With all due respect, THX, the fact that you're not bothered comes as no surprise. Afterall, the Forbidden Eye ride was your first introduction to Indiana Jones, before you had seen any of the movies.
(Sigh) Formally, yes, but even then I knew about Indiana Jones outside of that. I'd seen commercials for Temple of Doom on VHS, I knew there was a darker edge to his adventures, something partially present in the ride.
. . . and I also like to imagine I have the capacity to look at it outside of that context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
I think what he's suggesting, which probably has some validity, is that a similar ride might have ended up happening, even without Indy existing, based either on some other pre-existing character or a newly created one.
Precisely. Some other adventure character/stereotype would be prominent in the park.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forbidden Eye
Exactly. Without Walt, the Disney company didn't really have a vision, the theme parks dropped in attendance and they need an outside sources to attract more guests. And what defined family family entertainment(or entertainment in general) better than George Lucas with Star Wars and Indiana Jones(especially in the 70s and 80s)?
Never saw it that way . . . you make a good point. I hope they don't still feel that way, because their original stuff is often great and doesn't need a movie tie-in.
Haunted Mansion, Space Mountain, how about the original Pirates?
Last edited by HJTHX1138 : 01-21-2012 at 02:51 AM.
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 6,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by HJTHX1138
(Sigh) Formally, yes, but even then I knew about Indiana Jones outside of that. I'd seen commercials for Temple of Doom on VHS, I knew there was a darker edge to his adventures, something partially present in the ride.
. . . and I also like to imagine I have the capacity to look at it outside of that context.
Hi, HJTHX1138. From your introductory post in the "Newbie Forum", you wrote that your "1st taste" of Indy was your experience on the Forbidden Eye ride at 6 years old. Then, later, you "stumbled upon a copy of 'Temple of Doom' on VHS".
Sure, of course you can try to look at it outside of that context but will never be able to fully understand the shock & bewilderment of knowing that Indy (& Star Wars) had become part of Disney World. Younger fans, like yourself, grew up with the connection already in place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HJTHX1138
Precisely. Some other adventure character/stereotype would be prominent in the park.
How can you say this with such certainty? The parks were doing fine WITHOUT the Lucasfilm additions (despite what Mr. Forbidden Eye incorrectly claims).
Quote:
Originally Posted by HJTHX1138
...their original stuff is often great and doesn't need a movie tie-in.
Haunted Mansion, Space Mountain, how about the original Pirates?
Indeed. Something original would have been much more respectable.
From your introductory post in the "Newbie Forum", you wrote that your "1st taste" of Indy was your experience on the Forbidden Eye ride at 6 years old. Then, later, you "stumbled upon a copy of 'Temple of Doom' on VHS".
Sure, of course you can try to look at it outside of that context but will never be able to fully understand the shock & bewilderment of knowing that Indy (& Star Wars) had become part of Disney World. Younger fans, like yourself, grew up with the connection already in place.
What I really meant was that I finally watched it. It was a VHS in my house, I just decided to watch it one day. I knew Indy was a departure in tone for disney, and I could tell that from the ride. Maybe I can't see it exactly the way you do, but
. . . I can guarantee I'm no stranger to shock . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
How can you say this with such certainty? The parks were doing fine WITHOUT the Lucasfilm additions (despite what Mr. Forbidden Eye incorrectly claims).
I can't. I'm just theorizing. Disney kinda reinvented every fairytale they "borrowed". It's an educated guess at best.
Come Come now...a direct plagerism, lifting....I spotted it in the first 5 minutes.
I had my suspicions that the whole of KOTCS was lifted from Mary Poppins, but its been so long since I saw the original. Something to do with a bucketful of sugar...
I had my suspicions that the whole of KOTCS was lifted from Mary Poppins, but its been so long since I saw the original. Something to do with a bucketful of sugar...
Pretty much . . .
AND
I mean, like, DUH and stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
Not at all sarcastic, HJTHX1138. The greeting is 100% genuine.
Sorry . . . but you see what I'm getting at though, right?
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 6,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
Come Come now...a direct plagerism, lifting....I spotted it in the first 5 minutes.
You'll have to be more specific, Paley. The last time I watched, "Mary Poppins", was about 7 years ago with my niece and the time before that was lo-o-o-o-ng ago when I was but a wee lad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HJTHX1138
Sorry . . . but you see what I'm getting at though, right?
Unfortunately, I don't. Were my words too blunt? In real life, I'm an extremely friendly person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HJTHX1138
I knew Indy was a departure in tone for disney, and I could tell that from the ride. Maybe I can't see it exactly the way you do, but
. . . I can guarantee I'm no stranger to shock . . .
