That's a very interesting article.

It's so cool to read stories about where these rides/attractions truly come from.

I'm a little confused...

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2004/06/15/417.aspx

"Now Pacific Ocean Park - given that (back in its amusement pier days) this project had actually predated Disneyland - Walt couldn't get himself all that worked up about that amusement park. Whereas Pleasure Island ... The very idea that this theme park even existed was making Disney a little bit crazy."

Possibly, some of the inconsistencies between the two are from new information that you received?  After all, that earlier article states that it was mainly Pleasure Island, not POP, that caused the creation of Disneyland.

I'd like to see a bit more of an updated article that clears up this imbalance and spreads the blame for the trio of attractions a little more evenly since now it seems that the above quoted text isn't as valid anymore...

Frumious, it was probably a little earlier when you read the article above.  But now, if you read it fully awake, most of the inconsistencies you perceived will vanish.  The earlier story centered on the Matterhorn while this revolved around the Submarines.  It would not be out of line for Walt Disney to push the Matterhorn as his response to the perceived ill treatment he got from C.V. Wood, and the Subs for his slight from CBS.  

As has been stated Disney was fiercely competitive, a trait I admire in him, because he competed not by destroying the competition, but by bettering it.  If he had better animation, if he had better attractions, if he had better people, he could come out on top.  If the competition then withered, so be it.  If it answered back, Disney knew he would once again one-up them with newer, better products.

So rather than see these two articles as contradictory, I see them as two views of multifaceted story that has many more tales still to tell.

I can answer one question regarding the subs. Disneyland had hoped to retheme the subs to Disney's "Atlantis" but that was scrapped when that film didn't do as well as they had hoped. Jim, I find this article interesting as I just received a DVD from the Extinct Attractions Club that has footage of Pacific Ocean Park. It's some neat footage but as far as what I can see from it, the park wasn't much different from other ocean side parks.

Is there any more info on that upcoming book on Disneyland's early competitors?  It sounds like a very interesting concept.

Those postcards of Pacific Ocean Park look interesting.  The South Seas theming predates Disneyland's, and that island with the waterfall surrounding it looks pretty neat.  

I'm not surprised by Walt's reaction to the competition, given his history.  Having read a lot of the biographies about him, it makes perfect sense.  I also agree that I like his competitive spirit, in that he didn't try to sabotage the competition or do anything underhanded.  He responded by one-upping them and bettering his company/assets in the process.

This really has nothing to do with the article, but be careful Jim. Google owns none of the copyrights to those photos, so captioning them "Courtesy of Google Images", when actually you're grabbing them from other sites, is a bit misleading. Google Images is just a search engine you're using to find these images.

Again, Jim is doing the ridiculous "courtesy of google images" nonsense.  Jim, when are you going to learn your lesson and just credit the photographer instead of this misleading garbage?  You've already got in hot water from the people you took the images from, what is it going to take to clean up your act?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

It looks like the original POP image is from http://www.westland.net/venicehistory/articles/pop.htm

So anyone want to drop that webmaster a line to let him know his image is being used without permission?

minderbinder said:

"So anyone want to drop that webmaster a line to let him know his image is being used without permission?"

Yeah..anyone wanna be a complete jackball and play "self appointed internet police" and tattle on Jim?  

Jesus...get a life.

So you're fine with Jim stealing other's work without giving credit.  Good for you.

Some of us actually have ethical standards.

Calm down, guys. If you'd actually look at the photo credits that we're talking about here, you'd see that that these images are listed as "Vintage Postcards." Which I actually did track down by using Google Images.

Given that postcards typically don't have photo credits ... More importantly, given that it's been nearly 50 years since these photos were taken and that there is no possible way now to determine who actually took the pictures that were then used to create these postcards ... What am I supposed to do ? This is the best photo credit that I could come up with given the circumstances.

Given that I myself didn't find these images, I at least wanted to credit the technical device that I'd then used to find these postcards. Which was -- as I keep mentioning -- was Google Images.

