Golden Dreams

[Huff]

I love DCA and I know there are some of you that say that "they" failed in their execution of the plan, but I still love it.

I love DCA as well. When it first opened people seemed to dislike it. While theres many things I would have done different its a fun park I enjoy. I tend to spend more time at DCA than DL.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Telling only one side of the story no matter how truthful that side is tends to sway the audience towards only one viewpoint. That does the settlers of California a diservice and paints them as nothing but racist, greedy and corrupt when most were not. Only some were.

While its true that we can point out the bad so as not to repeat it the same holds true for the opposite. Showing the good is a great way to tell what to repeat!! The film failed in the latter when so many 1000's of California settlers were not racist, were not corrupt and were not evil nor greedy.

I think it's obvious that you completely missed the point that the movie was trying to make...It wasn't there to be a negative. It was there to be a positive; to encourage us that despite our mistakes we can strive for more and be better than we were. Granted, not everyone was a racist. However, if not for greed, than why was there even a Gold Rush or a rush to settle the west? Of course it was greed, along with the dreams of all the possibilities of what could be in the new land. He who makes a claim to the land first owns the land. And he who has the most toys, land, money, etc., wins. They have the power. Americans didn't own California even when they 'settled' the land. It belonged to Mexico, and before them it belonged to the American Indians. Battles were fought to acquire the land. That's not greed? Of course it was greed, albeit coupled with the dreams of all who came.
Like I wrote earlier, you'll be very happy because it's now gone.

 

[Huff]

I think it's obvious that you completely missed the point that the movie was trying to make...It wasn't there to be a negative. It was there to be a positive; to encourage us that despite our mistakes we can strive for more and be better than we were. Granted, not everyone was a racist. However, if not for greed, than why was there even a Gold Rush or a rush to settle the west? .

No point missed at all. I believe in encouraging by emphasising the good that others have done and their successes while also explaining mistakes and lessons learned. Positive encouragement is superior to negative encouragement in my view although both play a needed role. Its a matter of what you feel is the more important of the two to emphasise the most.

The desire to be successful and live a good life cannot be equated to greed. Most who settled in California were simply looking for something rather than the nothing they came from. There were opportunities that people moved to. Thats not greed.

 

[Judy from Boise]

If we go back to the American adventure in Epcot, there are segments on
Wars:
revolutionary
WWI
WWII

On National struggles:
great depression
unchecked western expansion

And on the struggle for equal rights:
Slavery
Sufferage
Indian

The positive is both implied , most of the audience are patriotic Americans, and bookended at the begining, and especially the end and movie montage.

Golden Dreams was executed the same way, with just less AA characters. I found it moving, sobering, and encouraging.

 

[Huff]

If we go back to the American adventure in Epcot, there are segments on
Wars:
revolutionary
WWI
WWII

On National struggles:
great depression
unchecked western expansion

And on the struggle for equal rights:
Slavery
Sufferage
Indian

The positive is both implied , most of the audience are patriotic Americans, and bookended at the begining, and especially the end and movie montage.

Golden Dreams was executed the same way, with just less AA characters. I found it moving, sobering, and encouraging.

Disney tries to be politically correct and thus includes everyone that ever suffered. While its important to tell I don't feel it does justice to dwell mostly on the evils of settlers, corporations etc. There is soooo much more to tell, mostly about good hard working people that I feel the film ignores.

 

[kikiq]

Disney tries to be politically correct and thus includes everyone that ever suffered. While its important to tell I don't feel it does justice to dwell mostly on the evils of settlers, corporations etc. There is soooo much more to tell, mostly about good hard working people that I feel the film ignores.

OK, I'll "bite"... California was settled by many hard working people of many cultures thus the nickname "melting pot". So again I am supposing you would have like more emphasis on the western expansion from the east coast. The statement "includes everyone that ever suffered" is an interesting one since each of those ethnic groups is a significant part of the population of California. The film did show Mulholland an Irish immigrant who was instrumental in making the LA aqueduct happen, as well as the women who took over men's jobs during WWII. It showed many different people who made major contributions to our society. AND ends celebrating all the wonderful people whose dreams made California great as well as the dreams of those young people who will make California even greater.

 

[Huff]

OK, I'll "bite"... California was settled by many hard working people of many cultures thus the nickname "melting pot". So again I am supposing you would have like more emphasis on the western expansion from the east coast. The statement "includes everyone that ever suffered" is an interesting one since each of those ethnic groups is a significant part of the population of California. The film did show Mulholland an Irish immigrant who was instrumental in making the LA aqueduct happen, as well as the women who took over men's jobs during WWII. It showed many different people who made major contributions to our society. AND ends celebrating all the wonderful people whose dreams made California great as well as the dreams of those young people who will make California even greater.

