| # | Author | Message |
71
| oc_dean
Sun 10/21/2007 2:27p | Here's something strange ...
doing a google search for the William Mulholland Water fountain at the corner of Los Feliz and Riverside Dr. ... my google search popped this up! -
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co
m/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/30/rider.jpg
Just a little "Peoplemover" type inspiration.
The larger aspect of this is on....
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co
m/politicalmuscle/2007/03/index.html
A little ways down the column ...
in a chapter called - Pod People Invade California |
72
| Deacon_Blues
Fri 10/26/2007 3:04p | Going back to the earlier discussion about the size of the area between Tomorrowland and Harbor Blvd, it seems to me that there's enough room behind Grand Canyon Diorama to hold a something the size of the main Pirates showbuilding, if the monorail beam were moved, as has been done before, and one or two buildings and other installations were relocated. Just look at Google Earth and compare the size of the areas. |
73
| 2001DLFan
Sun 10/28/2007 7:45p | <<Deacon_Blues: Going back to the earlier discussion about the size of the area between Tomorrowland and Harbor Blvd, it seems to me that there's enough room behind Grand Canyon Diorama to hold a something the size of the main Pirates showbuilding, if the monorail beam were moved, as has been done before, and one or two buildings and other installations were relocated. Just look at Google Earth and compare the size of the areas.>>
All the area between the Grand Canyon Diorama and Harbor (the reddish area in the Google DL site) is most of the water, power and other infrastructure systems for both Disneyland and DCA. It would be quite expensive to have to relocate all of that IF they could even find an equivalent location to move them to.
|
74
| Deacon_Blues
Mon 10/29/2007 3:30p | Thanks for the info. I guess we'll have to see whether WDIs ideas are attractive enough to warrant such expenditure. |
75
| oc_dean
Mon 10/29/2007 8:28p | This DCA Preview Center is rumored to have ideas for not just DCA but for DL as well. So maybe we'll see some Tomorrowland "previews".
What sucks is we're supposed to wait a full year before it opens!
What does it take to open up a simple exhibit space?!! |
76
| trekkeruss
Mon 10/29/2007 9:09p | <<>>Other than that, what could possibly be futuristic about public transportation that would make people want to ride it? <<
Perhaps the joy of having a restful "rooftop" view of Tomorrowland for 15 minutes. Which was 50% of the point of the ride from '67 to '95.>>
You missed my point, which is there isn't much that could be done to a PM that would make people want to ride it more than the old ones. I would also say that the restful view of TL became much more than 50% of the appeal of the ride after, say, 10-15 years, when the novelty of the technology had long worn off. Put another way, I think it's asking too much of Disney for them to build a second generation PM as some sort of prototype futuristic mode of transportation. |
77
| oc_dean
Tue 10/30/2007 11:50p | >>I think it's asking too much of Disney for them to build a second generation PM as some sort of prototype futuristic mode of transportation.<<
If not for the innovative approach ....
then atleast for the mere novelty of it.
After all ... if they can have the novelty of a 20th century car ride, life size toys in the former 360 theater .. and talking fish ........ then I see nothing wrong with a 60s idea with just a slight 21st century styling. |
78
| submarine-maniac
Wed 10/31/2007 1:38a | Jim in Merced said:
Moving the Rocket Jets to the entrance of Tomorrowland was one of the weirdest design choices I've seen.
While I like the rockwork, and the re-design of the Rocket Jets, and the kenetic mobile in the middle, it just makes the entrance so busy and unnecessarily crowded.
I'd like to see them move it back.
I did some research recently and found that they were moved for a reason. When Walt built the park, he wanted the guests to not be able to see any outside buildings while in Disneyland. Obviously while the rockets sat ontop the people movers, everything was visible. So, they had to be moved. I later confirmed this with a cast member who escorted us on a ride on the Lilly Belle. As much as i would love for the rockets to return up top, I do not see it happening. |
79
| Nobody
Wed 10/31/2007 7:27a | "I did some research recently and found that they were moved for a reason. When Walt built the park, he wanted the guests to not be able to see any outside buildings while in Disneyland. Obviously while the rockets sat ontop the people movers, everything was visible. So, they had to be moved."
Sorry, but I call shenanigans.
Wasn't it Walt who okay-ed the Skyway ride (which offered much better views of outside buildings than the Rocket jets)? |
80
| wonderingalice
Wed 10/31/2007 11:48a | ^^He likely okay'd the Rocket Jets atop the People Mover structure, too. Unless I'm terribly mistaken, Walt had a hand in all of the plans for Tommorowland 1967; he just didn't live long enough to see it completed. |
