Indiana Jones and the Disney Connection

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
Stoo said:
How can you say this with such certainty? The parks were doing fine WITHOUT the Lucasfilm additions (despite what Mr. Forbidden Eye incorrectly claims).

ForbiddenEye, where are you getting this idea from? Records show that each park's attendance was GOING UP in the years before each "Star Wars"/Indy ride was built so I don't know why you say that they were dropping. That isn't true, dude.

Actually, attendance at Disneyland DID drop in the early 80s.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Annual_Disneyland_Park_Attendance.png

Of course, maybe its more accurate to say Disney the company as a whole was suffering in the early 80s. That definitely is true(why else do you think Disney made Tron and The Black Hole if not to cash in on the Star Wars phase).

Disney needed something big and excited to attract wide attention like they did when Walt was around, so why not Lucas?
 

HJTHX1138

New member
Forbidden Eye said:
Of course, maybe its more accurate to say Disney the company as a whole was suffering in the early 80s. That definitely is true(why else do you think Disney made Tron and The Black Hole if not to cash in on the Star Wars phase).

Disney needed something big and excited to attract wide attention like they did when Walt was around, so why not Lucas?

Speaking of which, Star Tours was almost "Black Hole: The Ride", until they realized the popularity was not with-standing. (It seems like it was almost a predecessor to Buzz: Astro Blasters too)

blackhole_shooter.jpg


http://progresscityusa.com/2010/10/08/lost-disneylandia/
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Forbidden Eye said:
Thanks for finding that graph, Forbidden Eye, but it's a bit dubious. (Remember, you wrote "the theme parks dropped in attendance". Not just one park.)

1) It doesn't seem to correspond with the numbers I've seen.
2) It says "Disneyland". Is this just for the Anaheim park or for all of them?
3) In the early-to-mid '80s, attendance for Walt Disney World in Florida was at an ALL-TIME HIGH!
4) The Tokyo park opened in '83 but its numbers quickly shot up like a rocket in the following years...(and continued up & up & up).
5) Notice how your graph shows that the 1985 & '86 attendance were the HIGHEST POINTS since the beginning. This was before Star Tours in early '87 (and Captain EO in late '86).

It would be very interesting to know exactly when Lucas was approached to collaborate on the Star Tours ride. The answer might be in one of those articles that Attila provided links to... (I've read them but don't recall the details, at the moment). Juxtaposing that info with the dates of park attendance might reveal something...

Annual_Disneyland_Park_Attendance.png


Forbidden Eye said:
Of course, maybe its more accurate to say Disney the company as a whole was suffering in the early 80s. That definitely is true(why else do you think Disney made Tron and The Black Hole if not to cash in on the Star Wars phase).
While I agree that Disney, in general, was probably suffering during the early '80s, it must be said that, "The Black Hole", was already planned even before "Star Wars" came out (and there was no guarantee that SW was going to be a smash hit). "Tron" can be associated with the growing popularity of home computers more than anything else. It was a very, original concept which had nothing in common with "Star Wars" (other than being in the sci-fi genre).

On the outside, both of those films may seem like cash-ins on "Star Wars" but they really weren't.
Forbidden Eye said:
Disney needed something big and excited to attract wide attention like they did when Walt was around, so why not Lucas?
Because using "Star Wars" and Indiana Jones was a cop-out solution which compromised Disney's artistic integrity. Why not create something NEW using their own team? (Or at the very least; why not develop something NEW with Lucas...as was done with Captain EO?):confused:
HJTHX1138 said:
Speaking of which, Star Tours was almost "Black Hole: The Ride", until they realized the popularity was not with-standing. (It seems like it was almost a predecessor to Buzz: Astro Blasters too)
Supposedly, the main reason why "The Black Hole" Ride was canned was because it was too costly to make at that time (and, yes, the movie wasn't a box office success).
 

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
Stoo said:
Thanks for finding that graph, Forbidden Eye, but it's a bit dubious. (Remember, you wrote "the theme parks dropped in attendance". Not just one park.)

