Jump to content

Joshua

Members
  • Posts

    1324
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Joshua

  1. Strange. When I watched it on Hulu a few years ago, I recall a good chunk of it taking place at the park.
  2. Makes me think of KISS, who've had more than one "Farewell Tour."
  3. This is only partially true. HB produced two feature films prior to Charlotte's Web: Hey There, It's Yogi Bear (1964) and The Man Called Flintstone (1966), both distributed by Columbia Pictures.
  4. So what you're saying is they spared some expense? Hopefully KI has a better IT guy!
  5. They're bringing back Dinosaurs Alive? It opened in the fourth movie.
  6. I would love to see haunted houses get a resurgence. Phantom Theater was my Haunted Mansion away from Haunted Mansion.
  7. This would've been the early to mid-90s. They may have switched to displaying rides later.
  8. I mentioned that in an earlier post. It was for a selection of Showa Era Godzilla films (1954-1975). However, that was only a license to distribute those films on VHS and laserdisc. But also the ride was to be themed to Sony's then upcoming Godzilla movie and by the time it was proposed (1998), those video distribution rights moved on to another company, Simitar. I remember there being posters at the front gate. IIRC, they were for upcoming films. Specifically, I recall seeing the poster for Losing Isaiah, a thriller starring Halle Berry.
  9. I remember seeing the Mission: Impossible billboard near the water tower and I'm starting to recall the ones for Braveheart and Clear and Present Danger . I know Tower Gardens had the poster for The Untouchables on display and the Top Gun queue had both a billboard and the one sheet, but I wasn't aware those films also had billboards by the water tower until just now. The Congo thing I mentioned earlier was a big round tent you could enter, which featured props (genuine or recreations, I'm not sure) like the SAT link up, camping gear and other gadgets seen in the film. I feel like it was in Coney Mall near where Flight Commander was. This would have been the summer of 1995, when the film came out.
  10. I forgot about that! Wasn't there also an advertisement for Mission: Impossible in Action Zone at some point around its release or am I misremembering things? For some reason, I remember seeing either a billboard or large quad poster for it in the park. I also remember they also had a small venue advertising Congo with props from the movie. I believe it was located in Coney Mall, but I could be wrong.
  11. They didn't even use the movie's font for the logo. Granted, in retrospect, they could've easily as themed the ride to Breakdown or Friday the 13th. They really could've benefited from patterning themselves after Universal more, and who knows, maybe that was Paramount's idea in purchasing the parks before being bought out by Viacom a year or so later. But also knowing how things went, I'm glad they didn't go too wild. Imagine if they installed a bunch of rides more akin to Tomb Raider, where the movie's theming is not just a part of the experience, it is the experience.
  12. That's what I'm sensing. I really enjoyed walking into the park, hearing the soundtracks as they greet you on I-Street, seeing the posters and movie props all throughout, and at the time, I was really amazed by Top Gun's theming. But Paramount's approach to the park left a lot to be desired. It took them over a decade to start promoting their major currents as rides and they were really inconsistent when it came to branding/theming. For example, they dove right in and went all out for Tomb Raider but merely slapped the titles of Drop Zone and Face/Off on attraction with little to nothing to hint that guests were embarking on a ride named after a movie.
  13. I'm also curious why they were going to capitalize on (and subsequently promote) another studio's film when the parent company (Paramount) had their own major blockbuster they needed to sell, Deep Impact. Both films came out in May that year. Also, the first Mission: Impossible and Star Trek: First Contact were still fresh in the public eye and ripe for theming.
  14. Thanks for posting that! It sure brought back memories. I was pretty young when Phantom Theater first opened, so I remember the feelings of mystery and terror as I first stepped into the queue. Speaking of musical similarities, I also noticed homages to In the Hall of the Mountain King (7:06 ) and Beetlejuice (7:29).
  15. "Theater Theme" sounds like a budget riff on Danny Elfman's Tales From the Crypt theme with a little bit of that Phantom thrown in. The queue also used Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor, which was used in Hammer's film adaptation of Phantom of the Opera (as well as Gremlins 2's parody of it).
  16. How amazing would it be if someone combined all the PT clips and re-created the full ride experience in audio?
  17. They can always dip their hand into your cup for a rinse!
  18. I think we're already there. Many of my friends and family are rockin' homemade face masks with patterns that compliment their interests and style. Companies would wise to jump in on the trend. At least you'd know both the machines and cups were sanitized
