Tiana's Bayou Adventure: Disneyland Watch & Discussion

[Tha Realest]

What is the point of this quote? Rewriting history?

“We panicked big time during 2020 and made incredibly misguided decisions with this attraction.”

Its okay. I honestly believe Tiana’s issues are fixable. They just need the will to do it (which they don’t currently have).

I also believe they can start playing Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah in the parks again and no one will bat an eye.

It’s telling Carter and Smith haven’t been publicly attached to any of the big projects underway. Maybe they’ve been banished to Abu Dhabi like the guy who oversaw EPCOT’s reimagining?

 

[Tha Realest]

Not sure if you've seen the video of him actually on the ride nearly breaking as he says his goodbyes.

Notice there’s no evidence he’s experienced this new attraction in his own backyard (that he supposedly worked on) but I’ve seen photos of him on Ministry of Magic at EU.

 

[mickEblu]

A little late to this party but they shared the below at Destination D23 this past weekend. Surprised to see Dr. Facilier pictured as some of the inspiration for Villains Land. Clearly, they’ve seen the comments from thousands of fans that were confused/ disappointed by his absence in Tiana’s Bayou Adventure and have back tracked a bit. Maybe we can take this as a sign that he will be added to the attraction sooner or later…which I always thought was inevitable.

 

[Jedi14]

A little late to this party but they shared the below at Destination D23 this past weekend. Surprised to see Dr. Facilier pictured as some of the inspiration for Villains Land. Clearly, they’ve seen the comments from thousands of fans that were confused/ disappointed by his absence in Tiana’s Bayou Adventure and have back tracked a bit. Maybe we can take this as a sign that he will be added to the attraction sooner or later…which I always thought was inevitable.

View attachment 880927

I don’t think they’re back tracking. It’s probably more that, despite being in almost all current villain projects in the parks, people spreading rumors and misinformation that he’s being banned. So they showed him on their concept board. Also, Facilier was in the initial announcement for Villains.

 

[Disney Irish]

A little late to this party but they shared the below at Destination D23 this past weekend. Surprised to see Dr. Facilier pictured as some of the inspiration for Villains Land. Clearly, they’ve seen the comments from thousands of fans that were confused/ disappointed by his absence in Tiana’s Bayou Adventure and have back tracked a bit. Maybe we can take this as a sign that he will be added to the attraction sooner or later…which I always thought was inevitable.

View attachment 880927

Or we can take it as a sign that he was never "banished" in the first place and it was just a creative decision to leave him out of the attraction because the story they crafted dictated it.

As for a future addition, I'm still of the opinion probably not in a permanent addition, but maybe a future holiday overlay as you suggested before.

 

[mickEblu]

Or we can take it as a sign that he was never "banished" in the first place and it was just a creative decision to leave him out of the attraction because the story they crafted dictated it.

I believe this would be a wrong and poor assumption based on what we know.

 

[Disney Irish]

I believe this would the wrong and a poor assumption based on what we know.

And what is it that we "know"? Everything surrounding his "banishment" was a rumor at best, which in itself appeared to also be an assumption just based on an "insider" from the conflicting stories surrounding the attractions plot.

Also he never really was "banished" from the Parks, because as I recall they never really stopped having him at any of the Halloween events. But maybe I'm misremembering, someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that.

 

[mickEblu]

I believe someone who had connections said the story could be altered to add Facilier between Florida's and California's versions opening. I'll have to re-find that post.

That makes sense I think they took a wait and see approach

 

[Disney Irish]

That makes sense I think they took a wait and see approach

And that could be what happened. Not that it was because of some nefarious reason like "banishing" because of Voodoo, but more to see how thing would go with the new attraction.

I explained why he is not banished but must have added that after you quoted me.

Probably, but still an assumption on your part. Also doesn't explain why they would include him in concept art for a new land announced back in 2022 when he had supposedly been "banished" by that point, ie a full two years before the attraction opened.

 

[Disney Irish]

So what are you backing your assumption with? “That’s what Disney told me?”

I don't assume that he was "banished", that is the point.

My assumption is they just left him out of the attraction because they wanted to tell a different story, that is it. Now maybe someone in WDI surrounding the project also thought it might be in bad taste to have an attraction removed for "problematic" reasons and then immediately include a character in the new attraction replacing it that some may point to and say "Hey that is bad too why include that but get rid of the other". You could see some of that here back in 2020, so not surprising why someone in WDI might also make that part of their decision. But I don't think Disney was actively trying to "cancel" him as you and others assumed.

The funny thing is one of these days they re going to announce they re putting him in there and I still won’t get credit from you on a prediction I made years ago.

I'm not going to comment on the other part of this post because that was just rude.

But on this I'll comment. I've already acknowledged your suggestion (you want to call it a prediction fine by me) before, and even now in this exchange if you go back a few posts. So yeah good job if you get this one right. I have no issue acknowledging you when it happens, I have before so not sure why you think I wouldn't here either.

 

[Disney Irish]

Ok well we’ll see what happens but if someone makes a prediction years in advance that comes true I’d probably assume that the reasoning behind their prediction was true as well.

Lol, ok. But just because someone makes a prediction doesn't mean that the assumptions that lead to that prediction were what ultimately lead to that prediction coming true.

