Indiana Jones and the Disney Connection

Stoo

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
surf_swell.jpg


http://home.disney.com.au/activities/surfswellisland/
Nice find, Smiffy. I must admit that I clicked on the link and played the entire game.:eek: Indy/Disney fans may get a kick out of its kindergarten qualities. However, this made me notice that the stuffed toy I bought for my nephew was, in fact, Minnie Mouse and not Mickey. There wasn't a flower attached to the helmet's puggaree BUT the eyes had eyelashes!
mattzilla2010 said:
Or are you just throwing in quotes to annoy Stoo?
Mattzilla, my friend, it'll be a cold day in hell before Montana Smith annoys me.:)
Attlia the Professor said:
"We're gonna blow up the thread, Rene..."

Seriously though, if you fellas don't swerve back to topic you won't get to watch Stoo and I sniping past each other any more. Wouldn't that be a shame?
Sniping? Is that what we're doing? Attila, believe me, I fully intend on addressing your recent (lengthy) posts but a mischievous monkey threw a wrench in the works!:eek:

Great twist on the "Raiders" quote, by the way.(y)
Rocket Surgeon said:
The only thing worse is that stupid Matt Busch painting with Indy losing his gun.

Maybe not worse, but just as idiotic.
Agreed. Back when that silly event happened, someone started a thread about it and a few folks wrote how 'awesome & epic' it was to see Indy fighting Vader with a lightsabre.:rolleyes: Thank you, Disney. Thanks for manifesting stupidity.:sick:(n)
Montana Smith said:
That would be a shame, too. You wouldn't like Stewie when he's angry!
Where are Bill Bixby & Lou Ferrigno when you need them?:D
Henry Dubya Jones said:
You posted the egg pic on this thread, Goofy!!! You are the one on the left?
First off, Dopey, that is not an "egg pic". That is my head.

Secondly, I don't know if you've ever seen "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" but the Dopey character is mute. If you have nothing to add to this conversation (with regards to the Indy/Disney Connection), then may I suggest you follow Dopey's example and remain silent.:whip:
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Stoo said:
Sniping? Is that what we're doing? Attila, believe me, I fully intend on addressing your recent (lengthy) posts but a mischievous monkey threw a wrench in the works!:eek:

Oh, while I didn't really mean it, maybe it's not so far off. Only thing is, we're pretty bad at it, because I'm not sure either of us is really hitting the mark. :)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Stoo said:
Nice find, Smiffy. I must admit that I clicked on the link and played the entire game.:eek:

It has some good advice. Such as not going into The Raven after dark, or under the influence of alcohol or drugs. And also that it's safer to talk to strange men if they give you that look while brandishing a hot poker.

Stoo said:
Indy/Disney fans may get a kick out of its kindergarten qualities.

He strikes! He scores! (y)

Stoo said:
However, this made me notice that the stuffed toy I bought for my nephew was, in fact, Minnie Mouse and not Mickey. There wasn't a flower attached to the helmet's puggaree BUT the eyes had eyelashes!

Reminds me of that time in Saudi Arabia...

Mattzilla, my friend, it'll be a cold day in hell before Montana Smith annoys me.:)

1-11.gif
:eek:

Stoo said:
Sniping? Is that what we're doing? Attila, believe me, I fully intend on addressing your recent (lengthy) posts but a mischievous monkey threw a wrench in the works!:eek:

Attila the Professor said:
Oh, while I didn't really mean it, maybe it's not so far off. Only thing is, we're pretty bad at it, because I'm not sure either of us is really hitting the mark.

Taking pot shots from positions of solid defence. Failing to hit the target with a killer blow. That's what I gleaned from your post, Attila. :gun:

The actual Indy/Disney connection may be a war of attrition. Some day the offer will be so huge that Lucas won't be able to resist handing Indy over hook, line and sinker. :(
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Stoo-ge said:
This is a topic I've been meaning to bring up for a long time: Indiana Jones and Disney. Why?:confused:

Don't get me wrong as I'm a fan of Disney as much as anyone else here. (Well maybe not 'as big' since some of you folks are Disney FREAKS!:p). As a child who grew up loving the films, the TV show, visits to Walt Disney World in Florida, etc., Walt was a true inspiration and was the topic of my very, first public speaking competition as a kid (in which I placed as a finalist). In fact, according to my mother, the very 1st film I saw in the theatre was a re-release of "Snow White". Disney was the greatest thing until "Star Wars" came along and took over in '77.

When I read that ILM were doing the visual effects for "Captain EO" in 1986, I found it interesting. When the "Star Tours" ride opened in early '87, I thought it was a cool idea but the notion also bothered me since "Star Wars" was not a Disney creation. It was puzzling, to say the least.

