General thoughts on "Futuristic Architecture/Theming" in Disney and in general

[ChrisFL]

(I posted this on another wdw message board not on the DIS but figured people here might be interested in this as well)

Recently I was thinking about when things we consider that feel "futuristic", mostly in architecture, etc. and when they become "retro-futuristic" and what's the difference.

My theory is that futuristic architecture only works when it hasn't reached mainstream consciousness.

Example of a futuristic city background as seen in Horizons...(from ~40 years ago)

I always loved this background, and while some people can definitely say it feels of it's time, I don't think the style of those buildings have ever reached as much mainstream as other "futuristic" styling seen in other places.

Of course there are other things that can point to whether something feels futuristic. Using angles and types of building things which previously weren't possible...materials with new properties like color changing paint or multi-color lighting.

We see that in the WDW Tomorrowland until recently...considered to be "retro-futurism"

To me, this is considered retro, because it FEELS like familiar things from the 1940's and 50's...the neon lights, the Buck Rogers/ Flash Gordon aesthetic.

Question: If somehow the Imagineers created the above theme of Tomorrowland, and we didn't relate those to other things and created it as brand new, would it feel "futuristic" to us?

So I think pop culture has a lot to do with what we consider to be futuristic, and as such, also means that if it permeates in enough ways, even if it's color schemes, etc. Which also means that it can also quickly feel dated when it's widely adopted and people look for new ways to "feel" futuristic beyond that.

I know some people mistook this above Tomorrowland style with Steampunk which I previously had vehemently disagreed with. It clearly isn't, even if it shares a few shapes. Discoveryland in Paris, at least in its original form, was much more Steampunk. I do believe a lot of that can come down to color schemes though, after thinking about it further.

If our Tomorrowland at WDW replaced the neon with more normal lighting schemes and most of the yellows and blues and greens were replaced with brass and copper and silver color schemes, it could more easily pass for Steampunk.

Aside from Disney, one of my other favorite things growing up with the aesthetic of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Even though this show started in 1987, the bridge area still feels futuristic to me (clearly the original series didn't have the same longevity in style).

Again, I think the only things that define the era to me might be the beige colors, but generally in the 80's and 90's, most pop culture was much more a mix of wild colors and we didn't see this simple, clean futuristic style expand everywhere. If so, it might feel more dated (though the haircuts and some of the outfits on the show do definitely feel dated)

Just some thought experiments I wanted to share with you all in case you had some feedback

 

[chickapin parterre]

from what I have been seeing on the CW TV channel and what is garnering attention at movie theaters..orgin of superpowers seem to be the more futuristic drive then traveling to space. When watching episode 4, George Lucas saw the future as hunkering down into your environment because you never know what will be coming at you from the universe. What is vegas doing with futuristic buildings....they seem to want to stay with the comfort of familiarity. The younger generations visiting disney are going to be more comfortable visiting a land that demonstrates how you and your superhero can survive rather then enduring the flashy neon light of Riddley Scotts capitalist

 

[pahoben]

(I posted this on another wdw message board not on the DIS but figured people here might be interested in this as well)

Recently I was thinking about when things we consider that feel "futuristic", mostly in architecture, etc. and when they become "retro-futuristic" and what's the difference.

My theory is that futuristic architecture only works when it hasn't reached mainstream consciousness.

Example of a futuristic city background as seen in Horizons...(from ~40 years ago)

I always loved this background, and while some people can definitely say it feels of it's time, I don't think the style of those buildings have ever reached as much mainstream as other "futuristic" styling seen in other places.

Of course there are other things that can point to whether something feels futuristic. Using angles and types of building things which previously weren't possible...materials with new properties like color changing paint or multi-color lighting.

We see that in the WDW Tomorrowland until recently...considered to be "retro-futurism"

To me, this is considered retro, because it FEELS like familiar things from the 1940's and 50's...the neon lights, the Buck Rogers/ Flash Gordon aesthetic.

Question: If somehow the Imagineers created the above theme of Tomorrowland, and we didn't relate those to other things and created it as brand new, would it feel "futuristic" to us?

So I think pop culture has a lot to do with what we consider to be futuristic, and as such, also means that if it permeates in enough ways, even if it's color schemes, etc. Which also means that it can also quickly feel dated when it's widely adopted and people look for new ways to "feel" futuristic beyond that.

I know some people mistook this above Tomorrowland style with Steampunk which I previously had vehemently disagreed with. It clearly isn't, even if it shares a few shapes. Discoveryland in Paris, at least in its original form, was much more Steampunk. I do believe a lot of that can come down to color schemes though, after thinking about it further.

