Indiana Jones and the Disney Connection

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Montana Smith said:
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.

Some of them. Even more so the older films. I think the idea is less about nods and winks, which is the contemporary way of handling material intended for an audience of all ages, rather than the older form in which things are legitimately put together to be enjoyed by all ages. That's more or less the founding narrative for Disneyland.

Walt Disney said:
Well, it [Disneyland] came about when my daughters were very young and I ? Saturday ? was always Daddy?s day with the two daughters. So we?d start out and try to go someplace, you know, different things, and I?d take them to the merry-go-round and I took them different places and as I?d sit while they rode the merry-go-round and did all these things ? sit on a bench, you know, eating peanuts?. I felt that there should be something built ? some kind of amusement enterprise built ... where the parents and the children could have fun together. So that?s how Disneyland started. Well, it took many years ? it was a ? oh, a period of maybe 15 years developing. I started with many ideas, threw them away, started all over again. And eventually, it evolved into what you see today at Disneyland. But it all started from a daddy with two daughters wondering where he could take them where he could have a little fun with them too.

I think it's a telling quote, actually, in terms of why Disney and Lucas are sometimes mentioned in the same breath. This is slightly more true of the original Star Wars trilogy than of Indiana Jones, but that aim for broad appeal, rather than tailoring certain segments to audiences of varying levels of maturity, is something I'd say the artists have in common.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Attila the Professor said:
Some of them. Even more so the older films. I think the idea is less about nods and winks, which is the contemporary way of handling material intended for an audience of all ages, rather than the older form in which things are legitimately put together to be enjoyed by all ages. That's more or less the founding narrative for Disneyland.



I think it's a telling quote, actually, in terms of why Disney and Lucas are sometimes mentioned in the same breath. This is slightly more true of the original Star Wars trilogy than of Indiana Jones, but that aim for broad appeal, rather than tailoring certain segments to audiences of varying levels of maturity, is something I'd say the artists have in common.

I wasn't thinking so much of a situation "where the parents and the children could have fun together" as in sharing the entertainment at a given level, but where parents and children experience it differently, depending on their awareness. That would be the more modern sense, where some elements might go over a child's head, but not be missed an adult.

In Raiders, for example, that might pertain to the conversation between Indy and Marion in The Raven.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Montana Smith said:
I wasn't thinking so much of a situation "where the parents and the children could have fun together" as in sharing the entertainment at a given level, but where parents and children experience it differently, depending on their awareness. That would be the more modern sense, where some elements might go over a child's head, but not be missed an adult.

In Raiders, for example, that might pertain to the conversation between Indy and Marion in The Raven.

Well, there's two different ways in which parents and children can experience something differently, though. One is one in which the work has slapstick and bright colors for the kids and innuendo and cheesecake for the adults. I don't have much use for that mode.

The other is one in which the same material can be experienced and enjoyed by all, but for which a mature mind can glean and understand more than a younger one. The same thing. Not a ghettoized form of, to take the theme park example, extreme rides for the teens and kiddie rides for the kids and princesses for the girls and pirates for the boys and, I don't know, alcohol for the adults. Rather, experiences that offer a full-fledged form of pleasure for all.

To take the Raven bar conversation as an example, even without understanding what's being alluded to, you'd have to be looking away to not realize that these are people who once knew each other, but that the man did something to make the woman mad at him. There's a lot to be filled in about their sexual history, but that comes with age. Same with the flayed skins in Temple of Doom. <I>Something</I> is foreboding and intimidating about that scene, whether you know what they are or not.
 

HJTHX1138

New member
You make a good point, but I think the main reason is just the fact that Disney parks bring so much to the table. I must admit I'm not a Disney-fanatic or anything, but I have alot of respect for them in regards to the theme parks, the amazing animation work and some of the less popular/well-known projects they have made in the past (Tron, The Black Hole Etc.)

I understand Disney has a bit of reputation as a "family" institution. Everything has to be happy and cartoons and princesses and yadda yadda . . .

I think what can tie them together is artistry and film. Lucas and Disney are about telling stories using a range of artistic techniques, the only real difference is the kind of stories they tell. I understand people sort of scratching their heads regarding Star Tours/Indy/ and the upcoming "Avatar-Land" in Florida being involved with Disney :)mad: Don't ask.)

The parks, even from the beggining, have all been designed and constructed by filmmakers, set builders, animators etc. Lucas comes from that territory so a partnership is only far-off because of story themes, not story-telling.

Also, Disney has the most money when it comes to the park business. Forbidden Eye in Cali and Crystal Skull in Japan are extrememly invotative rides, Lucas is a film innovator and so was Disney, including theme parks.

Plus, Imagine some poor unimaginative park getting the rights, you'd see some terrible shoddy excuse for a last-minute movie tie-in at a Six-Flags or something.

