Readers' Opinions

From ThemePark Dan on October 8, 2013 at 2:11 PM
The Starwars concept sounds much better than Stark Tours 3. Iron Man deservers better.

Universal has set a new standard of what a motion simulator ride should be like (Transformers/Spider Man).

I except more of Disney and their Iron Man announcement was disappointing.

From Annette Forrest on October 8, 2013 at 2:31 PM
Robert, I've never heard that Disney was barred from using Marvel in Tokyo. I thought it was only barred from using Marvel in Orlando (and anywhere in the US east of the Mississippi). Disney can use Marvel in California and I thought anywhere else in the world.

Have you ever written an article with the specifics of the legal agreements with Marvel as it applies to what Disney can and can't do? So many people get this info wrong and don't really know what is up.

It would be a huge public service if you ran a really detailed analysis of the Marvel deal with Disney and what all the implications are for every Disney park. Like, maybe you could break it down for each park and say what the deal allows for that park and what is prohibited specifically.

From Anon Mouse on October 8, 2013 at 3:28 PM
Considering that Marvel isn't allowed in Orlando and the new Iron Man ride will be using the Star Tours ride technology, YAWN. I can think of a way to use the same concept in Orlando.

"Incredibles" in the old Food Pavilion in Epcot. Reuse the the Body Wars ride vehicles for an incredible new ride attraction based on the "Incredibles" characters!!!!

The Iron Man poster art reminds me of how easily they can use the red costumes from the Incredibles uniform and the spider robot from the movie. Which leads to the question, where's the Incredibles sequel?

-----

>>"ordinary" people have no hope<<

I beg to differ in the sense that Star Wars Episode 4 is "A New Hope".

Whether or not it is about saving mankind with a superhero, Tomorrowland is about technology saving mankind from druggery. What's the difference? Iron Man uses technology to save society. Star Wars uses midi-chlorians.

From David Eggert on October 8, 2013 at 3:07 PM
Annette, Robert actually did write quite a detailed post on the theme park rights to both Marvel and DC back in July, which you can check out here: http://www.themeparkinsider.com/flume/201307/3558/
From Ted Heumann on October 8, 2013 at 3:58 PM
The easy answer for Disney bringing Marvel or Star Wars into Tomorrowland is Marvel and Star Wars don't change, but the "future" is outdated before the paint dries. I remember going into Innoventions right after going to Comdex (in it's heyday) and Innoventions had the same thing that I just saw at Comdex for sale. Tomorrowland has changed more times (by a HUGE margin) than ANY other land in Disneyland and that gets expensive. By converting it to Marvel or Star Wars land, then they no longer have to update it every few years. That is why they did "Jules Verne's land" in Disneyland Paris.
I my opinion it makes more sense to go with Star Wars then Marvel, since that stays with the future theme, but takes it in a "fantasy" direction. Plus Marvel is so broad that you could put it almost anywhere, but Star Wars only makes sense in Tomorrowland.
From Phil B. on October 8, 2013 at 4:03 PM
Riiiigggghhhhttttt....like this country historically isn't deeply rooted theologically in the concept of somebody coming down from the sky to save us all. Only people who over think the meaning of concepts looking to stir the pot, will stop to make any such connections. The vast majority of everybody else will be concentrating on having the FUN that was intended to be had, taking pictures and snapping up merchandise. Build it all, and let all the morose scholars weep for their former haven of an idealistic future.
From 198.228.216.170 on October 8, 2013 at 4:14 PM
Moving Orbiter good idea for better loading. Speeder ride good but would be limited to space available also an addition for tomorrowland could be a Wall- E dark ride
From 184.90.251.158 on October 8, 2013 at 4:27 PM
Only one problem...We'd be taking away Walt's optimism for the future. Do we really want to remove that in favor for Marvel and Star Wars?
From Annette Forrest on October 8, 2013 at 4:55 PM
Someone in comments above said something really thought provoking about the "future" changing before the paint dries on Tomorrowland. I think that is true in a sense, but I think a "Tomorrowland" could be built that would never be outdated (at least not for 50 or 100 years). If you really wanted to create a permanent Tomorrowland, have the rides all based on:

* taking a cruise to another planet...since we will not be able to do this in our lifetimes.