1) It doesn't seem to correspond with the numbers I've seen.
2) It says "Disneyland". Is this just for the Anaheim park or for all of them?
3) In the early-to-mid '80s, attendance for Walt Disney World in Florida was at an ALL-TIME HIGH!
4) The Tokyo park opened in '83 but its numbers quickly shot up like a rocket in the following years...(and continued up & up & up).
5) Notice how your graph shows that the 1985 & '86 attendance were the HIGHEST POINTS since the beginning. This was before Star Tours in early '87 (and Captain EO in late '86).

Well I only mention Disneyland because
1. It's the park I'm most familiar with.
2. It's where Temple of the Forbidden Eye is located, which is what you seem to take the most issue with as you said you don't mind Indy being at Hollywood Studios that much(which didn't even exist until 1989).

But since you seem to be quite sure of your info regarding WDW, mind posting it to counter your point?

It would be very interesting to know exactly when Lucas was approached to collaborate on the Star Tours ride. The answer might be in one of those articles that Attila provided links to... (I've read them but don't recall the details, at the moment). Juxtaposing that info with the dates of park attendance might reveal something...

Well there's not a specific date given, but its safe to assume about 1984, when Michael Eisner and Frank Wells joined Disney and were responsible for putting Disney back on track in the mainstream.

Here's Tony Baxter explaining in detail of the history of him urging Disney and Lucas to collaborate: http://themeparks.about.com/od/disneyparks/a/BaxterImagineer_2.htm

Because using "Star Wars" and Indiana Jones was a cop-out solution which compromised Disney's artistic integrity. Why not create something NEW using their own team? (Or at the very least; why not develop something NEW with Lucas...as was done with Captain EO?):confused:

I think the real problem, and why this debate is still continuing, is because you seem unable to accept that Disney is not the same Disney that you grew up with. Like everything else, Disney has changed; they're now a billion dollar corporation that owns ESPN. Even Walt prided on the fact that Disneyland would never be "complete" and that it would always be innovation like the rest of his company.

What you see as "a cop-out" I see as keeping up with the times. Now that Disney has had an animation renaissance, including their success with Pixar, its easy to look back now and say Disney doesn't need Lucas' association to be successful, but its worked so well for so long, there's no reason to dread it or view it as "destroying Disney's integrity.

Just curious, how do you feel about recent news that Disney has stopped their rule about cast members not being allowed to grow facial hair? Does that destroy the "integrity" in your view?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

HJTHX1138

New member
I think what Stoo is trying to convey is that there is a certainly more respect due when they come up with some original, like the sometimes (rarely) do, but that's really never been Disney's modus operandi in the first place.

A ton of their films, early and late, have either been adaptations of fairytales or myths or projects involving an "Outside" artist or writer. Everything else always has an outside influence, so it's sort of reinvention.

Whenever Disney tries to think outise the box, they start by picking up Independent artists that have something unique or different to give I.E.:

Harlan Ellison - Famous for writing "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream". His tenure only lasted a day, but he was hired as a writer for Disney.

Steven Lisberger: Directed TRON for them in 1981. Disney was worried about how they could relate to youth. Lisberger showed up at their door with TRON already mostly designed and ready to go.

Tim Burton: Worked as a sort of concept artist until "Frankenweenie earned him some name. Moved away from Disney by directing "Pee Wee's Big Adventure" and "BeetleJuice". Came back to make "The Nightmare Before Christmas" in 1992-93, another thing added to the park recently.

Gerald Scarfe: Worked on Hercules, his claim to fame is probably making the animated sequences in the movie version of "Pink Floyd's The Wall".

and then Pixar, which started as a Lucasfilm project with Apple . . . I think.

The point is, Disney's thing is outside influence and idea marketing with artists, so integrity should really be about something else. Disney in my mind is about artists, the business side crawling around . . .
 

Stoo

Well-known member
HJTHX1138 said:
I think what Stoo is trying to convey is that there is a certainly more respect due when they come up with some original, like the sometimes (rarely) do, but that's really never been Disney's modus operandi in the first place.

A ton of their films, early and late, have either been adaptations of fairytales or myths or projects involving an "Outside" artist or writer. Everything else always has an outside influence, so it's sort of reinvention.
With all due respect, mate, it would be wise for you to actually READ the thread before making assumptions about what I'm "trying to convey". This issue was already discussed just 1 & 2 pages before you joined into the conversation...but I'll repeat the answers again for your sake.:)

Repost from 23 September, 2011:
Stoo said:
The "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" ride opened 101 years after the novel was published and Disney already had *2* Verne-based films under their belt. (The other one being, "In Search of the Castaways", which was based on Verne's, "Les Enfants du Capitaine Grant".)

