User:Zanimum/Article that I plan to use for a Wikipedia Project Gemini page

A JimHillMedia exclusive: Your first look at "Project Gemini" Be among the first to find out what Walt Disney Imagineering really has in store for Epcot's Future World section ... or should I say Epcot's new Discoveryland section? The dictionary defines "Gemini" as

A constellation in the Northern Hemsiphere. The third sign of the Zodia. A remarkable event; an omen.

Given all three of these meanings, I have to assume that the Imagineers had the third definition in mind when they opted to name their Future World redo "Project Gemini." For -- if WDI's plans for this extremely ambitious revamp of the front half of Epcot actually does come to pass -- they will have accomplished something truly remarkable. Which is to fundamentally change how WDW guests will experience this part of the Park.

How big a change are we actually talking about here? Well, let's start with the name of that the Imagineers initially came up with for this part of the Park: Future World. As of October 1, 2006, that name will be a thing of the past. From that point forward, the front half of Epcot will be known as Discoveryland.

Why "Discoveryland?" To be honest, this name change is mostly coming about because the Walt Disney Company is tired of flushing millions of dollars down the drain in its attempts to keep Future World futuristic. So -- since the Mouse has spent the last couple of years trying to position Epcot as "The Discovery Park at Walt Disney World" -- the Imagineers thought: "What the hey. Why don't we just make this message extremely clear to the public by renaming the front park of the Park 'Discoveryland'? Then we won't have to keep struggling to keep all of Future World's exhibits continually on the leading edge of science."

Of course, in order to sell the public on Future World's brand new name, it'll be necessary to give Epcot's Discoveryland a bold new look. WDI plans to do this by tearing out much of the neon and the expanses of concrete that make up the heart of this part of the Park and replacing them with trees. Hundreds and hundreds of trees.

The idea behind this part of the redo is to change Epcot's Discoveryland into a lush, green environment. Not the sterile, beige "Future as designed by Republicans" that EPCOT Center's original design team dreamed up for Future World. But something more along the lines of the "Montana of the future" that Disney CEO Michael Eisner tried to sell to the Imagineers as his vision of what Disneyland's New Tomorrowland should look like.

Though -- truth be told -- I think that this reinvention of Epcot's Future World section owes a lot more to the Imagineers' original plans for the Disneyland Resort's second gate, rather than Disneyland itself. How many of you out there remember WDI's plans for Westcot Center? Specifically the lush, green island that was supposed to have served as the base of Spacestation Earth?

Picture that sort of environment ... but now on a grand scale. Encompassing all of Epcot's Future World. Flowers, shrubs and trees everywhere. Curving pathways in and around all of the pavilions in this part of the Park. Not a straight line to be seen anywhere. With the "Fountain of Nations" still presenting elaborate water pageants every 15 minutes.

Wanna take a tour of this radically revamped part of Epcot? Okay. Let's start by having you take a quick look at that "Epcot Discoveryland" map that serves as the central illustration for this article -- you can click the image to the right to see it full sized -- then you can meet me at the main entrance of "The Discovery Park of Walt Disney World" circa October 1, 2006.

As we push our way through the turnstiles, you'll notice that things really don't look all that different. At first. After all, Spaceship Earth still towers over the main entrance plaza.

But -- as you get closer to that golf-ball-on-steroids -- you suddenly realize that you're no longer able to walk under the left side of Spaceship Earth. That area has now all been enclosed. It serves as the pre-show / queue area for the new attraction that's now housed inside the geodesic sphere. Not to mention providing some much needed retail space for the radically expanded Gateway Gifts.

So what's the name of the exciting new attraction that will zooming around inside Spaceship Earth once October 2006 rolls around? "Time Racers," Epcot's latest and greatest thrill ride, sponsored by Microsoft.

And what's "Time Racers" supposed to be like? More importantly, what's this attraction supposed to be about? Well, you can say "good-bye" to that herky-jerky omni-mover trip through the Ages of Man that AT&T used to sponsor. The next attraction to make its home inside "The Ball" will literally send Epcot visitors racing across time. Using time lapse photography as well as cutting edge technology, the Imagineers hope to give WDW guests the impression that they're fast-forwarding through all of human history. Rocketing forward from the time when we were all still living in caves right up today's modern age ... and beyond.