Then, in the summer of '89, my brother came home from Florida with photos of the Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular at Disney-MGM theme park. Another cool-but-what-the-hell moment. Paramount had theme parks so why Disney-MGM?:confused: Later I read about the Temple du Péril ride in Paris in '93, then I saw the 1995 Superbowl half-time show advertising the Temple of the Forbidden Eye ride which sent my brain into severe confusion. To top it all off, another ride, Temple of the Crystal Skull, opened in Japan in 2001. Was there no end to this bizarreness?

In 2008, I went on the Indy and "Star Tours" rides in Paris but it was very strange to see a full-sized X-wing in the middle of a Disney park (and nowhere even near the actual ride). Other than a purely money-making collaboration, I just don't understand why.

Granted, many people adore the Forbidden Eye attraction and the Disney items of Indy are hot stuff amongst collectors but with all the Indy & "Star Wars" themed rides, events, toys & merchandise that can be found at the parks, are there children out there who believe that these properties were created by Disney?

Does the Indy/Disney relation bother anyone else besides me? In my book, an exploding head, a melting face, a heart getting ripped out, a guy getting shot in the head, a decapitated head, etc. are not the type of material associated with Disney and goes against their strongly-upheld values of family entertainment!:eek:

Please, someone tell me that I'm not alone in my bewilderment...

So why do the ultra-violent things about Indy absolutely have to be there? The first thing I think of is adventure not all the violence when I think of Indiana Jones. Indy can have a more family-based adventure without all the blood and gore and not be out of the realm of the character. And before you throw the toy collecting in my face let me state..... I HAVE NO DISNEY/INDY PRODUCTS AT ALL. Also Stoo-ge, as others have already pointed out, there is a lot of violence in Disney material as is. The violence can be there but it needs to be tamed down for Disney parks. This is a ridiculous thing to be concerned over.

Stoo-ge said:
First off, Dopey, that is not an "egg pic". That is my head.

Secondly, I don't know if you've ever seen "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" but the Dopey character is mute. If you have nothing to add to this conversation (with regards to the Indy/Disney Connection), then may I suggest you follow Dopey's example and remain silent.

Blah, Blah, Blah Stoo-ge?
 

JayDee

Member
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LtvP40X8L_E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yxQfQh7hskg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ceeopoezbMQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Attila the Professor said:
Based on your contention that Disney should work off of their own accomplishments and charm,...
Before getting into the meat of your posts, Attila, this needs to be clarified since it played such a large factor in your lenghty rebuttals from a few weeks back.

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 clears things up a little bit.:)
Henry W Jones said:
Also Stoo-ge, as others have already pointed out, there is a lot of violence in Disney material as is.
"A lot of violence"?:confused: Before Indy (or "Star Wars") entered the parks, what Disney material had the same amount/level of violence to any of the '80s Indy films? (The answer is: NONE!)
 

mattzilla2010

New member
Henry W Jones said:
So why do the ultra-violent things about Indy absolutely have to be there? The first thing I think of is adventure not all the violence when I think of Indiana Jones. Indy can have a more family-based adventure without all the blood and gore and not be out of the realm of the character.
Juvenile name-calling aside, I agree with at least this part of Henry W's post. I can't speak for everybody but I'd guess that most people feel this way about the character, and could perhaps be the reason for others not taking issue with his presence in Disney parks.

Basically Stoo, I think you place gory violence higher on the importance scale than most others with regards to Indy (not that there's anything wrong with that). But ask someone what Indiana Jones is about and they'll probably say something about exploring ancient ruins and escaping booby traps. That aspect defines the character for me far more than exploding heads and whatnot. Again, you may disagree, but this is why the ride doesn't feel in any way compromised or watered down for me.
 

dr.jones1986

Active member
mattzilla2010 said:
Juvenile name-calling aside, I agree with at least this part of Henry W's post. I can't speak for everybody but I'd guess that most people feel this way about the character, and could perhaps be the reason for others not taking issue with his presence in Disney parks.

Basically Stoo, I think you place gory violence higher on the importance scale than most others with regards to Indy (not that there's anything wrong with that). But ask someone what Indiana Jones is about and they'll probably say something about exploring ancient ruins and escaping booby traps. That aspect defines the character for me far more than exploding heads and whatnot. Again, you may disagree, but this is why the ride doesn't feel in any way compromised or watered down for me.

I concur, the globe trotting adventure aspect and his search for archeological artifacts has always been the most important aspect of the character to me. I think that is what most people think of when they think about Indiana Jones. After all "If adventure has a name...it must be Indiana Jones."
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Stoo said:
Before getting into the meat of your posts, Attila, this needs to be clarified since it played such a large factor in your lenghty rebuttals from a few weeks back.

