Indiana Jones and the Disney Connection

Stoo

Well-known member
Attila the Professor said:
Nah, that's just your judgment and self-restraint.
:eek::p
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.
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:
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.
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.:eek:
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.
The issue of intellectual property is VERY relevant and a main crux of my argument. Twain/Clemens died:dead: (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.

I love Disney but the association with Indy & "Star Wars" makes me shiver. It should not be.:sick:
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Treasure of Matecumbe

Who else remembers this cool one from 1976?:confused: (Based on Bobby Taylor's novel, "A Journey to Matecumbe".)

treasure_of_matecumbe.jpg

treasure-of-matecumbe-movie-poster-1020558653.jpg

2972.jpg


Here's the NEW graphic (designed for the current, "Pirates of the Caribbean", generation):

8b845033dce88d261d45aa80befc930c.jpg
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Stoo said:
Who else remembers this cool one from 1976?:confused: (Based on Bobby Taylor's novel, "A Journey to Matecumbe".)

I don't know that one. The first poster looks the most 'mature', something that might have been on the cover of an Agatha Christie novel. The later ones place more focus on the children.

How does this film fit into your agument, Stoo? Is it about the posters?
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
How does this film fit into your agument, Stoo?
It doesn't really fit other than the fact that it's about a hunt for treasure (and I like the artwork on the first 3 posters).

That said, it can be made to fit. SPOILER: When seeing this movie back in the day, I was surprised to see a character, who is thought to have died, return at the end. "He isn't dead!", I exclaimed. To which my mother replied, "No one ever dies in a Disney movie.":)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Stoo said:
It doesn't really fit other than the fact that it's about a hunt for treasure (and I like the artwork on the first 3 posters).

Do you know the dates for the first three posters?

The first one has a completely different tone to the next two, which look much more like the covers for a childrens' storybook. Are they indicative of any Disney change in empasis over time?
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Junior Jones said:
I have that movie! It's pretty good (I like it), but not nearly as cool as those posters make it look.
Wow! You're one of the rare ones, Phil! I think most Indy/Disney fans (or Disney/Indy fans) would enjoy it (especially the mosquito swarm)!
Montana Smith said:
Do you know the dates for the first three posters?

The first one has a completely different tone to the next two, which look much more like the covers for a childrens' storybook. Are they indicative of any Disney change in empasis over time?
They are all from 1976. The 1st is the U.S. domestic (which was also used in Canada), 2nd is France, Belgium & Switzerland, 3rd is Spain so no change over time, just demographics.;)
 
Junior Jones said:
I have that movie! It's pretty good (I like it), but not nearly as cool as those posters make it look.

My older brothers probably remember them, but I agree the Posters probably make them look cooler than they are...:hat:

Will have to check them out.
 

dr.jones1986

Active member
Stoo said:
It doesn't really fit other than the fact that it's about a hunt for treasure (and I like the artwork on the first 3 posters).

That said, it can be made to fit. SPOILER: When seeing this movie back in the day, I was surprised to see a character, who is thought to have died, return at the end. "He isn't dead!", I exclaimed. To which my mother replied, "No one ever dies in a Disney movie.":)

Tell that to Bambi's mom!

When Walt was alive movies were much less violent, not just his films. I have seen a bunch of old Westerns and War movies. They almost all lack blood and gore. Today's movies are much more graphic, partially because technology allows them to be and we are also much less prude as a society. People are even allowed to sleep in the same beds on TV, unlike back then :p
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Nurchachi1991 said:
Tell that to Gaston
Who dat?:confused:
dr.jones1986 said:
Tell that to Bambi's mom!
Hi, dr.jones1986, it's nice to see you chiming in.:hat: Of course, technically, my mother was wrong but as a 9-year old, I understood what she was implying. Deaths in Disney films were generally treated as major, poignant scenes and not frivolous gratuity as they are in the Indy movies. Compare the Indy Body Count to any Disney movie and you'll find a large disproportion of numbers (except for maybe the unseen deaths by mass-murder in "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea".)