I mean some want to point to the Simpsons as some form of prediction tool. Just because the writers of the show made some predictions that ended up coming true doesn't mean the assumptions they made in relation to those were also true.

 

[mickEblu]

Lol, ok. But just because someone makes a prediction doesn't mean that the assumptions that lead to that prediction were what ultimately lead to that prediction coming true.

I mean some want to point to the Simpsons as some form of prediction tool. Just because the writers of the show made some predictions that ended up coming true doesn't mean the assumptions they made in relation to those were also true.

Not surprising. Nothing means anything to you unless there is 100% proof without a shred of doubt. If I’m ever charged with murder, I pray to God you are on the Jury.

 

[Disney Irish]

Not surprising. Nothing means anything to you unless there is 100% proof without a shred of doubt. If I’m ever charged with murder, I pray to God you are on the Jury.

Lol, ok.

First I'm an Engineer, so I deal in a combination of facts and assumptions all day long, so I have no issue with things that have less then 100% proof, as long as they make sense and not just based on emotion. But second I believe in coincidence and the fact that the human brain likes to find patterns in things even if they aren't really there. I could say that if I flip a coin its going to come up head 75 out of a 100 times, the fact it does isn't proof that I predicted it correctly just that the law of averages ended up that way, as it was still a 50/50 chance of not being what I predicted (actually less than that but I'm too lazy to do the math right now).

 

[mickEblu]

Lol, ok.

First I'm an Engineer, so I deal in a combination of facts and assumptions all day long, so I have no issue with things that have less then 100% proof, as long as they make sense and not just based on emotion. But second I believe in coincidence and the fact that the human brain likes to find patterns in things even if they aren't really there. I could say that if I flip a coin its going to come up head 75 out of a 100 times, the fact it does isn't proof that I predicted it correctly just that the law of averages ended up that way, as it was still a 50/50 chance of not being what I predicted (actually more than that but I'm too lazy to do the math right now).

And yet this has nothing to do with the set of facts I’m basing my assumption on.

 

[Disney Irish]

And yet this has nothing to do with the set of facts I’m basing my assumption on.

It does though, because there is no "facts", its gossip/rumor that you choose to believe is true and so make an assumption based on that. You are trying to see a pattern because its what you want to believe, and you are more than welcome to do that, but it doesn't make it true. Its basically,"Hey they did this and because I see these dots and heard this rumor that line up with my assumptions I must be right", even if its all just a coincidence and not actually at all what happened.

 

[Disney Irish]

Anyways @mickEblu lets hope your prediction comes true so you can get something you want with this attraction.

 

[mickEblu]

It does though, because there is no "facts", its gossip/rumor that you choose to believe is true and so make an assumption based on that. You are trying to see a pattern because its what you want to believe, and you are more than welcome to do that, but it doesn't make it true. Its basically,"Hey they did this and because I see these dots and heard this rumor that line up with my assumptions I must be right", even if its all just a coincidence and not actually at all what happened.

Again what have you provided to back up your opinion or assumption that Facilier wasn’t included just because they wanted to set the attraction after the events of the film? Other than blind faith in what Disney told you. Seems like I have a far more compelling case.

 

[Touchdown]

I always assumed that they did that because the actual movie's story takes place over a day. Unless they decied to do a book report, it had to be set after the events of the film. And if they did a book report style ride, the final drop is towards the end of the ride, so storywise the final drop would've been Facilier's defeat in a flat graveyard, not him singing his song like many armchair-imagineered because that takes part towards the beginning of the film. Fitting the story around the already existing track prevented them from doing the book report style, so they had to set it after the events of the film (when Facilier was dead)

Except he is a keen manipulator and a practitioner of magic. You telling me that it’s not possible for him to talk his way into some loophole to escape the beyond and return to earth to harvest some more souls? Where is your imagination? Of course he could.

 

[D.Silentu]

At this point I feel like any modification to the attraction has better odds of being an improvement over what is there now. I'm still reeling from the fact that I skipped the ride on my last visit to the park due to lukewarm interest. It's terrible that one of Disneyland's 'Mountain' attractions has been reduced to that. Add Facilier, or don't, but please do something.

 

[Disney Irish]

Again what have you provided to back up your opinion or assumption that Facilier wasn’t included just because they wanted to set the attraction after the events of the film. Other than blind faith in what Disney told you. Seems like I have a far more compelling case.

I don't have any data on why they didn't include him, I'm making an assumption just like you. But I do take what is presented at face value for the most part, because we don't have actual evidence that says otherwise really we have rumor and that is it, which in itself isn't evidence. So I'm not here to try a case or to convince anyone, this is a discussion that is it. If you want to believe that they tried to "cancel" Facilier and that is why they didn't include him in the attraction be my guest, but I don't have to accept that as being correct. Especially since there is strong evidence that points to that not being correct and they didn't try to "cancel" him, which you can hand wave all you want but is still evidence.

So maybe someone on the Tiana team didn't like Facilier, or maybe someone didn't like the original story and wanted to tell a new one, or maybe it is like someone mentioned and Carmen Smith publicly stated I believe, they wanted to ease riders into the drop and have less tension. There is any number of reasons beyond just "Disney tried to cancel Facilier and that is why they didn't include him in the the attraction". Sometimes the easiest explanation is the correct one, and the simplest is its as Carmen Smith explained it already.