DHS Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular Boulder Incident

[jah4955]

He means the novelization of the first film. The old EU or Legends novels despite the occasional bad idea were largely better than most of the stuff Disney has crapped out. In fact, Disney took one of the old Legends worst ideas "Resurrecting Palpatine" and ran with it in Rise of Skywalker.

o i c

 

[jah4955]

Liberty Square was an opening day land at Magic Kingdom.

And an idea of Walt's (for Disneyland)....first behind east Main Street, then where Matterhorn would be....

 

[FerretAfros]

There was never anything quite like Disneyland before, yet as the previous experiences of most those who built it was mostly filmmaking, not only did they incorporate much of their skills, but, by most accounts, wanted to create a general feel of being IN (various) films in a general way in most cases.

When Disneyland was built, there was no notion of being inside a film. That theme park design philosophy really only came about in the late 2000's, during the development of WWOHP and Carsland, but has become so ubiquitous that it may be difficult to imagine designing a park without that philosophy.

Even with Universal's "Ride the Movies" mantra in the 90's, it was really only the rides themselves that recreated the famous films. Even then, they took extensive liberty to modify and add items as needed to create compelling attractions; for example: the ET ride focuses extensively on his home planet which is never seen in the film, and Kongfrontation centered around the Roosevelt Island Tramway which wasn't a plot point in the referenced movie. Mickey's Toontown at Disneyland was "based on" the Toontown in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, but is almost entirely unrecognizable from it beyond the concept of an area where all the classic cartoon characters live.

Yes, many of the park's original designers came from a film background and they used their various skills to craft settings in ways that mimicked techniques used in film, but the theme park was always meant to be its own idea. The themed lands were broad genres that were popular and recognizable with audiences of the day, not a means to enter specific environments or even specific films. They relied on their film techniques because that's what they knew, not because they were trying to make an overly cinematic environment.

Fantasyland was the only land with any meaningful film tie-ins, and even then it featured several films with unremarkable box office performance, like Mr. Toad and Peter Pan. The reason Tinkerbell was used extensively in the television show intro is that she was viewed as an expendable character in the event that the park was a failure; it was too risky for Mickey or even a second-tier character like Dopey. The rest of the park was based on nostalgia, exploration, westerns, and future technology, all of which people understood without needing a specific Disney-branded media connection.

Audiences in 1955 simply didn't have the same attachment to media that we do today. If they missed seeing a television show live, it was gone forever. If they had a favorite movie, they'd have to wait years to see it again (if ever) for a theatrical re-release. Nobody had a desire to step into a specific location, because it was impossible for average people to really know the details of the environments: they saw them once and then only had their memories. There was no endlessly rewatching a film or TV series at home.

For example, I don't think there were really any Tomorrowland films Disney owed prior to 1955 other than the Season 1 episodes filmed & themed to "Tomorrowland."

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea came out in 1954, and its development was completely independent from the park and its marketing. Sets from the film were installed as a walk-through for the park's first few years in the building that would eventually house Star Tours. The Tomorrowland episodes of the TV series were notoriously late developments, not airing until spring 1955 because the studio creatives didn't really know how to tackle the subject; it's probably not a coincidence that the land was underdeveloped at opening and had the most extensive reworkings in the years to come.

Frontierland is really the land that Disney didn't have related branded content for prior to developing the theme park. But with their various television shows, Disney came to have some of the decade's most popular western characters with Davy Crockett and Zorro, and a variety of less-remembered ones that were still popular in their day like the Swamp Fox and Spin & Marty.

But again, that wasn't an issue because there was no expectation of the various lands representing branded content, they were meant to be their own thing. Sure, Adventureland was nominally based on the True Life Adventures nature documentaries and drew inspiration from The African Queen, but those were just jumping-off points from which the land was developed. Nearly nothing in the park on opening day was supposed to be a literal recreation of something from a film, including Sleeping Beauty Castle itself. It was all a romanticized version of the general idea behind those settings, not a copy of the settings themselves.

It's still broken down by lands, it's just that there are more of them. There was fantasyland, adventureland, frontierland and tomorrowland and somewhere along the way they renamed the area near Frontierland as Liberty Square. Totally removed from frontierland. Now they are building two new ones that are called Piston Peak National Park and Villiansland which has nothing to do with Liberty square or frontierland. Things change. Yea, I know a concept hard to accept but it has been happening for years and I would bet my lunch that it will continue.