Disney has a ton of story-telling tools that are used all over every park. That's what separates them from the thrill-seekers and tourist traps. The Indy rides convey the most integral part of the movies, the story creating a sense of adventure and danger/tension, It's what made me want to see the movies!
 

Montana Smith

Active member
HJTHX1138 said:
...the upcoming "Avatar-Land" in Florida being involved with Disney :)mad: Don't ask.)

I'd have thought that Avatar was a perfect choice for a Disney park. After all it was a soppy Pocahontas story. Seemed to me like it could have been a Disney product in the first place.
 

HJTHX1138

New member
Montana Smith said:
I'd have thought that Avatar was a perfect choice for a Disney park. After all it was a soppy Pocahontas story. Seemed to me like it could have been a Disney product in the first place.

Okay, good point . . . but you do realise Pochahontas was a major flop and Anything related to it in the parks shared the same fate.


That and they had to purchase the rights, which cost alot . . . when they already have the rights to Marvel and tons of other in house things they could have made . . . Ok, why is there no permanent TRON stuff yet? Why wasn't that their first priority? TRON-Land? anybody?

. . . so pissed . . . :mad:
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
HJTHX1138 said:
Okay, good point . . . but you do realise Pochahontas was a major flop and Anything related to it in the parks shared the same fate.


That and they had to purchase the rights, which cost alot . . . when they already have the rights to Marvel and tons of other in house things they could have made . . . Ok, why is there no permanent TRON stuff yet? Why wasn't that their first priority? TRON-Land? anybody?

. . . so pissed . . . :mad:

Well, none of those would fit in Animal Kingdom though, which needs material. Besides, I reject the notion of lands built on a single franchise anyhow, be they Disney in origin or not, unless they have proven longevity and substantial scope for expansion, either within or beyond the franchise. And those aren't the only criterion.

Again, the reason Indy fits into Adventureland is because he is drawn from the same tropes that the land is.

Incidentally, Stoo: there were to be Nazis in the Indy attraction, in an earlier conception of it. News to me too.
 

HJTHX1138

New member
Attila the Professor said:
Well, none of those would fit in Animal Kingdom though, which needs material. Besides, I reject the notion of lands built on a single franchise anyhow, be they Disney in origin or not, unless they have proven longevity and substantial scope for expansion, either within or beyond the franchise. And those aren't the only criterion.

True, and I agree regarding lands, I just don't understand their thought process.Plus, Why even call it that then?

They really do intend on giving it an entire "Land" though, so far as we know . . . It may turn into another Lucas like situation where we just get one ride, but I really think the parks need a set of priorities when it comes to parks and liscenses. D-World is huge. At least consider a smidge of TRON somewhere, it fits.

I'm more annoyed by the idea.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
HJTHX1138 said:
True, and I agree regarding lands, I just don't understand their thought process.Plus, Why even call it that then?

What even call <I>what</I> that? I'm not sure what you're saying here.

HJTHX1138 said:
They really do intend on giving it an entire "Land" though, so far as we know . . .

That's the plan, yes.

HJTHX1138 said:
It may turn into another Lucas like situation where we just get one ride,

It might be a rather limited land, but it will certainly be a land, even if there somehow ends up being only one ride, which is unlikely. It needs to go somewhere, after all, and there's no place for it yet.

HJTHX1138 said:
...but I really think the parks need a set of priorities when it comes to parks and liscenses. D-World is huge. At least consider a smidge of TRON somewhere, it fits.

Well, they need to prioritize licenses and franchises <I>less</I> as far as the parks go. It's something Iger is quite into, and that Lasseter's obsession with his Cars and Toy Story franchises only exacerbates. It's a failure of marketing imagination. Most of the great attractions in the history of the parks are not reliant upon any connection to a given film, Disney or otherwise. The Indiana Jones Adventure attractions come closer than most, and the fact that the ride is <I>not</I> simply retelling the narrative of the films is a major facet of the part.

Also notable is the fact that the ride, and the films from which it is derived, takes place in something that is a variant on our own world, rather than a fantastical non-Earth locale. (Yet another reason Avatar will be difficult to incorporate into the parks, and something I would perceive as a difficulty in a land based either on the universe of Star Wars or Middle Earth.) However, it is far to say that I find themed design that has its basis in our own world much more compelling than that which is not, so there is a bias at play here.

HJTHX1138 said:
I'm more annoyed by the idea.

It is an annoying idea, but not much more annoying to me than Cars Land or off-the-shelf Toy Story lands in Paris and Hong Kong or the toonification of EPCOT or the multitude of things that pretend to be relevant to Tomorrowland but aren't.

Which, of course, again invites a question relevant to those posed by Stoo: is it simply the fondness for Indiana Jones of those of us who like the character that allows us to not be bothered by their presence in the parks?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Attila the Professor said:
Incidentally, Stoo: there were to be Nazis in the Indy attraction, in an earlier conception of it. News to me too.