If a Disney/Avatar connection shocks you than surely that should give some sense of how I felt when "Star Wars" & Indy began appearing in the parks.
Now let me ask you this (and please answer honestly): As a 6-year-old, when you first took the Forbidden Eye ride, did you think that Indiana Jones was a character from a Disney film?
Since the ride supposedly has a 4 foot height requirement, you must have been the tallest kid in your kindergarten class!
Since the ride supposedly has a 4 foot height requirement, you must have been the tallest kid in your kindergarten class!
Actually, six years old is usually 1st grade, kindergaten/preshool is usually when you're 3-5, and yeah I did just barely get on. (Stupid height requirement snake! )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
Unfortunately, I don't. Were my words too blunt? In real life, I'm an extremely friendly person.
I meant what i said in regards to our debate, whoops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
If a Disney/Avatar connection shocks you than surely that should give some sense of how I felt when "Star Wars" & Indy began appearing in the parks.
Now let me ask you this (and please answer honestly): As a 6-year-old, when you first took the Forbidden Eye ride, did you think that Indiana Jones was a character from a Disney film?
Yes, I did. I was absolutely CRAZY about Star Tours, If I didn't ride it every visit, I got really pissed. So the whole Lucas thing is always a big part of my trip.
I knew Star Wars and Indy were both Lucas-things, I just wasn't that familiar with Indy. He was just "Awesome Adventure Dude" until I watched Temple of Doom like a few days later.
'Sides, Indy was too cool to be a Disney thing, at least in my mind. My dad was trying to reassure me I would love because I liked ST so much.
This also explains why I was scared of the queue, I had no idea what the ride would be like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HJTHX1138
Yes, I did. I was absolutely CRAZY about Star Tours, If I didn't ride it every visit, I got really pissed. So the whole Lucas thing is always a big part of my trip.
I knew Star Wars and Indy were both Lucas-things, I just wasn't that familiar with Indy. He was just "Awesome Adventure Dude" until I watched Temple of Doom like a few days later.
'Sides, Indy was too cool to be a Disney thing, at least in my mind. My dad was trying to reassure me I would love because I liked ST so much.
This also explains why I was scared of the queue, I had no idea what the ride would be like.
Uh, I misread the question, I meant to type "No, I didn't" (that would explain the rest of my answer. I can't seem to edit it now).
Oops.
Last edited by Violet : 01-31-2012 at 06:24 PM.
Reason: double posts
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 6,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by HJTHX1138
Actually, six years old is usually 1st grade, kindergaten/preshool is usually when you're 3-5, and yeah I did just barely get on. (Stupid height requirement snake! )
Depending on the month someone was born, it is possible to be 6 while in kindergarten. (I turned 6 just before the end). As far as height is concerned, I became tall later but doubt I was 4 feet at the age of 6! That's why I say, you must have been tall for your age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HJTHX1138
I knew Star Wars and Indy were both Lucas-things, I just wasn't that familiar with Indy.
Seriously? When I was 6, I had no conception as to who made what films. (Although, Disney was an exception and, perhaps, Sid & Marty Krofft shows, etc. on Saturday morning TV.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HJTHX1138
'Sides, Indy was too cool to be a Disney thing, at least in my mind.
How would you have known the difference as a six-year-old? As in: Here I am on a ride at Disneyland, and it's really cool, but I'm in Grade 1 and can tell that Disney never made a movie about Indiana Jones.
(Not trying to be aggressive with you, THX1138, because I truly want to know.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForbiddenEye
Exactly. Without Walt, the Disney company didn't really have a vision, the theme parks dropped in attendance and they need an outside sources to attract more guests.
ForbiddenEye, where are you getting this idea from? Records show that each park's attendance was GOING UP in the years before each "Star Wars"/Indy ride was built so I don't know why you say that they were dropping. That isn't true, dude.
Seriously? When I was 6, I had no conception as to who made what films. (Although, Disney was an exception and, perhaps, Sid & Marty Krofft shows, etc. on Saturday morning TV.)
How would you have known the difference as a six-year-old? As in: Here I am on a ride at Disneyland, and it's really cool, but I'm in Grade 1 and can tell that Disney never made a movie about Indiana Jones.
[size="1"](Not trying to be aggressive with you, THX1138, because I truly want to know.)
(sigh)
I must emphasize how I just barely got on, the snake statue for the height marking was pretty foreboding too
Besides . . .
Something in my gut just told me . . . When you're a kid, you're way more ingrossed in the environment and the little details.
