Time for the Autopia To Go?

It's been a part of the park since the very beginning. It's provided the thrill to millions and millions of kids not yet old enough to drive of what it's like to actually take the wheel and hit the road. In fact, for many of us, it's probably the first time we sat in the driver's seat of an actual gas powered vehicle and hit the accelerator. But considering all of that...is it perhaps time for Autopia to go?

I know, I'm proposing the removal of a signature Disneyland attraction. And I would definitely miss Autopia if it were to be replaced with something new. Still, one of the realities -- one of Walt Disney's directives -- is that Disneyland not be completed. Ever. That being said, let's take a look at the prospect of this change with the most objective view we can muster.

The very first consideration that led me to this notion is the fact that Autopia doesn't really fit any longer in Tomorrowland. I mean, they're not even hybrids! Talk about being behind the curve. Seriously, though, the truth is that most anything automotive-related would struggle to be relevant to Tomorrowland. Back in 1955 Autopia was introduced as a journey across the highways of tomorrow -- it was kind of a stretch even then. I assume that the highway of tomorrow was something akin to the Interstate Highway system that Eisenhower engineered with the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. At the time, yes, it was a new and exciting idea that there be this consistent and superior network of roads connecting the entire country. Freeways in general were in their infancy. Not so any longer.

The Autopia also encompasses a large area (needless to say that it has to) in Tomorrowland that could be devoted to more than one attraction and might also open up an additional path between Tomorrowland and Fantasyland. Let's face it, space at Disneyland is at a premium. You can't really make any more of it and the way you use what you've got is fundamental to how far you can push the park's potential. Think about a new incarnation of Tomorrowland in which all of the area currently occupied by the Autopia was freed to become anything Imagineers could dream of to enhance the 'future-looking' end of the park.

Also keep in mind the fact that Disney's California Adventure, in its renovations, will include an area devoted to the Pixar movie, "Cars". Sure, the marquee attraction there will be much closer to EPCOT's Test Track than Autopia, but it is still a nod to automotive-based thrills and fun.

Now, I have no illusions about the likelihood of Autopia actually being removed from Tomorrowland. In fact, I would be very surprised if anything like that occurred in the next fifteen to twenty years. Disney is too cost-conscious and probably feels as though it's too big a risk to take, given the popularity of Autopia. And let me say once more: I do not dislike Autopia at all. I have many fond memories of it from childhood and brand new memories of taking my daughter on there and seeing her climb behind the wheel. Still and all, if we look objectively at the long-term benefits for the park, isn't the replacement of Autopia something that makes sense?

Too Much Pixar?

It seems as though over the last several years, new attractions at Disneyland Resort parks are more likely than not to have tie-ins to Pixar animated features. One of the most recent examples of this is the Finding Nemo: Submarine Voyage. There's no question but that it's fantastic to see the long dormant lagoon that resides along the border between Tomorrowland and Fantasyland active once again, but is this an example of too much Pixar?

2008 also saw the introduction of Toy Story Mania at Disney's California Adventure. It's an interactive 'shooter' game in 3D (along the lines of Buzz Lightyear's Astro Blasters). My initial reaction is to be more critical of this attraction than of the Nemo ride. Why? Toy Story Mania strikes me as a less creative piece of work, nothing that stretched Imagineers very much -- just something that has been done before. What's more, the Pixar tie-in is a quick way to make it seem more exciting. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of elements to both parks at Disneyland Resort that don't get anywhere close to the 'E' Ticket threshold for ingenuity and impact. Take the vehicles that prowl up and down Main Street: the fire engine, omnibus and trolley. None of them is a brilliant stroke of design or Imagineering, but I would absolutely hate to see any of them taken away. They're all a crucial part of the overall effect of the area -- complementary elements, if you will. My feeling about Toy Story Mania is that Disney is looking to pass a lesser attraction off as something more exciting and substantial than what it really warrants.

This is precisely the reason I feel so much better about the Nemo attraction. Nemo is far more involved and required a greater degree of creativity. Sure, it follows the storyline of the film and didn't have to invent any new characters. Sure, it worked within the physical structure already in place from the former Submarine Voyage. But keep this in mind: It follows the best tradition of Disney attractions when it comes to full commitment to an idea and encompasses technological applications that impress and enhance the experience.

