Let's
not lose perspective: the Tomorrowland Problem is old.
You could make a case for it being as old as Disneyland itself—we
all know that Tomorrowland was the one area that was severely skimped
on back in 1955 due to time and budget shortfalls, and what was there
was so immediately dated that the land received a major upgrade
before the park turned five. What we don't acknowledge as often is
that said major upgrade already
represented a partial departure from the themes of science,
technology, and realistic futurism in favor of a dose of pure
fantasy. The Submarine Voyage—a celebration of technological
achievements allowing humanity to explore parts of the world that
were previously completely inaccessible—was also a veritable
showcase of popular myths about the ocean, presented as though they
were as real as the coral reefs.
And
honestly...I have trouble figuring out why.
This early in the game, the Imagineers could hardly have been running
short of futuristic inspiration. Did they think a realistic undersea
voyage was too boring? If so, why create the Submarine Voyage to
begin with? If, on the the other hand, the fantasy material was
included due to the attraction's location on the boundary between
Tomorrowland and Fantasyland, why don't we see more crossover content
in other boundary attractions that debuted in this era?
Moreover,
several years down the line, the “World on the Move” Tomorrowland
makeover would have been the perfect opportunity to refine the
Submarine Voyage into something more on-point. But instead, the
Imagineers doubled down on the fantasy by adding live
mermaid performers to the Lagoon. That experiment didn't last, for
reasons that vary depending upon who's telling the story,* but the
overall point is that this ride has been part of Tomorrowland almost
since the beginning, and its most fantastic aspect was immediately
established as its most iconic.
They've
never really known
what to do with Tomorrowland.
The mythical aquatic singing sirens...of the future!
On
the other hand, you can hardly claim that the Submarine Voyage was
incompatible with the spirit of scientific inquiry. Science cannot
proceed if people are not interested
in the world. There is room to interpret the mermaids and sea serpent
and Atlantean ruins as part of a message like: “Oceanography is
worthwhile because you never know what
we'll discover down there!” Objectively speaking, a sea serpent is
no more bizarre a beast than a bioluminescent anglerfish—maybe less
bizarre, when you get right down to it**—and the Submarine Voyage
gave us both, with our captain amusingly dumbfounded by the former
even though he took the latter as a given.
Or perhaps I am overthinking it.
"No one would believe it..." Not even the passenger who snapped this photo?
I
actually don't have any first-hand memories of the original iteration
of the Submarine Voyage, at least to the extent that it differed from
the version I mostly grew up with. It was renovated and retooled in
the mid-Eighties, in an unusual case of a theme park ride being made
less tense and
thrilling. The submarines themselves, originally painted gray and
named after U.S. battleships, were re-done in a friendly yellow
reminiscent of research vessels. Fewer direct hazards threatened the
voyage in the second version: sound effects and narration indicating
that the sub was being scraped by ice floes were omitted, and the
giant squid that once reached menacingly for the portholes was
repositioned in the middle distance, wrestling a whale*** while the
captain assured us that the electrified hull would keep it at bay.
Overall, the renovation greatly emphasized the wonders
of the undersea world over its dangers.
That's what I remember: a dreamy pageant of underwater exploration
and discovery.
Eerie foreshadowing for the giant squid scene
I
miss it greatly. Not as badly as Adventure
Thru Inner Space, but it was still gone too soon, especially
since the Submarine Lagoon was then vacant for nearly a decade. It
was a weird
attraction. The pace was unusually sedate for a ride you had to wait
45 minutes for, and it was one of the last vestiges of educational
(boogie-boo!) content in Tomorrowland. But, as is so often the case
with older Disney attractions, the weirdness made it unique and
charming. That sea serpent was about the weirdest possible finale for
a ride otherwise populated with lifelike creatures (even if some of
them were also fictional). It has also come to be regarded as the
single most memorable thing about it.
Art by Jimmy Pickering
Realistic
fish and squid and even mermaids, if they look as generic as these
did...those could be from any rendition of an undersea setting. But
the sea serpent was one of a kind, so instantly iconic that a similar
cartoonish affability became the standard for Disney theme park sea
serpents, even though the exact design was never re-used:
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Magic Kingdom
World of Motion, Epcot
"it's a small world", Disneyland Anaheim
Downtown Disney, Walt Disney World
Port Orleans Resort, Walt Disney World
I
was excited enough several years back when the news broke that the
Submarine Voyage would be renovated again, this time as a Finding
Nemo attraction. Something is
always better than nothing, and Finding Nemo
is an eminently charming movie that does a lot in its way to
encourage interest in marine life. Some cool tech has gone into the
ride, from the obvious (LCD screens that effectively insert animated
characters into physical sets) to the subtle (the fish figures are
painted with chemically stable pigmented glass granules that resist
chlorine bleaching).
