Originally Posted By knoxvelour well I didn't see Wild Wild West just out of spite for Kevin Kline who married the love of my life
Originally Posted By jonvn "A WELL-MADE Western will do just fine." And what makes it well made? The fact that you can't see the boom in any of the shots?
Originally Posted By Skellington88 I hope they DO NOT build a stunt show...those things get old and boring after the first few months.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Disney parks are a way to transport the visitor off to new and exciting places, which is why the Buffalo Bill show works in Paris. Western themed shows have waned in the US because they have completely lost their novelty. I've said this in another thread, I think this Lone Ranger rumor is a hoax.
Originally Posted By jonvn The lone ranger story is on many different web sites. I think it's absolutely the dumbest idea I've heard in a while.
Originally Posted By karlg If for no other reason, bringing The Lone Ranger back is a bad idea because it is a politically correct nightmare. Most obviously, how do you treat Tonto? You can't win, it will probably both offend the PC correct police while at the same time try to be PC correct by blaming whites and offending them (thus mananging to offend most of the potential audience -- ala Golden Dreams). And then you have all the gun violence. Disney fans will question whether The Lone Ranger is really a "Disney Property." There will be the usual, "what is this doing in a Disney Park" type questions. The the Disney history fans, there is a tenous connection that Jack Wrather, who built the DL Hotel, owned The Loan Ranger TV show. Hey, I grew up watching the Lone Ranger on TV as a kid. I've got home movies of me wearing my cap guns (hard to imagine by today's young, but people ran through the neighborhoods back then wearing their cap guns everywhere). But still, I have no interest in bringing the Lone Ranger Back either as a movie or as a theme park attraction.
Originally Posted By danyoung The connection would be that Bruckheimer and Disney make the friggin' movie! And Disney would be foolish to design the attraction before the movie comes out. If the movie's a hit, then an attraction based on it has a great chance of being a hit. Remember when there were plans for a blockbuster Dick Tracy ride? It faded really quickly when the movie tanked. That's what'll happen here - the attraction will live or die based on the success (or not) of the movie.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Well, for one thing, a stunt show would cost considerably less than a full blown land extension, or attraction. Sure, if it's a huge monster like, say, Waterworld at Universal, then yes, it will be costly. However, a western themed show should not require so much pyro. I think a Lone Ranger stunt show could work as a temporary draw until something bigger gets put back in Big Thunder Ranch. As it is now, it's valuable underutilized space. Also, I don't see how the Lone Ranger can't be brought up to PC standards. I disagree with Karlg's post about it not being able to be done without offending. What's wrong with portraying Tonto in a correct light. Yes, the old show and radio serials made him a bit stereotyped, but in 2008 I'm sure they will be able bring an authenticity to it that won't offend.
Originally Posted By jonvn They could have a lot of pyro, say some bad guys blow up a train or something...or rob a bank. blowing it up. And um, suppose someone sets fire to a chinese fireworks company? See, lots of chances.
Originally Posted By karlg I don't believe there is any middle ground that works in these days of PC everything. You end up with a watered down story. The native American will end up "too white," too much of a servant/Uncle Tom for the PC crowd while at the same time you will spend a good bit of the picture explaining how Tonto was oppressed by the white man; it will get the Pocahontas treatment. Look at the controversy surrounding the Frog Princess. Perhaps one problem is that to convey a story in a roughly 2 hour movie, writers are almost forced to deal in stereotypes and caricatures to covey characters quickly so they can move on with the story. As they tip-toe around political correctness, they make the story bland.
Originally Posted By karlg >>#30 by jonvn They could have a lot of pyro, say some bad guys blow up a train or something...or rob a bank. blowing it up. And um, suppose someone sets fire to a chinese fireworks company? See, lots of chances.<< Ok, I'm pretty sure you are being sarcastic, but which movie are you referring to. When I first quickly read you post, I thought you were going for Golden Dreams where they blow up the Chinese while working on the the railroad. BTW, Golden Dreams is a quintessential example PC run amuck and it failed misserably as an attraction.