Everything about that ride was drastically different. The room with the spikes scared the crap out of me (I was SCREAMING at my dad not to shake the rubber bamboo shoot holding up the celing), Disneyland didn't normally scare kids, unless it's the Haunted Mansion (The graveyard music always cheered me up though, seeing Indy at the end with the triumphant music where he sends us off with a sarcastic quip had the same effect).
(I may have been seven. That's how my parents remember it too.)
I swear I knew the difference. When I saw that ToD VHS lying around again, it was reinforced.
In my mind all Disney made was cartoons, this was a live action thing. The same guy was on this box:
Last edited by HJTHX1138 : 01-31-2012 at 10:51 PM.
Seriously? When I was 6, I had no conception as to who made what films. (Although, Disney was an exception and, perhaps, Sid & Marty Krofft shows, etc. on Saturday morning TV.)
I have to say I was almost six when Raiders came out and I totally knew who George Lucas was due to Star Wars and heard Spielbergs name a billion times before due to Close Encounters and Jaws. If you watched TV or could read it was hard not to hear and see those names. I guess it depends on the kid though.
I have to say I was almost six when Raiders came out and I totally knew who George Lucas was due to Star Wars and heard Spielbergs name a billion times before due to Close Encounters and Jaws. If you watched TV or could read it was hard not to hear and see those names. I guess it depends on the kid though.
This.
The version of the SW trilogy I had featured interviews with Leonard Maltin, he mentioned Indy all the time.
How can you say this with such certainty? The parks were doing fine WITHOUT the Lucasfilm additions (despite what Mr. Forbidden Eye incorrectly claims).
Quote:
ForbiddenEye, where are you getting this idea from? Records show that each park's attendance was GOING UP in the years before each "Star Wars"/Indy ride was built so I don't know why you say that they were dropping. That isn't true, dude.
Actually, attendance at Disneyland DID drop in the early 80s.
Of course, maybe its more accurate to say Disney the company as a whole was suffering in the early 80s. That definitely is true(why else do you think Disney made Tron and The Black Hole if not to cash in on the Star Wars phase).
Disney needed something big and excited to attract wide attention like they did when Walt was around, so why not Lucas?
Of course, maybe its more accurate to say Disney the company as a whole was suffering in the early 80s. That definitely is true(why else do you think Disney made Tron and The Black Hole if not to cash in on the Star Wars phase).
Disney needed something big and excited to attract wide attention like they did when Walt was around, so why not Lucas?
Speaking of which, Star Tours was almost "Black Hole: The Ride", until they realized the popularity was not with-standing. (It seems like it was almost a predecessor to Buzz: Astro Blasters too)
Thanks for finding that graph, Forbidden Eye, but it's a bit dubious. (Remember, you wrote "the theme parks dropped in attendance". Not just one park.)
1) It doesn't seem to correspond with the numbers I've seen.
2) It says "Disneyland". Is this just for the Anaheim park or for all of them?
3) In the early-to-mid '80s, attendance for Walt Disney World in Florida was at an ALL-TIME HIGH!
4) The Tokyo park opened in '83 but its numbers quickly shot up like a rocket in the following years...(and continued up & up & up).
5) Notice how your graph shows that the 1985 & '86 attendance were the HIGHEST POINTS since the beginning. This was before Star Tours in early '87 (and Captain EO in late '86).
It would be very interesting to know exactly when Lucas was approached to collaborate on the Star Tours ride. The answer might be in one of those articles that Attila provided links to... (I've read them but don't recall the details, at the moment). Juxtaposing that info with the dates of park attendance might reveal something...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forbidden Eye
Of course, maybe its more accurate to say Disney the company as a whole was suffering in the early 80s. That definitely is true(why else do you think Disney made Tron and The Black Hole if not to cash in on the Star Wars phase).
While I agree that Disney, in general, was probably suffering during the early '80s, it must be said that, "The Black Hole", was already planned even before "Star Wars" came out (and there was no guarantee that SW was going to be a smash hit). "Tron" can be associated with the growing popularity of home computers more than anything else. It was a very, original concept which had nothing in common with "Star Wars" (other than being in the sci-fi genre).
On the outside, both of those films may seem like cash-ins on "Star Wars" but they really weren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forbidden Eye
Disney needed something big and excited to attract wide attention like they did when Walt was around, so why not Lucas?
