Disney's California Adventure Project Tracker VIII

[AGD]

You don't just disagree with me, you disagree with history and popular culture. Literary figures like W.H. Auden cited Grimm's Fairy Tales as one of the founding works of Western culture. The source of fairy tales like Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and many other stories that Disney worked with in animated features and shorts are based on stories contained in this book...but I'm sure you already knew that.

If you're asking for circa 1930's sales numbers, I don't have that. I'd probably have to dig through literary trade journals to find anything remotely like that. But the heart of your statement: the historical popularity and cultural relevance of Grimm's Fairy Tales, in both Europe and America, is something that can't really be denied.

Even if you were to only limit the story of something like Snow White to film and other media, a number of film versions were made prior to Disney's release. Snow White was made into a film four times before Disney's version, in 1902, 1913, 1916 and 1917. This doesn't even take into account stage/radio productions. Why base so many films on a story nobody knew or wasn't at all culturally relevant?



Quiz time: Which part of the Sierra Nevada range goes through Route 66?

I don't think we're arguing whether the Grimm Fairy Tales are or were popular (the later Victorian novels maybe, but Grimm definitely not), but the point is that the Disney versions of these stories have become the definitive way that most people remember these tales. Furthermore, I seriously doubt Walt's Fantasyland had much at all to do with paying homage to the original stories (if so, where?) and everything to do with promoting his versions of the movies. In the process, he made some time-honored and beloved attractions, but they reference the movies, not the fables.

[The Disneylander]

*takes out the popcorn and coke*

[Matterhorn Boy]

I was responding to Matterhorn Boy who claimed that the Fantasyland attractions were somehow less tied to movies than Carsland because they were based on older stories, when in fact those attractions (which he laughably said were only "what some argue are 'movie-based'" ) draw entirely from the visual and thematic interpretations of the Disney films. If any of them used a single overt reference to a book's illustrations or plot that was *not* in the corresponding film, he might have had a point. They certainly do not derive their legitimacy from the public's fondness for the original stories, but rather for the fondness of the Disney versions (which, incidentally, have become authoritative for much of the public).

How many of the millions of adults and children that made up the park's first visitors do you think had seen 1953's Peter Pan when Disneyland first opened? All of them? Would their familiarity with that story have been purely based on that two year old film alone, or on the original play and corresponding print/play/film/radio versions?

Would those guests have been confused by the name of Sleeping Beauty's Castle, the Disney version of which wouldn't come to the screen for another four years? Or King Arthur's Carousel and Merlin's Magic Shop, which wouldn't have a corresponding Disney feature for eight years? The idea that only the connection to the Disney versions of these films is relevant, I think, is preposterous. These aren't made-up characters like talking race cars, and had a larger cultural significance than what Disney gave them on the screen.

I'll agree that the Disney versions have become authoritative to the public of today, but that has more to do with a decline in overall literacy and the failings of public institutions than it does with the generation that produced Disneyland. And that's what Master Gracey's bit about talking down to your audience was about.

Furthermore, I seriously doubt Walt's Fantasyland had much at all to do with paying homage to the original stories (if so, where?) and everything to do with promoting his versions of the movies. In the process, he made some time-honored and beloved attractions, but they reference the movies, not the fables.

By sheer association, the attraction Peter Pan references the original Barrie Peter Pan, whether you want it to or not. Same thing with Mr. Toad, Pinocchio or Snow White. Disney "paid homage" to those stories by making films and attractions based on them in the first place.

[Baloo]

I've driven through there. Took a lot of vacations as a kid and an adult. Where are there mountains like this:



in the state of California? Those are Arizona mountains, and they're being built in California Adventure.

Disney might as well make an attraction in the GRR area about Yellowstone, or build a surfing attraction set in Hawaii. Just because a few towns on the border of California share similarities with what amounts to a pretty small percentage of Cars doesn't make the franchise a perfect fit for DCA.



