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

[Baron Von Capybara]

The 3D glasses at the shows are incredibly cheap, same for the TSMM glasses. There’s a cost for cleaning, but the cost of replacement is almost negligible.



I’m not going to elaborate on the background, but people are underestimating the cost of 3D glasses by probably 100 times? I know l did.

Consider the labor that goes into cleaning, collecting, and distributing 3D glasses, it’s substantial.

The 3D glasses themselves being ~100x more more expensive than you might imagine means replacement is expensive, which leads to collection positions.

Most Universal attractions have 1+ positions that collect 3D glasses. FoP has multiple.

Back of napkin math, 1 position for 2 shifts (16 hours) paid at $22 (all in pay estimation including hiring, insurance, etc.) for 365 days is $128,480 per position. You have attractions with multiple positions, so double it for some. So that means it’s worth at least $128,480 to reduce the theft of 3D glasses.

That $128k is not even the all-in cost of 3D, because that’s just what they’re spending to reduce theft, it doesn’t include the other positions cleaning glasses, it doesn’t include the extra maintenance costs of the 3D projectors, and adjacently, it doesn’t include the downtimes resulting from 3D glasses that fall on trackless attractions.

With glasses removed from attractions like Kong and Rat, they were approached from a financial perspective, not a guest experience one. Tests quantifying guest experience likely showed insufficient impact to justify keeping 3D given the financial ramifications, but this is not a guest experience experience initiative or win.

So no actual proof .

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

The calculus is different on Star Tours. It’s a thrill ride with a height requirement that already excludes many who experience motion sickness.

I think age, movement, screen size, curved or flat screen, etc all come into play. I’ve never felt queasy after riding Star Tours, TSMM, MMRR, Philharmonic, or even Soarin… Remy is hit or miss and FoP gets me every time though. I think for me it a combination of the movement along with the wrap around screens that seems to throw me off. I was terrified riding Mission Space the first time after reading all the horror stories of motion sickness and was fine on that also. I’m sure different people would have opposite lists, we’re all unique.

I’d guess there’s no firm rule for what people can, and can’t, handle when it comes to 3D, I think with 3D they build it and then wait for feedback to see how may people it affects, how drastically it affects them, and only then can they decide if 3D is a net positive or negative.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I’ve never felt queasy after riding Star Tours, TSMM, MMRR, Philharmonic, or even Soarin… Remy is hit or miss and FoP gets me every time though.

Interesting - Star Tours is by far the worst for me. The others are fine.

 

[SplashJacket]

So no actual proof .

Comments like these are what kill discussion forums.

I'm not sure what response you're looking for.

Maybe you're just looking for an outlet for disagreeableness.

 

[Chi84]

Comments like these are what kill discussion forums.

I'm not sure what response you're looking for.

Maybe you're just looking for an outlet for disagreeableness.

Maybe we just want to know the basis for your conclusions. It makes discussion more interesting and worthwhile.

 

[SplashJacket]

Not going to say certain things in an online setting, but this post highlighted some facts surrounding 3D glasses that contribute to my conclusion. This could've generated discussion, but instead the response was snark.

The 3D glasses at the shows are incredibly cheap, same for the TSMM glasses. There’s a cost for cleaning, but the cost of replacement is almost negligible.



I’m not going to elaborate on the background, but people are underestimating the cost of 3D glasses by probably 100 times? I know l did.

Consider the labor that goes into cleaning, collecting, and distributing 3D glasses, it’s substantial.

The 3D glasses themselves being ~100x more more expensive than you might imagine means replacement is expensive, which leads to collection positions.

Most Universal attractions have 1+ positions that collect 3D glasses. FoP has multiple.

Back of napkin math, 1 position for 2 shifts (16 hours) paid at $22 (all in pay estimation including hiring, insurance, etc.) for 365 days is $128,480 per position. You have attractions with multiple positions, so double it for some. So that means it’s worth at least $128,480 to reduce the theft of 3D glasses.

That $128k is not even the all-in cost of 3D, because that’s just what they’re spending to reduce theft, it doesn’t include the other positions cleaning glasses, it doesn’t include the extra maintenance costs of the 3D projectors, and adjacently, it doesn’t include the downtimes resulting from 3D glasses that fall on trackless attractions.

With glasses removed from attractions like Kong and Rat, they were approached from a financial perspective, not a guest experience one. Tests quantifying guest experience likely showed insufficient impact to justify keeping 3D given the financial ramifications, but this is not a guest experience experience initiative or win.

 

[BrianLo]

These concerns about 3D limiting accessibility sure popped up on these boards at a very convenient moment. It’s odd this was never a topic of conversation before it was necessary to defend Disney.

To be fair it was lead with Paris and there was no outrage and some lamentations that people wished Epcot would follow.

I’m somewhat unconvinced about the motivation. Maybe? But they also seem to be spending some money in the conversion.

 

[Prince-1]

The 3D glasses at the shows are incredibly cheap, same for the TSMM glasses. There’s a cost for cleaning, but the cost of replacement is almost negligible.



I’m not going to elaborate on the background, but people are underestimating the cost of 3D glasses by probably 100 times? I know l did.

Consider the labor that goes into cleaning, collecting, and distributing 3D glasses, it’s substantial.

The 3D glasses themselves being ~100x more more expensive than you might imagine means replacement is expensive, which leads to collection positions.

Most Universal attractions have 1+ positions that collect 3D glasses. FoP has multiple.

Back of napkin math, 1 position for 2 shifts (16 hours) paid at $22 (all in pay estimation including hiring, insurance, etc.) for 365 days is $128,480 per position. You have attractions with multiple positions, so double it for some. So that means it’s worth at least $128,480 to reduce the theft of 3D glasses.