If our Tomorrowland at WDW replaced the neon with more normal lighting schemes and most of the yellows and blues and greens were replaced with brass and copper and silver color schemes, it could more easily pass for Steampunk.

Aside from Disney, one of my other favorite things growing up with the aesthetic of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Even though this show started in 1987, the bridge area still feels futuristic to me (clearly the original series didn't have the same longevity in style).

Again, I think the only things that define the era to me might be the beige colors, but generally in the 80's and 90's, most pop culture was much more a mix of wild colors and we didn't see this simple, clean futuristic style expand everywhere. If so, it might feel more dated (though the haircuts and some of the outfits on the show do definitely feel dated)

Just some thought experiments I wanted to share with you all in case you had some feedback

Neat post. I haven't thought about these questions so just some thoughts.

First question is-What elements make a static image look futuristic. My required elements would be something like the following-
Unfamiliar-unusual objects or designs-some mysterious element
Technology-Generally includes spaceships, weapons, androids/robots, or unusual computers
Context-If described as the bridge of a starship say rather than cabin of private jet or room on a super-yacht

THX 1138 for instance looks simple but futuristic mainly due to context and also unfamiliar scene elements.

Second question-What elements make static image look retro futuristic (love this term) rather than futuristic-
Originally, retro futuristic was futuristic and so includes all elements of futuristic. Also however the technology looks dated, inconsistent with reasonable projections of current technology or designs. This provides the retro element.

Blade Runner scenes have lots of neon signs but still appear futuristic since include other reasonable projections of current technology and appropriate mystery.

It seems to me mysterious elements in fantasy novels set in the past are generally provided by magic but if set in the future then the same is provided by advanced technology (similar to the observation by Clarke).

What we now consider futuristic will in the future be retro futuristic because technology or common designs will advance, in fact, differently then what was the base of the extrapolation that is used for current futuristic scenes. The futuristic scenes of the present will begin to look crude in some respect.

 

[bcla]

Well - Star Trek was definitely retro-futuristic in terms of what they had. Kind of a 60s sensibility with hairstyles and a 60s idea of what things would like with excessive buttons and manual switches.

You'd probably have to think of H.G. Wells or Jules Verne in terms of sensibility. They thought of what the future would look like in terms of things that were overwhelmingly mechanically complex. But in reality we don't have that per se because electronic complexity has replaced mechanical complexity. All those retro-futuristic machines with way too many gears (almost steampunk) would have been a real disaster in terms of complexity and reliability. But having reasonably simple mechanical devices with fine-tuned electronic control is what we really have today.

The movie Tomorrowland had the aesthetic down pat.

 

[ChrisFL]

Neat post. I haven't thought about these questions so just some thoughts.

First question is-What elements make a static image look futuristic. My required elements would be something like the following-
Unfamiliar-unusual objects or designs-some mysterious element
Technology-Generally includes spaceships, weapons, androids/robots, or unusual computers
Context-If described as the bridge of a starship say rather than cabin of private jet or room on a super-yacht

THX 1138 for instance looks simple but futuristic mainly due to context and also unfamiliar scene elements.

Second question-What elements make static image look retro futuristic (love this term) rather than futuristic-
Originally, retro futuristic was futuristic and so includes all elements of futuristic. Also however the technology looks dated, inconsistent with reasonable projections of current technology or designs. This provides the retro element.

Blade Runner scenes have lots of neon signs but still appear futuristic since include other reasonable projections of current technology and appropriate mystery.

It seems to me mysterious elements in fantasy novels set in the past are generally provided by magic but if set in the future then the same is provided by advanced technology (similar to the observation by Clarke).

What we now consider futuristic will in the future be retro futuristic because technology or common designs will advance, in fact, differently then what was the base of the extrapolation that is used for current futuristic scenes. The futuristic scenes of the present will begin to look crude in some respect.

Great response.

Yes I agree with most of this. Regarding the addition of spaceships, etc. I know a lot of things were inspired by the space race when the original Tomorrowland opened, just like it did for car design and other things. A similar thing happened during the 1930's and 40's with the "streamlined" look (I've actually been watching some videos about the history of industrial design which kind of led me to this topic)

The other thing which I didn't yet bring up is the change in people's perceptions of whether we would be looking forward to a utopian view of the future, or a dystopian one. Until Star Wars, pretty much everything in science fiction was utopian, or at least not what we saw in that film (yes, long time ago...galaxy far away), but dystopian vibes didn't hit as much until the 80's and 90's which is probably part of why Disney decided to go with retro futurism in Paris and WDW, and....who the heck knows in Anaheim (Some say it's dystopian!)