By eyeballing "Time Racers" site plan, you'll note that the attraction's ride vehicle is actually supposed to exit the show building and -- just like at GM Test Track -- take a quick spin outside before it comes to rest in the post-show area. Which will now be housed in the "Global Neighborhood" area of the old "Spaceship Earth" complex.

Now some of you may be asking "Why change Spaceship Earth?" The short answer is: Because this ride -- which many folks consider to be the thesis attraction for the entire theme park -- hasn't really changed since EPCOT Center first opened up back in October of 1982. Oh, sure. Spaceship Earth's narration (and narrator) has been changed several times. And the ride's finale got radically revamped back in the mid-1990s. But beyond that, this omni-mover based attraction has pretty much stayed the same for the past 20+ years.

Which is why a lot of guests who are making return trips to Epcot just opt to breeze on by Spaceship Earth as they enter the Park. After all, what's the point of getting on this Future World attraction again? It's still going to be the same slow moving ride past sleeping monks and smoking ruins.

But -- if Disney changes Spaceship Earth so that there's now an exciting new attraction hidden inside the geodesic sphere -- guests might once again feel compelled to go check out "The Ball." Particularly those hard-to-please teen and pre-teen visitors, those family members who have never really been big fans of this particular part of the Park.

Truth be told, this is the real reason that Disney is about to undertake such an ambitious and expensive (internal WDI documents suggest that the projected construction costs for "Project Gemini" could run as high as $500 million) revamp of Epcot's Future World section. Recent WDW guest surveys supposedly show that this specific part of "The Discovery Park at Walt Disney World" has almost zero appeal to returning visitors under the age of 18.

Translation: teens and pre-teens who have already been to Epcot -- particularly the Future World section of that Park -- often try to talk their parents out of going back to Epcot during their family's return visits to the Walt Disney World Resort. Among the many reasons that these under-18-year-olds cite is "There's nothing for kids to do there" and "Epcot's boring."

For well over a decade now, the Imagineers have known about Epcot's somewhat toxic reputation among teens and pre-teens. That's why WDI has been fighting with WDW management for years, trying to get the company to free up the funds necessary to build a series of low budget "Kidcot" attractions (I.E. interactive kid-friendly exhibits that usually feature an arts and crafts activity that's closely tied thematically to the World Showcase pavilion that's located nearby).

Unfortunately, WDW management has been resisting the Imagineers' suggestions for improving Epcot's kid appeal since the early 1990s. As a prime example of how stubborn Mouse House managers can be, let me tell you about that Viking Boat-themed pay area located right next to the rest rooms for the Norway pavilion in Epcot's World Showcase area. It took almost five years of screaming and threats before WDW management finally agreed to put up the extremely small amount of dough it took to build this Viking Boat play area. Now this low cost attraction typically gets high marks on almost every Epcot guest satisfaction survey. Some WDW guests (8 and under) have even gone so far as to say that the Viking Long Boat play area was their favorite part of Epcot.

Anyway ... with an eye toward increasing Epcot's appeal among returning WDW guests 18 years of age or younger, "Project Gemini" is really trying to pile on the thrills.

Take, for example, the inverted roller coaster that's supposed to be installed right outside the entrance to "The Land" pavilion. This off-the-shelf thrill ride would reportedly take Epcot guests on a fast, fun and informative trip through the canopy of a simulated rainforest.

Right next door to the "Rainforest Rollercoaster," the Imagineers would also like to build two giant Omni-max theaters so that they can finally bring DCA's only hit attraction -- "Soarin' Over California" -- to Florida. According to WDI sources that I've spoken with, the plan is that Epcot's version of "Soarin'" will feature the same exact ride mechanism and theater set-up as the popular Condor Flats attraction. The only difference is that Epcot's "Soarin'" ride film would take Discoveryland visitors soarin' over some of the Earth's more intriguing terrain.

For guests who prefer low-tech fun, WDI is also reportedly looking into creating a hedge maze for the south-western corner of Discoveryland (I.E. the piece of land between "The Land" and the "Imagination" pavilion) -- something that Epcot visitors can wander through and stumble upon various educational exhibits as they try to find the exit.

Over at what used to be Future World's somewhat tired looking "Living Seas" attraction, the Imagineers are hoping that the characters from "The Little Mermaid" will help liven up this particular corner of Discoveryland. Ariel, King Triton and Sebastian are slated to serve as the new hosts of the aptly named "Under the Sea" pavilion. The new pre-show (as well as the bulk of "The Living Seas"'s revamped exhibits) will now stress how we must all learn to live in harmony with the world's oceans. Not over-fish or pollute ... or we risk destroying this precious resource forever.

