Indiana Jones and the Disney Connection
- Thread starter Stoo
- Start date
Stoo said:Question for you, Attila: Why are you visiting a Disney Food Blog?
I don't tend to visit it on its own, but a blog that aggregates other Disney parks news will link to it. It's easy enough to see when there's something worth looking into further, or something that I'm obliged to pursue, like this one.
In all fairness, I was a tad ashamed I didn't know if it.
Disney's Food and Wine festival...yep, know it. The blog...new to me. I didn't want to have to shame myself in coming forward to acknowledge it. But Attila, I am impressed.
Mary Poppins. Their first of many academy awards....
Disney's Food and Wine festival...yep, know it. The blog...new to me. I didn't want to have to shame myself in coming forward to acknowledge it. But Attila, I am impressed.
Stoo said:You're too cryptic sometimes and lost me with this one.Pale Horse said:
:
Mary Poppins. Their first of many academy awards....
Explorer1074
New member
Stoo said:
It does fit in the modern sense there are people who worked for Lucas now work for Disney. The chances of Lucas related projects ending up at Disney are probably greater now than ever. My point was Lucas and Spielberg both have worked on projects together and for various major studios together before, after and currently.
Stoo said:This is all very convoluted, especially the relation to Universal. Playing the "Six Degrees of Seperation" game can connect any random person to anything. The Indiana Jones films were not made by Disney nor MGM. What appears at the beginning of each Indy film (and the VHS/DVDs of the TV series)? The Paramount mountain or MGM's roaring lion?
When the "Stunt Spectacular" opened back in '89, it was indeed a shock! Don't know how old you were at that time but I was well & truly mystified.
Just to let you know, it was never called "MGM Hollywood Studios" so no one else ever knew it as that either.
Close enough. Right, I realize that. Indiana Jones of course is distributed by Paramount but the emphasis is Lucas and Spielberg. You can't ignore that Spielberg has worked on projects for MGM, Universal, Disney and even Paramount (which Spielberg's own company Dreamworks is a section of Paramount). There is nothing convoluted about that. There shouldn't have been any shock because Lucas had been doing business with Disney before Indiana Jones with Star Tours that opened in 1987. I was 15 in '89 I took my first ever trip to Disney World in 2009. I saw the Indiana Jones stunt spectacular and Star Tours inside of a "Disney Hollywood Studios". When I looked up the history of it I wasn't totally shocked the name was changed from the Disney-MGM Studios label.
The park's name could change to Disney Paramount Hollywood Studios tomorrow and I still wouldn't be shocked because again the formula is George Lucas+Steven Spielberg+Disney+Universal+MGM+Paramount+Hollywood= money.
Stoo said:
No offense taken. I get the feeling you dont like the Disney connection but it is what it is. I have a friend that hates the Star Wars/Disney connection. He recently told me there is a possibility of Disney picking up George Lucas' Star Wars TV series project because Lucas is afraid of repeating the same problem of cost production like he did with The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. Either way if Disney promotes Indiana Jones and keeps the franchise alive I am happy with that.
To be honest, I don't get the whole economic/networks of production approach that you fellows have been taking to this (it strikes me as irrelevant; the notion of the ability of the Indiana Jones and Star Wars universes to fit into the place-making of the Disney theme parks is what's interesting to me), but if we really want to talk about the associations at work here, Captain Eo, executive produced by Lucas, come on the scene in September of '86.
But if you try to argue from any associations Lucas and Spielberg have with Universal - wouldn't you expect the attractions to be over in those parks, as ET and Back to the Future are/were? As Stoo suggests, playing Six Degrees of Association produces plenty of potential connections that don't necessarily amount to much.
On a fundamental level, it's not just about money. If it were, Disney could easily just get the talent and resources together to build the most spectacular roller coaster possible. The "Disney Connection" is interesting not because of what it reveals about the behind-the-scenes processes, but because it is, as Stoo and others are right to point out, something that does enact some uneasy tensions that confront, above all, one's sense of what these different works and different forms do when they come together. Maybe I'm too quick to throw some of these arguments overboard, but the difference between Mark Twain's inability to approve a Tom Sawyer-themed island and Lucas's and Spielberg's ability to approve the use of their work in various theme parks is not a meaningful one; if anything, it suggests that they themselves perceive their works and Disney to be simpatico.
