EPCOT Remy's Ratatouille Adventure to transition to 2D with brief refurbishment in November 2025

[𝐌𝖆𝖓 𝖎𝖓 𝐖𝖊𝖇]

For anyone unable to see the 3D-based attractions properly or for those that avoid such attractions because they make you motion sick, you might benefit from these:

https://www.amazon.com/2D-Glasses-Pack-eDimensional-Televisions/dp/B00K9E7GCC

 

[Tom P.]

For anyone unable to see the 3D-based attractions properly or for those that avoid such attractions because they make them motion sick, you might could benefit from these:

https://www.amazon.com/2D-Glasses-Pack-eDimensional-Televisions/dp/B00K9E7GCC

Those look interesting. I may check them out.

For me, vision in my left eye looks very much like a camera that is horribly out of focus. I can see light and colors and maybe some big shapes, but I can't focus on anything. My right eye, with glasses, is normal. That prevents me from seeing 3D effects in movies and attractions, and it messes with (though doesn't totally eliminate) my depth perception in real life.

Generally, I just put on the 3D glasses anyway, and the image looks normal. Still 2D, but not all distorted like when you look at a 3D image without any glasses.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

When the lateral move allows more guests to enjoy an attraction because it addresses the issue of motion sickness, it's a smart move.

How exactly was motion sickness limiting the throughput?

 

[HuntrixOwlMouse98]

Brutally honest hot take: I am okay with this news of this ride being 2D now

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Brutally honest hot take: I am okay with this news of this ride being 2D now

And that’s ok…we can just call what it is: a bit of tech reduction…instead of rallying to bad management’s defense

 

[BlindChow]

Having ridden both versions I can assure you from my perspective that it actually does still feel like you're falling through the window, travelling very fast through a room and all the other sensations that make you feel that you're actually doing stuff that you're not. It definitely has not changed any of those things that you've described and the ride doesn't now feel different or that you're in front of a screen any more or any less than when you had the 3D glasses on.

The only real change I noticed was the floating chef at the start. There's a part I vaguely remember a hand reaching for you which possibly had more depth in the 3D version but that never 'popped' as being impressive in the original. Before riding I actually articulated the thought "Will this be as good without the glasses" as I didn't even know beforehand that they had changed their version and have enjoyed the Epcot version numerous times and the answer was, yes. It was as good and better in my opinion as the gains outweighed the losses.

Again this is just my opinion having experienced both. I think many will be surprised when they try the new version though I'm sure some won't. I'm not trying to change their minds on the subject, just giving an honest verdict from somebody who's been quite critical of the Studios in Paris just the other day so there's no need for me to lie about this.

I agree the switch might be fine for this ride. The further away things are from the viewer, the less disparity between eyes there is in 3D. Unless things are flying up into your face, it probably won't make too big of a difference.

I was responding to the original poster's assertion that because people see 2D movies in the theater, that means they'd prefer 2D on rides instead of 3D. I felt that was a terrible conclusion based on completely different mediums/expectations.

 

[Tha Realest]

The old wait and see non-argument. Cause it worked so well for Tiana's Broken Adventure.

Remember the argument that Splash needed to be upgraded because the maintenance on the AAs was too costly and operationally disruptive, and that, if nothing else, the new attraction would have much more improved AAs (that were less costly and problematic to maintain)?

 

[esskay]

I think this is probably one of the few 3d rides/shows in the park that you can quite comfortably get away with "downgrading" to 2d without it really having much of an impact. I know not everyone will agree but it just doesn't feel like losing it would be as impactful on this one.

Of course I'd rather they just damn well maintain their projectors and polarising lenses but that's a whole other can of worms.

 

[mergatroid]

I agree the switch might be fine for this ride. The further away things are from the viewer, the less disparity between eyes there is in 3D. Unless things are flying up into your face, it probably won't make too big of a difference.

I was responding to the original poster's assertion that because people see 2D movies in the theater, that means they'd prefer 2D on rides instead of 3D. I felt that was a terrible conclusion based on completely different mediums/expectations.

That's fair and why I highlighted the part where you said

When on a ride, however, people do want to be part of the world they're experiencing. They don't want to feel like they are just watching a screen like when they're in front of their TV at home. They want to feel like they are actually flying on a Banshee on Pandora or watching Spider-Man battle villains on the streets of New York. That's what 3D provides. It gives a more immediate visceral experience than if it were a flat projection. It's the difference between animatronics/sets and painted plywood flats.

That part I misunderstood as you referencing rides and how the rider experiences it. That's why I highlighted that part and never mentioned anything about cinemas and movies. Hopefully when people do ride it themselves they'll feel like I did after initially thinking "Will this work and be as good" and come to the same conclusion as I did.