I'm told that Seabase Alpha will now be repositioned as the finale of the "Under the Sea" show. To show us all how idyllic the future could be if we really do learn to live in harmony with the ocean.

Meanwhile, over at GM "Test Track," the Imagineers are looking to bring an old Disneyland favorite -- the Jr. Autopia -- back to life. The idea behind this particular addition to Discoveryland is that this would be the gentle, kid-friendly ride that WDW guests who are too young and/or too short to safely enjoy "Test Track" could experience while Mom, Dad, and big brother / sister are getting tossed around like test dummies.

According to the "Project Gemini" documentation that I've seen, there are no current plans to change out "Ellen's Energy Adventure" at Future World's ... excuse me ... Discoveryland's "Energy" pavilion. And -- given that the Imagineers are assuming that the soon-to-be-opening "Mission: Space" attraction will be a huge hit with the public -- WDI also has no plans to change out this new Epcot thrill ride by October 2006.

Unfortunately, Epcot's "Wonders of Life" pavilion may not be quite so fortunate. As the Discoveryland site plan that's included with this article clearly illustrates, the Imagineers are reportedly giving some very serious thought to shutting down this entire pavilion (which used to be sponsored by Metropolitan Life) and using this space for "Future Expansion." Whatever THAT means.

So my advice is -- if you're really a big fan of "Cranium Command" and/or "Body Wars" -- now might be a good time to schedule your next WDW vacation. Wrack up a few last rides on both of these attractions. For Epcot's "Wonders of Life" pavilion looks like it will soon be joining "Horizons" and "World of Motion" as a member of the "EEE" Club (I.E. Epcot's Extinct Exhibits).

Speaking of getting your last crack at things ... those of you who are into snagging interesting Disney collectibles, now also might be a good time to start picking up any Epcot merchandise that you can find with the name "Future World" emblazoned on it. For that name officially goes away forever on October 1, 2006.

Speaking of shopping ... let's now talk about Innoventions East and West. That part of Epcot's Future World where you'll find most of the shops and restaurants in this part of the Park. This area has also been slated for a rather severe makeover. As I mentioned earlier, WDI's really trying to create a lush, green look for Discoveryland by planting hundreds of new trees in this section of Epcot.

However, in order to facilitate the growth of all these new trees, Disney's going to have to pull down the roofs that used to connect those old Communicore buildings. The end result is that Innoventions East and West will lose their classic parenthetical shape and become six separate smaller buildings.

To the East, you'll have the "Leading Edge" (a building that will feature exhibits of the latest and greatest in scientific breakthroughs), the "Robot Restaurant" (where guests can dine on burgers and fries while watching "Battle Bots"-like shows live every half hour or so) as well as the "Future Mart" (which -- just like this retail establishment did back when it was called "The Centorium" and "Mouse Gear" -- will sell a wide variety of Epcot- and Disney-related merchandise).

To the West, you'll find the "Home of the Future" (which -- provided that what I've been hearing coming out of WDI lately proves to be true -- could become the new home for most of the AA figures that used to be featured in the soon-to-be-closing "Carousel of Progress" show over at WDW's Magic Kingdom), the Internet Caf? (which -- just like the name implies -- would be the restaurant where Epcot visitors could dine as they checked their e-mail) as well as "Cool Stuff" (the place where WDW visitors could check out the latest in cool consumers products. Doing fun things like taking a Segway out for a test spin, etc.).

So -- as you can see -- this proposed revamp of Epcot's Future World area really is ambitious. It's not going to be just another Innoventions con job -- which tried to use tons of neon, fiber optics and free video games to try and convince WDW guests that there really was something worth seeing in this part of the Park.

And everyone from Imagineering veterans from Walt Disney World management right on down through those rank-and-file Epcot cast members who've been lucky enough to get in on some of the Discoveryland preview sessions agree that "Project Gemini" could be a real lifesaver for this theme park. That the Walt Disney Company would no longer have do things like stage WDW's 15 month long millennium celebration at that Park in order to artificially inflate Epcot's attendance figures.