Edited to add: one interesting avenue for this conversation might be why Disney's acquisition of Marvel is one that truly gives me pause as to the potential future inclusion of such intellectual property in theme parks. Like Stoo, but perhaps for different reasons, it's not a form of storytelling that I find compelling, and the sort of urbanity and particular sort of high octane action and kinetics that would be associated does not fit with either the nostalgic, deep world creations of most of Disney's history-based output (I'd include Indy in this, and perhaps Star Tours too - it's all about place-making - but Frontierland, Main Street, Adventureland, the nations of World Showcase at Epcot are what are exemplified here) nor with the old forward-looking attractions represented by most of the Future World at Epcot product, or an old show like If You Had Wings, that used to exist in Florida - these were presentational, generally not story or place-based. Marvel seems like a dead end, creatively, and one that just doesn't fit. Indy's form of adventure does, though, I still contend.
But if you try to argue from any associations Lucas and Spielberg have with Universal - wouldn't you expect the attractions to be over in those parks, as ET and Back to the Future are/were? As Stoo suggests, playing Six Degrees of Association produces plenty of potential connections that don't necessarily amount to much.
On a fundamental level, it's not just about money. If it were, Disney could easily just get the talent and resources together to build the most spectacular roller coaster possible. The "Disney Connection" is interesting not because of what it reveals about the behind-the-scenes processes, but because it is, as Stoo and others are right to point out, something that does enact some uneasy tensions that confront, above all, one's sense of what these different works and different forms do when they come together. Maybe I'm too quick to throw some of these arguments overboard, but the difference between Mark Twain's inability to approve a Tom Sawyer-themed island and Lucas's and Spielberg's ability to approve the use of their work in various theme parks is not a meaningful one; if anything, it suggests that they themselves perceive their works and Disney to be simpatico.
Edited to add: one interesting avenue for this conversation might be why Disney's acquisition of Marvel is one that truly gives me pause as to the potential future inclusion of such intellectual property in theme parks. Like Stoo, but perhaps for different reasons, it's not a form of storytelling that I find compelling, and the sort of urbanity and particular sort of high octane action and kinetics that would be associated does not fit with either the nostalgic, deep world creations of most of Disney's history-based output (I'd include Indy in this, and perhaps Star Tours too - it's all about place-making - but Frontierland, Main Street, Adventureland, the nations of World Showcase at Epcot are what are exemplified here) nor with the old forward-looking attractions represented by most of the Future World at Epcot product, or an old show like If You Had Wings, that used to exist in Florida - these were presentational, generally not story or place-based. Marvel seems like a dead end, creatively, and one that just doesn't fit. Indy's form of adventure does, though, I still contend.
Last edited:
WillKill4Food
New member
Speaking of which, Captain EO seemed like Star Wars as a musical mixed with Star Trek's Borg. I don't know whether Star Tours came before or after it, but it seems like a rather natural progression.Attila the Professor said:
On another note, they revamped the Star Tours ride recently. They were testing it while I was there, and it's eons better than the previous one. 3CPO (I'd never noticed how much his voice sounds like Richard Dawkins) guides the "tour" now, and it has several Star Wars characters this time around.
Junior Jones
New member
Disney's latest Twenty-Three magazine has several interesting articles including an interview with George Lucas and an interview with Stan Lee.
Attila the Professor said:
I can not emphasize enough how much I appreciate and stand behind this edit addition.
Thankfully as noted previously in the thread, the current brass of Disney doesn't want to include Marvel in the Parks. I suspect we will see merchandise only. No characters, rides, themes etc. How long that thinking will last, only time will tell.
