Rumor Is Indiana Jones Planning an Adventure to Disney's Animal Kingdom?

[lazyboy97o]

I didn't say anything specifically about GotG, or any specific instance - simply that the notion that synergy wasn't a huge part of the creation of Disneyland is absurd. I mean, he called it...DISNEYland. If he had intended for it to be some separate entity and not cross-promote he would have started by giving it another name. Oh, and Sleeping Beauty Castle...

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous stretches ever. It was his name. What movie was EPCOT promoting? Clearly it must have been a city all about movie franchises since it was the focus of the DISNEY World project.

 

[AEfx]

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous stretches ever. It was his name. What movie was EPCOT promoting? Clearly it must have been a city all about movie franchises since it was the focus of the DISNEY World project.

This doesn't make any sense to me, but then again - you often have that effect on me LOL.

EPCOT wasn't meant to be a theme park. It was actually an idea for a city. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion, as it was a completely separate thing from the creation of Disneyland.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'm sorry, but that is really revisionist.

Disney made a financing deal with ABC to help pay for the parks, and they were faced with filling an hour long weekly television show. It wasn't some grand creative plan - it was marketing synergy. The only reason they kept doing Davy Crocket instead of moving on to various other historical figures as they had intended, for example, was the wild success of the merchandise. This is all well-documented.

The show was about the park and there were other segments on other figures. Davy Crockett amounted to three whole episodes of a weekly show.

This doesn't make any sense to me, but then again - you often have that effect on me LOL.

EPCOT wasn't meant to be a theme park. It was actually an idea for a city. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion, as it was a completely separate thing from the creation of Disneyland.

It’s your nonsense. You’re the one who said the naming is proof of synergy.

 

[AEfx]

The show was about the park and there were other segments on other figures. Davy Crockett amounted to three whole episodes of a weekly show.

The initial 3. Then they did several more, and went so far as to combine them into film presentations. All because of the overwhelming merchandise profits - which is universally recognized as the first modern pop culture craze that was a product of cross-promotion and the power of television to sell stuff.

Cripes, at least read the Wikipedia page if you want to keep talking about this. Or you could go to the original source material much of the history of the television program there is referenced from.

It’s your nonsense. You’re the one who said the naming is proof of synergy.

The naming of DISNEYLAND.

Then you brought up EPCOT for some reason, and we both agree that it wasn't meant to be synergistic with anything, so again, I don't know what in hell you are going on about. Nor do I really care at this point, LOL - as there is so much evidence of the fact of Disneyland being a pioneer in corporate synergy it's akin to discussing evolution with someone who doesn't believe we are related to chimpanzees.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I didn't say anything specifically about GotG, or any specific instance - simply that the notion that synergy wasn't a huge part of the creation of Disneyland is absurd. I mean, he called it...DISNEYland. If he had intended for it to be some separate entity and not cross-promote he would have started by giving it another name. Oh, and Sleeping Beauty Castle...

Not to mention, that completely ignores the fact that Disney was on the cusp of all these things, and the time and place he existed in. To think he would not have developed along with the times shows a fundamental lack of understanding of everything the man stood for.

It's the same "time in a bubble" argument people use to say that buying the rights to Winnie the Pooh or Mary Poppins was somehow different than Disney acquiring properties today - the only difference was, Disney couldn't buy the rights to things because they were not for sale, he could only "rent" them. So he just mined materials for stories that weren't under copyright for most everything else.

Yes, Disney was on the cusp of cross-promotion. BUT he also had other creative values that mitigated and shaped this particular inclination, including a dedication to quality, a belief in thematic unity, and a driving ideology tied to corporately-controlled science. It is not absurd to point out the degree to which the modern Disney has elevated cross-promotion over those other values.

And again, the intensity and explicitness of cross-promotion in modern Disney parks is far, far greater than Disney would have dreamed of. Disney DID create rides without IP connections, something the modern Disney doesn't do. The connection between synergistically-linked media elements is also of a degree and type different from that with which Disney was familiar and comfortable.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The initial 3. Then they did several more, and went so far as to combine them into film presentations. All because of the overwhelming merchandise profits - which is universally recognized as the first modern pop culture craze that was a product of cross-promotion and the power of television to sell stuff.

Cripes, at least read the Wikipedia page if you want to keep talking about this. Or you could go to the original source material much of the history of the television program there is referenced from.

It was another two episodes and they came after the park opened.

The naming of DISNEYLAND.

Then you brought up EPCOT for some reason, and we both agree that it wasn't meant to be synergistic with anything, so again, I don't know what in hell you are going on about. Nor do I really care at this point, LOL - as there is so much evidence of the fact of Disneyland being a pioneer in corporate synergy it's akin to discussing evolution with someone who doesn't believe we are related to chimpanzees.