The Lucasfilm attractions set a new precedent because Disney never made a film or animation based upon those properties (and the creator of said properties is still alive today).
Repost from 22 October, 2011:
Stoo said:
Last month, I should have been more specific when writing, "Disney should get their BOOTY using their own accomplishments & CHARM", because I didn't strictly mean original, Disney characters only. By "own accomplishments", I was including stories & characters that had already been adapted by Disney before they appeared in the parks. Their distinct designs and modifications are the products of Disney's artists and serve as models for the attractions & mascots. The physical manifestations of these outside properties are based on the Disney versions of them, therefore, Disney's own accomplishment.

Examples: The "20,000 Leagues" attractions use/used the Disney/Harper Goff designs which bear little resemblance to the descriptions in the novel and its illustrations by Alphonse de Neuville. Mascots from "Alice in Wonderland" don't look like the original, Tenniel illustrations. Mr. Toad's Wild Ride differs from the various illustrations from "Wind in the Willows", etc., etc., etc.

Whereas, the droids & Indiana Jones seen in the Lucas rides are not 'Disneyfied' interpretations. They were pre-fabricated by someone else and, therefore, NOT Disney accomplishments.
Hope this clarifies my point of view, HJTHX1138.:) You wrote about a "sort of reinvention" but, in the case of Lucas properties, that doesn't apply.:(
 

HJTHX1138

New member
Stoo said:
With all due respect, mate, it would be wise for you to actually READ the thread before making assumptions about what I'm "trying to convey". This issue was already discussed just 1 & 2 pages before you joined into the conversation...but I'll repeat the answers again for your sake.:)

Repost from 23 September, 2011:

Repost from 22 October, 2011:
Hope this clarifies my point of view, HJTHX1138.:) You wrote about a "sort of reinvention" but, in the case of Lucas properties, that doesn't apply.:(

I apologize for just jumping in, but this thread is HUGE.

I get your point know, It's just that they do tend to use other artist's solidified stuff all the time I.E. Roger Rabbit, Dick Tracy etc. It's not insanely far fetched.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
HJTHX1138 said:
I apologize for just jumping in, but this thread is HUGE.
No worries. I understand. Just don't do it again, THX!;) :whip:
HJTHX1138 said:
I get your point know, It's just that they do tend to use other artist's solidified stuff all the time I.E. Roger Rabbit, Dick Tracy etc. It's not insanely far fetched.
Nah. Those examples are useless since there weren't any park attractions based on "Roger Rabbit" (1988) nor "Dick Tracy" (1990) before those films were made. They bear zero relevance towards the case in question.
HJTHX1138 said:
(sigh)
I must emphasize how I just barely got on, the snake statue for the height marking was pretty foreboding too.
And I must emphasize how the comments about your height were not intended as a put-down.:cool: Just an observation, THX.:)
HJTHX1138 said:
Something in my gut just told me . . .

I swear I knew the difference. When I saw that ToD VHS lying around again, it was reinforced.
HJTHX1138 said:
This.

The version of the SW trilogy I had featured interviews with Leonard Maltin, he mentioned Indy all the time.
Judging from your MIXED comments, it's difficult to tell whether you knew that Indy WASN'T a Disney thing due to:

A) your gut feeling
B) your family's Leonard Maltin tapes
HJTHX1138 said:
Everything about that ride was drastically different. The room with the spikes scared the crap out of me (I was SCREAMING at my dad not to shake the rubber bamboo shoot holding up the celing), Disneyland didn't normally scare kids,
---
In my mind all Disney made was cartoons, this was a live action thing.
Congratulations, HJTHX1138! You have reinforced one of my points!(y)
 
Last edited:

HJTHX1138

New member
Stoo said:
Judging from your MIXED comments, it's difficult to tell whether you knew that Indy WASN'T a Disney thing due to:

A) your gut feeling
B) your family's Leonard Maltin tapes
Congratulations, HJTHX1138! You have reinforced one of my points!(y)

What about it said I thought it WAS?

Now I'm confused . . .

