Tomorrowland was my most anticipated film of the summer and if you know me personally, it’s pretty clear why. I’m a Brad Bird uber-fan who has places every one of his films on a top ten list every time he releases a film. I am a huge fan of Damon Lindelof even when a vocal majority hates his guts. Disney has been riding a huge wave of awesome this year between their live action Cinderella and Avengers movies, making the most exciting Pixar film since Wall-E and bringing about a very much anticipated Star Wars film. While I’m not a huge fan of theme park attraction movies, after having been to Disney World last year, it has woken something latent that would be better said in a different article. So why not get excited?

Did the film deliver on my expectations? That’s actually a very difficult question. The problem here is that Tomorrowland isn’t exactly a good film, but I loved it on a very personal level. This is not a film that I could argue for like I would Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter as a misunderstood gem as the story really is a cross between Atlas Shrugged and Meet the Robinsons with a good amount of preaching on the side. Yet what I would argue is that Bird, Lindelof and star George Clooney weren’t trying to make a great summer blockbuster, but in fact intended the film to be a desperate plea concerning the need for innovation. While it would be easy to dismiss it as misguided, I think it might be necessary to look deeper into it.

Warning: Spoilers Ahead.

Brad Bird’s work has one crucial bit of philosophy that doesn’t take much effort to see; he’s a believer in exceptionalism, the belief that there are individuals who have exceptional qualities that have the ability to progress humans to their highest potential and should be allowed to do so without being obstructed. In films like The Incredibles and Ratatouille, Bird creates characters who yearn to be allowed to be the best at what they do without scrutiny or bureaucracy. Anyone who interferes with such innovation or tries to create barriers are considered villains that the protagonists need to conquer or enlighten. Exceptionalism, a philosophy made popular by novelist Ayn Rand, has been criticized for coming off as elitist, and they are correct whether you accept this philosophy or not. Bird tempers this harsher elements of this philosophy by putting more emphasis on determination than natural skill. This is important when discussing Tomorrowland.

You see, Tomorrowland is a love letter to dreamers of the past such as Edison, Tesla, Verne and even Walt Disney himself. In a comic book shop near the beginning of the film, nearly the entire store is filled with objects stemming from the some of the most admired and creative works of their time (as would any good comic book shop worth its weight in salt). At some point I would love to go through that entire scene and pull out all of the references from older more beloved works being given respect by this film. This is a film that loves ideas and seeing those ideas being passed down to new generations. Our main protagonist is a girl who still believes in the romantic concepts of science and innovation, who is trying to keep Cape Canaveral from being torn down, which we are lead to believe is a sign that we as a people are giving up on progress. Her guide is a disgruntled, disillusioned older man (generation) that was once in awe of what would be the next step of exploration, who had seen Tomorrow(land) and had those hopes crushed.

I won’t lie, the use of metaphors and speechifying here, especially Hugh Laurie’s monologue at the end is thinly veiled metaphor with the intention of beating the message into the audience like a dead horse. Why I’m curious about this approach comes from the fact that both Bird and Lindelof have shown in their respective works to be more capable of subtlety. Why ditch tact here? The only way I could see why is because in their other attempts at getting the message out there, it was lost on the audience. Very few who saw The Incredibles picked up on the undertones of wonder. Those who saw Lost were more interested in getting answers to pointless questions than to appreciate what was being said about the characters’ drive to understand a world where the rules kept being changed. Along with George Clooney, an actor with a long-standing reputation for advocacy, they decided to make a film disinterested in escapism in order to create a lure to deliver their plea.

But does it deserve the ridicule and derision that it got? No one likes to be preached to, no matter how amazing the visual effects are. The fact that we only get 2 scenes of Tomorrowland in its prime could also turn off audiences that were lead to believe that most of the action would take place in said fantasy world. National Treasure and Di Vinci Code ruined the treasure hunt subgenre for everybody. George Clooney’s star power doesn’t mix in the realms of science fiction (his last foray being Steven Soderbergh’s extremely underrated Solaris). Like American Sniper, Tomorrowland gets rid of nuance. But unlike American Sniper, they didn’t tailor the film to reach their intended audience. Science fiction fans are already going to agree with the film’s message and therefore is zero sum. Those who would think such concerns aren’t worth discussing are either going to stay away from the film or argue against the message.

So why do I love it so much? I’m a romantic when it comes to science fiction. Bear in mind that authors like Asimov and Bradbury weren’t just trying to entertain their audiences, but to give a vision of the future that was both a promise and a warning. This film is doing the exact same thing, but struggling to encourage anyone to look beyond the immediate future and into the decades and centuries ahead, not just spaceships and jet packs, but a society that utilizes that technology to become more noble and worthy of better things. It’s easy to give up dreaming when the world feels on the brink of extermination. But I think back on the fact that humanity has met greater challenges in the past and overcome them because we have the ability to innovate how he live. Can I defend this film from its detractors? Not really nor do I want to. This thing is a mess, but this is my kind of mess.