  19. That would be a situation closer to Godzilla. Paramount didn't own The Outer Limits, so they licensed it and when that license expired, they removed that part of the theming. WB also had the rights to make that Superman film and had design work to show for it. (They were close to filming it too, but WB reconsidered after Batman & Robin's failure.) Paramount didn't have the rights to make a Godzilla film and it wasn't their intellectual property. (If that's what you're trying to say ) Does anyone know if it was to be themed with the Japanese Godzilla or the Matthew Broderick film? EDIT: Looks like it was supposed to be the latter and Carowinds was considering it around the time the film came out. Which means they were going to license a then-current/major summer film from Sony, which explains the cost factor. Some are suggesting the audience perception of the film also played a part in changing their minds. Good call.
  20. I don't know where it's going to come from, but I know where it's going to be dispensed: the Coke Freestyle machines. They weren't using those anyway, right?
  21. Perhaps. Paramount owns the two Angelina Jolie films (the reboot was Warner Bros.) and any assets specific to them (design elements, props, sets, logo, etc.). However, both "Tomb Raider" and "Lara Croft" were trademarked by Core Design, Ltd. (I believe Square Enix/Crystal Dynamics now owns the trademark.) If the subsidiaries were indeed being charged simply to use assets owned by the parent company while also having to go through the necessary channels with Core Design, I can see where that could be pretty costly. But at the time, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider was a fairly recent hit. It was one of the most successful films of 2001 and the sequel was in the works. So the cost may have seemed like a worthy brand investment.
  22. That doesn't mean they didn't have to license it. They would've had to do it that way. Toho owns the trademark outright, as well as the likeness of "classic" Godzilla while Sony had the film and television rights and owned the likeness of their Godzilla. (Toho appears to also own the Hanna-Barbera as well. They have a copyright on it from 1978 and 1979.) Now, Paramount did have home video distribution rights for a selection of Showa-Era Godzilla films (1954 to 1975) in the 80s and early 90s, but that was for VHS and laserdisc. (Those titles went to a company called Simitar in the mid-to-late 90s, around the time of Sony's Godzilla.) They would've still had to go through Toho to use Godzilla (as well as Mothra, Ghidorah Mechagodzilla, etc.) because Toho owns the trademark and the characters. (Even the American films all have Toho's name listed with in the copyrights. They own the trademark, so you have to seek their permission to do anything with the Godzilla name.) This would explain why it was so costly in this particular instance.
  23. The problem is I haven't found any evidence to suggest Paramount ever held the rights to produce their own version of Godzilla, which leads me to believe they attempted to get licensing rights only for the ride itself. If they intended to use the likeness of a pre-existing Godzilla, this is what they would have to do. (They never created their own version of the character, so they would've had to use somebody else's, which would account for why it was so expense.) Note that this doesn't negate your original point about Paramount licensing their IP out to their subsidiaries. It just means this instance was even more costly -- and ultimately futile -- because they would've gone through an additional company (or two, if they were trying to use Sony's). 20th Century Fox Television obtained the rights to produce it in the 1960s, well before WB acquired DC. Because of this, the home video release was stuck in limbo for a really long time and it wasn't until a few years ago that it was finally allowed to happen.
  24. I don't see how they could have. Toho owns the rights to the Japanese Godzilla. Additionally, Sony still owns the 1998 Matthew Broderick version to this day, and Tristar held the rights to and had tried to produce a Godzilla film in the very early 90s. The project lingered in development purgatory for years until the Roland Emmerich film was finally produced. Sony/Tristar then intended to make a pair of sequels and a script for a second film was written. Instead, they produced an animated series and then let the rights expire in the mid-2000s. At some point, Legendary Pictures and Warner Bros. acquired the rights and made their own version. Paramount would have had to attained the rights from Toho and produce their own version of the character, for which would be considered their IP. But they couldn't do this at any time from the early 90s to the mid-2000s because Sony held the US rights to produce films based on the Godzilla property. Paramount Parks may have tried to license either the classic Godzilla from Toho or the American Godzilla from Sony for the ride specifically. Indiana Jones is a bit more complicated. The first four films are distributed by Paramount, but Lucasfilm holds the copyright. This is because of the way George Lucas conducted business after the first Star Wars film. He wanted more control of his IP. So nearly every film he produced starting with The Empire Strikes Back, he had his hands on licensing rights, merchandising, the characters themselves, and so on. (The few exceptions include Howard the Duck, which he produced without Lucasfilm for some reason and of course, is a Marvel character; Labyrinth, which was a co-production with Jim Henson's company; and Tucker: A Man and His Dream, which was a co-production with Francis Ford Coppola's American Zoetrope.) I believe Paramount still retains home video distribution rights to the first four films, but the character moved over Disney with their purchase of Lucasfilm. So naturally, when George Lucas started doing business with Disney Parks, Indiana Jones was included.
×
×
  • Create New...