buzz attraction. If you're considering Buzz to be a toy of the present, then yeah, it doesn't fit. I think the idea of the attraction, though, is that he's Buzz Lightyear of the Star Command and you're going on a mission in .. whatever sector it is you go to, not that you're supposed to suddenly be 'transformed' into toys. In the universe of that ride, Buzz and Zurg and those little green fellas are real, as much as the outer space of Space Mountain is real.

I don't think it's meant to be based on the Toy Story movies, as much as the cartoon that Buzz was supposed to be from - a scifi cartoon (which Disney later created and aired itself, of course). In that respect, it fits as an outer space adventure-ish type attraction, a la Space Mountain and the Astro Orbitors.

(Edited for spelling - leaving out words ftl.)

Captain Schnemo · Post by **Captain Schnemo** » Oct Sun 21, 2007 12:57 am

DisBeamer wrote:That said I don't think Mission: Space would fit in TL. Not from the theming aspect, but physically.

While replacing the Alien Encounter building sounds like a terrific idea to me (and would be the classic place to put it), they could have also spared us all MILF and maybe moved Buzz somewhere else (or better, not put it there in the first place).

Is that huge stage that never seems to get used for anything still there? They could also expand across the tracks, which would give them the ability to add some nice dioramas for the train to see (as in Disneyland...not so much the crappy things thrown together on the TTA, other than the Progressland model, which is supercool).

After seeing what Disneyland has accomplished in a much smaller space, I don't really take the "not enough space" argument very seriously. If they really put their minds to something, they can make the room.

I get what you're saying about Buzz...I'd be happier with that technicality, I guess, if Tomorrowland weren't so classicly outside character-free. I know Disneylanders love them some Star Tours, but I still think they should have gotten their own unique show.

By the way, I went to the MIT museum a while ago and they had a terrific section on a new proposed public transportation system. It was very clever and interesting, and also had a fun simulator. Immediately, I had fantasies of something like that at the site of World of Motion/Test Track.

It's exactly what's supposed to be there...a fun vision of the near future with optimism and intelligence. If you want to read/listen to the explanations, you can learn some really interesting stuff and bring that back to your home town and ask why they aren't doing something like that.

If you don't care about science or learning, you can just ride the fun simulator and refuse to pay attention to all those annoying words. Perfect.

Given that our mass transportation systems still haven't caught up to Walt's 1960s visions, I don't think they'd have to worry about things going out of date any time soon. If anyone actually wanted to implement the ideas, the Imagineers could help spread the Disney brand to the real world, and they could use the real world implementations as part of the show at Epcot.

Oh well.

Sorry for daydreaming again. I know it's not in fashion any more...

yodiwan1 · Post by **yodiwan1** » Oct Sun 21, 2007 2:43 pm

i idn't realize that the new Monster's inc. laugh factory turns into MILF, thats funny. any how. There is no way disney would ever do hat much construction at one time in one land. Tomorrowland is fine the wya it is. Granted, i have not seen the newest attractio yet but i still thinnk its should be fine. Things change, he parks are always changing. We all need to deal with it.Move the Buzz ride?? there is no way that can ever happen. there is no place else for it, and it would no fit in with any other land. Fantasyland is all classic disney from the pre-pixar era.

Cheshire Cat · Post by **Cheshire Cat** » Oct Sun 21, 2007 5:35 pm

Move the Buzz ride?? there is no way that can ever happen. there is no place else for it,

They could move it to the new PIXAR Animations Studios of MGM... along with all the other PIXAR rides found at AK, EPCOT and MK.

yodiwan1 · Post by **yodiwan1** » Oct Sun 21, 2007 7:05 pm

ok, listen everyone, all fo the pixar-disney movies have something in common..DISNEY!!!! youa ll seem to be missing that. They all bring something special to the table and I am sick of everyone harping on it. Star Tours sn't Disney, the mupets werent originally disney, look at that fairy tale ride in DL. Why does everyone have such a big problem with Pixar anyhow?? I really would love to know.

Cheshire Cat · Post by **Cheshire Cat** » Oct Sun 21, 2007 8:08 pm

Well, if they're going to build an area dedicated to PIXAR, why should PIXAR rides be anywhere else. It's like putting an Alice In Wonderland ride in the UK pavilion or an Aladdin ride in Adventureland... oh wait... Disney already stole that example from me.

