Stoo
Well-known member
Too much to write & quote so I'm going to split my replies into seperate posts. Hope it's not a problem. The 2 mods, Pale & Attila, come first. Then Rocket, Tash & Montana. Le Saboteur gets his own.
Yes, so far, I'm in the minority in this thread but in 'real-life', other people I know have echoed the same sentiment: What does Indiana Jones (& Star Wars) have to do with Disney? Like you say, "All in the spirit of good fun" but (for the record) yourself & Attila are some of the Disney freaks I was talking about and your nuts will be hard to crack. By the way, where is roundshort?
Pre-1987, I can't think of any Disney attractions which are based on a story written only a decade or so before being built. Likewise, I don't know of any which bear the name of a film not made by Disney (that is, a film with an original story and not based on any book or folklore). Sure, The Jungle Cruise is an obvious homage to "The African Queen". One of the boats even has the name but the ride isn't called, "The African Queen". Haunted houses have been a mainstay since amusement parks first began and when the original, Anaheim park opened in '55, westerns were all the rage so having a section of the park dedicated to that genre was a no-brainer. The later parks copied the same formula. Which pre-'87 attractions were emblazoned with the name of a non-Disney film? None, right?
I suppose my main issue is my distaste for Disney's acquisition of licenses for products they did not create. It renders the whole idea of the parks into something too generic. As Rocket & yourself say, the finger points largely at Eisner. Where does it/will it stop before the parks should be simply called, "MovieLand" (or if you prefer, "Disney's Land of Movies & Fairytales")?
Yikes. You'd "like to see the anti-semite argument well postulated"? I'll pretend I didn't read that. Is my opinion really that blasphemous to you? A better comparison would be: Indiana Jones is to Disney is what Wayne Gretzky was to the Los Angeles Kings. A sensational boon to the team but he wasn't born there!Pale Horse said:In the spirit of good fun...and discourse
I think you're going to find yourself in the minority on this one, Stoo.
As the arguments pro/con develop over time. Just my 2 cents at this stage in the game.
Chuckle...if someone were to say the Camp of KOTCS matches the Camp of High School Musical...that would be the death knell you'd have to concede to.
Personally, I'd like to see the anti-semite argument well postulated as a comparatory example, but I doubt anyone will even investigate, much less try.
Yes, so far, I'm in the minority in this thread but in 'real-life', other people I know have echoed the same sentiment: What does Indiana Jones (& Star Wars) have to do with Disney? Like you say, "All in the spirit of good fun" but (for the record) yourself & Attila are some of the Disney freaks I was talking about and your nuts will be hard to crack. By the way, where is roundshort?
As mentioned previously, the "Star Wars" ride is part & parcel of my argument.Attila the Professor said:I'm not sure that's relevant though, especially considering many of the Disney films are their own versions of earlier, often more gruesome stories. A film being made into theme park attractions doesn't seem all that far afield from the same principle.
Also, doubtlessly, there's something attractive to Lucas and Spielberg about having their films realized in another medium. (After all, Star Wars was also brought to life in Disney parks, and there's ET at Universal.)
Rocket's right, of course, that Eisner is a lot of it, especially since he was pivotal in the creation of the original film's deal at Paramount.
But it's also important to remember that it's far from the case that all of the attractions at the Disney theme parks originate in old Disney properties. Sure, that became the case later on, and has always been the case to some extent (Eisner sure didn't invent synergy). Indeed, some of them were clearly influenced by given films, with the Jungle Cruise having The African Queen all over it, and Frontierland, Main Street USA, and the Haunted Mansion have various films and genres all over them. (There was a stagecoach ride, for Pete's sake...)
Now, yes, the bringing - in of outside properties was a new development, sure. But it was an artistically fruitful one, especially in the case of the two Indiana Jones Adventure attractions, which are among the pinnacle examples of immersive theme park design they've come up with, from queue onward. (The stunt show's fun, and and so is Star Tours, but the Paris coaster has never sounded like anything all that special.)
Does the quality of the product make up for your concerns? Perhaps not. But I think it's a good thing both for the Disney parks and for the world of Indiana Jones.
Pre-1987, I can't think of any Disney attractions which are based on a story written only a decade or so before being built. Likewise, I don't know of any which bear the name of a film not made by Disney (that is, a film with an original story and not based on any book or folklore). Sure, The Jungle Cruise is an obvious homage to "The African Queen". One of the boats even has the name but the ride isn't called, "The African Queen". Haunted houses have been a mainstay since amusement parks first began and when the original, Anaheim park opened in '55, westerns were all the rage so having a section of the park dedicated to that genre was a no-brainer. The later parks copied the same formula. Which pre-'87 attractions were emblazoned with the name of a non-Disney film? None, right?
I suppose my main issue is my distaste for Disney's acquisition of licenses for products they did not create. It renders the whole idea of the parks into something too generic. As Rocket & yourself say, the finger points largely at Eisner. Where does it/will it stop before the parks should be simply called, "MovieLand" (or if you prefer, "Disney's Land of Movies & Fairytales")?