PDA

View Full Version : Sticking to the theme



Pages : [1] 2

Viva La Disney
04-10-2005, 06:25 PM
Okay,here's the deal,is it just me,or is DLR starting to go off theme? :confused: Like, is the Nemo sub rides going to be in Tomorrowland? And if so what is so futuristic about fish? It just seems kinda weird,and the Nemo thing isn't the only thing that seems out of place,there are others,it's just that Nemo is the biggest one that I've noticed.

Captain Josh
04-10-2005, 06:28 PM
Oh, thanks for reminding me of a funny little anecdote I came up with last night.

What's so futuristic about Autopia? You get in a car, you drive. Big deal I thought, I did that this morning on the way over to the park. Then I realized the THEMING of Autopia. How all the billboards cater to cars like they were people. How the park had statues of cars...how the popcorn cart has oily nuts and bolts....

...Autopia foresees a world in which cars have killed off humanity and rule the world.

kisroo
04-10-2005, 06:33 PM
<<snip>>...Autopia foresees a world in which cars have killed off humanity and rule the world.

Cap't. I love how you think. I really, really do. :D

I agree that Nemo is "off" in Tomorrowland. I would've much rather seen something done with "Atlantis" or something like that.

Rouxe1688
04-10-2005, 06:36 PM
Maybe they'll make the lagoon part of fantasyland, after all, the matterhorn was part of tomorrowland too for a while.

bradk
04-10-2005, 06:44 PM
whenever someone mentions the concept of tomorrowland, autopia is the first thing i usually comment on, but there are other attractions in TL which are questionable at best when it comes to the theming.

first off, the submarine voyage was always there. as was autopia. and star wars takes place in the past, not the future. and you can argue the futuristic importantance of innoventions or question whether buzz lightyear techncially belongs there.

i don't know why, but when it comes to portraying the future, there's a sudden halt of imagination. as i used to like to point out, while the flintstones appeared to have every modern convenience (although usually animal powered) while the jetsons didn't even have a vcr (although now i could probably say tivo).

mkcbunny
04-10-2005, 06:46 PM
I dunno, talking fish may be futuristic...

I suppose technically, it's Tomorrowland due to the location of the ride access, but the whole water canal borders the Matterhorn area/Fantasyland, so it's kind of a transitional area in my mind.

Personally, I would love to see some version of the subs revived, rather than the unused lagoon staring me in the face every time I go there, reminding me of a ride that I loved as a kid and can't ride anymore. When Nemo came out and was such a hit, I immediately thought, "Well, maybe that's successful enough that they'll finally develop the lagoon." A "water" movie is the obvious connection. Little Mermaid and Nemo are the two with the most appeal, and neither is going to fit well with Tomorrowland. Atlantis woould work, but it didn't do well enough for Disney to back a ride tied into it. And although Mermaid would tie in well with the abutting Fantasyland, I [MHO, only; I know others will disagree, so be kind] think there's enough princess emphasis in the park already and would prefer the Nemo theme.

In the end, I would rather have a ride there that's a little off-theme than none at all.

mkcbunny
04-10-2005, 06:48 PM
whenever someone mentions the concept of tomorrowland, autopia is the first thing i usually comment on, but there are other attractions in TL which are questionable at best when it comes to the theming.

first off, the submarine voyage was always there. as was autopia. and star wars takes place in the past, not the future. and you can argue the futuristic importantance of innoventions or question whether buzz lightyear techncially belongs there.

i don't know why, but when it comes to portraying the future, there's a sudden halt of imagination. as i used to like to point out, while the flintstones appeared to have every modern convenience (although usually animal powered) while the jetsons didn't even have a vcr (although now i could probably say tivo).

Agreed. And even when the sub voyage was there, it was Jules Verne-style, which wasn't "the future" even when it was a new ride. Somehow "space" = "the future/tomorrow." At this point, the definition of "tomorrow" is a little hard to pin down.

Again, talking fish ... a thing of our future I say. :)

Viva La Disney
04-10-2005, 06:59 PM
talking fish ... a thing of our future I say. :)

Okay, but in that case shouldn't Dumbo, Mr.Toad and Alice be in Tomorrowland? They all have talking animals,You know?

Rhiannon8404
04-10-2005, 07:19 PM
I'm a new member to the boards, but a long time lurker.

I also, would rather see a Nemo theme than a Little Mermaid theme. As the mom of a 6 year old boy, we get a bit "Princessed" out. As far as being part of Tomorrowland, well, they ride could look like super-futuristic submarines or something like that to make it fit in there better.

jennia
04-10-2005, 07:24 PM
If you start moving all the talking animals to Tomorrowland then Roger Rabbit, Pooh, Splash Mountain, Chip and Dale's Tree House, etc, etc, etc would have to move. :eek: I've been wondering if they'll move the entrance around to make the Nemo ride part of Fantasyland.

Viva La Disney
04-10-2005, 07:26 PM
Good point,if the subs are futuristic,then I'm sure it will fit in a lot better.

bradk
04-10-2005, 07:27 PM
ok, before we get all into this fantasyland deportation stuff, can we all take a breather and examine what most of the rides in fantasyland are? ok, finding nemo is a good movie and all, but in the grand scheme of things, does it belong in the same breath as pinocchio, dumbo, alice in wonderland, snow white and peter pan? i'm not even sure the matterhorn belongs there.