Because using "Star Wars" and Indiana Jones was a cop-out solution which compromised Disney's artistic integrity. Why not create something NEW using their own team? (Or at the very least; why not develop something NEW with Lucas...as was done with Captain EO?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HJTHX1138
Speaking of which, Star Tours was almost "Black Hole: The Ride", until they realized the popularity was not with-standing. (It seems like it was almost a predecessor to Buzz: Astro Blasters too)
Supposedly, the main reason why "The Black Hole" Ride was canned was because it was too costly to make at that time (and, yes, the movie wasn't a box office success).
Thanks for finding that graph, Forbidden Eye, but it's a bit dubious. (Remember, you wrote "the theme parks dropped in attendance". Not just one park.)
1) It doesn't seem to correspond with the numbers I've seen.
2) It says "Disneyland". Is this just for the Anaheim park or for all of them?
3) In the early-to-mid '80s, attendance for Walt Disney World in Florida was at an ALL-TIME HIGH!
4) The Tokyo park opened in '83 but its numbers quickly shot up like a rocket in the following years...(and continued up & up & up).
5) Notice how your graph shows that the 1985 & '86 attendance were the HIGHEST POINTS since the beginning. This was before Star Tours in early '87 (and Captain EO in late '86).
Well I only mention Disneyland because
1. It's the park I'm most familiar with.
2. It's where Temple of the Forbidden Eye is located, which is what you seem to take the most issue with as you said you don't mind Indy being at Hollywood Studios that much(which didn't even exist until 1989).
But since you seem to be quite sure of your info regarding WDW, mind posting it to counter your point?
Quote:
It would be very interesting to know exactly when Lucas was approached to collaborate on the Star Tours ride. The answer might be in one of those articles that Attila provided links to... (I've read them but don't recall the details, at the moment). Juxtaposing that info with the dates of park attendance might reveal something...
Well there's not a specific date given, but its safe to assume about 1984, when Michael Eisner and Frank Wells joined Disney and were responsible for putting Disney back on track in the mainstream.
Because using "Star Wars" and Indiana Jones was a cop-out solution which compromised Disney's artistic integrity. Why not create something NEW using their own team? (Or at the very least; why not develop something NEW with Lucas...as was done with Captain EO?)
I think the real problem, and why this debate is still continuing, is because you seem unable to accept that Disney is not the same Disney that you grew up with. Like everything else, Disney has changed; they're now a billion dollar corporation that owns ESPN. Even Walt prided on the fact that Disneyland would never be "complete" and that it would always be innovation like the rest of his company.
What you see as "a cop-out" I see as keeping up with the times. Now that Disney has had an animation renaissance, including their success with Pixar, its easy to look back now and say Disney doesn't need Lucas' association to be successful, but its worked so well for so long, there's no reason to dread it or view it as "destroying Disney's integrity.
Just curious, how do you feel about recent news that Disney has stopped their rule about cast members not being allowed to grow facial hair? Does that destroy the "integrity" in your view?
Last edited by Attila the Professor : 02-05-2012 at 08:43 AM.
Reason: Fixed quote tags.
I think what Stoo is trying to convey is that there is a certainly more respect due when they come up with some original, like the sometimes (rarely) do, but that's really never been Disney's modus operandi in the first place.
A ton of their films, early and late, have either been adaptations of fairytales or myths or projects involving an "Outside" artist or writer. Everything else always has an outside influence, so it's sort of reinvention.
Whenever Disney tries to think outise the box, they start by picking up Independent artists that have something unique or different to give I.E.:
Harlan Ellison - Famous for writing "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream". His tenure only lasted a day, but he was hired as a writer for Disney.
Steven Lisberger: Directed TRON for them in 1981. Disney was worried about how they could relate to youth. Lisberger showed up at their door with TRON already mostly designed and ready to go.
Tim Burton: Worked as a sort of concept artist until "Frankenweenie earned him some name. Moved away from Disney by directing "Pee Wee's Big Adventure" and "BeetleJuice". Came back to make "The Nightmare Before Christmas" in 1992-93, another thing added to the park recently.
Gerald Scarfe: Worked on Hercules, his claim to fame is probably making the animated sequences in the movie version of "Pink Floyd's The Wall".
and then Pixar, which started as a Lucasfilm project with Apple . . . I think.
The point is, Disney's thing is outside influence and idea marketing with artists, so integrity should really be about something else. Disney in my mind is about artists, the business side crawling around . . .
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 6,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by HJTHX1138
I think what Stoo is trying to convey is that there is a certainly more respect due when they come up with some original, like the sometimes (rarely) do, but that's really never been Disney's modus operandi in the first place.