Stoo said:
Congratulations, HJTHX1138! You have reinforced one of my points!

This is keeping stuff like the "Haunted Mansion" in mind, right?
 

Stoo

Well-known member
InexorableTash said:
That said, the article is poorly written...
The poor writing could be due to the fact that the authour is probably French. Other than that, I can only quote Lando from "Empire":

"This deal is getting worse all the time!"(n):sick:

Why is there a squad of Imperial Stormtroopers marching down Main Street, U.S.A. in the Magic Kingdom? What does that have to do with Disney?!? If the Lucas association has become so strong, to change the layout/theme of the experience more than it already has, then the parks should be re-named: Disney-Lucas Land.(n)
Henry W Jones said:
I have to say I was almost six when Raiders came out and I totally knew who George Lucas was due to Star Wars and heard Spielbergs name a billion times before due to Close Encounters and Jaws. If you watched TV or could read it was hard not to hear and see those names. I guess it depends on the kid though.
Henry, I've already replied to this comment but will do so again, because...

A couple of months ago, my brother took his family to Walt Disney World in Florida for the 2nd time. A few weeks ago, at Easter dinner, I learned that his 6-year-old daughter fought Darth Vader in the "Jedi Training" thing (it was the 1st time I've ever heard of this attraction).

Talking about 6-year-olds knowing/not knowing the difference between Disney & Lucas: Guess what? She is 6 years old and I asked her:

Q: Who is your favourite Disney good guy?
A: Poomba!

Q: Who is the scariest Disney bad guy?
A: Dark Vador!

I didn't bother making the correction...
 

Dr. Gonzo

New member
Stoo said:
Q: Who is the scariest Disney bad guy?
A: Dark Vador!

I didn't bother making the correction...

This really has nothing to do with Disney, but when I was a young chap I used to call lightsabers "life-savers" kinda like the candy. To me it made sense as the weapon could save your life. :eek: ahh to be young and dumb.

But I can totally see kids assuming that Disney properties and Lucas properties are one in the same. Besides kids don't really know much about corporations anyway... or do they? I'll have to ask my 7 year old nephew.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Stoo said:
Henry, I've already replied to this comment but will do so again, because...

A couple of months ago, my brother took his family to Walt Disney World in Florida for the 2nd time. A few weeks ago, at Easter dinner, I learned that his 6-year-old daughter fought Darth Vader in the "Jedi Training" thing (it was the 1st time I've ever heard of this attraction).

Talking about 6-year-olds knowing/not knowing the difference between Disney & Lucas: Guess what? She is 6 years old and I asked her:

Q: Who is your favourite Disney good guy?
A: Poomba!

Q: Who is the scariest Disney bad guy?
A: Dark Vador!

I didn't bother making the correction...

I see what you mean but still don't get why it annoys you so bad and what it is hurting.:confused:
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
Forbidden Eye said:
Disney did buy Marvel, so I suppose we'll eventually see Marvel characters in the parks, but since they've been seen at Universal parks before that, it'll be quite a while before kids will be getting an Iron Man ride or getting Spider-man's autograph. And even then, I'm sure they'll only be place in proper places like Disney Hollywood Studios.

Try Disneyland's Tomorrowland and 2013. Not as far off as we thought it would seem. While plumbing the depths of the 'net for info on the Temple of the Forbidden Eye, the ever reliable Al Lutz let slip that the great round building opposite the Autopia is set to become home to the combination of the Stark Expo & Tomorrowland's next E-ticket attraction featuring Iron Man.

From the article...

Al Lutz said:
Bob Iger can?t wait to get the Marvel characters added to the theme park environment, and WDI is running with this one since the budget is healthy and Cars Land has emboldened them to push for higher quality in these big headliner projects. The question remains whether they can keep this quickly approaching project under wraps until the 2013 D23 Expo in Anaheim next August, or if they at least announce the E Ticket this winter but hold back on the details publicly until the D23 Expo.

IronMan.jpg
 

Dr. Gonzo

New member
Didn't know exactly where to put this, so mods feel free to move it if necessary...

The Indiana Jones Adventure in California has been closed now since September for refurbishing until the 8th of December, just wanted to give any fans out there a heads up.

Apparently they are doing some new construction,work on animation and some lighting work in there...
 
Top