If
only the ride had anything new to say
about its setting or characters. But it's literally a summary of the
movie, only they're pretending it's not, that Nemo has gotten lost
again and for some
reason Marlin and Dory encounter all the same hazards, in the same
order, as they did in the movie when they go looking for him. I admit
to being completely bemused as to why they bothered with the “sequel”
conceit—what does that supposedly do for the ride that a
straightforward summary would not?
Maybe
someday we'll get yet another renovation of the Submarine Voyage that
actually does the concept justice again. My pick would be to move the
setting to another planet—either Europa or a fictional planet
outside our solar system—to explore the ocean there and discover
alien aquatic life. It
would be another breed of fantasy in its way, but hopefully one that
sits much more comfortably in Tomorrowland and helps to alleviate the
age-old Tomorrowland Problem.
* Was
the bigger problem the chlorine damage to the performers' skin and
hair, or was it the poor impulse control on the part of their
would-be suitors? Decades on, there's probably no way to tell.
**
Cartoon googly eyes aside.
***
Strangely enough, not a sperm whale such as the giant squid battles
in real life, but an orca.
I think the sea serpents and mermaids make more sense in the total conceptual framework of Tomorrowland, i.e.: the television episodes. The Man in Space trilogy, Magic Highway USA, and Our Friend the Atom always include fantasy and science fiction along with the scientific speculation, with the connective tissue that our scientific explorations are really extensions of human imagination.
ReplyDeleteIf Submarine Voyage were an episode of Disneyland circa 1959, it would absolutely have spent the first third talking about historic fantasies about the sea, mermaids, and monsters, including footage of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, and probably ended with a retro-futuristic voyage with a sea serpent joke animated by Ward Kimball. In fact, there kind of was an episode like that - Monsters of the Deep - that promoted 20,000 Leagues. It's all about imagination brought into reality.
As for Submarine Voyage itself, I'd love to see that de-Nemoed and those fancy LCD screens used to show footage of actual undersea creatures. Rebrand the thing as "Disneynature Submarine Voyage".
I dunno...I've begun to wonder if the "traditionalist" fans like us can be too easy on the old stuff even when it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, simply because it *is* the old stuff, it's what we grew up with, it's What Walt Did and therefore must have been a good idea and we will tie ourselves in knots to defend it.
DeleteIf we're going to criticize Pirate's Lair on Tom Sawyer Island, then by the same token we should criticize mermaids in the Submarine Lagoon.
I also kind of feel sorry for Tomorrowland (sympathy for a section of a theme park, how weird is that?), which seems to be the only part of Disneyland that has never really gotten to be its own *thing*. It keeps having to sneak in thematic elements from Fantasyland, film IPs, even strangeness like America Sings. It seems like WDI has never really committed to Tomorrowland as a concept.
I'm exempt from the childhood memories problem because I never went there as a child ;) The connection between Submarine Voyage, Tomorrowland in the theme park, and the Tomorrowland episodes is purely my considered adult opinion! Watch the Man in Space trilogy again and reconsider Submarine Voyage in that light. It should be interesting :)
DeleteMy criticisms of Pirate's Lair on Tom Sawyer Island are a different beast entirely... It has nothing really to do with the fact that it was based on the PotC movies, isn't Adventure Isle in DLP, and came at the expense of just fixing the island as it was. TSI in Magic Kingdom is a shadow of what it once was and is still better even than Pirate's Lair.
I would agree that Tomorrowland today is in a sorry state, but considering that Walt was alive for the initial planning of the 1967 New Tomorrowland, I suspect that is more or less what he wanted to see. The problem was staying true to it and seeking new rides and attractions in that same vein instead of taking the "slap an IP on it" route. The same thing happened with Discoveryland in DLP and Future World in EPCOT too. You need the right vision to properly blend science and fantasy, science fact and science fiction, imagination and reality, into something compelling that is more than either a museum or a theme park. That vision is rare, and those of us who think they have it don't work for Disney ;)
Sorry, "It has nothing really to do with the fact that it was based on the PotC movies" should have been "It has nothing really to do with the setting and everything to do with the fact that..."
Delete