how in the world did indy ever get built?

Originally Posted By dresswhites

i have always wondered how such a well themed attraction like indy got built when it did.
startours, splash, fantasmic, and even toontown were all built during the golden period when eiser really lavished on the theme parks. from all accounts that changed after the failure of Eurodisney.
Star tours, splash and fantasmic opened before Euro Disney opened. Toontown was underconstruction.
arguebly, the penny pinching really seemed to become more noticable in 93 and even more so in 94 and early 95. so how did indy jones get such lavish attention? i am not suprised it was built, but i would think with the failure of Euro Disney and changing priorities in the upper management we would see indy get stripped down the way the rocket rods was.
wasn't the whole tomorrowland 2055 conecpt shelved around this time?
Did indy survive because when it first started to be built, wells was still alive and dominguez and jack linquist were still in charge of the park? is it because lucas was involved? was it just the last hurrah before eisner and co really spending so much money on the parks?
any inside info?

 

Originally Posted By mrichmondj

<< was it just the last hurrah before eisner and co really spending so much money on the parks? >>

More like it was the last hurrah from the billions of dollars in profit that Disney was minting from animated films and video re-releases. It was also during a time before the Disney-ABC merger, when Disney had essentially zero debt on the balance sheets. Instead of paying money to service debt, Disney had cash flow to burn back then.

 

Originally Posted By trekkeruss

Don't forget the profits from the Disney Stores too. After folks saw those movies, they dropped big bucks in the stores; the synergy was incredible.

 

Originally Posted By JohnS1

I figured they just sold the precious gems they found in the temple of the golden eye, then used the money to build the ride. I'm just saying...

 

Originally Posted By Skellington88

The Indiana Jones Adventure was actually greenlit during the "Golden Age". Lion King came out in 1994 and Indiana Jones ride opened a year later. Construction had already began and budget allocated before "The Dark Days".

 

Originally Posted By mrichmondj

You also have to consider that it was built before the recent California theme park regulations went into effect. I doubt Indy would have passed muster under the new California rules. They don't allow for a whole lot of innovation in ride systems.

 

Originally Posted By FerretAfros

What exactly are the new rules? This is the first that I've heard of them, and I would be curious to see how they limit ride systems, and what spaces they leave open for future development.

 

Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA

<What exactly are the new rules?>

Rides must not be built within temples of doom.

 

Originally Posted By dresswhites

rides can only be built in stable temples.

 

Originally Posted By ArchtMig

^^^ or in temple stables... if they are horsey type rides.

 

Originally Posted By oc_dean

I seem to remember gab going back and forth between imagineers at NFFC conventions in the mid 90s ..... It was going to be TL:2055 or Indy. And remember too ... another thing imagineers state in mega sized attractions: From concept to opening, it generally takes 5 years. So Indy had to have been approved in 1990.

 

Originally Posted By teddibubbles

I know nothing about the ride or why it was built. but I wonder if it helped geting it in. by the factor of that building aready there for them to use?

 

Originally Posted By disneysnout

Will we ever see another a Ride Like Indiana Jones? the Ride is Disney's Best..

 

Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA

<but I wonder if it helped geting it in. by the factor of that building aready there for them to use?>

The building was not there. It was all built from scratch.

And I agree, while 'Pirates of the Caribbean' is still my all-time favorite, followed by 'Haunted Mansion,' Indiana Jones is certainly my #3 -- not only is the ride beautifully done, but the queue itself is absolutely amazing.

 

Originally Posted By SoThisIsLove

I'm so grateful they did Pirates, Indy, and the Mansion. These E tickets are worth more to me than I can express.

Certainly worth the effort and I hope Disney will continue to put forth their best efforts and not just succumb to carnival rides....

 

Originally Posted By teddibubbles

"The building was not there. It was all built from scratch."

what didthey do? take down the old building then put in a matching one?

I remember the building back stage. we use to look at it when it was a parking lot.

there was a look out tower on the top corner of it.

 

Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA

<there was a look out tower on the top corner of it.>

Maybe you're thinking of the 'Pirates' show building, which did have a lookout tower. [still does?]

But I do know that the Indiana Jones show building was constructed specifically for that ride.

They actually moved the monorail beam slightly to accommodate it in that space.

 

Originally Posted By Park Hopper

The Indy building was built behind the Pirates building. So from the old parking lot/DTD the view of the pirate building would be blocked by the new Indy building. Since the two buildings resemble each other (They are both big green boxes), its easy to see how you might confuse them for each other.

 

Originally Posted By cheesybaby

The Indy building was built over the Eeyore section of the parking lot. There was no building there before.

 

Originally Posted By SFH

As stated earlier, Indy was greenlit before "the Dark Days". Actually, The Gap's former CEO did try to cut back on it once it was underway. For example... "Why theme the exit?"

Another reason why this attraction got built as well as it did... George Lucas. Every time a Disney management person wanted to cut back more on the design and construction, WDI creative folks were able to say "I don't think George Lucas will like those cutbacks." Securing AT&T's sponsorship didn't hurt, either.

As for the rules for theme park attractions in California... theme park attractions now must be "common carriers", like commuter buses or rail, which are supposed to get you from point A to point B with minimal discomfort and "utmost" care. You and I know that it is absurd to apply such standards to theme park attractions that are SUPPOSED to bump you around and expose you to extreme G forces, and often drop you off right back where you started and so are NOT transportation. They are VOLUNTARY entertainment... you don't take them to get to your doctor's appointment, or to work, or to school, etc. More brilliance from the bench, more of the great legacy of the former Gap CEO, whose policies led to a climate where legislators and judges decided they had to "DO SOMETHING", despite the billions of theme park visits over the years where people HAVEN'T been hurt.

Another reason you won't see attractions like this any more: FastPass. Why spend all of that money on a waiting area?

Finally, bigger, more elaborate attractions, if built, will more likely be built in "new" parks that need to be bulked up. If Disneyland Park is already getting 14 million visits per year, it is hard to justify spending so much on new attraction when it is hard to prove it will bring a direct return on investment. This is an argument for returning to a "pay for attractions" model instead of an "all you can ride" ticket at the main gate. You could directly prove the revenue that a ride generates. Would people be willing to pay $5 a pop to ride the Indiana Jones Adventure? Will that, with the hourly ridership, be enough money?

SFH