(FYI: The Walt Disney Company is planning on doing much the same thing in 2005, when the corporation hold a year-long, 'round-the-world celebration of Disneyland's 50th anniversary. Epcot -- because it's the WDW theme park that most desperately needs an attendance boost -- is where the Florida portion of the celebration will be held. Over in Europe, Disney Studios Paris -- which hasn't even come close to meeting its attendance projections -- will be the host park for the Disneyland Paris Resort's version of this celebration. You get the idea, right?)

The only thing that's currently preventing "Project Gemini" from getting an official greenlight is -- of course, what a surprise -- money. While the suits seem to love the idea of turning Epcot's Future World into Discoveryland and what all the proposed changes / additions to this part of the Park could potentially do to WDW's attendance levels, they're also not all that eager to pour $350 - $500 million into Epcot.

I'm told that Paul Pressler -- the former head of Disney Parks and Resorts -- turned WDI's plans for "Project Gemini" down flat when he first saw them back in the Spring of 2002. Paul reportedly told the Imagineers that he liked a lot of the ideas that they'd come up with for improving Epcot, but that he wouldn't okay their plans unless they radically reduce the scope of their Future World redo. Come up with a more affordable alternative.

But then Paul Pressler left the Walt Disney Company in September of last year to pursue other opportunities with the Gap Corporation. And now Jay Rasulo is the new President of Disney Parks and Resorts. And -- when the Imagineers showed Jay the exact same set of "Project Gemini" plans that they'd originally showed Paul back in April of 2002 -- Rasulo reportedly responded with great enthusiasm. He supposedly saw this plan as the way to fix Epcot's Future World once and for all.

So does that mean that "Project Gemini" will now actually go forward? To be honest, I don't know. Based on the rumbling that I've been hearing, Epcot's Discoveryland plan really does have an awful lot of supporters inside the Walt Disney Company. But -- no matter how good a job that Jay Rasulo does with selling "Project Gemini" to the Mouse House's upper management -- this decision actually comes down to just one man: Disney CEO Michael Eisner.

Is Eisner really in a mood right how to embrace a plan that calls for a $350 - $500 million expenditure in order to save Epcot? Given that Disney's institutional investors have been leaning heavily on Uncle Mike to keep the corporation's profits high by keeping costs low, Eisner wouldn't be making a whole lot of new friends on Wall Street if he decided to put these plans in motion.

Indeed, with the U.S. economy currently in the toilet and the threat of war in the Middle East looming ever larger every day, the Walt Disney Company is reportedly considering all manner of cost savings measures right now. I've even heard talk that the Mouse is giving semi-serious thought to actually shutting down each of WDW's theme parks for one day each week. At least 'til the war with Iraq is over and/or tourist traffic patterns for the Orlando theme parks get back to normal.

So, given the current overly-cautious climate, I have to admit that I think that it's unlikely that Eisner -- even with Jay Rasulo doing his damnedest to sell Disney's CEO on this idea -- will actually allow the full-blown version of "Project Gemini" to go forward. A smaller, less ambitious version of the same plan? Sure. But not the complete bells-and-whistles version of the project that you got to read about today.

So why did I post that Discoveryland site plan and/or write this article today? I thought that JHM readers might enjoy finding out what WDI's plans for "Project Gemini" were really all about. Here's hoping that these remarkable plans for overhauling Epcot really are an omen of great things yet to come.

My special thanks to Mr. Bogart (the guy who originally threw the "Project Gemini" site plan my way) as well as Michelle and Nancy (the two women who labored to turn that original piece of art into something that JHM readers would enjoy but that would still prevent me from having to spend the rest of my life in Disney jail and/or prevent some poor Disney employee from accidentally losing their job thanks to today's disclosure of the "Project Gemini" site plan).

Your thoughts?

? Print Article

Discuss Article by Jim Hill February 19, 2003

"Why For" returns! Your questions about the Walt Disney Company (the obscurer the better) answered in that patented long-winded Jim Hill style Belle from Celebration, FL. writes:

Dear Jim:

Love the web-site. But you have to be kidding me? Disney's actually talking about doing a live action movie version of "Beauty and the Beast"? I don't care how good the Broadway musical is. Seeing live performers portray Cosgworth, Lumiere and Mrs. Potts will just ruin the original for me ...

Belle,

Would it help if I told you that Disney's animated version of "Beauty and the Beast" actually started out life as a live action project?

Strange but true. But as a follow-up to his highly acclaimed 1983 Touchstone Pictures release, "Never Cry Wolf," director Carroll Ballard talked with Disney execs about doing a big screen version of this classic fairy tale. This project made it so far along in the studio's development pipeline that "Beauty and the Beast" warranted a mention in the company's 1982 annual report.