This is simply incorrect. Liberty Square has always been a distinct land of its own beginning with the marketing materials years before the park opened. Piston Peak is not going to be separate from Frontierland; it's going to be part of the land in the same way that Caribbean Plaza is part of Adventureland, or Storybook Circus and/or the Enchanted Forest are part of Fantasyland.

 

[jah4955]

Ok, then they started with five lands. Sorry, I was never there until 11 years after the park opened. So what land did they link it too. It would be a stretch to attempt to connect it to Frontierland and it certainly isn't any connection to Fantasyland.

LS's always been considered its own land but on the same Guidebook pages as Frontierland

 

[lazyboy97o]

And an idea of Walt's (for Disneyland)....first behind east Main Street, then where Matterhorn would be....

The Liberty Street sign was up on Main Street until at least 1958 when the Matterhorn was already slated to replace Holiday Hill.

 

[jah4955]

When Disneyland was built, there was no notion of being inside a film. That theme park design philosophy really only came about in the late 2000's, during the development of WWOHP and Carsland, but has become so ubiquitous that it may be difficult to imagine designing a park without that philosophy.

Even with Universal's "Ride the Movies" mantra in the 90's, it was really only the rides themselves that recreated the famous films. Even then, they took extensive liberty to modify and add items as needed to create compelling attractions; for example: the ET ride focuses extensively on his home planet which is never seen in the film, and Kongfrontation centered around the Roosevelt Island Tramway which wasn't a plot point in the referenced movie. Mickey's Toontown at Disneyland was "based on" the Toontown in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, but is almost entirely unrecognizable from it beyond the concept of an area where all the classic cartoon characters live.

Yes, many of the park's original designers came from a film background and they used their various skills to craft settings in ways that mimicked techniques used in film, but the theme park was always meant to be its own idea. The themed lands were broad genres that were popular and recognizable with audiences of the day, not a means to enter specific environments or even specific films. They relied on their film techniques because that's what they knew, not because they were trying to make an overly cinematic environment.

Fantasyland was the only land with any meaningful film tie-ins, and even then it featured several films with unremarkable box office performance, like Mr. Toad and Peter Pan. The reason Tinkerbell was used extensively in the television show intro is that she was viewed as an expendable character in the event that the park was a failure; it was too risky for Mickey or even a second-tier character like Dopey. The rest of the park was based on nostalgia, exploration, westerns, and future technology, all of which people understood without needing a specific Disney-branded media connection.

Audiences in 1955 simply didn't have the same attachment to media that we do today. If they missed seeing a television show live, it was gone forever. If they had a favorite movie, they'd have to wait years to see it again (if ever) for a theatrical re-release. Nobody had a desire to step into a specific location, because it was impossible for average people to really know the details of the environments: they saw them once and then only had their memories. There was no endlessly rewatching a film or TV series at home.

You're viewing history through a modern lens, and its distorting the reality of the facts.

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea came out in 1954, and its development was completely independent from the park and its marketing. Sets from the film were installed as a walk-through for the park's first few years in the building that would eventually house Star Tours. The Tomorrowland episodes of the TV series were notoriously late developments, not airing until spring 1955 because the studio creatives didn't really know how to tackle the subject; it's probably not a coincidence that the land was underdeveloped at opening and had the most extensive reworkings in the years to come.

Frontierland is really the land that Disney didn't have related branded content for prior to developing the theme park. But with their various television shows, Disney came to have some of the decade's most popular western characters with Davy Crockett and Zorro, and a variety of less-remembered ones that were still popular in their day like the Swamp Fox and Spin & Marty.

But again, that wasn't an issue because there was no expectation of the various lands representing branded content, they were meant to be their own thing. Sure, Adventureland was nominally based on the True Life Adventures nature documentaries and drew inspiration from The African Queen, but those were just jumping-off points from which the land was developed. Nearly nothing in the park on opening day was supposed to be a literal recreation of something from a film, including Sleeping Beauty Castle itself. It was all a romanticized version of the general idea behind those settings, not a copy of the settings themselves.

