Tomorrowland revolves around three main heroes: Frank Walker, played by George Clooney, Casey Newton, played by Britt Robertson, and a girl named Athena, played by Raffey Cassidy. Without revealing any spoilers, the central plot is about an inevitable apocalyptic future that these characters come together to reverse — with some fun, fantasy technology and one of the most necessary assets given to humanity, hope. It starts as a pretty standard fantasy adventure, with its point being driven home in the climax of the story.
For my money, I found the film to be enjoyable. It wasn't the greatest film I've seen, but it also wasn't the worst, and it had some fun theme park Easter eggs thrown in throughout. You see a rendition of the old 1964 New York World's Fair, a cameo by "It's a Small World," and Space Mountain in the distance as we see the land of tomorrow. The purpose for this article is not to review the film, but to reiterate something that fans who remember an earlier Disney World have been saying for many years now — Let's bring back that hope.
I was lucky enough to visit Epcot Center for the first time as a child in 1987. I remember a lot of little things any kid would get excited about, like sending my friend a "Food Rocks" postcard, getting a little plastic case filled with Runts candy, and getting a package of freeze-dried apricots that, for a few years, made the fruit synonymous with the park in my mind. Much more importantly, I remember being blown away. The animatronics on every ride created such a fantasy world for me to get lost in that I didn't care how slow they all were. I didn't care that they didn't have a roller coaster. Every ride had a purpose and a point, and my imagination was flooded. We had our history of communication explored, cars from the future, a giant aquarium, and many more great attractions.
The one that stuck out the most to me was the trip to the future — Horizons. We went on that at least three times one day, mostly because the ending where you could pick your destination was so fun. As I've gotten older, after riding it many many more times before it closed, I realize that it gave people so much more than a theme park thrill. It gave a positive message for the future. It gave the very pill Disney is asking us to swallow in its new film. It gave hope.
Most of us know the history of Epcot, how Walt never wanted it to be a theme park, but to be a city of the future where great minds would converge, advance technology, and work on making the world a better place. It was his final dream, that he never got to see realized. The Tomorrowland we see in the picture is built on that very premise, which is such an odd thing for the Walt Disney Company to ask us to accept. When faced with the choice of seeing through its founder's dreams or seeing the potential in its founder's assets, the company's management in the 1970s made the logical choice — they built another gate and another step toward building a mega resort that, basically, can print money.
The compromise seemingly was to create a park with a vision, which Epcot once had. But, eventually, Disney replaced World of Motion with the mild thrill of Test Track. It replaced Journey into Imagination with a shell of itself, and threw in a celebrity's face. It replaced "If you can dream it, you can do it," with "We're going to pretend to shoot you into space... but be careful, you might throw up."
I have trouble understanding how Disney can spend hundreds of millions to make a film about the necessity of hope for the future while having no issue with replacing that hope in its theme parks. I'm sure Disney wasn't expecting Mission Space to have 10-minute wait times as early in its lifespan as it did. (The same could be said for the Imagination pavilion.) I own video games that look better than Mission Space. Now we are dealing with a CEO of Disney who believes rides based on film franchises do better, and we haven't seen anything but since. Elsa's moving in and culture's moving out. What child out there would even pick up on the theme of the future from Future World anymore? Does it even have a purpose to hold that title? Will any child leave Epcot with the thrill of the future and its promise, or will they just leave saying that Magic Kingdom was better?
In cryptic fashion, the film's main antagonist, David Nix, played by Hugh Laurie, has a speech about human beings resigning themselves to despair and destruction rather than embracing optimism and life. He blames humanity's course on our laziness and our self-gratification in the moment, throwing tomorrow to the curb for today's payoff. Disney is using an old magic trick here. It would like us to watch one hand while it does the dirty business with the other.
The movie's central theme is to applaud the select few who do not accept a future of compromise and watching their ideals decay. In a microcosm of life, we all see the heart of the Epcot's demise, and we've just learned to accept it. Maybe it's my naïveté, but the idea of practicing what you preach never seemed more obvious.
Of course, in true Disney film fashion, the positive message always shines through, and the future is bright. George Clooney's character encourages his animatronic friends to go to Earth to find those who "haven't given up. They are the future." Epcot's is still my favorite park in Walt Disney World, not because of what it is but because of what it wanted to be, and the idea still flickers in some attractions. It brings back that feeling it gave me as a child that I will never let go of. Does Disney really want to encourage the spirit of Tomorrowland? Then give Epcot its identity back.
You Might Also Like:
Tweet
Why not convert Epcot into a park that showcases the best Disney attractions from France, Japan and China?
Imagine an Epcot with Mystic Manor, Ratatouille, the Disneyland Paris castle complete with animatronic dragon, Journey to the Center of the Earth, 10000 Leagues under the Sea, etc.
When I first went to Epcot Center I was blown away.
The last time I went Soarin had openend (a bad tech demo, no story not even transitions between the shots) and Mission Space (that ride is so bad). I desided not to go back anymore. The Living seas was infested by the most ugly dark ride ever and Imagination was neutered beyond recognition and the list goes on.