So what is it exactly that you want me to do here ? Invent a photo credit that then attributes these vintage postcards to CBS & the Los Angeles Turf Club ? Given that those two organizations haven't actually owned POP since 1959, or that the park itself hasn't existed since 1967, that doesn't seem right. And why exactly should I be crediting these images to Westland.net ? I mean, that website doesn't post any photo credits for these postcards either.

Guys, I would really like to make you happy here. And -- if you actually look over JHM -- you'll see that (Unlike a lot of other websites) I make a point of trying to include photo credits and/or linking back to the sites that  get my information from. But in this particular case, given that I was working with vintage postcards -- NOT photographs that previously featured photo credits -- this is the best that I could do given the circumstances.

Unless -- of course -- you guys have some other suggestion about how I should credit uncredited press photographs and/or postcards that I find by using Google Images.

Your thoughts ?

Hey, Minderbinder...how much you paying for this site? Exactly.  Just for some perspective, I'm a writer...last night I discovered an entire episode of a TV show I wrote in the early 90's on You Tube...know what I'm gonna do about it?...nothing...know how much I care?...about as much as you should care about "Google images" being shared over the internet...not at all.

Keep up the great work Jim, I work in the film industry, where you have a lot of fans...just a really fun site.

"So what is it exactly that you want me to do here ?"

Glad you asked.  It's very simple.  Though you used google for searching, google doesn't supply the images.  When you click on the google link, it takes you to the website you're grabbing the image from.

So just credit the image to the website that the image is from.  Is that really so hard to do?  And if you wanted you could even link back to the page or site you got it from.

I don't see any reason not to do this.  So why not actually credit the original site instead of the inaccurate "google images" (that's no better than crediting the image to "internet explorer" since that's where you saw the image).

"why exactly should I be crediting these images to Westland.net?"

Because they actually went to the trouble of putting the image online.  If it wasn't for their website, you wouldn't have that image on this story.  And if the image came from another website, readers might be interested in visiting that site and seeing whatever other pictures and info is there.  So please credit them.

If only that competitive one-upsmanship spirit still existed within Disney Co. , instead of the "well our spreadsheet has bigger numbers than your spreadsheet - so we win" spirit. Eisner definately ushered in the "why worry, just see how much money we can pull outa here" era.

Odd to look at 1959 ushering in the Matterhorn. Without Walt's competitive spirit, the latest greatest ride introduced some 45 years later was (drumroll) an updated Matterhorn.  Yes, Everest is at least half of a really good looking mountain, with a big AA fig that may or may not be working, and lots and lots of flags.  

Today's Disney Co only competes financially. You know something's wrong when POP looks more inviting than DCA or the Paris Studios.

Hey Nancy; I have some postcards of Pacific Ocean Pier somewhere. I can send them too you if you like...but then again they are the same images you have here though mine are a bit frayed as they are used postcards LOL.

I think this whole Google Images business is simply a matter of citing your sources.  If you write an academic paper and use information from a website, the citation wouldn't be for the search engine used to find the website; you would cite the website itself.

Similarly, for example, there's Wikipedia.  It's a great source of information, but the user editing feature can lead to unreliable information, so if the article you're looking at cites its sources, you go to the cited sites, look for the information you want to use, and you cite that site, not Wikipedia, even though Wikipedia led you to that site.

So really, I'd say the best method for this situation is to say  "Photo courtesy of/found at...." because then the site that originally hosted the pictures gets the credit.

Of course, all of this is just distracting from a genuinely interesting article, so...yeah.

minderbender said:

"So you're fine with Jim stealing other's work without giving credit.  Good for you.

Some of us actually have ethical standards."

minderbender, I don't disagree that JHM should credit the website that both scanned in the postcards and uploaded them online.  But your attitude about the whole issue make you come off like a weirdo with too much time on your hand.  

"ethical standards?!"  This is a website that writes about theme park rides and animated movies.  Don't be such a "splooser" (part spaz/ part loser)*

*credit for the term "splooser" is properly given to Adam Carolla so as not to tick off minderbender.

It's true, Minderbinder.  You sound more like a Neidermeyer here.  