Disney is and alway has been about Story. I don't see Disney waivering from that soon. Maybe Marvel knows that now, and wants to evolve. Heaven knows that the crossovers that Lee has now are starting to get tiresome. How can anyone really watch a film with so many storylines?! What's the next one going to be? A IronMan/Thor/Avengers/Hulk/Capt.America/Magneto/VictorVonDoom/Spiderman Musical ride 4D expirence?
From that post to this
Filming the new Star Tours promo commercial today at Disney....
You should have seen him raise the sword from the stone....
Filming the new Star Tours promo commercial today at Disney....
Vader said:
You should have seen him raise the sword from the stone....
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
The Child Killer: Disney Royalty!Pale Horse said:Filming the new Star Tours promo commercial today at Disney....
Stoo
Well-known member
Disney's acquistion of Pixar in 2006 has absolutely no bearing, whatsoever, in regards to why Indy attractions are in Disney parks. No offence, Explorer, but it's completely irrelevant.Explorer1074 said:
When I started this thread, the "Star Wars" connection was included in my aversion/disgust. My distaste for the Disney relation with both Indy and "Star Wars" is mutual.Explorer1074 said:
I went to Walt Disney World in Florida in '78 & '82. Over the years, I knew about the Star Wars & Indy attractions from magazines, my brother's trip in the early '90s and the Superbowl half-time show in '95.Explorer1074 said:
My 3rd visit to a Disney park was in 2008 in Paris (a month before "Skull" was released). Indeed, I went on the Indy & Star Wars rides (which were BOTH WITHIN the Magic Kingdom) but walking by a full-sized X-wing in the middle of Tomorrowland was really a "What the Hell?" moment.
The X-wing wasn't near the "Star Wars" ride so it was totally bizarre to stumble across this thing while walking around the MAIN park.Speilberg + Universal = MGM = ZERO! Your Universal angle is as useless as your Pixar angle. The Indy films are PARAMOUNT films...not Disney or MGM (regardless of how you try to make a make long-distance connection).Explorer1074 said:
However, the money factor i$ real and i$ what I've been $aying $ince beginning thi$ thread. The arti$tic integrity of Indy wa$ compromi$ed for the $ake of the all-mighty dollar.
If you've read the thread, you would know that I don't like the connection (even though I love Disney, Indy & Star Wars) and accept it with a grudge. It started with the opening of "Star Tours" so I can empathize with your friend.Explorer1074 said:
Good G_d! Please, no.Explorer1074 said:
Last edited:
Henry W Jones
New member
Stoo said:
Should I be laughing or really offended?
mattzilla2010
New member
Stoo said:
Looking at the stunt show in Florida and having been on the Forbidden Eye ride several times, I fail to see any compromising of artistic integrity. Could you explain what you mean by that?
Henry W Jones
New member
Indy and Star Wars have great concepts and for the most part family friendly. Disney has a great environment for attractions based on these themes. And of course it has to do with money. No one puts that much money into anything if its not gonna return cash back. If Raiders or Star Wars would have flopped we wouldn't have our sequels. I think those things are just a fun way to enjoy our favorite films outside the films. I don't consider it as part of the films per say. Also the full sized X wing wasn't there back when I was there. I would be cool with seeing that about anywhere.
Junior Jones
New member
Pale Horse said:
Actually, it's not because they don't want to include Marvel characters at the parks. The problem is that the Marvel character theme park rights were licensed to Universal years ago and they can't appear in a Disney park until the Universal contract expires or is renegotiated. (It's the same reason Iron Man and Thor were released by Paramount Pictures.) I'm sure that eventually we'll see Spidey swinging from the spires of Sleeping Beauty's Castle.
Explorer1074
New member
Attila the Professor said:
While it is a interesting partnership between Lucas and Disney, my approach on the subject is that I wasn't surprised to see a Indiana Jones (or even star wars) connection with Disney. Indiana Jones and Star Wars were two of Lucas' biggest money earning franchises. The associations of Lucas and Spielberg fit perfectly. You don't see other works like Back to the Future or ET because financially they were not better than Indiana Jones or Star Wars which lead me to believe the dealings are indeed purely financial in nature with Disney. That's why they are compatible. Does it all really matter anyway? No.