Which is largely why it's a bad match for a theme park designed to represent specifically Californian locales. When you have a generic fictional setting comprised of several different states, it doesn't work well in a park designed to represent places in California.

I think they missed a huge opportunity with this. They could have created another throwback to California, a land themed to the beach and car culture of LA during the 50's and 60's: a perfect segway from the Old Hollywood area and Paradise Pier. The Cars characters could have fit right in there, along with a whole host of other attractions...possibly even :gasp: non-movie based ones! Instead they decided to make a carbon copy of a film environment that looks out of place in a park based on California. It's indicative of the kind of thinking that is currently running these theme parks, and proof in my eyes that DCA will still have troubles long after this expansion.

Try looking at quite a few spots in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and you'll find sooo many places that have mountains like that. Maybe not the giant ones sticking out sideways or the central one, but the general shape of the mountains is actually very reminiscent of many Californian mountains (I would know, I literally live on them)

Thermo648 beat me to it but i live in the dessert and believe me there are mountain areas that look very similar to what is depicted in the movie and NO we are not saying that the mountain range in the movie is an exact replica of the arizona landscape but the overall look is.


Not only that but even from the California border you could see the mountain range from Arizona just like the above picture.

Even if we continue arguing that Carsland is not in CAlifornia why can't we use a bit of imagination and consider that we are looking at the mountain range just outside the border of the state.

Why is it that people take the pakrs overall theme so literal and completely forget that it is a place for families to have fun. I really doubt people walk into these parks and dissect each and everyland while they are there.

[BuenaVista28]

Since we are taking things so literally, since when did Arizona have car-shaped mountains?

[dland_lover]

*takes out the popcorn and coke*

Would you care for some red vines?

[Baloo]

exactly, i think some people are taking this whole thing to personal. This whole thing about the Disney company insulting their audience and mountain ranges not fitting makes no sense at all.

some people seem to forget that the Disney audience is huge and that eventhough mighty joe might now what year a certain fairytale started little timmy could care less.

That has nothing to do with insulting anyone or belittleing your audience when WDI or the company in general takes creative freedom to represent a story or local.

Its amazing we think this way because for all these years the movie Industry has been doing the same. I guess Even walt thought his audience was stupid because he had us believing that mice talked and elephants really flew

[stitchon]

exactly, i think some people are taking this whole thing to personal. This whole thing about the Disney company insulting their audience and mountain ranges not fitting makes no sense at all.

some people seem to forget that the Disney audience is huge and that eventhough mighty joe might now what year a certain fairytale started little timmy could care less.

That has nothing to do with insulting anyone or belittleing your audience when WDI or the company in general takes creative freedom to represent a story or local.

Its amazing we think this way because for all these years the movie Industry has been doing the same. I guess Even walt thought his audience was stupid because he had us believing that mice talked and elephants really flew

Bless you, kind soul.

[aDisneyFan]

I've driven through there. Took a lot of vacations as a kid and an adult. Where are there mountains like this:

Vasquez Rocks

[AGD]

How many of the millions of adults and children that made up the park's first visitors do you think had seen 1953's Peter Pan when Disneyland first opened? All of them? Would their familiarity with that story have been purely based on that two year old film alone, or on the original play and corresponding print/play/film/radio versions?

Would those guests have been confused by the name of Sleeping Beauty's Castle, the Disney version of which wouldn't come to the screen for another four years? Or King Arthur's Carousel and Merlin's Magic Shop, which wouldn't have a corresponding Disney feature for eight years? The idea that only the connection to the Disney versions of these films is relevant, I think, is preposterous. These aren't made-up characters like talking race cars, and had a larger cultural significance than what Disney gave them on the screen.

I'll agree that the Disney versions have become authoritative to the public of today, but that has more to do with a decline in overall literacy and the failings of public institutions than it does with the generation that produced Disneyland. And that's what Master Gracey's bit about talking down to your audience was about.