No I don't want the old Epcot Center back. It would be a museum, I want pavilions that are up to date and breath exploration and the adventure of science. It doesn't need to be on the edge of tommorow and could be made future proof but those value's are what it's all about. For me it hurts to much to go back now.
The same goes for the other parks. DHS is not even worth the effort and I don't like what they do at Star Wars Weekends. Please go the Potter road if you want real fan's in your parks. I've never seen Potter cupcakes or a minion dressed as valdemort. No dinner in Mells Diner with character roaming around.
And have you seen the entrance of the princes meet and greet at MK. How would the old 9 approche that entrance? It would be a grand and elegant entrance. Beautiful and enchanting. NOT a tiara that makes you buy a plastic copy for your princes. Even the inside is a confusing mess of gothing, Lois the XIV and other styles, something the castle and it's interieur doesn't have.
Also if you look at human culture in general, as Americans, the World, etc. Ever since the Space Race Days what have we done to challenge our selves? Sure we have super amazing computer technology and communications; but when and what will be that next big challenge?
Many times Disney movies as way too predictable.
Yes they do try to give young folks a positive message...Which is great, but they do not have to be so damn predictable.
When I was leaving the theater all I could think of - Disney just made a movie to see more Pins...
I was horrified when I went back years later and saw my beloved attraction (The Living Seas) which had all of this awesome scientific fantasy - "hydrolators" that brought you beneath the surface, an underwater seabase, an educational movie (granted that not many people watched) turned into a Finding Nemo advertisement. The thing that got me the most was on the original ride the entire tank was open to you to watch all of the marine life doing their thing. In the Nemo version THE ENTIRE TANK IS COVERED UP and it its place? Fake fish. It is just so far off from the original idea you almost say aloud to yourself - "How did it come to this?"
I just remembered the room where you first walked in where there was all this nautical equipment from the early days of underwater exploration which was all very cool to look at. In it's place now is....nothing.
Great article, apologies for the rant.
My feeling is Future World has served it purpose and it was a relic of the past. "Tomorrowland" was released near the conclusion of the Hunger Games dystopian trilogy. You can't have the idealized world without the dark undercurrents at the gates. To save Future World, it needs to address real problems instead of just hand waving it away. Or they can just focus on having a top notch theme park.
The funny thing is, that during the movie when Frank, Britt, and Athena reach the decaying Tomorrowland aboard the rocket, my wife and I turned to each other and said "There's how the real Tomorrowland and Epcot look today..." I'm glad I was able to see both during their heydays, but this should serve as a wake up call to the Disney suits who ironically seem to have "given up" on the future by sacrificing optimism, inspiration, and long term profits for quick cash grabs. By the standards of the movie, that was the very reason for the decay of "Tomorrowland".
Now, I'm a teenager, so I couldn't go to Epcot in the '80s like the rest of you. I never went on Horizons, World of Motion, or the original Imagination. But I've still learned a great deal from this park. I've learned that energy exists all around us, comes in many different forms, and is necessary in our everyday lives, the types of crazy things imagination can do, and that Notre Dame took quite some punishment during the French Revolution. I love Epcot because it's such an engaging way to learn. I'm not just taking a test or sitting through some lecture. It's fun and interactive.
All of the attractions in some way educate you . Sure, Mission: Space doesn't teach you anything about space itself, but it does give you a feel for what space is like. The only exception is Soarin. Even though it's my favorite ride in the park, I feel like the only reason why it's in Epcot is because it seems to be the only Orlando park where it could somehow fit.
As for the Frozen ride, I have a slight suspicion that, instead of making it another movie ride through, it's gonna be the characters giving guests a tour through Norway. Or at least I hope so! Otherwise it should've been built in Fantasyland.
Point is, while you do have some pretty solid reasons to worry, Epcot still hasn't lost it's spirit. You talk of how "Tomorrowland" told you to have hope, so have hope that Epcot will still be the educational fun it's always been
I loved the EPCOT of old, Horizons was my favorite ride too. You can ride rides anywhere, but the pavilions at EPCOT used to entertain AND teach something at the same time.
All I learned from riding Mission Space was... don't ever ride Mission Space again.
Yeah, we don't have Horizons, Journey into Imagination is a shell of its former self, and Disney/Pixar stuff has gradually been moving in, but let's not forget the things that keep EPCOT still focused on the future.
For starters, Spaceship Earth encompasses still what EPCOT used to be all about: teaching you something about the past (or the present, or both), while still looking ahead at the future.
People dump all over Test Track, but its newest rendition is considerably more future-oriented than its originator. It's easy to feel otherwise because it's more focused toward kids and letting them have fun making a car and watching it go, but look at the queue and the stuff before the gift shop. Much of it's very 'Here's the future of cars, in case you were wondering!'. What is EPCOT if not looking into the future? Test Track still does that.
Mission: Space does what it sets out to do. Its futuristic tone needs some updating, what with the EM Drive and its future forms set to revolutionize space travel and how we experience travel on Earth in general, while still being a thrill ride, something EPCOT, honestly, was sorely lacking. I don't like that it replaced what it replaced as much as you folks do, but c'est la vie.