Explorer1074
New member
Stoo said:
Again I was using that as an example of how well some Lucas' network connections are in the business. Yes even though the theme parks were already built prior to this it clearly shows how Hollywood buyouts/merges make anything possible.
Stoo said:
I am pretty sure you saw the Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular and the Star Tours both times despite the painful partnership.
Stoo said:My 3rd visit to a Disney park was in 2008 in Paris (a month before "Skull" was released). Indeed, I went on the Indy & Star Wars rides (which were BOTH WITHIN the Magic Kingdom) but walking by a full-sized X-wing in the middle of Tomorrowland was really a "What the Hell?" moment.
Speilberg + Universal = MGM = ZERO! Your Universal angle is as useless as your Pixar angle. The Indy films are PARAMOUNT films...not Disney or MGM (regardless of how you try to make a make long-distance connection).
I can't speak for Disney why they set it up that way in Paris but it's not that way in Orlando Florida. Like the Pixar example the big movie production companies are Hollywood which both Lucas and Spielberg have been long part of. Any kind of partnership can happen just like the Disney/Indiana Jones connection.
Stoo said:
I don't think the artistic integrity was compromised. If anything else it's a good show and promotes the franchise. What if Disney closed the Indiana Jones stunt spectacular? I bet there would be a lot of unhappy Indiana Jones fans.
Stoo said:If you've read the thread, you would know that I don't like the connection (even though I love Disney, Indy & Star Wars) and accept it with a grudge. It started with the opening of "Star Tours" so I can empathize with your friend.
Then really, what's the problem here???
Stoo
Well-known member
Explorer, I'll post more on your comments later...but for now...your reasonings are nowhere near solid. Sorry.Explorer1074 said:
As much as I hate to admit it, "E.T." was the box office champion for over 10 years! It beat out "Star Wars" (which reigned as No. 1 for five years, 1977-1982.) "E.T." was #1 for 11 years! 1982-1993. NONE of the Indy films ever made it to #1. In Anaheim (the original Disneyland), "Temple of the Fordidden Eye" & "Star Tours" are within the Magic Kindgom (Paris did the same thing).Explorer1074 said:
Last edited:
I was there on Sat. (the original) and again last night. Saturday we were there with Jon Favreau of (Iron Man note) and watched Disney's new parade with him.
I bring this up, because despite the direction of this thread trying to connect Disney to Indy and vice versa, what's done is done. But I do love this topic so.
But with one of Marvel's key players so intimately involved within the park (3 VIP tour guides, etc) it makes me wonder if the tenuous relationship between the two companies is slowly being merged in back room deals. It's bad enough that we have to endure the cross merchandising that is here now: Disney?s Marvel Store
I bring this up, because despite the direction of this thread trying to connect Disney to Indy and vice versa, what's done is done. But I do love this topic so.
But with one of Marvel's key players so intimately involved within the park (3 VIP tour guides, etc) it makes me wonder if the tenuous relationship between the two companies is slowly being merged in back room deals. It's bad enough that we have to endure the cross merchandising that is here now: Disney?s Marvel Store
Stoo
Well-known member
...and so it begins again.Pale Horse said:
(Cool that you met Jon Favreau!)No because those attractions did not exist in 1978 & '82. At that time, the park was pure, untainted, Disney bliss. But yes, to be honest, I would have if they were there...'despite the painful partnership' as you so eloquently stated. (I went on the Indy & Star Wars rides in Paris.Explorer1074 said:
)One of the problems is: It bothers me to see Indy merchandise for sale with the Disney logo slapped on. By the same token, it bothers me to see attractions based on films that Disney had NOTHING to do with. It's a double-edged sword so I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.Explorer1074 said:Then really, what's the problem here???
Another problem is: Where will the Disney umbrella end? With Disney acquiring the rights to Star Wars, Indy, Pixar, Muppets, Aerosmith(!?!) and now Marvel, what will be the next domino to fall? The flood gates opened with the creation of "Star Tours".