And here's where I come down on the Pixar question. There's no doubt that John Lasseter and the other creative forces behind Pixar films have put out some terrific work. They are engaging and inventive with wonderful characters and great story lines (sound like another collection of animated features you know?). I have been increasingly impressed with them over the years and expect that feeling to continue with each new movie they release. Why not take the same approach to Pixar-inspired attractions at the park as Pixar takes to their film projects? Incorporate the same degree of commitment and passion. Look for ways to do something new, try to surprise people with something they haven't seen before. I'm convinced that if Disney Imagineering applies these measures to their approach in any notions for more Pixar rides, the results will be easier to embrace. I also feel that there will be fewer Pixar inspired attractions because the notion of dressing up a mediocre idea with a Pixar theme won't pass the 'smell-test'.

I know very well that there are a great many people out there who are big fans of all the Pixar themed attractions and I don't mean to denigrate their favorites. Everybody has their opinion about this stuff. I only mean to suggest that Disney shouldn't allow the Pixar veneer to be a shortcut through designing an attraction the best way possible.

On Facelifts and Updates

When you think of the truly iconic attractions at Disneyland, some of which have been there from the start, it's difficult to imagine ever seeing them removed. It isn't just a question of coming up with something better to fill the space, it's also the issue of how it would profoundly change the complexion of the park. Sure, attractions come and go -- they always will. But take the Jungle Cruise, for example. It was there on day one and I'm not aware of any suggestion that it be replaced.

That being said, this 'foundation' types of attractions are ultimately well served by either a facelift, update or both. The Jungle Cruise is one of the attractions that has been updated on several occasions and received a facelift to its entrance in the recent past. In truth, I don't know for sure which one was most beneficial, but I suspect it's the facelift.

There's no question but that veterans of any attraction will always be pleased when there's an opportunity to see something different on a ride. They may or may ultimately like the changes, but there is something to be said for shaking it up. However, in many instances, those changes tend to be rather negligible. Pirates of the Caribbean has had a few alterations over the years -- the most notable coming in the wake of the successful film franchise of the same name. Captain Jack Sparrow's appearances on the attraction (not to mention Barbosa and Davy Jones making cameos) is fun, but it hasn't materially changed what was already there. Changes to the appearance of an attractions facade, on the other hand, seems to have a greater effect. In short, it energizes the environment around that attraction and isn't limited to a comparatively brief effect when one is actually on the ride.

Adventureland, in my opinion, took on new life with the addition of the Indiana Jones Adventure and the facelift on the Jungle Cruise entry and queue area. It's clearly more dynamic than it had been before (see pictures) and that's a factor that spreads out through the entire area very quickly.

In 1983, Fantasyland made both types of changes to its attractions. The dark rides were updated with state-of-the-art technology and took on a greater excitement than they'd had in years. Still, I contend that the changes to the facades in Fantasyland was the most important part of this renovation. Why? Quite simply, that environment, the feeling of that old world village is so fullt encompassing and altogether charming that it makes you want to be in Fantasyland. I remember the pre-1983 Fantasyland well. I always felt that it was the least interesting themed area in which to spend time. I went on certain of the rides there, but I never felt inclined to linger as I passed through it. That's entirely different now.

At the end of the day, those cornerstone attractions at Disneyland that will always be a central part of the park's identity have great power in their presence. Still, think about the value of a timely facelift to keeping things fresh in a place where freshness is a quality that cannot be dispensed with if it's to remain at its best.

The Optimism of Tomorrowland 1967. Gone Forever?

I still remember my first trip to Disneyland. I was five years old and it was 1972. While I enjoyed Adventureland with its Jungle Cruise, New Orleans Square and its Pirates and Ghosts, I was most taken with the feel of Tomorrowland. It was infused with a vitality and optimism born in postwar America which grew through the 50s and 60s (in part with the help of Walt Disney).

I loved the idea of gliding above the action in a Peoplemover, passing through buildings and looking out on various attractions, shops and other sights from a perfect angle. I hoped (and assumed) that one day -- as the narrator said -- a Peoplemover would operate in my community. That it would be a part of everyday life.

Adventure Through Inner Space was another thrill. I'll admit to being a little scared when we entered the attraction, took the winding pathway towards the 'Atomobiles' and I saw the effect of the 'Mighty Microscope' on the guests ahead of us. The shrunken adventurers heading toward inner space looked very real to me, and I didn't know how I felt about following them in. It all worked out, of course, and I loved the ride.

