_caleb
Well-Known Member
I'd love to see the data on that.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
MK Tiana's Bayou Adventure - latest details and construction progress
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
- Status
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Right. And some here think they're in a better position than TBA's contributors to determine what's "reflective of the time period and style being represented."
I don't think WDI put out an all-call to any artist willing to contribute (and then blindly used whatever was submitted) without any guidance, instruction, or scrutiny. It seems clear to me that they didn't put "authentic" over story, design, or guest experience here.
Ayla
Well-Known Member
I have vacationed at WDW frequently the last 18 years...never seen The Country Bears. I am smart enough not to waste time on things that don't interest me.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
Beside the point, I know, but the architectural style of the Tower of Terror is not Moorish Revival. I think this idea has gained traction because of the belief that the building was designed to blend in with the Morocco pavilion, but whether or not it was, it’s more fittingly described as Spanish Colonial/Mission Revival, with very little about it that can be called Moorish.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
The articles about the weather vane, murals, etc. do not mention why the artisans are qualified aside from claiming residence in New Orleans. This is in contrast to their coverage of Terence Blanchard's involvement, where they do at least talk a bit about why his work fits. I think there's a reason for that.
I would also argue that whether or not obscure examples of art from this time period can be found that look a bit like the murals on the barn, a layperson's general impression is still important, because the job of a themed environment is to be effortlessly convincing and transportive. If something feels discordant to the average guest, it's not successful.
Ayla
Well-Known Member
I don't know, that initial blast of A/C right as you turned the corner and started coming down the ramp was delightful.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
If this ride had any more spice, Tiana and friends would have ultra blue eyes.
Basketbuddy101
Well-Known Member
This is such a silly oversimplification of why the attraction was successful. The Timber Mountain Log Ride at Knott's has both of the things you just listed: a drop and air conditioning. Is it a better ride than Splash Mountain? Not even close. Most people will obviously enjoy the core log flume experience just fine, but this idea that Disney could've just slapped on any theme on the attraction and have it reach this level of cult status by virtue of its flume alone is absurd. Your money is better spent at Six Flags if theme and story act structure don't concern you.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
As someone who has never understood the American obsession with air conditioning despite having spent almost half my life living stateside, I can’t say I ever noticed that blast of cold air, much less welcomed it!I don't know, that initial blast of A/C right as you turned the corner and started coming down the ramp was delightful.
pigglewiggle
Well-Known Member
It cools us off when we are hot.
I choose not to be sweating, hot and uncomfortable in temps of 97 with a 73 dew point
I choose air conditioning.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
I realise I’m in the minority. But I’ll never understand why most places crank it up so high that you need to put a sweater on at the height of summer!
pigglewiggle
Well-Known Member
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
By the end, though, the repeated blasts of a/c as you wait to get to the unload platform always seemed like a low blow to me! Imagine: actually shivering in Florida in August!I don't know, that initial blast of A/C right as you turned the corner and started coming down the ramp was delightful.
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
It's always funny to see people insisting "the most qualified" person be given a creative job - as if that's really quantifiable in any objective way.
This comes up frequently re: Hollywood, Broadway . . . basically any creative endeavor, clearly including theme parks. The idea completely misunderstands how these spaces actually work. These are creative enterprises run by individuals who are making creative decisions, with more or less vision in their head but usually and somewhat necessarily without the whole picture in focus. Who's in charge of the project? It is ultimately their decision who is "the most qualified" for the given role, based on potentially a million different points of interest, most of which are not known to the public and often have to be guessed at by the leaders themselves.
Is the "most qualified" actor for a part the one who gives the best audition? The one who sings the best? The one with the large body of work? The one with the awards? The one whose salary requirements meet the budget? The one whose schedule matches that of filming? The one who has the best odds of selling tickets and justifying the risk of funding the project? The fresh face that audiences will watch without preconcieved notions? The one who's worked with the director and is known to be delightful while you're in the trenches of shooting? The one who "just feels right"? The one who's fourth in line after the first 3 actors say no? The one without any social media scandal? The one with? The one who's had plenty of opportunity to hone their craft? The one who's been wrongfully denied it? Ultimately it's for a small brain trust to decide who best seems to suit their project across the different criteria from the not-actually-unlimited pool of people available, interested, and known to the group of creatives, who are fallible. As are the people being hired. This goes for about any creative role.
I can absolutely agree that it often results in a better product to hire someone who has legitimate talent and not simply name recognition. But even talent is subjective, and every choice comes with a level of risk. Your project could be the one where the old stalwarts stumble. It could be the one where the new talent finds their footing. It could be one where an act of god prevents it all coming together despite everyone delivering on their best intentions. Or, rarely but possibly, it could be one where everyone phones it in for the paycheck. Any of those things could be possible, even when hiring the person who seems to those in charge to be "the most qualified".
The concept seems to imply some divine truth that for any given assignment there is secretly one person who holds the key to ultimate success of a project's component, and anyone outside of them can only fall short of the peak resolution. But there's no higher power who holds the truth that, actually, this other person was more qualified, but got skipped over for reasons that could only be considered unsavory. It's just people, choosing other people based on what they think seems like a good fit for their vision, knowing what they know, which can never be everything, and hoping it all tickles the audience just the way they want to be.
This comes up frequently re: Hollywood, Broadway . . . basically any creative endeavor, clearly including theme parks. The idea completely misunderstands how these spaces actually work. These are creative enterprises run by individuals who are making creative decisions, with more or less vision in their head but usually and somewhat necessarily without the whole picture in focus. Who's in charge of the project? It is ultimately their decision who is "the most qualified" for the given role, based on potentially a million different points of interest, most of which are not known to the public and often have to be guessed at by the leaders themselves.