By sheer association, the attraction Peter Pan references the original Barrie Peter Pan, whether you want it to or not. Same thing with Mr. Toad, Pinocchio or Snow White. Disney "paid homage" to those stories by making films and attractions based on them in the first place.

Short version: The above is an exercise in wishful thinking.

Long version: I really hate to break this to you, but Disneyland has always been a commercial enterprise, starting with Walt. He was a master at promoting his projects, he just did it with a lot more sophisticated craft than Disney Co. has been doing in the past years (although Tiana's Showboat Jubilee is praiseworthy). That doesn't change the fact that he based many of his attractions explicitly and completely on his popular films.

Given the pop culture juggernaut that Disney was in the 1950s, I would say yes, a VERY significant percentage of guests had seen the Disney movie versions of these rides. And, for those who hadn't the rides were a great way to promote the films. Many of them were probably also familiar with other versions of the stories, but for the umpteenth time, these were NOT the versions presented in the park! I can't imagine anyone looking at these attractions, either now or in 1955, and thinking of them as anything other than a celebration of their respective Disney films. That they came from old stories was just the standard for Walt's animated features at the time (certainly the most successful ones), but this does not make them any less movie-based than Carsland. And, these films were not as "classic" as they are today...movie tie-ins like the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea walk-through and the Swiss Family Robinson treehouse (both based on books) were replaced or repurposed when their films were not as relevant (and the attractions were not show-stoppers in their own right). Walt was not above capitalizing on his films (and doing so well, most of the time), and hoping the result would become classic.

With Sleeping Beauty and the Sword in the Stone, think of it as being just like Disney having a show about Disneyland on ABC before Disneyland opened--it's all about working up the enthusiasm!

I see you have failed to provide a single instance where the Fantasyland rides differ from the films, or indeed any support for the theory that these attractions are more about the stories than the movies.

For the last time, there is nothing different about Carsland being a movie tie-in than the Fantasyland rides, the Swiss Family Robinson Tree House, or the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea walk-through. It's not some new calamity that the Disney parks borrow from Disney movies. Carsland is bigger, but if the attractions & placemaking are of Disney quality and have enough content to merit the space it will be thoroughly enjoyable and successful. If not, then it will be a disappointment, but that will be more due to its failures in design than the simple fact that it was based on a movie.

[Lost Boy]

Did Disney change their minds again about removing the word "California" from the name? I thought it was going to be renamed "Disney's Adventure Park" or something like that. Why are we getting so microscopic about things like the town is in California or Arizona? Who cares? I think Carsland is going to be very entertaining when it opens. I am not concerned at all where it's supposed to be. I just want to go and be able to walk through the movie.

And since when do we stop believing in fantasy??? We are supposed to be Disney fans. If we can believe mice talk and elephants (and a certain boy) fly, then we can believe that the "mythical" town of Radiator Springs on Route 66 is in California. I always just assumed it was anyway when I saw the movie. I saw no reference to any state really.

Oh well, it does no good to argue here anyway. You that want to pick apart every minute detail of everything done in this Park are going to make up your own excuses anyway. Your minds are already made up and you have judged against anything that DCA (or whatever it will be called) does now or in the future.

[thermo648]

I'm not sure on this at all but I believe they were going to rename it as just California Adventure and take out the Disney's part.

[Matterhorn Boy]

Long version: I really hate to break this to you, but Disneyland has always been a commercial enterprise, starting with Walt. He was a master at promoting his projects, he just did it with a lot more sophisticated craft than Disney Co. has been doing in the past years (although Tiana's Showboat Jubilee is praiseworthy). That doesn't change the fact that he based many of his attractions explicitly and completely on his popular films.

He also based most of the attractions on myth, history and popular culture, of which I'd include Fairy Tales/Children's literature to be apart of. To ignore the original significance of those stories, and just chalk them up as only movies is blatant oversimplification of everything he did to justify current corporate policy. I've grown accustomed to it on this board, and in this thread, and yet it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

That they came from old stories was just the standard for Walt's animated features at the time (certainly the most successful ones), but this does not make them any less movie-based than Carsland.