In addition, the Flight to the Moon (soon to become Mission to Mars) and the Carousel of Progress, along with the Autopia gave me the same kind of excitement. Everything in the future was going to be terrific.

By the early 80s, however, I feel that my fondness for Tomorrowland was based more in nostalgia than anything else. No fault to the Imagineers, really. Two things had happened. I'd grown older and began to see the world differently, and Tomorrowland had aged. Things no longer felt cutting edge. What's more, the images of tomorrow that were presented had never really come to fruition. Peoplemovers may have crawled through the Houston airport, but they never got anywhere near my community of Phoenix, AZ. I understood the limitations of physics well enough to know that I was never going to travel inside the confines of an atom. I also knew that if I did, it wouldn't look anything like the now less-impressive Adventure Through Inner Space appeared.

Did I happen to hit Tomorrowland at just the right age, in just the right year to be properly mesmerized? Was it possible after the luster was off Tomorrowland 1967 that it could have been effectively updated to ring true for guests in 1987 or 1997? Let's face it, the future, as a concept, is viewed in a very different way today than it was in the late 60s and early 70s. What's more, technology is advancing so much more quickly today than it was during either of the first two Tomorrowland designs that it seems likely new incarnations would have a tough time staying 'cutting edge' for long...if at all.

The first visit I made to the Tomorrowland of 1998 left me decidedly underwhelmed. I missed the Peoplemovers. I'd already been missing Adventure Through Inner Space (quaint, though it had become). I immediately assumed that Disney was not interested in spending what it would likely have cost to make a 'true' Tomorrowland and ended up settling for something more appropriate to an outdoor themed mall. Still, I wonder to this day: Would it be possible for Disney Imagineers to 'wow' us with a Tomorrowland that really fits what Walt Disney's vision for the land was? Are we too sophisticated and too aware of what's on the horizons of technology to be impressed by anything that could be placed in a modern Tomorrowland? What's more, is the future still a place about which we can feel unbridled optimism the way we once did?

Disneyland's 'Golden Age'

Most things that have a long history and enjoy enduring popularity are ultimately tagged with a 'Golden Age' -- a period in which the thing in question hit its stride, was at its most compelling and assured itself of a long future among fans. Disneyland is no different. Question is, what is the park's Golden Age?

The period that I propose has good news and bad news for Disneyland fans. The good news is that Disneyland's Golden Age (IMO) lasted for a full decade. The bad news is that it's nearly forty years since it ended. Humbly, I suggest that this Golden Age lasted from 1959 to 1969.

During that period, Disneyland built the Matterhorn Bobsled attraction, the Monorail, Submarine Voyage, opened New Orleans Square (and along with it Pirates of the Caribbean and the Haunted Mansion), redesigned Tomorrowland and brought several attractions from their efforts at the New York World's Fair of 1964 to the park (including It's a Small World, the Carousel of Progress, the Primeval World segment of the Disneyland RR and Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln).

By 1959, Walt Disney and his team of Imagineers had learned a great deal about theme park entertainment and were applying those lessons to ever more sophisticated attractions. What's more, Disney was attending to what he considered to be 'shortcomings' or 'blank spots' at Disneyland. Unlike the period leading up to Disneyland's opening in 1955, there was money for widespread growth by '59. With Walt Disney still calling the shots, concerns of 'practical business thinking' preventing these new attractions was non-existent. They would go ahead because the boss decided they would.

As a result, we enjoy some of the most popular attractions the park has ever had to offer that came from this period. Unfortunately, a Golden Age wouldn't be golden if it went on forever. I really feel as though once the Haunted Mansion was opened in 1969, this great period of creativity and expansion ended. Sure, the addition of Bear Country (later to be renamed Critter Country) in 1972, the 1983 much needed Fantasyland facelift and 1998 Tomorrowland revision were all major projects, but none of them had the same impact as those ten years I cite as being top-of-the-heap.

What's it all about?

HPOE Blog (HPOE stands for Happiest Place on Earth) focuses on everything related to Disneyland. It's been over fifty years in existence. There's plenty of nostalgic stuff to reflect on and a lot of new things happening as the park and its environs continue to change and grow.

This blog might not be the most 'in-the-know', 'up-to-the-minute' source for news on Disneyland (I'll leave that to the people who live much closer and have more frequent access), but I hope it will add something worthwhile to what's available on Disneyland out there on the internet.