Finally, the World Showcase has changed some since it first opened to the public, but each showcase is supposed to do three things: entertain, teach, and feed, and considering how heavily focused most World Showcases are on their cuisine, the latter of those two walk hand-in-hand.
So saying 'EPCOT is dead!' or 'EPCOT is dying!' isn't necessarily true. It's changed a lot since it began, but it's still very much alive, and there's still some semblance of what made EPCOT what it originally was in there somewhere, it's just not in the same forms that fuel your nostalgia when you go to Youtube to listen to the Horizon soundtrack.
All we can really do at this juncture is hope Disney catches on and starts bringing EPCOT back to its former glory.
I think that's one of the biggest problems in our modern society. A lot of people say that they want innovation, something new and creative, but despite all this complaining, it's the things that follow an established formula or trend that sell more. If originality is something that people were actually looking for, than these numbers would be reversed!
If all of you really want Tomorrowland/Epcot to restore to it's "former glory" than I highly suggest you watch Tomorrowland the movie and ignore the Frozen ride as well as other things that follow trends.
On a different note, the usual complaint about Disney is that they're super slow, now you're saying that they change too much? Which one is it?
Universal has updated just about every attraction in the park with better technology and stories. Instead of letting them rot for decades then closing them abruptly and leaving them for years like Disney with the DHS tram tour, Wonders of Life, River Country, etc. Disney needs to start innovating instead of being lazy and greedy. Disney reminds me of Mcdonalds they were huge in 90s but are just coasting on their name and size alone now with cheap promotions and nostalgia.
The slow death of Epcot is directly related to the problems with Imagineering aka the premier makers of themed bathrooms, gift shops and restaurants. Rides are just an after thought to them now look at their rocking mine train coaster that does not rock and has dwarfs that shrink in size and become less animated at the end of the ride. Great attention to detail.
I'm a few years younger than you, having visited Epcot as a child for the first time in 1992 or so.
But my memories of the wonder it instilled are priceless. It allowed us to explore cultures around the globe, which in a pre-internet world was fascinating, while envisioning what humanity could achieve together in the future. I still get that wondrous feeling when I go today.
So totally not true. So, by Universal being "innovative," do you mean how they basically reskinned Spiderman into Transformers? Or how, when they converted Duelling Dragons to Dragon Challenge, they didn't really change anything except for the name and putting a few Harry Potter Easter eggs in the queue? Yeah, way outside-the-box thinking there, Universal.And McDonalds's reason for failing isn't because they've gotten greedy. They've been greedy for a pretty long time. It's only when a certain little film called Supersize Me! came out that people started to realize just how bad they were. Disney, meanwhile, is not failing. If it is, then why do their attendance numbers increase every year? It's like Disney makes one mistake, and their quality drops by 50%! And Disney doesn't build lots of new attractions because their parks are perfect right now. Look at Space Mountain! It just celebrated it's 40th anniversary, and it's just as good as it's always been. Now look at Universal. That park's only been around for 25 years, and the only ride left from opening day is ET, which is very outdated. When one of Disney's older attractions starts showing it's age, what do they do? "Okay, people, closin' down for a refurb! We can't let this timeless piece of theme park history go to waste!" What does Universal do? "Eh, who cares? Let's just take it out, replace it with something new and popular that probably won't age well either." Why? Because Universal doesn't care as much as Disney does. They only make rides with IPs that make them money. Do you really think they would have such a tight grip on Marvel if The Avengers was a total failure?
A lot of you seem to want Disney to be absolutely perfect with no flaws. Just relax. Disney probably wasn't 100% perfect back in the day, either. But now that you're older, and not as naive, then you notice the flaws. Remember the opening years, when you had to pay for even more tickets to go on rides? Now, the only ticket you have to pay for is your admission, then you can go on all the rides you want! And you mean to tell me that they've gone down?
It seems both redundant and annoying to position technology that was introduced 5 years ago as "The Future". Take the Carousel of Progress for example (I know it's not EPCOT, but I feel like it reflects one of the core issues of EPCOT), the last stop on the Carousel is to get a look at the future. Future like Augmented Reality in video games (you can get Oculus Rift on Amazon), and a smart house that changes the temp and controls appliances (you can get it at Home Depot).
When I go to EPCOT, I want to see the future of technology and I want to see them teaching the importance of STEM. What I don't want to see, however, is Chevy advertisements everywhere with an entire exhibit dedicated to promoting Chevy's newest hybrid. While that may be modern technology, why not explain how and why they design these cars the way they do? What is Chevy doing to do research and improve the technology of a hydrogen powered vehicle? I think that would be more fitting of an exhibit than "Hey, here's the next car your mommy and daddy should buy, and here's why."
Just my two cents.
You make a very good point. But I have one question, wouldn't that mean that attractions would have to close down every few months to make sure they're as up-to-date as possible? Cause if so, that'd probably put a dent in Disney's budget
This article has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.