I think you miss my point. Most people I have seen the film with all walk away with the same feeling as me. That the film implies that California was settled mostly by a bunch of greedy, white racists and evil corporations . Maybe you got a different feeling from the film but many feel the way I do about it.

My ancestors were some of the early settlers. Mostly in the central valley as well as the south S.F. bay area. This film did nothing to show the 1000's like them that came and helped settle California. They were among the majority of settlers yet the film ignored them and instead talked mostly about the smaller negative aspects. I suppose I am biased because I know their story well.

 

[mechurchlady]

My Mexican grandmother came from New Mexico with her daughter who was born in there. The schools were going to put the little girl in the tents for the Hispanic kids. Once long long ago there was a petition passed around to keep Hispanics out of the Broadmoor where I live. My aged neighbor told us about that.

People are given the film to watch with no explanation as to the underlying meaning so some people might be turned off by watching the coolie dying when the rock wall collapse or that a Japanese picture bride was insulted. I rather see the truth and how those people overcame those obstacles.

By the way my Quaker ancestor was very poor in England during the 1600 because the Church run government fined people like him who met in pastures to discuss livestock (meeting to conspire against the country) and for not racing horses, not registering children and weddings in the English church. He came to America poor but died land rich and had many personal possessions like cattle, horses, a home and a large family who was also well off. Same story but different people and has been going on since the dawn of time. I like how he died rich and stuck to his beliefs despite prejudice and hatred toward him.

 

[Huff]

People are given the film to watch with no explanation as to the underlying meaning so some people might be turned off by watching the coolie dying when the rock wall collapse or that a Japanese picture bride was insulted. I rather see the truth and how those people overcame those obstacles.

To an extent I agree but why ignore the hard work of the majority that settled California? They suffered through hard times as well and their own hard work sometimes paid off, sometimes it didn't. Many died in poverty but their work helped others for the future. Isn't that the truth as well or does it only have to be about the minority of settlers regarding the racism, insults, corporate greed etc? I'm not against showing what Golden Dreams did but it unfairly paints a picture thats far from the truth. The majority of early settlers were not as the film implied, only some.

 

[mechurchlady]

To an extent I agree but why ignore the hard work of the majority that settled California? They suffered through hard times as well and their own hard work sometimes paid off, sometimes it didn't. Many died in poverty but their work helped others for the future. Isn't that the truth as well or does it only have to be about the minority of settlers regarding the racism, insults, corporate greed etc? I'm not against showing what Golden Dreams did but it unfairly paints a picture thats far from the truth. The majority of early settlers were not as the film implied, only some.

My grandmother had the Quaker birthright. A long standing argument for the abolitionists was about corn. If a man steal corn, a plow, and mules then plants the corn and cares for the mules, corn, and plow then should he reap the harvest that comes from his sins. I do not have one of those debates on hand but do remember that as an interesting point about slavery which instead of corn was the landowner getting profit from stolen labour.

therefore I leave you with the question of whether the benefits and hard work reaped from stolen labour and land and discriminatory laws should be mentioned. I think they should be included in our history. The other settlers worked just as hard and some suffered also hardships.

 

[Huff]

therefore I leave you with the question of whether the benefits and hard work reaped from stolen labour and land and discriminatory laws should be mentioned. I think they should be included in our history. The other settlers worked just as hard and some suffered also hardships.

I agree they should but those stories do not make up the majority of how California was settled in my opinion. It ignores most of the history and seems to imply that the story of greed, corruption etc. is an accurate story of the majority of those who settled California. I don't feel it was.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

No point missed at all. I believe in encouraging by emphasising the good that others have done and their successes while also explaining mistakes and lessons learned. Positive encouragement is superior to negative encouragement in my view although both play a needed role. Its a matter of what you feel is the more important of the two to emphasise the most.

I thought the movie did a great job of sandwiching the negative in between the good and positive. It made the end result seem even more positive because it briefly touched on the negative.

The desire to be successful and live a good life cannot be equated to greed. Most who settled in California were simply looking for something rather than the nothing they came from. There were opportunities that people moved to. Thats not greed.