Pale Horse made a great post in this very thread (#66) on the subject of death in Disney films.
dr.jones1986 said:
When Walt was alive movies were much less violent, not just his films. I have seen a bunch of old Westerns and War movies. They almost all lack blood and gore. Today's movies are much more graphic, partially because technology allows them to be and we are also much less prude as a society. People are even allowed to sleep in the same beds on TV, unlike back then :p
What you say is indeed true, however, the '60s & '70s Disney output was crammed to the hilt with kiddie films that lacked any graphic violence or death. Although there may be a couple of exceptions like Anthony Perkins' demise in 1979's, "The Black Hole" (as Montana Smith previously mentioned), I can't think of any other examples from that era.
Rocket Surgeon said:
What was the last "G" rated Disney film?

What made the subsequent "PG" Disney films suggest that Parental Guidence was necessary?

Indiana Jones?
What I'd really like to know is: What was the 1st "PG" Disney film?:confused:
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Pale Horse, has your Raven account been overtaken by a certain Disco Kid?:eek::p

*sneeze*
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Stoo said:
What I'd really like to know is: What was the 1st "PG" Disney film?:confused:

Take Down (1979)

253866.1020.A.jpg


Pre-Raiders.

And you mean to tell me you don't know of my 'whoops, wrong thread' theme? tsk tsk.
 

Violet

Moderator Emeritus
Nurhachi1991 said:
Tell that to Gaston

Yeah, he fell to his death after being knocked from the top of the castle.

Oh, yeah- there was blood. Gaston stabs Beast in the back and you see the blood! (I need a screencap stat!)



Stoo said:
Who dat:confused: ?

Gaston from Beauty and the Beast, 1992. He's the villain of the film. He has a thing for Belle and wants her just because she's beautiful but she hates him coz he's such an a-hole. At the end of the film, when he finds out about Beast, he convinces the villagers that the Beast is evil and that they should attack the castle and kill him. It climaxes in a big showdown at the top of the castle, ultimately being pushed off the castle and falling to his death after stabbing Beast in the back.

In fact, Beast has blood on his wounds in another part of film, after he rescues Belle from savage wolves in the forest.
 

WilliamBoyd8

Active member
I always thought that the first PG rated Disney film was "Splash" in 1984.

Maybe the first with the Disney name in it.

It made a lot of money for the Disney corporation.

:)
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Pale Horse said:
Take Down (1979)

Pre-Raiders.
I've never even HEARD of that one! Thanks for the precise info, Pale.:hat: Is there any blood or gratuitous death in it?:dead:

According to IMDB:
"This was Disney's first "PG" rated film, five years before they launched Touchstone Pictures to expand into the "adult" market. The company's name never appeared on this title though: the only reference to the Disney name was that it was released thru Disney's Buena Vista Distribution company."
Pale Horse said:
And you mean to tell me you don't know of my 'whoops, wrong thread' theme? tsk tsk.
I do, Mr. Horse. Just trying to coax you into writing a bit more on a subject you are well and truly interested in.;)
Violet said:
Yeah, he fell to his death after being knocked from the top of the castle.

Oh, yeah- there was blood. Gaston stabs Beast in the back and you see the blood! (I need a screencap stat!)
No immediate need for a screencap, Violet, because I'm looking for blood in the pre-'89 days...BEFORE Indy entered the Disney realm. (I saw "Beauty and the Beast" way back when but don't remember much apart from the candlestick character and the computer-assisted rendering of the ballroom scene. Thanks for refreshing my memory.)
WilliamBoyd8 said:
I always thought that the first PG rated Disney film was "Splash" in 1984.

Maybe the first with the Disney name in it.
"Splash" was Touchstone, no? That is; under the Disney umbrella but not with the Disney name. I wonder if there were other PG rated films in the period between "Take Down" and the creation of Touchstone?
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Stoo said:
I do, Mr. Horse. Just trying to coax you into writing a bit more on a subject you are well and truly interested in.;)

Well this topic was brough up here, and it excites me...a stray from the OP, but not the thread.

No Pixar Marvel Movies

Praise the Lord.

...?I?m chief creative officer of Disney Animation as well, and with Pixar it?s like, ?Keep doing what you?re doing, guys,?? Lasseter tells IGN.com. ?It?s a filmmaker-driven studio. All of the ideas come from the filmmakers themselves. Working with the filmmakers on ideas.?...
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
So here's some commentary on the prop vehicles at Walt Disney World.

The gist is that recently the tank, at the very least, has been refurbished, having gone from this...

tank_old.jpg


to this.

tank_headon.jpg
 
Top