Post by **js3901** » Oct Sun 21, 2007 8:30 pm

yodiwan1 wrote:ok, listen everyone, all fo the pixar-disney movies have something in common..DISNEY!!!! youa ll seem to be missing that. They all bring something special to the table and I am sick of everyone harping on it. Star Tours sn't Disney, the mupets werent originally disney, look at that fairy tale ride in DL. Why does everyone have such a big problem with Pixar anyhow?? I really would love to know.

I don't think it's a problem with Pixar directly. I think the main problem people have is the amount of Pixar-based attractions that have been built in the park. within the last 10 years, there have been 5 new attractions at WDW, with another set to open next year (not including parades or restaurants). DLR has another 5 (one of those an entire area for kids) with one opeing next year (again, not including any parades). DLRP has at least 3. Tokyo and Hong Kong each have 1.

so, in total, 10 years, 5 parks, 15 total attractions have been built to date. with 2 more opening in the coming months. more than any other franchise.

I, personally, don't have a problem with Pixar attractions, but I totally diagree with replacing Timekeeper with the Monsters,inc trash that's in there now

Captain Schnemo · Post by **Captain Schnemo** » Oct Sun 21, 2007 9:52 pm

yodiwan1 wrote:There is no way disney would ever do hat much construction at one time in one land.

Guess you haven't been reading the news lately.

there is no place else for it, and it would no fit in with any other land.

If there's no place for it, then it shouldn't exist at all. I don't actually believe that there's no place for it, but your logic is a bit convoluted.

ok, listen everyone, all fo the pixar-disney movies have something in common..DISNEY!!!!

Pixar movies are only "Disney" because of some decisions in the financial world. They aren't "Disney" any more than Monday Night Football, The Bachelor, Desperate Housewives, Wild Hogs, Corky Romano, or Coyote Ugly.

They are some properties Disney money is involved with. If Eisner hadn't left, Pixar would most likely have no relation to Disney at this point.

Star Tours sn't Disney, the mupets werent originally disney...

And that's exactly why Star Tours shouldn't be in Disneyland (IMO). It makes sense in MGM (as do the Muppets), because that's the place for non-Disney properties.

I know Disney is doing a good job of blurring the focus of each park, to the point that there are now Fantasyland-style dark rides in Future World, Studio-style cartoon comedy shows in Tomorrowland, etc., but if you care about how the parks came to be such treasures in the first place, it's worth taking a little bit of an interest in how these things were designed. Disneyland didn't become so popular because Walt decided to slap a few colorful things together and put his name on it. There was always a plan.

yodiwan1 · Post by **yodiwan1** » Oct Sun 21, 2007 11:44 pm

if disney made some new movies, that dont go direstly to dvd, then maybe they will be succesful as well, but all fo their major hits of the past decade have all been with PIXAR! Name 3 disney cartoon hits in the past 5 years that was not associated with pixar?

i also just read your link about CA...I am talking about them doing that much construction here in WDW, there is no reason to have a tomorrowland over-haul! They did that once before and it was horrible going to a classic park and having an entire land closed. CA is no where near as popular as the MK in Florida.

Post by **subsonic** » Oct Tue 23, 2007 12:15 am

yodiwan1 wrote:There is no way disney would ever do hat much construction at one time in one land.

This was done at Disneyland's Tomorrowland back in 1998. It was a huge overhaul and a waste of money. Mostly because they didn't spend enough on it. It's either do it right or don't do it at all.

But the point you're missing is what Disney did well, branding and theming in high detail. Each land had close rules they followed which conformed to a theme. Being a Theme Park (read: Not Amusement park) is what set Disney apart from everything else. Now it's just becoming a mish-mash of what's popular without sticking to it's roots. I have nothing against Pixar and Pixar attractions, most are quite good. It's the placement that's awful.

At what point will it take where the blurring gets notices? Replacing Swiss Family with Bugs life because it's a tree? How about replacing Jungle Cruise with Ariel's "Kiss the girl" love scene because they were both on a boat in the water. Definition and branding is what we need. Not blurring and "it could work if you look at it this way".