Also: make your point without acting like a squealing jerkass next time and people won't react to you as if you were a squealing jerkass.  Simple, no?

Mindbender....

You want to complain about something .... why not attack Google.

What on earth is "Google Image" for anyway?

While you are at it ... find out who the evil mastermind behind <right click> "save picture as...." is and lock him up for life.

Go after the creators of "Photoshop" and track down every greeting card or calendar that anyone has ever made and hung on their cubical at work. Then sue the employers.

Then ... prosecute everyone who owns a myspace page and a "potobucket" (or similar account).

Finally ... prosecute everyone who has ever printed on a printer or copy machine anything, because almost everying on the internet has a caption that says "not to be reproduced without permission".

That outta eliminate your problem.

I enjoyed the article deeply.

Now, I am not too sure if I care to read the comments when so many readers get a kick out of throwing names at each other.

Can't we be more civilized and curteous? You'd think that Paris Hilton just posted here!

Why so much rath and anger?

"Get a life" someone posted! Well, I guess we should all "get a life" and SMILE! That would be a nice reflection on us!

What a silly world we live in!

OK here's the thing: The so called copyright holders are deceased! The park no longer exists! The other web sites that have these images have no more of a right to post them than anybody else! Get the idea?

Curmudgeon, you are so right. IF ONLY the pier section of DCA even came CLOSE to the charm and imagination found in the POP attractions...!

A few years back the "E" Ticket magazine dedicated an issue to POP. It described a few of the rides in detail and it really made me feel like I had missed out on something special.

I'm glad POP 'inspired' Walt to create the submarine ride. It had been my favorite attraction since I first experienced the one at WDW back in the seventies. When I moved to California in the Eighties, a trip to Disneyland wasn't complete without taking a ride on the subs. In the nineties, it was one of the first rides I took my then 6 month old son on (holding him up to the porthole to watch the underwater activity) I've been able to get some of the most jaded people to smile at the simple charm of this ride--which is why I'm a little worried about the Finding Nemo refurbishing. I liked it just the way it was.

I agree.

I too am a little worried about the Nemo ride.

I think that Fantasyland was a good place to relive the animated features, but to change the whole park into nothing more than marketing tools for the movies. I'm not for that really.

I also worry about the "charm" factor getting trampled on by the frantic, high decibel, fast talking type of ride that someone seems to believe kids today "need" in order to be entertained. (Thinking the WDW Tiki Room).

Part of what made the Submarine Voyage classic in the first place was that it was incredibly S-L-O-W.  And it didn't have to be loud or fast .... I realize that is what killed attendance later on ... but it's what I will miss.

While it may seem like an obvious good choice for business to use the parks to promote movies... I don't think it’s the best thing artistically and their can be overkill in this area.

While I’m sure I will enjoy the ride and like it a lot. ... And definitely appreciate the technical achievements ... it will remain a slightly bittersweet experience... and another original turned into a ride … based on a movie.

No response from Jim or Nancy?

You asked what you should do.  And then ignored that response.

Seriously, what's the objection to crediting the websites the images are from instead of putting "google images"?  Why?

I happen to like Expedition Everest very much..

(Shaking my head)

Minderbinder,

1st - Nancy DID respond. If you are too 'occupied' to read the posts, then please refrain from making uneducated comments.

2nd - I looked all over and found NO credit for your use of the name 'Minderbinder'. This is a blatant rip-off from the book CATCH 22 by Joseph Heller.

3rd - Do you also call the police when you see people driving 3 mph over the speed limit? This 'issue' in this case (as Nancy graciously explained should you care to read it) is just as trivial and pointless IMHO.

ANYWAY, my one reponse to this article... is it just me, or did I fail to register the 'anger' in Walt's responses? Sometimes I think people read too much into what they 'hope' someone is saying. Or maybe I just give people too much credit. Yes, he did make subtle remarks directed at POP... but angry? Not that I could tell.

Hahahahaha! Good for Walt - he did the smart thing. Tiffany Network.... they're mean.

To Mindbender:

Waaaaaa!