And this is exactly why all the immigrants came to the U.S. -- they had a strong desire to be successful and live a better life than whatever they came from. It truly is a melting pot of various people and cultures.
So I guess we are in agreement. I don't know why you felt that the movie made people and corporations look greedy. I didn't get that out of the movie. I didn't walk out of the movie thinking about greed. I walked out of there touched and thinking about what a great country we live in, how awesome we are as a people, and how we are given a chance at a great life and it's up to us to choose what to make of our opportunities. I walked out of there hoping that my son understood that the opportunities our predecessors had to fight for should not be squandered, but instead celebrated and utilized. I only pointed out that people moving West and taking other peoples' land could be construed as greedy because you mentioned that you and people you went with all thought it made people and corporations look geedy and evil. If that's how you saw it, then that's how you saw it I guess. However, the bottom line is everyone who settled in the entire U.S.A. came here from somewhere else in the hopes of having better opportunities and a better life for themselves and their families. States like California (and Hawaii) are true melting pots and imo really illustrate what all in America need to understand. There is no one master race. We are all settlers whose families came here for a chance at a better life.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

I agree they should but those stories do not make up the majority of how California was settled in my opinion. It ignores most of the history and seems to imply that the story of greed, corruption etc. is an accurate story of the majority of those who settled California. I don't feel it was.

Who, exactly, is the majority who settled in California?
ETA: Anyone besides the American Indians were settlers.

 

[Huff]

So I guess we are in agreement. I don't know why you felt that the movie made people and corporations look greedy. I didn't get that out of the movie. .

I just felt the film went out of its way to emphasize the dark parts of California history and those responsible for such. I just don't think that should have been a main driving point. To me it left out the 1000's such as my ancestors that were great people who worked hard and helped others along the way. It failed to tell their story and I think people like them make of the majority of those early settlers.

 

[Pirate-Emery]

I loved the Montage at the end: lovely montage of all the great Californians (although Walt wasn't a true born Californian, it was a travesty that they just flashed his image in the middle of the montage as opposed to focusing on him for a bit).

The "dramatic" portion of the film always ran me the wrong way. Whoopi always came off as rather crabby to me, but that's just my opinion.


Granted, I did not imagine that this kind of debate would commence. Woo...

 

[Huff]

Who, exactly, is the majority who settled in California?

Point is that most who helped settle California weren't racists, weren't greedy, weren't cruel slave drivers of Asians etc. I got from the film that most were all that.

Anyways enough debating! It's just an attraction I didn't care for at all. It's closing I assume froim lack of popularity for a variety of reasons not just that of my own.

In it's defense I did like some of the special effects in the theater. Not a big Whoopie fan though!

 

[mechurchlady]

Like Honey I Shrunk the Audience this show was something you saw once in a lifetime or once every few years. I rather ride Casey Jr. than see HISTA and some other things like Star Tours. That and being in DCA meant there was low turnout. When they started the work on DCA that of course had to be high on the things that were not worth saving. Ask people what one thing they would remove from Tomorrowland and HISTA is top of the list, same with Golden Dreams.

I will miss that pretty building most. I loved the architecture.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Anyways enough debating! It's just an attraction I didn't care for at all. It's closing I assume froim lack of popularity for a variety of reasons not just that of my own.

In it's defense I did like some of the special effects in the theater. Not a big Whoopie fan though!

You are definitely entitled to feel the way you feel about the attraction. We can agree to disagree.

I know you said you didn't like it because of how you felt it portrayed your ancestors, but I wonder how much of what people didn't like about it was the "thinking/feeling" thing? They want to be entertained, not bummed out. For example, I watched Milk the other night, and I thought it was a really good movie. Sean Penn was awesome in the role, it was not a Gay Rights movie, imo, it was a Human Rights movie and something we should all be concerned about. It showed how far we've come, and how far we've yet to go. (IMO, of course.) My DH didn't like it and didn't sit through 1/4 of it. He doesn't like "thinking/feeling" type movies. Same thing happened when I rented Nights in Rodanthe. He refused to believe that a man wrote that story. I bet him $100. I won... He wants to laugh or be entertained in different ways. He likes action/adventure/comedy type movies. I do too. But I also like movies that makes statements and require deep thinking/feeling. That's probably why I liked Golden Dreams. IIRC, DH fell asleep and said it was a good place for a nap! He likes Bugs Life/It's tough to Be a Bug. I could take it or leave it. I don't even find it all that funny. Different strokes and all that stuff makes the world go round...

 

[Judy from Boise]

thinking about it, I think the main way they doomed GD was the queue. It was all outside and was nothing. If (like American adventure) it had an indoor lobby as the queue with changing exhibits and displays, uplifting quotes incorporated into the decor,and even some entertainment ( like the fabulous voices of Liberty group) it would have changed the whole tone.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

thinking about it, I think the main way they doomed GD was the queue. It was all outside and was nothing. If (like American adventure) it had an indoor lobby as the queue with changing exhibits and displays, uplifting quotes incorporated into the decor,and even some entertainment ( like the fabulous voices of Liberty group) it would have changed the whole tone.

ITA! The queue was nothing. It was boring.