The Official Monorail Mark VII Thread

[Wig]

I adore the plane Mark I... :) :)
It is dated "typically FIFTIES!" (Even if it actually is from early sixties...) ... and therefore it is worthwhile to bring that back. (Just with a technical up-to-date)
99% of all things of the fifties have disapeared, all over the world.

[ryguy222]

^I think they thought that the Bubble wouldn't look very futuristic, and that is somewhat true, also its somewhat pointless, as there is only one Pilot and not two. Can't rember if it was the Mark I, II, or III that had the two pilots, but they just don't need it, they wanted a streamlined monorail car, and throwing a bubble in there would just look odd, as most of the concept art made it look like the height of the front car is the same as the rest of the train, even heights, and adding a bubble would just look odd. And i know people may shoot me down by saying, oh well autopia cars aren't futuristic, the subs aren't futuristic, but when they built the monorail they wanted it to be futuristic, it was the first of its time, well first daily operating, but unless our future looks something like the Jetsons (which was a great show) then it won't fit it too well. The clearance issue isn't just with the Golden Gate bridge, its also with a lot of foliage around tomorrowland, and if they do cut that stuff back it'll just keep coming back.

[Wig]

"Futuristic" has no meaning anymore....
This was a mid 20th century concept, and is bound to the style in design from those years, partly from comic stories, partly from daily life.
Tomorrowland really IS a product of that time, and whether you throw this away or you restore because you think it got a "landmark" character...
But as I said: "the fifties" is the style period wich is destroyed most of all, all over the world...


See the old monorail design of the Miami Seaquarium. It's a splendid exemple of the style, and lost now. (I guess, not even one original car kept as a museum piece... and I don't mean the 'modern' shoe-box cars they used later on, they are now used indeed as storage boxes... :) ... I mean the original 'futuristic' cars)

"Modern", as a commercial term, came after "futuristic"..... True life joke !

[ryguy222]

^No, futuristic still has a meaning. Yes it was a concept, but now it is. Futuristic is things that look like them may be from the future. Just because an old monorail was considered futuristic way back then, doesn't mean that the word futuristic applied only to the mid 20th century. Flying cars are very futuristic, sure they have prototypes, that fly for only a few seconds, and even then are attached to a crane, the ideas and concepts are futuristic. Wouldn't you agree? Its not possible yet, but soon can be. And yes making monorail cars can look futuristic, by giving them a different style that nobody would want to use. When the monorails were first made, they were futuristic because there were not many of them. And still today they aren't in every major city so it still could be considred futuristic, as the future of our cities may include monorail systems. Disneyland had one of the First monorails, and now there are tons through out the world. Its somewhat like star trek. Captain kirk and his crew had communicators that flip open, now look at our cell phones, they flip open just like that, thats exactly how the monorails could influence how cities adopt it in the future.

[Wig]

The word 'futuristic' was pointing to a certain STYLE. As that is, this style was a universal one in the fifties and sixties. Then, 'futuristic' was left out, because it looked old. (But worthwhile in a stylish way !!! And especially worthwhile to keep and restore in Disneylands Tomorrowland, because it was the ORIGINAL creation!) Everybody swiched to 'modern' as the new code word, and modern in the late sixties onto the early eighties was just the acceptance of "boxy" to be a preferred style. After that too was left behind because it looked DULL... it was really left behind without regret as it was NOT worthwhile at all ! It has been a designers lie...
Style swiches have been occured allways faster since then... (not lasting for 15 years anymore)
The fact is, that nowadays, a dominant style (and I am allways talking about product design) is NO MORE, tens of different styles are "actual" at the same time, this plurality is perhaps the most interesting feature of this early 21st century.

Other topic: about that bubble... I have this feeling, the arguments about the bubble not be able to pass under certain constructions... is not yet clear to me. Anyway, this golden gate bridge was mentioned as main problem, but when looking to the picture of this passing through,
( http://www.monorails.org/webpix%202/DLspec06.JPG ) I think there is really enough space left !!
Tipical rumours ??? .....

[bcantrell]

Originally Posted by Wig

The word 'futuristic' was pointing to a certain STYLE. As that is, this style was a universal one in the fifties and sixties. Then, 'futuristic' was left out, because it looked old. (But worthwhile in a stylish way !!! And especially worthwhile to keep and restore in Disneylands Tomorrowland, because it was the ORIGINAL creation!) Everybody swiched to 'modern' as the new code word, and modern in the late sixties onto the early eighties was just the acceptance of "boxy" to be a preferred style. After that too was left behind because it looked DULL... it was really left behind without regret as it was NOT worthwhile at all ! It has been a designers lie...
Style swiches have been occured allways faster since then... (not lasting for 15 years anymore)
The fact is, that nowadays, a dominant style (and I am allways talking about product design) is NO MORE, tens of different styles are "actual" at the same time, this plurality is perhaps the most interesting feature of this early 21st century.