A ton of their films, early and late, have either been adaptations of fairytales or myths or projects involving an "Outside" artist or writer. Everything else always has an outside influence, so it's sort of reinvention.
With all due respect, mate, it would be wise for you to actually READ the thread before making assumptions about what I'm "trying to convey". This issue was already discussed just 1 & 2 pages before you joined into the conversation...but I'll repeat the answers again for your sake.
Repost from 23 September, 2011:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
The "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" ride opened 101 years after the novel was published and Disney already had *2* Verne-based films under their belt. (The other one being, "In Search of the Castaways", which was based on Verne's, "Les Enfants du Capitaine Grant".)
The Lucasfilm attractions set a new precedent because Disney never made a film or animation based upon those properties (and the creator of said properties is still alive today).
Repost from 22 October, 2011:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
Last month, I should have been more specific when writing, "Disney should get their BOOTY using their own accomplishments & CHARM", because I didn't strictly mean original, Disney characters only. By "own accomplishments", I was including stories & characters that had already been adapted by Disney before they appeared in the parks. Their distinct designs and modifications are the products of Disney's artists and serve as models for the attractions & mascots. The physical manifestations of these outside properties are based on the Disney versions of them, therefore, Disney's own accomplishment.
Examples: The "20,000 Leagues" attractions use/used the Disney/Harper Goff designs which bear little resemblance to the descriptions in the novel and its illustrations by Alphonse de Neuville. Mascots from "Alice in Wonderland" don't look like the original, Tenniel illustrations. Mr. Toad's Wild Ride differs from the various illustrations from "Wind in the Willows", etc., etc., etc.
Whereas, the droids & Indiana Jones seen in the Lucas rides are not 'Disneyfied' interpretations. They were pre-fabricated by someone else and, therefore, NOT Disney accomplishments.
Hope this clarifies my point of view, HJTHX1138. You wrote about a "sort of reinvention" but, in the case of Lucas properties, that doesn't apply.
With all due respect, mate, it would be wise for you to actually READ the thread before making assumptions about what I'm "trying to convey". This issue was already discussed just 1 & 2 pages before you joined into the conversation...but I'll repeat the answers again for your sake.
Repost from 23 September, 2011:
Repost from 22 October, 2011:
Hope this clarifies my point of view, HJTHX1138. You wrote about a "sort of reinvention" but, in the case of Lucas properties, that doesn't apply.
I apologize for just jumping in, but this thread is HUGE.
I get your point know, It's just that they do tend to use other artist's solidified stuff all the time I.E. Roger Rabbit, Dick Tracy etc. It's not insanely far fetched.
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 6,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by HJTHX1138
I apologize for just jumping in, but this thread is HUGE.
No worries. I understand. Just don't do it again, THX!
Quote:
Originally Posted by HJTHX1138
I get your point know, It's just that they do tend to use other artist's solidified stuff all the time I.E. Roger Rabbit, Dick Tracy etc. It's not insanely far fetched.
Nah. Those examples are useless since there weren't any park attractions based on "Roger Rabbit" (1988) nor "Dick Tracy" (1990) before those films were made. They bear zero relevance towards the case in question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HJTHX1138
(sigh)
I must emphasize how I just barely got on, the snake statue for the height marking was pretty foreboding too.
And I must emphasize how the comments about your height were not intended as a put-down. Just an observation, THX.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HJTHX1138
Something in my gut just told me . . .
I swear I knew the difference. When I saw that ToD VHS lying around again, it was reinforced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HJTHX1138
This.
The version of the SW trilogy I had featured interviews with Leonard Maltin, he mentioned Indy all the time.
Judging from your MIXED comments, it's difficult to tell whether you knew that Indy WASN'T a Disney thing due to:
A) your gut feeling
B) your family's Leonard Maltin tapes
Quote:
Originally Posted by HJTHX1138
Everything about that ride was drastically different. The room with the spikes scared the crap out of me (I was SCREAMING at my dad not to shake the rubber bamboo shoot holding up the celing), Disneyland didn't normally scare kids,
---
In my mind all Disney made was cartoons, this was a live action thing.
Congratulations, HJTHX1138! You have reinforced one of my points!
That said, the article is poorly written and does not distinguish between reliable information, widespread rumors, and pure speculation and wishful thinking on the part of the authors. So take with a healthy dose of skepticism.
From your introductory post in the "Newbie Forum", you wrote that your "1st taste" of Indy was your experience on the Forbidden Eye ride at 6 years old. Then, later, you "stumbled upon a copy of 'Temple of Doom' on VHS".
Were my words too blunt? In real life, I'm an extremely friendly person.
) 
)