Is the "most qualified" actor for a part the one who gives the best audition? The one who sings the best? The one with the large body of work? The one with the awards? The one whose salary requirements meet the budget? The one whose schedule matches that of filming? The one who has the best odds of selling tickets and justifying the risk of funding the project? The fresh face that audiences will watch without preconcieved notions? The one who's worked with the director and is known to be delightful while you're in the trenches of shooting? The one who "just feels right"? The one who's fourth in line after the first 3 actors say no? The one without any social media scandal? The one with? The one who's had plenty of opportunity to hone their craft? The one who's been wrongfully denied it? Ultimately it's for a small brain trust to decide who best seems to suit their project across the different criteria from the not-actually-unlimited pool of people available, interested, and known to the group of creatives, who are fallible. As are the people being hired. This goes for about any creative role.
I can absolutely agree that it often results in a better product to hire someone who has legitimate talent and not simply name recognition. But even talent is subjective, and every choice comes with a level of risk. Your project could be the one where the old stalwarts stumble. It could be the one where the new talent finds their footing. It could be one where an act of god prevents it all coming together despite everyone delivering on their best intentions. Or, rarely but possibly, it could be one where everyone phones it in for the paycheck. Any of those things could be possible, even when hiring the person who seems to those in charge to be "the most qualified".
The concept seems to imply some divine truth that for any given assignment there is secretly one person who holds the key to ultimate success of a project's component, and anyone outside of them can only fall short of the peak resolution. But there's no higher power who holds the truth that, actually, this other person was more qualified, but got skipped over for reasons that could only be considered unsavory. It's just people, choosing other people based on what they think seems like a good fit for their vision, knowing what they know, which can never be everything, and hoping it all tickles the audience just the way they want to be.
Bayou
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but the dress she was wearing should have had a more similar shape to that of the og dress
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
Maybe she owns dresses of many styles like actual women.
Homemade Imagineering
Well-Known Member
One thing I’d like to note about this whole thing when it comes to re-theming something is the fact that certain areas in a previous attraction such as specific vignettes will not always directly translate from one to another within the re-themed space. In other words, if TBA takes away a handful of AAs in one spot but compensates for the loss a number of feet down the flume within a section of SM that had previously been barren, then that is perfectly normal and okay. These attractions aren’t necessarily designed to directly replace specific vignettes with ones of the same exact scope in the same exact location. An actual example of this is within the Jurassic World re-theme of JPRA, where the opening sequence filled with AAs was replaced with a Mosasaurus screen tank. Now I am not particularly fond of this scene in a direct comparison to what had previously been within the perimeter of that space, but I am extremely forgiving towards since the attraction features the same number of AAs later down the track in scenes that had previously featured none (and far more impressive ones to that point). So, if a section of AAs are removed from slippin’ falls as you enter the show building, as long as there are a fair amount of AAs or impressive practical effects featured further down the track then that is perfectly fair to me. The reason I bring all of this up is due to the fact that I know some people will nitpick certain specific scenes that may have previously featured AAs in splash and now do not in order to fuel an agenda against TBA, without considering any sort of compensation for the loss of a scene in another section of the track. So while I particularly find the Mill House to be a vast improvement over what had been there in SM, alongside the trap scene, I am also bummed to see the fishing geese leave Slippin’ Falls for what is seemingly very little in their place. I am forgiving because of the fact there seems to be compensation for their loss further downstream. In short, certain specific scenes in TBA will be improvements over what had previously been there in SM, while the inverse is also completely true for SM. I hope more people choose to see this, and I am not calling any specific individual out for being guilty of these faulty comparisons, but rather pointing out something I hope people take into consideration, so both TBA and SM will be fairly judged beside one another. Both will still have their own unique flaws, and can still be appreciated for everything they accomplish that leaves a lasting impact on the overall audience.
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
I agree with this in the case of the mural, where the end result seems entirely in pursuit of an 'authenticity' that actually clashes with the theme park logic of authenticity.
I'm perfectly happy, though, with them involving craftspeople from New Orleans in the project even if it costs a bit more and they probably could have just got someone in-house to do it. There are plenty of examples of Disney doing that over the years. The Morocco pavilion was kind of a unique case because of the involvement of the Moroccan government, but I think it adds to the pavilion that they brought over Moroccan craftspeople to work on that pavilion. I believe they also brought people over from Africa to work on the roof thatching in Harambe and had craftspeople in France work on the castle rather than just built a big fibreglass version. Indeed, for the recent castle refurb they also brought in a firm that specialised in restoring historical monuments. For the Mexico pavilion and El Rio del Tiempo, they also sought out Chicano/Mexican American artists in East L.A. to contribute rather than just doing it all in-house.
All of that is probably unnecessary. I think it does help to elevate the experience, however.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the thoughtful response!
Love the way you put this:
But I can see one issue with this— the temptation to rely on caricatures and stereotypes as a way to accomplish this.
Some of the shorthand used to create convincing and transportive experiences for the average parks guest in the 50s, 70s, or 90s, is now considered by some to be disrespectful, ignorant, or offensive.
Authenticity seems like a way to avoid this.
TBA’s stylized version of New Orleans may not “feel” as period-/location-appropriate because it seems to rely less on tropes. This, to your point, makes it a taller order to transport a broad audience who are expecting Mardi Gras beads and beignets.
- Status