dragonflymanor
02-26-2002, 02:58 PM
I decided to start a new thread based on JeffJewel’s comment about how futuristic has a limited shelf life.
I don’t think anyone would argue, although I might get a whack on the head from DVC, that the statement is effectively a true one. Sci-Fi of the 50’s is a campy joke today. So the question then, in my mind, goes to the question of how often to update the vision of the future.
Or not at all….
Disneyland Paris pretty much went backward and in a really cool way. Rather than try and present Tomorrowland as something that will exist, it puts us back in time only to look forward at what was, at that time, thought to exist.
So what’s the difference between a 1950’s tomorrowland and an 1890’s tomorrowland? Why is the 1950’s lame, but the 1890’s cool?
Because we all have images of the 1950’s either in real life, or through old television, movies, pictures. It’s hard to glamorize the 1950’s sci-fi version of the future. Ed Wood was lame, Jules Verne was a visionary.
So, does that mean that the future of good themed entertainment lies in the past. That only when sufficient time has passed where the general population can again glamorize the time is it possible to use the theme effectively without it coming across as lame, weak, or campy? I’m sure that folks living in the 1890’s really thought that the 1860’s were all that romantic (Civil War and all), or that the 1890’s were just a hoot. Life was life, you get through it. Now we romanticize the era and it works for us. 1950’s Sci-Fi doesn’t work because we are in living it. Sitting at tables that look like our Parents/Grandparents had doesn’t give us an esacpe. Sitting in a next to a giant 19th century cannon that shoots a shell all the way to the moon provides that escape.
The future of tomorrowland – is the 19th century (for now, then it becomes ancient history).
I don’t think anyone would argue, although I might get a whack on the head from DVC, that the statement is effectively a true one. Sci-Fi of the 50’s is a campy joke today. So the question then, in my mind, goes to the question of how often to update the vision of the future.
Or not at all….
Disneyland Paris pretty much went backward and in a really cool way. Rather than try and present Tomorrowland as something that will exist, it puts us back in time only to look forward at what was, at that time, thought to exist.
So what’s the difference between a 1950’s tomorrowland and an 1890’s tomorrowland? Why is the 1950’s lame, but the 1890’s cool?
Because we all have images of the 1950’s either in real life, or through old television, movies, pictures. It’s hard to glamorize the 1950’s sci-fi version of the future. Ed Wood was lame, Jules Verne was a visionary.
So, does that mean that the future of good themed entertainment lies in the past. That only when sufficient time has passed where the general population can again glamorize the time is it possible to use the theme effectively without it coming across as lame, weak, or campy? I’m sure that folks living in the 1890’s really thought that the 1860’s were all that romantic (Civil War and all), or that the 1890’s were just a hoot. Life was life, you get through it. Now we romanticize the era and it works for us. 1950’s Sci-Fi doesn’t work because we are in living it. Sitting at tables that look like our Parents/Grandparents had doesn’t give us an esacpe. Sitting in a next to a giant 19th century cannon that shoots a shell all the way to the moon provides that escape.
The future of tomorrowland – is the 19th century (for now, then it becomes ancient history).