The problem - as you might well understand - was how to pull off the Beast in a live action film. Carroll reportedly didn't want to copy Jean Cocteau's 1946 take on this tale and just have his romantic lead slathered in make-up. So - for a time - there was actually supposed some talk about doing the Beast (at least while the character was in Beastly form) as an audio-animatronic.

However, before Ballard's "Beauty and the Beast" made it too far along the Disney development track, there was a management change at the studio in September 1984. Suddenly Ron Miller was out & Michael Eisner was in. Consequently, any film projects that Miller had initiated just prior to his exit had to be reviewed by Eisner's people before they could officially go forward. These folks then read through Carroll's treatment and said "Well, I don't know about live action. But this might make a cool animation film."

So the new management team at Disney reportedly told Ballard "Thanks but no thanks," then sent him packing. (Which was really kind of sad. Why? Because after his Disney deal fell through, it would be nine years before this gifted film-maker could deliver another film to the big screen: Columbia Tristar's 1992 release, "Wind."). They then assigned a few screenwriters the task of turning "Beauty and the Beast" into a screenplay for a feature length cartoon.

Of course, these guys ran into the same problems that Walt Disney's team ran into in the late 1930s, and again in the late 1940s (When these guys repeatedly tried to turn the story of "Beauty and the Beast" into something that could support a full length animated feature). Which is: What do you do in Act II? When all that the girl and the beast seem to do is sit around and eat dinner. Every so often, the Beast blurts out "Will you marry me?" The girl says "No" ... Which is not nearly as entertaining as watching - say - a Fairy Godmother conjuring up a pair of glass slippers (Which is why Disney ultimately decided to make "Cinderella" instead of "B & B".)

So, from early 1985 to 1988, two different teams of writers took a whack at turning "Beauty and the Beast" into a big screen cartoon. Both failed ... Which is why the project eventually end up in Linda Woolverton's lap. Woolverton (Whose only work for the Mouse prior to this point was churning out a few scripts for "Chip 'n Dale's Rescue Rangers") had written a novel that had impressed an unnamed executive at Disney Feature Animation. Which is why Linda ended up getting a shot at writing "Beauty and the Beast."

Four drafts later, Woolverton came up with a screenplay that everyone at Walt Disney Feature Animation thought they could live with. Mind you, this was the now-legendary non-musical version of "Beauty and the Beast." The one that then-Disney-Studio-head Jeffrey Katzenberg shut down after just 10 weeks of production. One look at the film's leica reel convinced Katzenberg that "B & B" was still too dark, too dour, too slow.

So "Beauty & the Beast"'s original director - animation veteran Richard Purdum was "persuaded" to step aside. Alan Menken & Howard Ashman were reluctantly (And when I say "reluctantly," I mean "REALLY reluctantly." These guys just didn't want to make "Beauty & the Beast" as their follow-up to "The Little Mermaid." They wanted to push ahead with Howard's dream project: a big goofy Bob-Hope-and-Bing-road-picture-version of "Aladdin") recruited to write some songs for the film ...

And the rest of the story ... Well, you can see for yourself next Tuesday, when the Platinum Collection edition of "Beauty and the Beast" goes on sale everywhere. Hopefully, somewhere among all those cool extra features that Disney crammed onto this DVD, they'll make some mention of the live action version of "Beast" that Carroll Ballard wanted to make. Or - at the very least - give us a peek at those 1930s & 1940s versions of "Beauty" that Walt tried to get off the ground.

So anyway, Belle ... To make a long story short ("It's too late now!"), Disney turning "Beauty and the Beast" into a live action film isn't really all that strange an idea. I mean, if the cards had fallen the other way, Carroll Ballard would have probably gotten a chance to make his version of "B & B." Which undoubtedly would have been loaded with sumptuous cinematography.

So who knows? Maybe some enterprising executive at Disney Feature Animation will read this and think: "That's what we should do! Hire Carroll Ballard to direct the live action version of 'Beauty and the Beast'!"

Don't laugh. This is Hollywood that we're talking about, after all, Belle. A place where bizarre things like this happen all the time ...

And speaking of bizarre Hollywood related stories, let's go to our next letter. BigFatTom from Cleveland writes:

What's the deal with Disneyana fans getting so excited about that "Journey to the Center of the Earth" ride over at Tokyo Disney Sea. I mean, it looks like a cool ride and all. But it's not like Disney ever made a movie based on that Verne book.