Originally Posted By jonvn I'm talking about the stunt show. Someone said there wasn't a lot of room for pyro in a western stunt show. The chinese firework factory was pretty sarcastic...but, there are chances for pyro in a western show. I guess. I agree about golden dreams, and about Tonto, faithful indian companion. OK, new casting idea: Nick Nolte as The Lone Ranger, Eddie Murphy as his wisecracking sidekick tonto....Or how about that team from the Lethal weapons movies? Mel Gibson and Danny Glover? Or better yet, Mel Gibson and some random Jew. Maybe they can get Gene Wilder to again do his role as frontier rabbi from The Frisco Kid... I can't wait to hear The Lone Ranger theme done in the style of music from Fiddler on the Roof. So I completely agree with the PC things. That's going to be a problem.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 I guess I just don't get the whole Tonto problem. I don't see why there is any explanation needed. Why can't he just be portrayed correctly and be a believable sidekick to the Lone Ranger? I guess you guys have the old stereotyped version stuck in your heads and can't get around thinking of a more natural portrayal...say, like Last of the Mohicans? It doesn't have to delve into any explanation, or get preachy. As for the pyro in a western show, yeah, there is room for lots of it, but I'm saying that to keep cost down, they would have to limit it. Unless they go for the over-the-top explosion fest, but that's going to cost quite a lot more. I wouldn't mind something less pyro heavy and more focused on stuntmen and horses. They could do it in a rodeo fashion, if they wanted.
Originally Posted By jonvn Well, *I* don't care if they put a funny talking injun in the movie. Lots of others will. Even when they get the approval of a bunch of tribes, a bunch of others still don't like it. It's going to cause trouble no matter what they do or try to do.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>The connection would be that Bruckheimer and Disney make the friggin' movie! And Disney would be foolish to design the attraction before the movie comes out. If the movie's a hit, then an attraction based on it has a great chance of being a hit. Remember when there were plans for a blockbuster Dick Tracy ride? It faded really quickly when the movie tanked. That's what'll happen here - the attraction will live or die based on the success (or not) of the movie.<<< But Mr Toad, Alice in Wonderland, and the Matterhorn all opened based on movies that were not hits, especially the Matterhorn (3rd Man on the Mountain anyone?). If an attraction can stand on it's own too legs, it's a great attraction. If it has to rely on synergy, it is not (MILF and Stitch Encounter anyone?) or Tiki Room under New Management
Originally Posted By danyoung >If an attraction can stand on it's own too legs, it's a great attraction. If it has to rely on synergy, it is not...< You're quoting isolated examples. For every attraction that was synergistic and bombed, I can give you one that didn't (Splash, Pan, Indy). It's not about the synergy - it's about the quality of the attraction. People are bemoaning all the Pixar stuff, and I don't blame them. But if Disney came out with the newest coolest latest greatest attraction using whole new ride and display systems, I wouldn't care if it were a totally new story or based on Toy Story. A good attraction is a good attraction.
Originally Posted By Daannzzz SO if they do this then they are further weakening the themeing. In frotnierland you have gone back in time to the westtern US. The buildings and fort support this. The riverboat, Big Thunder mountain is a mining runaway train. IT has gotten less strong over the years what with the Indians going away and Davy Crockett gone and such but now there may be to be a stunt show where the western characters wiull pretend that they are getting shot and falling and riding horses as apposed to it really happening. I suppose they could do it up as a period peice form the turn of the century ala Wild Bills but then you would be forcing the Lone Ranger into it. It all sound wrong. Put the stuinr show in the Hollywood section at DCA. Or don't do one at all which I would prefer.
Originally Posted By DlandDug It would be a relatively simple matter to create a scenario in which the Lone Ranger battles it out with a couple of crafty outlaws, culminating in a explosion in that old abandoned mine shaft. Or people could be waiting to meet the great Lone Ranger when a couple of crafty outlaws take everyone hostage, requiring the Lone Ranger to use his skills to free everyone and blow up some nefarious device the outlaws were using to threaten everyone. Or the Lone Ranger could be trapped in an iron cage by a couple of crafty outlaws, who are then outwitted by Tonto, who blows up the cage, freeing the LR to join him in a stunt heavy battle. There are too many scenarios to mention, none of which would have to work against theme. (The last gasp of the Universal Hollywood stunt show was part of the tram tour. The tram was "highjacked" by outlaws, who were then defeated by a good guy. Climax of the rather lame show: high fall.)