The name Disney World is patterned after Disneyland. If it is true for Disneyland then it must be true for Disney World.

Nobody is denying that Disney utilized synergy and different mediums. The issue is with the assertion that it is no different than what is done today, and that is demonstrably false.

 

[FigmentJedi]

I'm sorry, but that is really revisionist.

Disney made a financing deal with ABC to help pay for the parks, and they were faced with filling an hour long weekly television show. It wasn't some grand creative plan - it was marketing synergy. The only reason they kept doing Davy Crocket instead of moving on to various other historical figures as they had intended, for example, was the wild success of the merchandise. This is all well-documented.

And most of those slots relied on material from their back catalog of animation, True Life Adventures, and the handful of live-action films they had at the time. Like Davy Crockett and the first Tomorrowland show were the only new story-driven material in that first season and one of the Frontierland shows was turning Treasure Island into a two-part serial.

Like no duh the Disneyland show was all about marketing synergy, but in trying to make a show to advertise the park, it resulted in creating new media material to market lands based around genres that previously lacked an association with the Disney brand. And they did move onto other American history-based material besides just Davy Crockett as the show went forward, though stuff like Swamp Fox and Johnny Tremain (whose television serial debut started right off the bat with Walt saying "Hey, check out our plans for Liberty Street") never reached the soaring heights of Crockettmania.

People keep saying "Oh if current management was in charge back then, Frontierland would be called Davy Crockett Land", but they don't stop to think that if Disneyland's original design was based around a pure IP mandate of whatever Disney had in their catalog pre-1954, it probably would have just been a roided up Fantasyland. Disney's initial forays into television could have just as easily been a pure company counterpart to the Bugs Bunny Show or all those other "Let's just put all these old theatrical shorts into simple syndication ready blocks" you had popping up at the time.

 

[AEfx]

Yes, Disney was on the cusp of cross-promotion. BUT he also had other creative values that mitigated and shaped this particular inclination, including a dedication to quality, a belief in thematic unity, and a driving ideology tied to corporately-controlled science. It is not absurd to point out the degree to which the modern Disney has elevated cross-promotion over those other values.

And again, the intensity and explicitness of cross-promotion in modern Disney parks is far, far greater than Disney would have dreamed of. Disney DID create rides without IP connections, something the modern Disney doesn't do. The connection between synergistically-linked media elements is also of a degree and type different from that with which Disney was familiar and comfortable.

Yes, yes, and he walked on air and turned water into milkshakes, yadda yadda.

Sorry, but while we can analyze what he did do in the environment he existed in, assigning these mythical values to him simply because he died so early on in the development of mass media, and assuming that he would have been exactly as you think he was - and would have remained so as the market changed - is just fan mythmaking. Had he lived another few decades, you very well may have felt differently about the things he may have done.

I get it - things have become more intrinsically tied to IP. But it's a train that he started running and was already progressing on. Train is actually a good term to use - because aside from the things in the parks that were tied to films (again, haven't seen anyone have any excuses for Sleeping Beauty castle...) they were tied to his personal interests and not some esoteric, lofty academic notions. Trains. Pirates. And let's be frank - large chunks of the original Disneyland that weren't tied to Disney IP was filler to get stuff in place for people to do when it opened.

Most of the fan notions go back to Pirates, and HM. Pirates was because he had a strong interest in pirates. HM was because every theme park had a haunted house and he wanted to do it better. He was all about quality, but so much of these notions people have about him are far later inventions that only theme park fans seem to hold.

 

[lazyboy97o]

People keep saying "Oh if current management was in charge back then, Frontierland would be called Davy Crockett Land", but they don't stop to think that if Disneyland's original design was based around a pure IP mandate of whatever Disney had in their catalog pre-1954, it probably would have just been a roided up Fantasyland.

Much of Fantasyland would not even make the cut today due to poor box office performance.

 

[AEfx]

It was another two episodes and they came after the park opened.

Yup, because of the mass merchandising sales. Not because of Disneyland. This was 1955, before most people even had access to leisure plane rides. Have you read any of the links I have provided over the course of this discussion?

The name Disney World is patterned after Disneyland. If it is true for Disneyland then it must be true for Disney World.

Nobody is denying that Disney utilized synergy and different mediums. The issue is with the assertion that it is no different than what is done today, and that is demonstrably false.

Walt Disney was dead a decade before WDW opened. And it goes completely against your argument that he was just naming it after himself, since "Walt Disney World" was created as a name to honor him after his death. If I recall, he may have used the phrase "a Disney world" in comparison simply in terms of the scope of its size. Unless you have a source to show that was the intended official name in 1966 when he died, your comparison again makes no sense.