This is simply incorrect. Liberty Square has always been a distinct land of its own beginning with the marketing materials years before the park opened. Piston Peak is not going to be separate from Frontierland; it's going to be part of the land in the same way that Caribbean Plaza is part of Adventureland, or Storybook Circus and/or the Enchanted Forest are part of Fantasyland.

I think we're mostly on the same page.

Virtually everything I've ever read/seen/heard about Disneyland (accounts from guests, Imagineers, scholars, and those from other walks of life....mainly from over a dozen books published by Disney) has virtually-unanimously said, in numerous ways, how its creators wanted the visitor experience to be analogous to being in "a" movie, not any particular movie.

*****Again, I take the greatest pride in not making any claims/opinions unless I know there are hard facts to back them up. If anyone asks I'll post a litany of citations substantiating my claim (but it will take time to compile)"*****

Regarding the non-Fantasylands in particular, I was trying to argue how they weren't drawing from any particular IP/film/TV show/etc, and I was offering Tomorrowland as a particular example that Disney simply didn't have any IP/films/etc....they had virtually nothing for TL (including money)...which is why 1.0 had paint and toilet exhibits...and yes, the 20K sets.

 

[jah4955]

The Liberty Street sign was up on Main Street until at least 1958 when the Matterhorn was already slated to replace Holiday Hill.

just relaying what I just read in the 70th Anniversary Disneyland book I got for Christmas.

I forgot which other book I read it from (will update when I remember), but it claimed the sign stayed up long after Disney decided to "give up."

 

[HMF]

When Disneyland was built, there was no notion of being inside a film. That theme park design philosophy really only came about in the late 2000's, during the development of WWOHP and Carsland.

Oh, good another reason to hate J.K. Rowling.

 

[jah4955]

The reason Tinkerbell was used extensively in the television show intro is that she was viewed as an expendable character in the event that the park was a failure; it was too risky for Mickey or even a second-tier character like Dopey.

From everything I've ever read, if the park was a failure, there would be no more Disney company.

Plus:

Dopey in 1955 was mostly known thru re-releases (last one before Disneyland opening was 1952).

Mickey was long-fading in 1955 (last short was 1953, a bit of resurgence later in 1955 with first MMC TV show).

Peter Pan wasn't a blockbuster, but it wasn't a flop either. And it was the most recent animated feature at the time of Disneyland TV show premiere.

 

[HMF]

Mickey was long-fading in 1955 (last short was 1953, a bit of resurgence later in 1955 with first MMC TV show).

That's mostly because Mickey became kind of a boring character because he became such an Icon for the company that they couldn't do much interesting with him out of fear of offending people which is really why Donald Duck and later Goofy were created.

 

[Chi84]

That's mostly because Mickey became kind of a boring character because he became such an Icon for the company that they couldn't do much interesting with him out of fear of offending people which is really why Donald Duck and later Goofy were created.

Characters tend to have different characteristics.

Are you saying that if Disney could have found a way to make Mickey more “interesting” there would have been no Donald Duck or Goofy?

 

[HMF]

I don't appreciate how you made a conclusion on me making conclusions thru distorting history thru a modern lens. I do admit I could have conveyed things more clearly.

I certainly don't have the attachment to media that many do today. I have rabbit ears on a TV that's unplugged nearly all of the time. That's it as far as my media watching is if you don't count old videos.

Beyond that I occasionally watch Disney+ if it's on while visiting family.

In those ways, I'm an "old fogie" and proud of it!

It wasn't as bad for me as it was 1955, but I knew the frustration of "if they missed seeing a television show live, it was gone forever." 3 reasons:

1. because I was being punished when not "making the grade"
2. a sporting event (on at the same time) got the priority (and the VCR)....I NEVER liked watching sports, but I understood then it was the same logic (you missed it, it was missed forever)
3. I was on the road ALOT for my "first career" (maybe I'll elaborate some day)

Nevertheless, Movies and TV were both huge in 1955. Maybe virtually no one decided to step-into a movieworld like the Potterlands, but it was central to at least American culture.

Seeing as how you actually have a memory of life in 1955 and I would assume the majority of us don't so I definitely trust your opinion on the subject.

 

[jah4955]

Characters tend to have different characteristics.

Are you saying that if Disney could have found a way to make Mickey more “interesting” there would have been no Donald Duck or Goofy?