One side note: Tokyo's Tomorrowland was based mostly on the WDW aesthetic and has not changed....like ever, since it opened in 1983. I noticed while being there they have pretty much all of the same layout except for no Peoplemover. While I'm sure budget may have been a concern, my thought also is that, in Tokyo...having trains like the peoplemover transport you places (automated or otherwise) is the farthest thing from futuristic to them, it's their daily life. They do have a monorail which was added later on when DisneySea opened, and it's much more "cute" than "futuristic"

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

(I posted this on another wdw message board not on the DIS but figured people here might be interested in this as well)

Recently I was thinking about when things we consider that feel "futuristic", mostly in architecture, etc. and when they become "retro-futuristic" and what's the difference.

My theory is that futuristic architecture only works when it hasn't reached mainstream consciousness.

Example of a futuristic city background as seen in Horizons...(from ~40 years ago)

I always loved this background, and while some people can definitely say it feels of it's time, I don't think the style of those buildings have ever reached as much mainstream as other "futuristic" styling seen in other places.

Of course there are other things that can point to whether something feels futuristic. Using angles and types of building things which previously weren't possible...materials with new properties like color changing paint or multi-color lighting.

We see that in the WDW Tomorrowland until recently...considered to be "retro-futurism"

To me, this is considered retro, because it FEELS like familiar things from the 1940's and 50's...the neon lights, the Buck Rogers/ Flash Gordon aesthetic.

Question: If somehow the Imagineers created the above theme of Tomorrowland, and we didn't relate those to other things and created it as brand new, would it feel "futuristic" to us?

So I think pop culture has a lot to do with what we consider to be futuristic, and as such, also means that if it permeates in enough ways, even if it's color schemes, etc. Which also means that it can also quickly feel dated when it's widely adopted and people look for new ways to "feel" futuristic beyond that.

I know some people mistook this above Tomorrowland style with Steampunk which I previously had vehemently disagreed with. It clearly isn't, even if it shares a few shapes. Discoveryland in Paris, at least in its original form, was much more Steampunk. I do believe a lot of that can come down to color schemes though, after thinking about it further.

If our Tomorrowland at WDW replaced the neon with more normal lighting schemes and most of the yellows and blues and greens were replaced with brass and copper and silver color schemes, it could more easily pass for Steampunk.

Aside from Disney, one of my other favorite things growing up with the aesthetic of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Even though this show started in 1987, the bridge area still feels futuristic to me (clearly the original series didn't have the same longevity in style).

Again, I think the only things that define the era to me might be the beige colors, but generally in the 80's and 90's, most pop culture was much more a mix of wild colors and we didn't see this simple, clean futuristic style expand everywhere. If so, it might feel more dated (though the haircuts and some of the outfits on the show do definitely feel dated)

Just some thought experiments I wanted to share with you all in case you had some feedback

So when in the future do you think we'll discover the new elements shockium, explodium, and sharpnalium and how to make computer displays out of them?

 

[bcla]

The other thing which I didn't yet bring up is the change in people's perceptions of whether we would be looking forward to a utopian view of the future, or a dystopian one. Until Star Wars, pretty much everything in science fiction was utopian, or at least not what we saw in that film (yes, long time ago...galaxy far away), but dystopian vibes didn't hit as much until the 80's and 90's which is probably part of why Disney decided to go with retro futurism in Paris and WDW, and....who the heck knows in Anaheim (Some say it's dystopian!)

Star Trek had somewhat of a combination of that, where the Federation seemed rather sterile, but the places they visited could be dirty or dystopian. However, Star Wars had a vision where vehicles showed wear and thing could look old. Except I guess for the Empire, where everything looked sterile and was kept clean. Or places like Cloud City, although they ended up showing where the garbage was handled.

But absolutely most views of futuristic space travel showed almost sterile, absolutely clean environments. But you really didn't see any trash cans and didn't see people doing any cleaning. I always wondered how anything got so clean. Of course in Wall-E, they showed little robots that would incessantly clean up anything and everything.

You can look at Disneyland's original Rocket Jets/Astro Jets, which for the longest time had a NASA style color scheme of white and black.

But later they changed it to a retro-futuristic vibe similar to what H.G. Wells might have imagined, along with announcements that were similar to what one might hear in a Flash Gordon movie.