I'm sure some won't and that's sad but there'll be some who won't like it and some who it could ruin they're entire trip if they want to let it. I'm not arguing the reasons why Disney are doing this, just that the end result (for whatever reason) seems to work. The 3D in this ride really doesn't make that much difference as the movement of the animation creates the sensations rather than the depth perception which is surprising secondary. The whole "Ooh I'm falling" and "Wow I'm moving so fast" parts aren't really created by the 3D glasses so it still retains the excitement and feeling of motion that the 3D version did.

 

[James Alucobond]

… and that, if nothing else, the new attraction would have much more improved AAs (that were less costly and problematic to maintain)?

I’m not sure it was ever phrased exactly this way. That being said, they’ve demonstrated at WDW that they can properly maintain smaller numbers of animatronics of this complexity such that they continue to consistently give performances rivaling opening day for the better part of a decade. That’s what we’ve seen in Frozen Ever After, at any rate. Meanwhile, there are almost no examples (outside of Tokyo) of animatronic-dense attractions being maintained frequently enough; Pirates, Small World, Spaceship Earth, Splash, etc. don’t/didn’t seem to have the resources necessary to predictably be in good shape. Why Bayou Adventure (and other low animatronic count attractions like Under the Sea) continue to suffer from poor animatronic maintenance despite equivalent attractions signaling that they can muster the requisite labor is a bit of a mystery to outsiders, and probably one with a complex explanation.

 

[LittleBuford]

Remember the argument that Splash needed to be upgraded because the maintenance on the AAs was too costly and operationally disruptive, and that, if nothing else, the new attraction would have much more improved AAs (that were less costly and problematic to maintain)?

I really don’t think anyone here argued that. Some people noted that the existing animatronics were in bad shape and hoped that that retheme would lead to better maintenance, but I honestly can’t recall encountering the argument that you’ve outlined.

 

[ChrisFL]

HOT TAKE: I can understand both sides of the issue....when it comes to this attraction specifically. (Flight of Passage and Spiderman at IOA definitely should not be changed to 2D to me).

3D glasses/attractions come with a number of issues. I can't remember, are these the fancy expensive 3D glasses? I think they are. So you have costs for upkeep, distribution, cleaning, CM's to do all of that, possible theft, people who can feel more sick or not ride because its 3D....rides out of sync with the screen plus 3D causes more potential sickness etc.

However there is something lost when it isn't 3D as well...so

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

That term is used with a purpose…if you don’t care…just say “I don’t care”

That’s fine…you have your opinion…I have mine

Holy non issue Batman, the term was 100% used right… I don’t see the problem

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

And that’s ok…we can just call what it is: a bit of tech reduction…instead of rallying to bad management’s defense

We all know that 3D is of course at the cutting edge of technology and not a commonly joked about trope in just about every major theme park.

“PUT ON YOUR FUNKY SAFETY GLASSES AND FOLLOW ME TO DEFEAT INSERT VILLIAN”

 

[LittleBuford]

Holy non issue Batman, the term was 100% used right… I don’t see the problem

@Sirwalterraleigh seems to object to the use of “experience” as a replacement for the more prosaic “ride”, “attraction”, or “show”. The irony, however, is that @TrainsOfDisney wasn’t using it that way to begin with, but rather in one of its more established senses (i.e., something that is undergone or felt). It was a totally idiomatic and unobjectionable use of the word.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

@Sirwalterraleigh seems to object to the use of “experience” as a replacement for the more prosaic “ride”, “attraction”, or “show”. The irony, however, is that @TrainsOfDisney wasn’t using it that way to begin with, but rather in one of its more established senses (i.e., something that is undergone or felt). It was a totally idiomatic and unobjectionable use of the word.

Yeah…I read it. Are we parsing the insertion of “experience” into any and all discussions of products offered for money in an amusement park complex, Chancellor?

Because you don’t have to agree with me…and even if you get a BATB esque mob to come after me…the use of that term is right from central casting from places that has say in these types of things

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

the use of that term is right from central casting from places that has say in these types of things

The experience of the attraction includes a ride. How’s that!?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The experience of the attraction includes a ride. How’s that!?

Again…I’m never gonna change anyone’s mind…and I’m not trying to

“Experience” is a term pushed by marketing to disassociate cost from product.

But it didn’t happen in last week and no one in a nametag ever had a presser to admit it…

The term is meant as a gateway to a mongrelized version of a “value based pricing framework”…as opposed to the traditional “cost plus pricing”
Model

So we GO ONNNNN…just like illuminations

 

[Figments Friend]

I like stereoscopic Attractions.
It all depends on how the ‘story’ is told that makes it a plus or a minus.

-

 

[𝐌𝖆𝖓 𝖎𝖓 𝐖𝖊𝖇]

Toy Story Mania is starting to suffer from fading projectors and blurry glasses. Is it next for the 2D conversion?