* time travel...have a ride where you jump back to several different time periods in the distant past and see the life forms there (could be a neat way to repurpose the current Nemo ride, and have prehistoric fish in there)...because time travel will not exist in our lifetimes

* shrinking...have a ride where you are shrunk and injected into a body, like the "Innerspace" movie....because shrinking will not happen in our lifetimes

* Have all of Tomorrowland be a big space port where ships are arriving and departing to different galactic destinations...and then theme all of the other rides to be like excursions/things to do while you are waiting for your flight to other planets. All the rides could have their facades themed like they are in the concourse of the space port, and that they are like the shops in our airports with interesting things to do, eat, or places to shop while you are waiting for your next space cruise

I personally don't like Buzz LightYear but even he would fit in this "space port" theme if his ride is presented as a toy for children in the future and this is a diversion based on that.

From Stevo B on October 8, 2013 at 5:51 PM
Anything is better than the nothing thats been the norm for the last 10, 15, 20 plus years.
From Kenny Vee on October 8, 2013 at 7:03 PM
I think replacing Walt's idea of "the hope for a peaceful, unified world" and turning it into a land of constant warfare is the worst idea possible. I know we're an inherently violent species, but we shouldn't celebrate that at Disneyland.

I really hope it was someone throwing MiceChat a red herring so they could get together around the water cooler and laugh at anyone who took it seriously.

If Disney goes through with it, they had better not call it "Tomorrowland" anymore, because it will have nothing to do with any of the hope for the future which the land was intended to convey.

From Robert Niles on October 8, 2013 at 7:28 PM
My understanding is that Universal's rights to use Marvel in the Japanese theme park market are time-limited, unlike the Orlando rights, which exist in perpetuity. So, eventually, Disney can bring Marvel to Tokyo. But, frankly, those parks are doing quite well without it right now.
From Phil B. on October 8, 2013 at 8:44 PM
I'm all in for Annette's idea for a rebooted Tomorrow Land. I've also thought the same thing, that going very far into the future tech would be the best way to keep the tech feeling cutting edge. Riding the fine line of science fact and fiction really is the way to go, and I've always been a fan of a futuristic space port theme. Most of these ideas have already existed in one form or another however. Space travel, miniaturization, time travel and teleportation have all been explored in ride attractions before. That's not to say that fresh ideas based off of these topics couldn't provide compelling, immersive, story driven attractions for a whole new generation.
From 38.99.123.151 on October 8, 2013 at 11:45 PM
Yeah, i agree. Disney should stay away from showing us as the violent lifeform that we are. It's not like they have showed things like Pirates battling with swords, burning down towns in drunken binges, fired off cannons or guns, ghost hanging from nooses, animals being shot at, natives raising their spears to you, or a settlers cabin set on fire by indians. Disneyland is a pretty violent place when you stack up everything together!
From 75.22.34.61 on October 9, 2013 at 1:36 AM
"And here's another thought worth considering: Star Wars and Marvel each take Tomorrowland another step away from its original, idealistic vision of a community in the future, replacing it with yet another conflict-driven narrative."

Really? Don't you think you're reaching?
No one seems to have a problem with the Star Tours ride.

By necessity, the vision for Tomorrowland has had to change. There is nothing wrong with combining science fantasy and science fact.

As long as the good guys always win (that is optimist) what is the problem?

From Brandon Mendoza on October 9, 2013 at 10:33 AM
A few concerns... I hope they don't turn Space Mountain into a Star Wars attraction. It's fine without it, and would be like changing Big Thunder into a Lone Ranger themed attraction if that movie was a blockbuster. Now I'm not one to say that attractions should stay the way they are, but having non-movie based attractions is a good thing as well as having movie based ones. If they have to do something, then add subtle things like in Soarin (even though I despise Planes and what it stands for -- $$$ w/o creativity)

Hopefully the Speeder Bikes don't become the next Rocket Rods, Indiana Jones, or Expedition Everest where the track is engineered wrong like RR or constant break-downs occur like Indy, or maintenance is near impossible like in EE.