Other topic: about that bubble... I have this feeling, the arguments about the bubble not be able to pass under certain constructions... is not yet clear to me. Anyway, this golden gate bridge was mentioned as main problem, but when looking to the picture of this passing through,
( http://www.monorails.org/webpix%202/DLspec06.JPG ) I think there is really enough space left !!
Tipical rumours ??? .....

I agree the bubble would fit but they would need a small one like the one on the mark one monorail because the other ones were huge

[ryguy222]

Originally Posted by Wig

The word 'futuristic' was pointing to a certain STYLE. As that is, this style was a universal one in the fifties and sixties. Then, 'futuristic' was left out, because it looked old. (But worthwhile in a stylish way !!! And especially worthwhile to keep and restore in Disneylands Tomorrowland, because it was the ORIGINAL creation!) Everybody swiched to 'modern' as the new code word, and modern in the late sixties onto the early eighties was just the acceptance of "boxy" to be a preferred style. After that too was left behind because it looked DULL... it was really left behind without regret as it was NOT worthwhile at all ! It has been a designers lie...
Style swiches have been occured allways faster since then... (not lasting for 15 years anymore)
The fact is, that nowadays, a dominant style (and I am allways talking about product design) is NO MORE, tens of different styles are "actual" at the same time, this plurality is perhaps the most interesting feature of this early 21st century.

Other topic: about that bubble... I have this feeling, the arguments about the bubble not be able to pass under certain constructions... is not yet clear to me. Anyway, this golden gate bridge was mentioned as main problem, but when looking to the picture of this passing through,
( http://www.monorails.org/webpix%202/DLspec06.JPG ) I think there is really enough space left !!
Tipical rumours ??? .....

True, that was your generation, the word futuristic in my generation is used as something that could be possible in the future. Say someone drew a picture of a fusion power plant, it is not possible yet, but we'd call it futuristic because it may be possible in 20-30 years. Thats the way we learned in school.

[PeoplemoverMatt]

I find myself no longer anticipating Monorail Mark VII.

-- PMM

[Wig]

Originally Posted by ryguy222

True, that was your generation, the word futuristic in my generation is used as something that could be possible in the future. Say someone drew a picture of a fusion power plant, it is not possible yet, but we'd call it futuristic because it may be possible in 20-30 years. Thats the way we learned in school.

Yes of course, the (general) meaning of the word has never changed !! :)
But, we were talking about the STYLE, wich had that name !! (Not the general meaning that is applicable to science and technology)
Disneyland is not a university, not a study centre. Disneyland is an amusement park and was based on STORYTELLING in three dimensions.

(I say 'was', because part of Disney is going into the complete wrong direction of 'just' general rides-fun
---/physical thrill instead of stories/---
just like all the other parks, also in the past...
Exactly his averse from 'just' rides brought Walt to the decision to build Disneyland, were everything would be different. NOW, more and more of Disney things are directing towards that kind of stuff, that Walt didn't want !
For instance MOST of DCA. That is Six Flags in Disney-profit land, it has notthing at all to do with the spirit of Walt...
But all this is another topic, isn't it? )

Anyway. The decisions to be taken about the future of Tomorrowland, both in terms of style and mood, is something that has nothing to do with the general scientific meaning of futurism. It is about LOOKS. In this era, we know for sure that we do NOT know wich style will be the future style (There will be hundreds at the same time). For storytelling however (if Disney still believes in storytelling, but I seriously doubt so) this is very important. Futurism as a science will never bring us good stories.
The futurist style period was based on a common sense of many comic stories artists. (So, not how it would be in the future, but how those artists envisioned a cartoonstyle...) This period of comic strips is past. Very right.
Nowadays, the storytelling is all Holywood superproduction SF movies. No feet on earth, so to say... Thrill is more important then the storyline, even in those movies.
Tomorrowland was exciting, it was moving, it was captured in ONE coherent style and mood... but it was not captured in thrill. It was an example of a new kind of coziness...
Want to throw it away completely? Go ahead ! No problem, the real thing will be kept in memory... (And the new thing will be as ordinary as all other Six Flags stuff... again)

+++++++
SO, thats why I plead for: Bringing back the ORIGINAL Tomorrowland, to Tomorrowland... (The brilliant Mark III ---with bubble--- was just one element of the whole setting!)
We can go voting! :) :) :)

[bcantrell]

so is there no monorail it has been months any ideas?

[HiddenMickey]

It's no longer in shuttle mode for the summer, right?

[bcantrell]

any new pictures or ideas when it is hapening?

[Alex_Toto_Disneyland]

Well, nothing new, why don't you check Darkbeer's Gallery

[ryguy222]

Haven't seen much about this on darkbeer for a while unfortuantly.

[stevo505]

I can't believe I'm asking, but what is a Mark VII monorail?