Theme parks require attractions to draw in guests, obviously. But it is rather silly and takes a rather narrow view of human nature to see profit as the only motive in this connection.
Stoo said:
You mean 'necrophilia'? Yikes!
We can all offer up absurd analogies, should we feel like it.
Now to the meat of it...
Stoo said:
Mark Twain & Jules Verne-based rides are different cases because...
The 1st Twain-based attractions were created c.70+ years after the stories were written (and they might have already entered into the 'public domain' by 1955, when Disneyland opened, but I'm no expert on the handling of Twain's legacy/estate.)
The legality of using Twain as an influence is irrelevant from a creative standpoint. Based on your contention that Disney should work off of their own accomplishments and charm, I fail to see why working with a living creator is any different than working with a dead one. It is not merely that I fail to see it: there
is no difference in the criteria that you have offered up.
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 publishing date of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is irrelevant, as per my words on Twain above. And if we really wanted to get into it, I'm not sure why it's okay that there were such Verne-based films in the first place. Honestly, I'm not sure how your interpretative framework here allows adaptation.
Stoo said:
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).
Just to clarify, there are two points here.
Lucasfilm attractions are different because:
A) Disney has no prior experience working with these properties
B) The creator of said properties is still alive today
All I want to know is: are there any other differences on the table you want to argue for?
Stoo said:
Once again, there's the whole other matter that some of the rides are in the Magic Kingdoms and not in the Disney Hollywood Studios sections.
Right. The Hollywood Studios park treats (or treated, formerly) things as though they are fictional entities being filmed, not the reality of the fictional world themselves. That's why the Stunt Show makes sense there. Having the Indiana Jones ride there would be an absurd piece of mistheming.
The Magic Kingdom theme parks, those on the model of the original Disneyland, are not some sort of attic for Disney characters that is not to be entered by non-Disney entities. You know what was played when the Magic Kingdom in Florida opened? 76 Trombones, with a band led by its composer, Meredith Willson. It might as well be said that the background music in the Main Street section of the park regularly features instrumental selections from Oklahoma, Meet Me in St. Louis, and the Music Man along with those from other appropriately themed films. They fit. They thematically rhyme. That is deeply more important than their origins.
Stoo said:
PLUS, the fact the Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular opened in Disney/MGM Studios when Indy has nothing to do with either of those companies (the same year that "Last Crusade" hit the theatres)!
And Raiders also appears in the Great Movie Ride. If you're looking for a largely mercenary piece of licensing, the MGM piece is more valid one. (Well...a few MGM properties appear in the Great Movie Ride too. But the primary reason is that MGM gives some validity and Old Hollywood gravitas to the park. I'd bet, based on MGM's Vegas involvement, that they just liked being in the public eye years after their heyday. Mutual benefits, as with Lucas.)
Stoo said:
Now you're talking about 'incest'! Yikes again!
Again, if we're going to make analogies...
Stoo said:
You would rather that Disney *avoided* using their own properties? We are clearly not on the same page, Attila. The name is Disneyland, not ANYTHINGLAND.
Yes, and what Disney, like any other name associated with creative work, ought to suggest is something other than merely living off of their past work in perpetuity.
Upon the opening of Disneyland in 1955, Main Street USA had no attractions directly based on a Disney film property. Tomorrowland had an exhibit of materials from 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Frontierland had a Davy Crockett exhibit and the Mike Fink keel boats. Fantasyland, of course, had Sleeping Beauty Castle, the Casey Jr. Circus Train, Dumbo's Flying Elephants, the Mad Tea Party, Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, Peter Pan Flight, and Snow White's Adventures. Adventureland had none at all.
Fantasyland, unsurprisingly and sensically, is the major exception in this regard. The two Davy Crockett entities (this includes Mike Fink) are based on the versions of those characters presented on the <I>Disneyland</I> television series.
Incidentally, Tomorrowland included, upon opening, the Monsanto House of the Future; while this is corporate, it was nevertheless presenting a given vision of a domestic future that is thus, in its own way, a story element. Disney has been partnering with other companies in their parks for the very basis of attractions since the very beginning.
But yes, while I don't want to belabor the point, I strongly feel that original attractions are far, far preferable to ones that are merely recapitulating events and characters from films or television shows without doing anything additional with them. There are a few rides, like the Indiana Jones Adventures in California and Tokyo, Splash Mountain at most of the parks, Muppet Vision 3-D, and the Matterhorn (inspired by Disney's Third Man on the Mountain film) that bear a film as their basis and are efforts to be proud of. But for every one of those there is an Aladdin's Magic Carpet spinners or a mediocre Monsters Inc. ride or a refitting of some old classic with Finding Nemo characters or Stitch that is not a worthy effort. Most of the best Disney efforts: Pirates, the Haunted Mansion, Space Mountain, Big Thunder Mountain, the Enchanted Tiki Room, It's a Small World, Expedition Everest, Spaceship Earth, the Jungle Cruise, the Carousel of Progress, and most of the Epcot attractions: are original and not bound by the demands of a fictional universe. Fantasyland used to be the one big exception. Much has been Disneyfied in past years, and that is not a good trend by any means. Good work <I>can</I> be derivative, and the two good Indiana Jones rides are prime examples, as are a couple of Disney examples. But Imagineering has done its best work when it is original. That's not a reason to never do film-based things, but it is a reason to do them carefully, and not as an easy option. The cheap cash-in attractions aren't usually the ones with outside characters, but with Disney characters themselves.
Stoo said:
Also, the efforts of Disney's Imagineers spawned several movies decades later, based on "Country Bear Jamboree", "Haunted Mansion" and "Pirates of the Caribbean", etc.
The first two of which are deeply mediocre, and the third of which has been a deeply uneven series. Original films have a better shot at being decent than attraction-derivative ones, as with the reverse.
Continued below...