Viva La Disney
04-10-2005, 07:41 PM
i'm not even sure the matterhorn belongs there.

Yeah, Matterhorn Is one of my favorite rides but I often wonder where it should REALLY be, it's a tough one. :confused:

Rhiannon8404
04-10-2005, 07:41 PM
Just a bit of a tangent, but really, where does the Matterhorn really fit in? It's one of my favs, but it's not really suited for Fantasyland or Tomorrowland. Excect of course, by virtue of it's location in the park. It could be part of Adventureland (hey, climbing the Matterhorn and racing in bobsleds would be an adventure), except that it's not in that part of the park.

Viva La Disney
04-10-2005, 07:50 PM
And what about the upcoming Monsters Inc.? Where is that going to be,Paridise Pier,right? :confused:

Rhiannon8404
04-10-2005, 07:52 PM
And what about the upcoming Monsters Inc.? Where is that going to be,Paridise Pier,right? :confused:

I believe it's going to in the Hollywood Studios Backlot area. Somewhere in the area where the Super Star Limo was once rumoured to be.

Viva La Disney
04-10-2005, 07:57 PM
What does monsters jumping through doors and scaring small children have to do with show biz? :confused:

bradk
04-10-2005, 08:00 PM
it's a pixar property / modern family movie, which makes it perfect for DCA since that concept seems to overide the california theme nowadays.

splashmtngurl
04-10-2005, 08:00 PM
another thing i think we all need to keep in mind is that in our modern day society, the future arrives at our doorstep each day. yesterday is the tommorrow that we dreamed of the day before, each day something new advances on the technological charts and our world is constantly changing.

the problem with a land themed futuristically is that sometime or other the "futuristic" meaning of an attraction will be demolished because once that idea or plan or concept is fulfilled, it is no longer futuristic but instead it is in the past. The way i look at it, tommorrowland was origanally planned to be futuristically styled but cant we also think of it as an opportunity to remind ourselves of the way we thought about things in the past? so as far as the current attractions in tommorrowland, i see nothing questionable about whether or not it fits into the theme.

as for the sub lagoon, i agree on the fact that it's sort of nuetral zone. Not to mention that apparently there has been some talk of relocating the enterance for the new submarine attraction which would probably enter from fantasy land. I just want to see that space being used, worry about the theme later. or we could just try to theme it in with tommorrowland because they are...er..using special technology or somethin? ;)

bradk
04-10-2005, 08:03 PM
well as far as the logical concept of tomorrowland is concerned, i really do love the rethinking of the 80s redo where the concept is campy retro future. where everything is kind of frozen in time (but still ahead of our time) based on how people used to envision the future.

like when you read those articles from the 50s that talk about all the technological (and still farfetched) advancements we'd have by the year 2000.

Viva La Disney
04-10-2005, 08:04 PM
another thing i think we all need to keep in mind is that in our modern day society, the future arrives at our doorstep each day. yesterday is the tommorrow that we dreamed of the day before, each day something new advances on the technological charts and our world is constantly changing.

Wow, that was deep :eek:

Tigertail777
04-10-2005, 08:15 PM
Matterhorn actually does fit well as a buffer zone; remember the very beginning of pinnochio with all of the mountains as geppeto looks out the window? That looked very swiss alps style to me. So it does kinda of fit there.

As for subs not being futuristic, actually at one time they were, remember these are not supposed to be ordinary subs these are ATOMIC powered subs. This was a very new thing in the 50's, right around the time the subs were built was the first atomic submarine voyage to the north pole. Now if you think of the subs as a ordinary passenger voyage, that WAS futuristic because not just anyone could climb aboard a atomic submarine for many years, it was restricted to armed forces personel only with rare acceptions. So not just anyone could get on a atomic sub, let alone take a voyage to the north pole (the polar ice caps you saw on the ride). Subs remained futuristic until about the early 70's, when access was beginning to get easier to go on real submarines.

Subs could still be futuristic if it was made as a trip to a underwater city, where people are actually living on the ocean floor. Thats still a future thing, people do not live full time on the ocean floor YET.

h_lehmann
04-10-2005, 08:26 PM
Okay,here's the deal,is it just me,or is DLR starting to go off theme? :confused: Like, is the Nemo sub rides going to be in Tomorrowland? And if so what is so futuristic about fish?

The mermaid and the cross-eyed sea serpentfrom the original submarine ride weren't futuristic either. I think it's the submarines themselves that are futuristic; or at least they were in 1955.

bradk
04-10-2005, 08:34 PM
we're neglecting one small thing. submarine voyage opened in 1959.

first atomic submarine the nautilus was 1954. the first one to circumnavigate the globe was the triton in 1960.

i wasn't aware that submarines ever really became a commercial venture (it's not all that practical a transportation). i suppose it could have been seen as one, but i think commercial transportation to the moon (or mars) is more of a technological fantasy than bleached plastic fish. there really could have been better concepts in mind.

bradk
04-10-2005, 08:50 PM
just to beat the dead horse even more, i was just doing some research and all.

submarine voyage is based on the nautilus and its trip to the north pole. the atlantis thing is just an add-on to that, but atlantis doesn't really constitute tomorrowland does it?

also, the 20,000 leagues under the sea attraction at WDW was in fantasyland.