Will they ever look to the future again?

[WDWHound]

Tomorrowland in the Magic Kingdom took on the retro theme of "The Tomorrow that never was" many years ago, and with that change it gave up on any attempt to portray the future in a realistic way. Futureworld in Epcot seems to have tossed in the towel on that theme as well. The most forward looking pavillion (Horizons), is now a thrill ride. Yes, its a space based thrill ride, but its still just a thrill ride at its core. WQe really learn nothing about our possible future from it.

And don't even get me started on Innoventions. When it opened (as Communicore) with EPCOT Center, it was full of nifty things that were not yet common place. Now, its a showplace for stuff you can get at your local Best Buy.

Will we ever see a serious attempt at an attraction that portrays life in the furture again? I know, I know, such attractions can be a real pain to maintain because their "future" technology tends to become today's technology after a few years, which means money must be spent to redo the attraction to be forward looking again. I also understand that todays audience is more jaded by progress and less excited by thinking about what technolgy has in store for us in 20 years. The future seems to have lost its Wiz Bang factor for many.

Still, I can help but believe if they stopped trying to look forward only a few years (or, in the case of Innoventions, to the next Christmas shopping season), they could come up with a creative attraction about the future that could still WOW people. Think of what the possiblities are for they way we will live 100 years from now. Imagione the possible breaktroughs in nono tech, robotics, transportation (damn it, I want my flying car), medicine, entertainment (holodecks anyone?).. The list goes on and on. Now imagine a Horizons like attraction that took you through that future. Thats the sort of experience I used to expect from Disney, especially in Tomorrowland and Furture World.

So, do you think we will ever see this sort of attraction again, or is a real Tommorland doomed to live only in Yesterland?

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Pardon the pun but there is no future in it. Disney is all about marketing and the bottom line. Any forward thinking as you mentioned would involve a commitment to something without any tangible proof of return on investment and Iger and anyone working for him simply won't go for that.

All we're going to see from Disney from here on out is development in areas that will perform (more shopping centers) and the occasional "spectacular" attraction along the lines of E:E ... A very good, totally themed out rehash of something else. I don't see any new Indy or Spiderman's coming down the pike, do you?

 

[rodkenrich]

Pardon the pun but there is no future in it. Disney is all about marketing and the bottom line. Any forward thinking as you mentioned would involve a commitment to something without any tangible proof of return on investment and Iger and anyone working for him simply won't go for that.

All we're going to see from Disney from here on out is development in areas that will perform (more shopping centers) and the occasional "spectacular" attraction along the lines of E:E ... A very good, totally themed out rehash of something else. I don't see any new Indy or Spiderman's coming down the pike, do you?

Amen.

 

[dbm20th]

I don't see any new Indy or Spiderman's coming down the pike, do you?

How do you mean? New technoloy? Like a living animated character (Crush)? A rollecoaster with a switching track and the largest and most fluid AA ever (E:E)? Or perhaps something like projecting animated 3-D characters into a huge aquarium?

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

I know we're just going to disagree dbm20th but I'll try ... Those innovations you mentioned were, IMO, to be expected. The track change at E:E had already been done for the Mummy. The Crush effect is way cool, but haven't we already seen the precursor with the talking garbage can that's been at Epcot for a couple decades? The new Nemo ride is very nice and the kiddies should love it for years to come but as to projecting the animated figures, hasn't Fantasmic been dabbling with this for years?

These new rides are GREAT additions but when I first rode Indy it was well beyond the scope of anything I had ridden before. Then Spiderman did the same thing.

I thought ToT was truly innovative and they gave us little brand new but the package was beyond belief.

Soarin' is oh so close. The technology is there but they scrimped on the details (choppy film, round screen, other guests feet). It's great and a huge Wow for the first time rider byut I think with little effort it could've been beyond belief.

But now I believe (with virtually no imagineers minding the store) we'll be getting our great rides along the lines of E:E. Truly fun rides, themed to the hilt but with no monumental surprises. I'm happy riding these rides and seeing these attractions but I still hope for the day they blow my shoes right off my feet again.

 

[rocketriter]

Consider the state of science fiction in general. The science has been largely replaced by medieval fantasy, and to find a book of science fiction in a bookstore you have to thumb through dozens of novels whose titles start with "The Sword of..." Tomorrowland and Epcot will look forward again when our culture looks forward again.

 

[dbm20th]

You're right, we'll have to agree to disagree with this, and I understand where you are coming from, but I don't want to let this go...

The track change at E:E had already been done for the Mummy. ?

I wasn't aware of that. My bad. The AA is still out-of this-world, however. And the mountain is eye-popping to be sure.

The Crush effect is way cool, but haven't we already seen the precursor with the talking garbage can that's been at Epcot for a couple ecades?

I don't agree at all with this. The garbage can is a remote control toy with a radio attached to a set of speakers. That is a FAR cry from the living animation. This is like looking at a Testa Rossa and saying "what's so good about that? We already have a Studebaker!"

The new Nemo ride is very nice and the kiddies should love it for years to come but as to projecting the animated figures, hasn't Fantasmic been dabbling with this for years?

Not at all. Have you been to the new Seas attraction yet?

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Yes, I was there two weeks ago and thought it a much improved area. I personally wasn't anywhere near "wow" but the little ones around me thought it fantastic - So it gets a from me. I might add that this venue, this type of fill in the blank type attraction wouldn't warrant a WOW type ride (IMO) ... Sometimes very good is exactly what the goal was.

