Considering the pavilion has limited hours and is normally a ghost town, would anyone miss it if they scrapped the thing entirely? Maybe the "yang" to the Innovention West Wonders of Life's "ying".
Printable View
Considering the pavilion has limited hours and is normally a ghost town, would anyone miss it if they scrapped the thing entirely? Maybe the "yang" to the Innovention West Wonders of Life's "ying".
But again, you're ignoring the bigger picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepstah
How does one showcase the future at a theme park when the future is at everyones finger tips already?
I can video chat with my son iPod to iPod from anywhere in the world that has Wi-Fi. The computers we use at home, or carry around with us, are far more powerful than anything they were using in EPCOT in the 80's or 90's. I could make dinner reservations at San Angel Inn, buy a plane ticket, book my resort, and get my tickets for EPCOT before I'm done typing this post, and I'd never have to leave my seat. Could be down there tomorrow eating dinner in EPCOT.
Disney isn't deferring to the future, IMO. There simply IS no "future" anymore. How long before the Mac I'm typing this post on becomes obsolete? Or your iPhone (assuming you have one)? The shelf life of this stuff is painfully short. The future is too close, and too rapidly changing for a theme park to not only try to keep up with it, but get out ahead of it enough to create attractions that can be sustained for even as small a window as five years!
Think about that.
IMO, the thing that made Tomorrowland, The Contemporary, and Future World so cutting edge and incredible in their day was because they were all predicated on (Tomorrowland and Contemporary moreso than Future World) the 60's/70's vision of the future. "Retro-future", if you will. It worked so well then because we didn't have our little glowing screens filled with pixelated goodness staring us in the face at every turn.
Sorry. That's a pretty tough beast to contend with.
If you're talking bulldozers, fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by supernova
But, we certainly don't need another Chernobyl in Future World.
Though, I won't give you too much grief for mixing up your compass points. :wink:
That was stated very well. Indeed, by the time they design it and build it, 50 million dollars or more per pavilion or attraction the future has come and gone. Disney cannot keep up with Apple's of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Noyz
Thus my above opinion of knock it off. Just give up on trying to create the future that won't stand the test of time for 15 to 20 years. Basically if they build attractions like Thunder, Splash, Space etc. they will last long enough before a major refurb. to be worth the investment. Scraping the name "future world" and "tomorrowland" would allow Disney to be a little more creative in what they place in those areas.
And I have a problem with just razing the Imagination Pavilion or letting them stand empty like WoL. Something needs to replace them. At least when they removed Horizons and Motion something went in their place. Energy is about in the same condition as Imagination. It is beginning to remind me of the Fake Disneyland that was built overseas and just began to close off sections, rot then close. A chunk of Future World is already like this. Add in Discovery Island and River Country and Disney is getting pretty good at the close and rot concept. Look at how quickly Universal can raze an attraction and start to rebuild. You don't see this start, stop, re-evaluate we just saw with both Fantasyland and DTD Wharf.
And explain to me why every other Disney Park can build an attraction but at Epcot they will not spend a cent until they have a sponsor. Our admission to Epcot should cover it, what is it inching upto now close to a $100 for a day ticket?
I agree about trying to focus on the future.
They've kinda capitulated on Tomorrowland by saying it's the "retro" view of the future and not meant to reflect a realistic view that they might have though possible back then.
As for Future World, it never really had a lot of Future to it, as much as it was about technology in general with some insight at possible future tech. For instance, Living With The Land utilized current technologies, although they might have been futuristic to those not familiar with them.
They should call it "Tech World" instead. Treat it like the tech side of the "world's fair" that the World Showcase represents. Keep it up to date with some of the cutting edge stuff.
As for Imagination vs. WOL, assuming there is no specific hope for Figment, I'd see them gutting Imagination for a new purpose before re-opening WOL, based on location, visibility, etc. unless WOL as-is fits the need.
Ya I've heard the con of retro. It is a cop out. I understood the tech of yesteryear. Disney just has not demonstrated any desire to be cutting edge. And like the poster above said by the time they imagineer it, build it and pour all that money into it, it isn't cutting edge. Then they want a sponsor. What sponsor is going to invest in cutting edge that will obsolete by the time it is built.
Avatar is another good example. They pitched 2015 eta. That is a lot of money to invest in a concept that might not be popular by then. You build an Everest, they will come. It wasn't cutting edge, well themed but a coaster. It will likely stand the test of time far longer than any new tomorrowland or future world concept would. Dumbo is the flip side. Disney has spent a chunk of money creating a very nice tot ride. It will likely also stand the test of time. Sometimes Disney imagineers so well and other times they act like rookies.
The only comparison I drew there with my original statement was that, if we can have one dying building on one side of Future World with WoL, why not a second on the other side with Imagination? Symbiosis and all. :thumbs:Quote:
Originally Posted by doconeill
Oh, I definitely understood what you were saying :thumbs:Quote:
Originally Posted by supernova
I was just adding that even though WOL has been mostly unused for so long, Imagination would be my pavilion of choice if I wanted to re-use an existing pavilion, given the choice of the two at least.
It's odd how some people's vision of a 're-imagined' pavilion would be simply replacing it wth the old Dreamfinder again.
Maybe it's because they took a pretty solid pavilion and essentially destroyed it. Not something you often see in WDW. So why not start over again with what worked?
Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
When was Tomorrowland ever supposed to present a realistic future? Wouldn't that be completely antithetical to the entire concept of the MK?
I think it's those who remember the original Figment attraction with Dreamfinder, who almost universally believe that it was far, far superior to the current one (and far^10 the intermediate version), who would really like that one back, rather than the current one. And theoretically it wouldn't take much to bring it back, vs. going with a whole new attraction.
For the younger set, who don't even know who Dreamfinder was, and perhaps have never even set foot in there, it wouldn't matter.
Was it MK or just Tomorrowland that is supposed to be the world that never was?
If you could define what the "entire concept" is from your point of view, I might be able to address the question better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Noyz
But when the original Tomorrowland was designed for Disneyland, the theming represented the idea of the not-so-distant future as seen in the 50s, as shown in the movies and programs of the time. "Realistic" as in what was envisioned as the possible future, and not just fantasy. Spaceports, living on the Moon, travel to Mars, etc. It was, in fact, how Walt saw future life.
Now we look at such and see it as something a bit more corny and "retro".
So the MK was built in the 70's, and the themeing of Tomorrowland was based upon the not-so-distant future...
...as seen...
...in the 50's.
That was realistic, not corny and retro.
Perhaps I need to look up the word retro again.