In either case, no, it has absolutely nothing to do with the naming of Disneyland, as it wasn't even a thought at that point.

This is such a silly discussion, I can't believe I'm wasting my time LOL..I'm off to go play Battlefront 2.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Yes, yes, and he walked on air and turned water into milkshakes, yadda yadda.

Sorry, but while we can analyze what he did do in the environment he existed in, assigning these mythical values to him simply because he died so early on in the development of mass media, and assuming that he would have been exactly as you think he was - and would have remained so as the market changed - is just fan mythmaking. Had he lived another few decades, you very well may have felt differently about the things he may have done.

I get it - things have become more intrinsically tied to IP. But it's a train that he started running and was already progressing on. Train is actually a good term to use - because aside from the things in the parks that were tied to films (again, haven't seen anyone have any excuses for Sleeping Beauty castle...) they were tied to his personal interests and not some esoteric, lofty academic notions. Trains. Pirates. And let's be frank - large chunks of the original Disneyland that weren't tied to Disney IP was filler to get stuff in place for people to do when it opened.

Most of the fan notions go back to Pirates, and HM. Pirates was because he had a strong interest in pirates. HM was because every theme park had a haunted house and he wanted to do it better. He was all about quality, but so much of these notions people have about him are far later inventions that only theme park fans seem to hold.

No - Disney had many, MANY flaws, some deeply unattractive. But he had a discernible character, and he spent decades in the mass media industry, so its disingenuous to act as though we can't come to some conclusions about how he might act in the modern day. In fact, simply concluding he'd take the same approach as the modern Disney corporation is more "fan mythmaking" then the folks trying to determine how he would act today based on what we know of his personality and attitude towards the parks.

Also, calling the Disney Corporation's progress a "train" started by Disney is a horrible analogy, because it furthers the idea that the state of the park is the result of a predetermined, unalterable course rather then of the constant decisions made by generations of executives.

Look, we can take Disney himself out of this. I have absolutely no problem with the use of IPs - its the reality of the modern entertainment industry. HOWEVER Disney's heavy-handed, ham-fisted reliance on IPs is damaging the parks and the IPs themselves and inhibiting creativity. The prime examples of this are GotG and the potential use of Indy in AK (I absolutely love both of those franchises, by the by).

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yup, because of the mass merchandising sales. Not because of Disneyland. This was 1955, before most people even had access to leisure plane rides. Have you read any of the links I have provided over the course of this discussion?

I don’t need to read Wikipedia. I know the timeline you keep jumping around. The second season episodes have no bearing on the assertion that Frontierland is based on the success of the Davey Crockett episodes of Disneyland.

Walt Disney was dead a decade before WDW opened. And it goes completely against your argument that he was just naming it after himself, since "Walt Disney World" was created as a name to honor him after his death. If I recall, he may have used the phrase "a Disney world" in comparison simply in terms of the scope of its size. Unless you have a source to show that was the intended official name in 1966 when he died, your comparison again makes no sense.

In either case, no, it has absolutely nothing to do with the naming of Disneyland, as it wasn't even a thought at that point.

This is such a silly discussion, I can't believe I'm wasting my time LOL..I'm off to go play Battlefront 2.

It’s still your silly point. One can’t be true and the other false. Disney World was the official, announced name of the Florida Project when Walt Disney was alive.

 

[AEfx]

Look, we can take Disney himself out of this. I have absolutely no problem with the use of IPs - its the reality of the modern entertainment industry. HOWEVER Disney's heavy-handed, ham-fisted reliance on IPs is damaging the parks and the IPs themselves and inhibiting creativity. The prime examples of this are GotG and the potential use of Indy in AK (I absolutely love both of those franchises, by the by).

And that's absolutely a valid discussion to be had. I have been talking about this notion that the entire concept of synergy or cross-promotion is some latter-day invention, and wasn't one of the founding principles of Disneyland from the start. It's certainly a variance of degrees, but this concept that Disneyland was intended to be some wholly original place of ideas (or even largely original) is just not true.

I also do not think the Disney company is perfect whatsoever, particularly in how it has treated its parks (and WDW most of all) over the past two decades. I'm sorry if you thought I was some blathering fan boy - I am not - I just take issue with a lot of the "Well Walt wouldn't have stood for IP in the parks!" silliness.

 

[AEfx]

I don’t need to read Wikipedia. I know the timeline you keep jumping around. The second season episodes have no bearing on the assertion that Frontierland is based on the success of the Davey Crockett episodes of Disneyland.

It was built at the same time to showcase it due to the massive popularity of the merchandise, which is why Frontierland was really free of any actual "attractions" and the inclusion of the Davy Crocket IP was so last minute (the Davy Crocket "Arcade" and the museum exhibit).