 

[YoHo]

Living Animation? It's a set of preset movements that the CM chooses from. Anyone with a decent computer and the animation skill could do it. It's no different from the Audioanimatronics that have a real CM controlling what they say and running them through a set of preprogrammed movements except it's cheaper. I'm not saying it isn't cool, but it's evolutionary, not revolutionary.


Beyond that, there's nothing more that needs to be said, on the specifics, I can post links to threads where we've already discussed it.


I do agree with Mr. Pirate on Tomorrowland though. It's a costly affair to keep up with the future. Tomorrowland in Disneyland was constantly changing while Walt was alive. It needed to stay constantly changing and it didn't. At WDW, Future World was tomorrowland on a grander scale and once again, they failed to put the money up to make it work. Epcot in the 80s was an incredible place. Florida has a problem with Tomorrowland anyway, what do you do when you have Future world too?
In either case, Disney has made it clear that they don't intend to improve on the place in any substantial way unless they absolutely have to. That's not really the way entertainment generally works.

 

[Keyser]

And don't even get me started on Innoventions. When it opened (as Communicore) with EPCOT Center, it was full of nifty things that were not yet common place. Now, its a showplace for stuff you can get at your local Best Buy.

I think part of the problem is with the time frame. Products go from the R&D stage to consumer products faster than ever before. It's now harder to demonstrate things that currently exist but yet aren't available to people, and if you do put something like that in place, it usually won't be there for long. Also, some of the really innovative technological developments aren't as easy to display - take advances in biotech and nanotech. So, it's harder to center an exhibit around nifty things that aren't yet commonplace. What's more, the increase in information flow means that people learn a lot more about new developments a lot quicker than they ever have in the past.

I also understand that todays audience is more jaded by progress and less excited by thinking about what technolgy has in store for us in 20 years. The future seems to have lost its Wiz Bang factor for many.

I hate to say it, but I think this is very true. I think people really expect more technological advance than they ever have. Seriously - when's the last time that you remember a technology that made you go "wow"? I remember growing up when things like "remote control" for the TV was cool. Or, being able to record on a VCR. Microwave ovens seemed amazing. I think the internet might still fit this "wow" category, but that's been around for a while now.

At the same time, it's easier and easier to imagine future developments. It's really easy for me to picture several generations of improvement in mobile devices, for instance. The entertainment industry has become so good at portraying technology that it can seem less and less "cool". As silly as it sounds, if someone hatched a dinosaur, it would create a lot of interest, but somehow I think a lot of people would also think - "yeah, I saw that years ago in Jurassic park." Plus, progress in some areas (let's take home automation, or automobiles) already feels way behind where it "should" be. The "roomba" is great, but still is a long way from where I imagined automated home cleaning would be or could be. I'm betting that the technology coming out over the next 10 years will seem a lot less cool than it really is.

That's not to say that using "the future" for attractions is out. But, I think it needs to change from something that basically says "look at the technology that has been created and will come soon - isn't it cool" to attractions that look far into the future and have more of a show to them - i.e. more like Horizons than like Innoventions. And, the attractions will have to be more of the "not really likely, but somewhat utopian" variety. I think there will always be a place for the "utopian vision of the distant future" attractions.

I think this can also pose a (good) challenge for attraction designers in that they will have to make sure the attraction is fundamentally based on a good show, rather than just on a cool (for now) technology. Technology can be used as a "crutch" to make something seem great when there's not so much behind it (as I wrote in an earlier thread, I think Soarin' is guilty of this to an extent).

 

[LuvDuke]

I think they'll look to the future again. These things cycle in and out in business constantly. For a while the cost cutters have the upper hand and then you get a cycle of the innovators taking over.

Having said that, until the innovators take over, we won't be renewing our AP's. The world is a big place and I've got better places spend my money than on the same old/same old.

 

[GrumpyOne]

I remember growing up when things like "remote control" for the TV was cool.

I remember BEING the remote for the TV...

 

[LuvDuke]

I remember BEING the remote for the TV...

Do you remember being the "keeper of the antenna" too? There was always one person who had "the touch".

 

[Mr D]

I agree the current plan is money not vision.
It would be the best thing in the world if Disney actually planned ahead for the future instead of mining the present.

 

[ohanafamily]

Hi All,

I haven't been on this side of the dis for a while,...

I think you are right about the lack of new technology in the parks. The Dinosaur was cool though.

They could change innoventions every year by sending a team to CES and some of the other shows. That (I Think) was the original concept; almost ready for market. OF course, the stuin there now is probably sponsored by a company that is selling it now. Profit wins over new technology...

JMHO

:

 

[GrumpyOne]

While I miss that Tomorrowland isn't as futuristic as it used to be, I think this is primarily a reflection of society.

When Disneyland first opened, the big fantasy for society was western based. Most kids shows revolved around westerns, western movies were big, western books, etc. As a result, we have Frontierland.

Science fiction was coming into its own around that time as well with the cold war but more importantly, people have been dreaming up unreaziled science fiction-like achievements for 100 years. Time machines, space travel, miniaturization, etc. Walt had a lot of material to draw from. As a result, we have Tomorrowland.

Nowadays, technology moves faster than Disney builds new rides and "The Old West" is simply another tourist attraction next to a subdivision and strip mall in Arizona. I'm not certain that trying to update Tomorrowland is the bext thing they could do. I agree that I'd hate to see it tun into Tomorrowland (sponsored by BestBuy).