That's mostly because Mickey became kind of a boring character because he became such an Icon for the company that they couldn't do much interesting with him out of fear of offending people which is really why Donald Duck and later Goofy were created.

Before Donald, Mickey was being restricted for at least 3 (albeit connected) reasons:

1. He was quickly becoming a "role model" because of his superstar status (but unlike all the other big stars, he was a cartoon)
2. Because of that Disney got slammed by mail saying "Mickey wouldn't do that"
3. Walt was super-protective of Mickey for other contexts and also said "Mickey wouldn't do that."

That's where Donald came in handy. He could (also) have the human foibles Mickey couldn't....making Donald the more relatable character, and the most popular for a time.

Goofy started as little more than a bit player 2 years before Donald's debut (Goofy's first appearances (as Dippy Dawg) become public domain in 2028), but it was not until after Donald's creation that Goofy's buffoonish nature blossomed (largely b/c of Art Babbit).

 

[HMF]

Before Donald, Mickey was being restricted for at least 3 (albeit connected) reasons:

1. He was quickly becoming a "role model" because of his superstar status (but unlike all the other big stars, he was a cartoon)
2. Because of that Disney got slammed by mail saying "Mickey wouldn't do that"
3. Walt was super-protective of Mickey and for other contexts said "Mickey wouldn't do that."

That's where Donald came in handy. He could (also) have the human foibles Mickey couldn't....making Donald the more relatable character, and the most popular for a time.

Goofy started as little more than a bit player 2 years before Donald's debut (Goofy's first appearances become public domain in 2028), but it was not until after Donald's creation that Goofy's buffoonish nature blossomed (largely b/c Art Babbit).

Indeed, that's why the Steamboat Willie Mickey is now so popular with every exploitation horror filmmaker under the sun.

 

[jah4955]

Seeing as how you actually have a memory of life in 1955 and I would assume the majority of us don't so I definitely trust your opinion on the subject.

My apologies. 100% my fault. I intended to type a word that did not originally appear...I previously realized I need to spend more time editing....this is more proof.

It wasn't as bad for me as it was IN 1955,

I'm not that old.

But I vividly remember when there was no more than one TV in anyone's house. And I remember when there was no home video recording devices. And of course no home computers. And the "peer" expectation that you were going to watch what everyone else was watching...whether you wanted to or not.

 

[jah4955]

Indeed, that's why the Steamboat Willie Mickey is now so popular with every exploitation horror filmmaker under the sun.

yeah...fortunately, that seems to be getting old (if it ever wasn't).

If the trend continues there'll be Betty Boop and Pluto horror films later this year lol!

Mickey was at first a jerk (to be nice). Ironic that that's probably his most watched cartoon by a landslide (either that or "Christmas Carol.")

 

[jah4955]

yeah...fortunately, that seems to be getting old (if it ever wasn't).

If the trend continues there'll be Betty Boop and Pluto horror films later this year lol!

Mickey was at first a jerk. Ironic that that's probably his most watched cartoon by a landslide (either that or "Christmas Carol.")

They had the Muppets visit the Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular in 1990...why not "Mickey & the Gang?"

 

[lazyboy97o]

Nevertheless, Movies and TV were both huge in 1955. Maybe virtually no one decided to step-into a movieworld like the Potterlands, but it was central to at least American culture.

The idea of themed experiences, stepping into a sort of tableau, predates the invention of the moving picture camera by quite some time. Things like cyclorama paintings were intended to place the viewer with an experience. Garden follies date back centuries eventually becoming more built out like the Queen’s Hamlet at Versailles. The Exposition Universelle gave us not only the Eiffel Tower but also the Street of Cairo and other themed villages that started a trend in expositions featuring themed areas. A Trip to the Moon debuted at the Pan-American Exposition and then became a marquee attraction at two of Coney Island’s amusement parks.

 

[HMF]

My apologies. 100% my fault. I intended to type a word that did not originally appear...I previously realized I need to spend more time editing....this is more proof.

It wasn't as bad for me as it was IN 1955,

I'm not that old.

But I vividly remember when there was only one TV in anyone's house. And I remember when there was no home video recording devices. And of course no home computers. And the "peer" expectation that you were going to watch what everyone else was watching...whether you wanted to or not.

Oh sorry, My mistake.

 

[ChrisFL]

What was the topic again?