That's true, BigFatTom. But you might interested to know that - within the last 10 years - Disney actually came within inches of making a big budget live action version of Jules Verne's "Journey to the Center of the Earth."

The screenplay that I've seen for the project (Which - on its title page - says that film was to have been called "Walt Disney's 'A Journey to the Center of the Earth') was written in September 1993 by Clifford & Ellen Green. For those of you who don't know, the Greens are a fairly successful screenwriting team. They're the folks who wrote "SpaceCamp," "Three Wishes," "The Seventh Sign" and "Bless The Child." (Disneyana fans might know Clifford & Ellen best from their work on their 1985 ill-fated Touchstone Pictures' release, "Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend.")

Anyway ... Jules Verne fans will no doubt be disappointed to hear that the Greens' script wasn't exactly a faithful adaptation. To be honest, it ditches the book's original 18th century setting entirely and sets "Journey" in the modern world. A few memorable locations and set pieces are carried over from the novel. But, beyond that, it's basically a brand new story.

That said, this story does start off with a bang. Disney's "A Journey to the Center of the Earth" begins out in the Mojave Desert in the middle of the night. Scientists at the Goldstone Tracking Station think that they're on a brink of a huge scientific break-through. Why for ? Because their enormous array of antennas are picking up what appears to be a signal from deep space.

But - as they try to get a fix on the signal - the scientists are in for a rude shock. For this beacon isn't actually coming from outer space. It's coming from inner space. Deep inside the center of the earth, to be precise.

Eventually, we learn that this signal - a distress beacon, to be precise - is being sent by a speleological expedition that being lead by Robby MacLachlan. Who - not-so-co-incidentally is the son of the gruff, driven billionaire J. Robert MacLachlan.

Of course, Robby and J. Robert have been estranged for a number of years. But that doesn't Mac from quickly mounting a rescue mission. As is usually the case in films like this, the billionaire assembled a team of colorful characters to help him find his son. These include Billy Holden, a caving expert who's looking for a big score; Dr. Caryl Wickham, a trauma specialist; Alex MacLachlan, Mac's headstrong grandson who's determined to go along on the expedition and help save his dad; as well as Hans, an expert rock climber that the script describes as looking "like a Norse God with the smile of an angel."

This unlikely group of explorers journeys to Iceland. There - on the slope of Mt. Snaeffel - they follow the clues in an ancient manuscript - which directs them down a particular lava tube in the not-so-extinct volcano. From there, it's an exciting but often treacherous trip down deep into the bowels of the earth.

I won't lie to you, folks. There's a reason that Disney ultimately opted not to make the Cliffords' version of "A Journey to the Center of the Earth." The third act of this proposed film kind of loses its way. Instead of being an epic adventure, suddenly "Journey" becomes about how greed undermines the team at a very crucial point in the plotline. And what do the explorers have to be greedy about? How about rubies the size of softballs?

But before that happens, there are some great set pieces in this script. Mac and his hand-picked team sailing across a vast subterranean sea while seated inside of an enormous upturned mushroom cap. A hellish electrical storm that sends ball lightening raining down on the explorers. Fleeting encounters with the citizens at the center of the Earth.

Which is why Disney Studio officials probably felt that "Journey" - once the Greens' version was significantly rewritten, of course - would be a pretty safe bet for the company. A film that they could advertise as being "in the tradition of Disney's '20,000 Leagues Under the Seas.'"

At the very least, the Imagineers were excited by the idea that Disney was thinking of making a movie based on Jules Verne's "A Journey to the Center of the Earth." Which is why WDI immediately set to work designing "Journey" - inspired rides and attractions.

"What sorts of rides?" you ask. Some of you who visited "The Walt Disney Story" at WDW's Magic Kingdom in the early 1990s may recall seeing some intriguing artwork up in the post-show portion of that theater. It showed a giant magma worm (which reportedly was going to be the largest audio-animatronic figure that WDI ever built) rising up out of a pool of lava, snapping at passengers who were riding through a "Journey to the Center of the Earth" attraction.

Where exactly would this ride have been located at Florida? At Disney-MGM, actually. The preliminary plan was that a "Journey" - themed sequence would be added to that park's Backstage Tram Tour. The tram would roll into a soundstage where several scenes from the "Journey" movie had allegedly been shot. You'd pass through jewel encrusted caverns, the ruins of Atlantis and then - just as you pull alongside a boiling pool of lava - the magma worm would rise up out of the muck and begin snapping at the trams full of tourists.