Dietrich's Heer would have been a safe option, but Vogel's Waffen SS might have been contentious for some quarters.

But then Disney did release a screen accurate printed Ark Crate with their ROTLA action figure range. As a counter offensive the German soldier it came with looked very unthreatening!

GERMANSOLDIER_loose.jpg
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Montana Smith said:
Dietrich's Heer would have been a safe option, but Vogel's Waffen SS might have been contentious for some quarters.

Indeed, the mention of it I saw used the term "Nazi," but obviously casual use of such doesn't actually mean anything.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Attila the Professor said:
Indeed, the mention of it I saw used the term "Nazi," but obviously casual use of such doesn't actually mean anything.

Brings to mind the Lucasfilm trademark on the TSR's ROTLA role-playing game:

nazitm.jpg


In Lucas' mind he was presenting Nazi soldiers, and it still intrigues me why he didn't let Hitler send the SS into Egypt, just as Himmler sent them into Tibet in 1938-39 (The SS Ahnenerbe Expedition).

When would Disney have expected to have their proposed Indyland up and running? Any time after their Ark crate release (2003) there's a chance that the word Nazi wouldn't be used at all. Though even in 2001 they'd already removed the Swastikas from their Micro Action Flying Wing.

Seems like Disney weren't sure which way to go.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Montana Smith said:
When would Disney have expected to have their proposed Indyland up and running? Any time after their Ark crate release (2003) there's a chance that the word Nazi wouldn't be used at all. Though even in 2001 they'd already removed the Swastikas from their Micro Action Flying Wing.

Seems like Disney weren't sure which way to go.

If you mean the multi-ride systems Lost Expedition project, it was intended for the mid-90s, the same time as the ride came out. Probably would have taken another year or so, though.

Anyhow, here's the passage from an interview with former imagineer Eddie Sotto about the attraction:

The strategy I thought made the most sense was to use one big set (ala Knott’s Berry Farm's Calico Mine ride.) The Knott’s ride had one central space you revisit several times. We also planned to make the Indy ride vehicle the show and use it more. After all, the Indy vehicle was expensive, and the moves the car could make were not being exploited. Before the car was to drive into big audio-animatronic scenes with Nazis. It was more spectacle and linear story and not too thrilling. Eventually we eliminated the expensive static show and turned it into more of a thrill ride.

We would eventually abandon the scenes with the audio-animatronic figures except for a few Indiana Jones figures. Tony Baxter liked our ideas, and then later the bosses got on board too.
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Attila the Professor said:
If you mean the multi-ride systems Lost Expedition project, it was intended for the mid-90s, the same time as the ride came out. Probably would have taken another year or so, though.

Anyhow, here's the passage from an interview with former imagineer Eddie Sotto about the attraction:

Sounds as though Sotto was using the term loosely, after the manner of Lucas.

When Lucas and Spielberg became inspired in the late 70s to make Raiders, they were, of course. taking their lead from the films of the 30s and 40s, which customarily used the term 'Nazi' to denote enemies of the state, who were often homegrown fifth columnists.

It would be awkward for Disney, with its worldwide branding, to continue that kind of propaganda. I'd expect them instead to focus on thrills and adventure.
 
Last edited:

dr.jones1986

Active member
Montana Smith said:
Dietrich's Heer would have been a safe option, but Vogel's Waffen SS might have been contentious for some quarters.

But then Disney did release a screen accurate printed Ark Crate with their ROTLA action figure range. As a counter offensive the German soldier it came with looked very unthreatening!

GERMANSOLDIER_loose.jpg

I have pictures of my first trip to WDW and the flying wing had a swastika on it just like in the movie. The last time I was there it no longer did have a swastika but a more benign looking cross (not accurate to the movie).
 

Montana Smith

Active member
dr.jones1986 said:
I have pictures of my first trip to WDW and the flying wing had a swastika on it just like in the movie. The last time I was there it no longer did have a swastika but a more benign looking cross (not accurate to the movie).

Must have switched them on later releases. Mine has the benign German crosses on the tails and wing tips.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Is that Brigitte Nielson?

...and you thought the recent Indy scult had eyeshadow!

Brigitte was far more fearsome.

As per Michael Crawford's review:

Moving up one star is the GERMAN SOLDIER, who does not belong in an Indiana Jones movie but rather BABES IN FREAKING TOYLAND! This is a horrible sculpt but generic enough to have a few of these, but WHY WOULD YOU? His hands are sculpted so poorly that he cannot even hold his rifle. Now that is really frustrating when your toy isn't sculpted well enough to hold his weapon!

Brigitte could also hold her own guns. :gun: :gun:
 
Top