This is why talking to you is stupid because you keep making arguments I never made.

I've also linked to at least three other non-wikipedia sources that prove several of the points I have made, which you just so conveniently have ignored while you have been trying to take this so deep into the weeds.

It’s still your silly point. One can’t be true and the other false. Disney World was the official, announced name of the Florida Project when Walt Disney was alive.

You can't keep repeating that and make it true. Naming the park DISNEYland certainly adds to the already massive evidence of synergistic intent at the time it was made. Once the brand of park name was solidified, it would only have been natural to name the next site similarly, particularly as he wanted to emphasize the scope and size. Thanks for the new information, though, I didn't know the name was settled a decade before. That doesn't make it have anything to do with the fact that a decade earlier, he could have called "Disneyland" anything he wanted, and if he didn't intend for it to be a synergized with various Disney productions, he could have chosen many other names.

The reason this is so silly for you to keep badgering on about is because it simply was a side, supporting comment that adds to the overwhelming evidence. If I was here saying it was the only thing that showed synergistic intent, you might have half a point. But since you cannot argue anything else (still waiting for you to explain Sleeping Beauty castle), you've bored these poor people by making me repeat the blatantly obvious for a page now.

 

[FigmentJedi]

This is such a silly discussion, I can't believe I'm wasting my time LOL..I'm off to go play Battlefront 2.

Are you going to grind for six months to get all the Heroes or are you gonna end up buying them for actual money like EA wants?

 

[marni1971]

4 minutes 58 seconds.

Design length is 3:58.

Can't vouch for heavier guests.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It was built at the same time to showcase it due to the massive popularity of the merchandise, which is why Frontierland was really free of any actual "attractions" and the inclusion of the Davy Crocket IP was so last minute (the Davy Crocket "Arcade" and the museum exhibit).

This is why talking to you is stupid because you keep making arguments I never made.

I've also linked to at least three other non-wikipedia sources that prove several of the points I have made, which you just so conveniently have ignored while you have been trying to take this so deep into the weeds.

Frontierland was designed and well under construction when the first Davy Crocket episode aired. Before is not “at the same time.”

You can't keep repeating that and make it true. Naming the park DISNEYland certainly adds to the already massive evidence of synergistic intent at the time it was made. Once the brand of park name was solidified, it would only have been natural to name the next site similarly, particularly as he wanted to emphasize the scope and size. Thanks for the new information, though, I didn't know the name was settled a decade before. That doesn't make it have anything to do with the fact that a decade earlier, he could have called "Disneyland" anything he wanted, and if he didn't intend for it to be a synergized with various Disney productions, he could have chosen many other names.

The reason this is so silly for you to keep badgering on about is because it simply was a side, supporting comment that adds to the overwhelming evidence. If I was here saying it was the only thing that showed synergistic intent, you might have half a point. But since you cannot argue anything else (still waiting for you to explain Sleeping Beauty castle), you've bored these poor people by making me repeat the blatantly obvious for a page now.

Disneylandia wasn’t about synergy.

Sleeping Beauty was named before, not after it hit certain box office and merchandise criteria and was deemed a franchise. It’s not in any way the same as today.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Design length is 3:58.

Can't vouch for heavier guests.

Just about every NRJ shows the length to be around 5 minutes. When the ride first opened, videos showed ride length from 4:40 to 5:30. It then, after a while, started to become consistent at close to 5 minutes counting from launch to hitting the ramp that stops you. If the design was originally 4 minutes, then somewhere along the way there was a huge miscalculation, or they purposely slowed it down.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

While I certain agree there was synergy, it also is HOW it's used - to my original point. The stories need to stand on their own to last. I fear management sees the current world as so strained attention-wise that there is no need to spend on lofty projects. The land/attraction/etc. needs to be fun and engaging on its own. For those who have knowledge of the IP and those who don't. If you pull in fans of the IP du jour, it is short lived. That's Universal's model - and it works for them. Having it be next to the charm of Disney is asking for trouble long term.

But, those execs will get their bonus for the temporary spike and be long gone before that's an issue...

 

[wdisney9000]

Walt Disney's brand model for Disneyland since day one was synergy. Also Navi Tiver journey is a 6 minute C ticket attraction. That's three times longer than Peter Pan.

But "longer" does not exactly mean "better". And FWIW, I agree that people are too harsh on NRJ. I have experienced it several times and I like it, but it does feel like something is missing. Its interesting that you compare it to Pan because they are both similar in the fact that there is no narration and you just cruise through scenes. To me, Pan has a much better flow from scene to scene as Navi just feels like one or two long scenes.