Exciting news, and I hope they become real!

From 206.29.182.227 on October 9, 2013 at 11:17 AM
I think its a great idea to replace autopia. Ideally I would suggest recreating the attraction in carsland where it'd be a perfect fit! I say replace Luigi's tires and they could also utilize the backstage area behind tower of terror and bugs land if they need it. You could further explore the great landscape of radiator springs. Autopia would be more popular than ever and be a great draw to lessen the wait time for radiator springs racers!
From 63.76.5.3 on October 9, 2013 at 2:11 PM
This might concern me more if Innoventions wasn't such a dead zone. Is it really worse to have a cool ride (I hope) centered around the Star Wars universe? Removing Captain EO (which I admit that I enjoy) also isn't a huge change in tone. The Autopia doesn't really scream the future either. While I'm not ready to book my tickets to California based on this rumor, it's still a step forward in each example. Plus, Star Tours is already in Tomorrowland, so it isn't like there isn't a precedent.

The bigger hurdle to overcome is Tomorrowland at WDW. That one has been taken over by Pixar in three spots and has no connection between the attractions. Disneyland's TL is a few changes away from being amazing again.

From 75.151.69.253 on October 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM
A Star Tours ride is one thing, but to completely make Tomorrowland Star Wars is a bad, bad idea. This is coming from the biggest Star Wars nerd on the planet. Want proof? 3263827. That is the door number on the trash compactor. I got more where that came from. Bring on a new Star Wars land or even an entire theme park. I will be there opening day, but to completely rebrand Tomorrowland entirely is terrible. I agree that Tomorrowland should be about the hope for the future and the comments from the other posters. I like the upbeat retro-sci-fi elements that would be gone. Further, people have grown to love this area, and not all of them are Star Wars fans. How about gutting New Orleans square for a permanent Christmas Land? The Haunted Mansion would always be the Nightmare before Christmas and we can replace all the pirates on POTC with elves and Santa Clause. Disneyland is a national treasure, and while modifying and updating rides and areas is one thing, but a Star Wars overlay is akin to the total removal of an entire area. Bad idea. A whole park dedication to nothing but Star Wars? That is an invitation to print money.
From 74.235.192.240 on October 9, 2013 at 6:07 PM
The current Tomorrowland and Epcot remind me of the Venture Brothers plot. A loser son is living off his Dad's inventions from the space age and fails with his inventions because he is stuck in the past. His inventions are stupid like the Rocket Rods or new imagination ride and create some great epic fails.
From Jo M on October 9, 2013 at 11:18 PM
Do not want. I tend to be a purist and Tomorrowland, even in its most dated forms, still has a charm I love. Some of the ideas already mentioned of bringing in far future concepts seem great. (Of course, if DL had the room for it, a Horizons on the West Coast could spur EPCOT Center--branding intended--enthusiasts to make the trek while staying true to theme.). But it feels like this, much like Epcot's The Seas/Nemo, is taking the chintzy cheater's way out. There are ways to freshen up attractions that don't include every single one of them having a movie tie-in.

If anything, boost DCA attendance and lose some of the more generic bits there for retheming. Classic Disneyland will always have a devoted following. Don't reskin Tomorrowland.

From 146.201.1.141 on October 11, 2013 at 6:52 AM
I love Star Wars. However, I am not a fanatic so forgive me, but didn't the story take place "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..?" I don't see what that has to do with Tomorrowland. Just because there are spaceships and aliens and light sabers, doesn't make it futuristic.

Then again, I'm still trying to figure out why I board a hang glider from an airport terminal to go Soarin' over present-day California in Future World in EPCOT...