Then I guess that's the heart of our disagreement. I think there's a huge difference between basing an attraction on something with strong roots in popular culture (that go deeper than "just a movie") than on something that doesn't have that going for it at all, and who's lasting popularity or relevance has yet to be seen. Carsland could have connected itself to the historical essence of the automobile itself, quite easily, but instead limits itself to a presentation based only on the movie.

And, these films were not as "classic" as they are today...movie tie-ins like the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea walk-through and the Swiss Family Robinson treehouse (both based on books) were replaced or repurposed when their films were not as relevant (and the attractions were not show-stoppers in their own right).

Walt was not above capitalizing on his films (and doing so well, most of the time), and hoping the result would become classic.

You're citing two walk-through exhibits as though they speak for the larger essence of Disneyland. It's the same thing I see with the continued citing of the Jungle Cruise and Matterhorn as "movie-based" attractions. Again, it's oversimplifying/rewriting history in order to justify current corporate policy.

And if Walt was such a capitalist, why wasn't Frontierland full of Davy Crockett? There was a small exhibit devoted to him in the Fort, and a window dedicated to him and George Russell in Frontierland. Beyond that, his presence at Disneyland was limited to parades and special appearances, even though that was an enormous success the year prior to Disneyland's opening. I'd argue the same thing about Mickey Mouse and other characters that had a very limited presence in the park until Walt's passing.

With Sleeping Beauty and the Sword in the Stone, think of it as being just like Disney having a show about Disneyland on ABC before Disneyland opened--it's all about working up the enthusiasm!

??? Sword in the Stone probably had some early development work filed away, but I strongly doubt it was in any advanced state of production circa 1955, or even that the idea of a movie based on it was set completely in stone (pun unintended). I'd have to look that up.

But here's food for thought: the novel "101 Dalmatians" wasn't even written until 1956, and the film based on that came out two years before Sword In The Stone.

I see you have failed to provide a single instance where the Fantasyland rides differ from the films, or indeed any support for the theory that these attractions are more about the stories than the movies.

Again, the rides use the films as a visual and storytelling reference point, but the characters/situations contained in those films are clearly based on the original stories, and are irrevocably attached to them. Also, much of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride strays quite a bit from the Disney version, which deals mostly with Toad escaping prison, not driving around London and going to hell.

For the last time, there is nothing different about Carsland being a movie tie-in than the Fantasyland rides, the Swiss Family Robinson Tree House, or the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea walk-through.

Cars is a very recent film property and the ones you've cited were around for years before they were attractions, and appealed to multiple age demographics because they were already well-known by multiple generations. For all I know, Cars might be a modern day classic in the vein of those classic fairy tales. But it isn't yet, and until it's proven itself as something more than just a popular flash in the pan, IMO it's not ready for a theme park attraction, and certainly doesn't deserve an entire land based on it.

If not, then it will be a disappointment, but that will be more due to its failures in design than the simple fact that it was based on a movie.

Put me down as somebody who thinks the basis and source material for an attraction and the design of said attraction go hand and hand with each other.

[stitchrulz]

I'm not sure on this at all but I believe they were going to rename it as just California Adventure and take out the Disney's part.

That's the rumor I heard.

[bfdf55]

Who said it was there to protect guests??? My point was people would see this boardwalk..think it would be a good and different place to see WoC and they get herded off because Disney does not want them there....it just may have been an issue they would rather avoid on top of a million other reasons they came up with not to build it....Though I do agree that it would have been much nicer to have the boardwalk around MFW.

The area around the Fun Wheel wouldn't have provided any sort of viewing space for WOC just because they added a boardwalk theme. It would have just been a roofline that would provide a boardwalk look around the attraction. If guest control would be an issue for WOC, it would be the same with or without the boardwalk roof.