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 clears things up a little bit.:)
"A lot of violence"?:confused: Before Indy (or "Star Wars") entered the parks, what Disney material had the same amount/level of violence to any of the '80s Indy films? (The answer is: NONE!)

So Stoo, are you saying if Disney had bought the rights to Indiana Jones/SW and made a cartoon or kids movie from the characters first, then put in then put in the rides afterwards you would be okay with it then? Also the violence level is not as high in Disney movies as IJ but that does not make it non-existent.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Henry W Jones said:
So Stoo, are you saying if Disney had bought the rights to Indiana Jones/SW and made a cartoon or kids movie from the characters first, then put in then put in the rides afterwards you would be okay with it then?
YES!!! Don't know if I'd be "okay" with it but the assocation would make much more sense.
Henry W Jones said:
Also the violence level is not as high in Disney movies as IJ but that does not make it non-existent.
I never said it wasn't non-existant but you said there was already "a lot" of violence in Disney movies. (As hard as I've tried, I can't find any graphic violence in "The Cat From Outer Space".:p)
mattzilla2010 said:
Basically Stoo, I think you place gory violence higher on the importance scale than most others with regards to Indy (not that there's anything wrong with that). But ask someone what Indiana Jones is about and they'll probably say something about exploring ancient ruins and escaping booby traps. That aspect defines the character for me far more than exploding heads and whatnot. Again, you may disagree, but this is why the ride doesn't feel in any way compromised or watered down for me.
dr.jones1986 said:
I concur, the globe trotting adventure aspect and his search for archeological artifacts has always been the most important aspect of the character to me. I think that is what most people think of when they think about Indiana Jones. After all "If adventure has a name...it must be Indiana Jones."
Mattzilla & Dr.Jones1986: While I agree with you both, Disney's family-friendly tenacity was just ONE of the offsetting factors back when the Indy attractions first appeared. It was WEIRD for them to associate with a film series that had a man's heart getting ripped out of his chest, etc.

Consider this: If you had a dollar for everytime someone whined about how Indy never fired his gun in "Crystal Skull", you would be able to start your own theme park!:p
 

mattzilla2010

New member
Stoo said:
While I agree with you both, Disney's family-friendly tenacity was just ONE of the offsetting factors back when the Indy attractions first appeared.
Oh I know, this was just the one reason you gave that I thought was somewhat unfair. I think the fact that Indy's not a Disney property is a much more valid complaint, although of course I don't mind it myself.

Stoo said:
Consider this: If you had a dollar for everytime someone whined about how Indy never fired his gun in "Crystal Skull", you would be able to start your own theme park!:p
Can't argue with that! :D
 

TalonCard

Member
Would this be the right thread to wonder why young Indy never met Walt Disney? :D They were (IIRC) both in France at the same time, both joined overseas services at a young age to be part of WWI...given that young Indy's run into seemingly everyone else in history I was surprised that Walt wasn't ever given a nod...

On topic, it took me awhile to remember this, but I was, at one point in time, extremely surprised to hear about Star Wars and Indiana Jones attractions in the Disney parks. It was somewhat disorienting to hear the themes piped in throughout the resort when I arrived to work there in '05. But I've gotten used to it, and have embraced it...then again, I flat-out don't share the disdain for licensing, cross-promotion, and the Lucas/Disney empires in general that many people seem to have.

On the other hand, I'm still uncomfortable with the Avatar deal...as was mentioned earlier in the thread, it's a franchise that doesn't have the timeless staying power of a Star Wars or Indiana Jones, and however amazing the ride may be, it's bound to be dated the moment it opens.

I'll also agree with the sentiment that it's the globetrotting adventures of Indy that offer the greatest, truest, and broadest appeal, more so than the more adult aspects; the gore and the sex. That's the reason why more family-friendly properties like the Young Indy series, Disney rides, and (I'm sure some would argue) KOTCS can exist. Indy lives in a PG-13 rated world, but ultimately his most characteristic and unique qualities are things that even a seven-year-old can appreciate.

TC
 

Montana Smith

Active member
TalonCard said:
Indy lives in a PG-13 rated world, but ultimately his most characteristic and unique qualities are things that even a seven-year-old can appreciate.

The Indy movies work on different levels, appealing to both adults and children in the true sense of 'family' viewing. There are connections that an adult may make, yet would not spoil the movie for children who might not make them.

I think the same might go for modern Disney movies - I'm thinking animations - in which there are nods and winks to the adults in the audience.
 
Top