The idea was - by adding another big special effects filled sequence like "Catastrophe Canyon" to the Backstage Tram Tour - the Imagineers could finally get guests excited about riding this somewhat underwhelming Disney-MGM attraction again (Let's face facts, folks: "Catastrophe Canyon" aside, rolling past facades used in the filming of "Ernest Saves Christmas" as well as rusted-out wrecks from "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" just doesn't scream "reride." At least to me.)

But all of this never happened. Why for? Because - in the end - Disney execs weren't entirely certain that modern moviegoers would turn out for a film that was based on a 125 year-old novel. Which is why the studio ultimately ditched "Journey" in favor of doing a film that was based on a 43 year-old book: "Robert A. Heinlein's The Puppet Masters."

That this Hollywood Pictures release sank without a trace was - in a weird sort of way - actually a comfort to Disney Studio execs. If you can believe this circular bit of thinking, they actually used the failure of "Puppet Masters" to make themselves feel good about their decision to cancel production of "Journey to the Center of the Earth."

See if you can follow this logic: "Puppet Masters" bombed at the box office NOT because it was a bad movie. But - rather - because movie-goers don't like films that are based on science fiction books. Which is why - ultimately - it was a real good thing that Disney didn't go ahead with production of "Journey to the Center of the Earth." After all, that movie would have been based on a really OLD science fiction book. And everyone in Hollywood knows that people hate old books.

So everyone at Disney Studios forgot about "Journey to the Center of the Earth." At least on the live action side of the house. Over in Feature Animation, Kirk Wise, Gary Trousdale and Don Hahn - for a short time, anyway - did toy with the idea of doing an animated version of "Journey." Until they decided that it might be more fun to make up their own journey-to-the-center-of-the-earth story. Which is where "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" ended up coming from.

But the Imagineers ... They never, ever forgot about "Journey to the Center of the Earth." Which is why - as they were prepping the "Mysterious Island" section of Tokyo Disney Sea - someone floated the idea of folding the "Center of the Earth" mythology into Capt. Nemo's secret base at Vulcania. Particularly the notion of guests having this far-too-close encounter with an enormous, extremely angry audio-animatronic creature.

So, yes, BigFatTom, you're right. There was no Disney's "Journey to the Center of the Earth" movie to serve as the inspiration for the Tokyo Disney Sea attraction. But - just like with Carroll Ballard's proposed live action version of "Beauty and the Beast" - if the cards had fallen just a little bit differently, there could have been.

And - finally - Steve C. wrote to say:

Hi Jim,

Given your Big Idea article on Digital Media FX a while back, I was wondering if you had any thoughts or insight regarding their feature film debut this Friday, "Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie."

Love the new site, keep up the good work!

Thanks, Steve

Okay, Long story short here, folks. I am NOT a Christian. (The joke that I usually make at this point is that I am so far from being a Christian that I'm actually in the Express Lane to Hell. Down to three virtues or less. Anyway ... ) That said, I still have nothing but respect for the folks over at Big Idea.

Why? Because they make these great videos that could be preachy, but aren't. Sure, the VeggieTales tapes (as well as 3-2-1 Penguins and the LarryBoy Cartoon Adventures) all slip in a little spiritual teaching. But it's not in your face stuff. It's subtle. Soft-peddled. You wanna listen and learn, that's okay. If you just want to laugh at the silly talking vegetables, that's okay too.

And the VeggieTale tapes ARE funny, folks. Personally, I'd put them right up there with the very best work of Jim Henson and Charles Schulz. Loaded with wit and whimsy. But plenty of heart too.

Which is why I'm heading out today to check out Big Idea's very first feature film, "Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie." I just can't wait to see what the Pirates Who Don't Do Anything do on the big screen.

I promise that I'll be back next week with a full report on this sure-to-be fun motion picture. But, in the meantime, if you're in need of a laugh and/or a bit of a spiritual lift this weekend, I'm betting that it would be a good idea to check out Big Idea's "Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie."

That's it for today, folks. Here's hoping that you all have a great weekend. We'll talk again on Monday, okay? Til then, take care.

jrh

? Print Article Discuss Article by Jim Hill October 4, 2002

ost savi�è?wpSummary=