Stoo
Well-known member
Attila the Professor said:Nah, that's just your judgment and self-restraint.
Without a doubt, Disney parks set the gold standard but the fact that there are Indy (& "Star Wars") rides within the Magic Kingdom makes things problematic. Even though they both THEMATICALLY fit Adventureland & Fantasyland respectively, in my eyes, they don't belong. As I've stated before; put the attractions in the Hollywood Studios section and it wouldn't bother me as much.Attila the Professor said:I still can't quite see this point of view. For one, as you suggest, the Paramount parks are not really theme parks, and won't go in for the sort of treatment that an Indiana Jones attraction deserves. It's a rich world, that of Indiana Jones, and practically begging to be transformed into immersive theme park experiences. While Universal's people have gotten better over time, the Disney designers were (and for the most part, still are) the gold standard.
From everything I've read & seen, "Forbidden Eye" (& Japan's "Temple of the Crystal Skull") surely seem to be at the high-end of Disney attractions but, as far as I'm concerned, their quality doesn't matter. The term, "Disneyfied", comes to mind; the dilution of an artistic product with the aim of safe consumption by an audience of children. Without naming names, there was a young, female member of The Raven who was raised on Disney and was only able to watch the Indy films while her parents were asleep. Even then, she was disgusted with/objected to the violence & foul language.Attila the Professor said:Two, while there's certainly a compelling argument to be made about the softening of the franchise over time, I think that's a separate discussion. The sort of experience that the Indiana Jones Adventure attractions give (I'm leaving out the stunt show and the coaster in Paris) is one in which the riders are themselves part of the story, <I>not</I> ones where you observe what's happening to the characters in their own narrative, as in most of the Fantasyland-type dark rides, for example. This being the case, there's not a reason for any of the bloodier aspects of the Indiana Jones franchise to appear, while the traps, skeletons, creepy critters, ruined temples, and most of the other trappings of adventure are perfectly suited for such an attraction. It's not, after all, as though Disneyland is just for children, and the contents of the attraction, while, I would argue, fully in keeping with the world of Indiana Jones (various canon issues posed by the letters and crates appearing the queue notwithstanding) and yet not violating the sorts of experiences already present in the theme parks. Indeed, it is the most complete heir to <I>the</I> trademark attractions of Pirates of the Caribbean and the Haunted Mansion, and the three stand as perhaps the finest achievements of themed ride design.
The issue of intellectual property is VERY relevant and a main crux of my argument. Twain/Clemens died (bless him) decades before the original park opened. Pre-1989 (or pre-'87 for "Star Wars"), what other Magic Kingdom attractions were based on unrelated characters/stories while their creator was still ALIVE? I can't think of any (the closest, prior gap might be Milne/Winnie the Pooh). To my knowledge, the collaborative effort with Lucas set a new precedent...blurring the lines between what is/isn't Disney.Attila the Professor said:Perhaps one of the better points of comparison is Tom Sawyer Island, which took an established and rich mythos, an entire fictional world with numerous trademark elements and gave it a physical reality that could be experienced by those visiting the theme park. It was created in 1958, not a time at which, from what I understand, there was any sort of cross-promotion with a Disney version of the Twain stories. The issue of intellectual property and corporate ownership is a red herring, and irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned; the only true trouble in the analogy is the time frame, and that there was nobody to give the rights to the Twain set of characters. But Lucas clearly perceived that the Disney folks were the best people to bring his fictional universes into an immersive physical reality, and his creative stake in both Star Wars and Indiana Jones are a truer form of ownership than Paramount's distribution deal.
I love Disney but the association with Indy & "Star Wars" makes me shiver. It should not be.