That $128k is not even the all-in cost of 3D, because that’s just what they’re spending to reduce theft, it doesn’t include the other positions cleaning glasses, it doesn’t include the extra maintenance costs of the 3D projectors, and adjacently, it doesn’t include the downtimes resulting from 3D glasses that fall on trackless attractions.

With glasses removed from attractions like Kong and Rat, they were approached from a financial perspective, not a guest experience one. Tests quantifying guest experience likely showed insufficient impact to justify keeping 3D given the financial ramifications, but this is not a guest experience experience initiative or win.

So like I said…no proof just lots of speculation. I mean you may be right but then again…

 

[Casper Gutman]

To be fair it was lead with Paris and there was no outrage and some lamentations that people wished Epcot would follow.

I’m somewhat unconvinced about the motivation. Maybe? But they also seem to be spending some money in the conversion.

They certainly haven’t spent much money yet. The 2D image is blurry and not particularly sharp - it doesn’t look great, especially in the first half of the ride. No extra props, no extra anything.

It’s also worth noting that the ride is full of obvious “cheap 3D tricks” - things being thrust at the audience - that make the change very, very visible. It’s like watching Friday the 13th 3 or any other “3D” 80s film in 2D - it feels very absurd.

 

[BrianLo]

They certainly haven’t spent much money yet. The 2D image is blurry and not particularly sharp - it doesn’t look great, especially in the first half of the ride. No extra props, no extra anything.

It’s also worth noting that the ride is full of obvious “cheap 3D tricks” - things being thrust at the audience - that make the change very, very visible. It’s like watching Friday the 13th 3 or any other “3D” 80s film in 2D - it feels very absurd.

It’s odd, I cannot deny that. I’m almost wondering if it’s a bit of both going on. A project that perhaps there was some internal justification for “guest experience” followed by clear savings.

It’s just a tad incongruous with the companies strategy right now and seems more keyed to this specific attraction since it was so oddly and rapidly done back to back with Paris and now Florida.

I know we’ll point to the Muppets cost savings, but even that is incongruous with their approach to Tropical Americas. I think it’s probably multifaceted.

 

[Casper Gutman]

It’s odd, I cannot deny that. I’m almost wondering if it’s a bit of both going on. A project that perhaps there was some internal justification for “guest experience” followed by clear savings.

It’s just a tad incongruous with the companies strategy right now and seems more keyed to this specific attraction since it was so oddly and rapidly done back to back with Paris and now Florida.

I know we’ll point to the Muppets cost savings, but even that is incongruous with their approach to Tropical Americas. I think it’s probably multifaceted.

I don’t think it’s that complex. They’ve been dragged kicking and screaming to (still insufficient) investment by market realities after decades of trying anything to avoid it. That doesn’t mean they have abandoned the cost-cutting philosophy that defined them for decades. Indeed, the investment has only exacerbated these tendencies, and cuts are being made everywhere, guest experience be danged.

This isn’t a new management team. They haven’t suddenly seen the light and changed philosophies. They still think theme parks are stupid things for stupid people and deeply resent the need to keep investing capital to earn a return that is very difficult to measure.

 

[SplashJacket]

To be fair it was lead with Paris and there was no outrage and some lamentations that people wished Epcot would follow.

I’m somewhat unconvinced about the motivation. Maybe? But they also seem to be spending some money in the conversion.

Converting would be a one-time investment that eliminates a repeat spend, quickly justifying the conversion investment

 

[Baron Von Capybara]

Comments like these are what kill discussion forums.

I'm not sure what response you're looking for.

Maybe you're just looking for an outlet for disagreeableness.

Presenting theories as facts also prevent informed discussion. Yes , cost probably had a hand in this change but , to claim that it is as the driving factor and customer feedback had nothing to do with it , is just speculation.

 

[Conno]

If it was primarily cost driven then announcements for Flight of Passage and a reversal to old school Star Tours should quickly follow.

Though not the only source of cost, the cost of 3D glasses that Disney uses is negligible... depending on the attraction. Attractions that use proprietary 3D (like Dolby 3D) might have more expensive glasses, but anything using passive 3D (polarized lenses) is pennies at scale in 2025.

This can be proved with a couple of Google searches. You can buy polarized 3D glasses online, take them into the parks, and use them on the attractions. You can even pickup bulk Dolby 3D glasses at not-insane prices (Star Tours/FoP) and I imagine with Disney's purchasing power - even cheaper.

 

[Casper Gutman]

So is the theory that Universal removed 3D from Kong due to cost cutting (which they did) but Disney removed it from Rat because of their sincere concern for the apparently legions of guests who were made violently ill by the glasses?

 

[Baron Von Capybara]

Why does it have to be one or the other.
Maybe and here's a scary thought. Both sides of this "discussion" are partly correct

 

[Conno]

Why does it have to be one or the other.
Maybe and here's a scary thought. Both sides of this "discussion" are partly correct

It's definitely both. Of course Disney are cost (and top/bottom line) focused, it was likely knowing there wouldn't be backlash (and beneficial to some) that pushed it over the edge.

If it was purely cost driven, we should expect to see other attractions follow suit.

Having rid the one in Paris much earlier this year, I'd say it's still a downgrade though - but I also didn't suffer with a poor reaction to the 3D experience.

 

[SplashJacket]

If it was primarily cost driven then announcements for Flight of Passage and a reversal to old school Star Tours should quickly follow.

Removing 3D would have a much greater impact.

Cutting somethings doesn’t mean you have to cut everything

Though not the only source of cost, the cost of 3D glasses that Disney uses is negligible... depending on the attraction. Attractions that use proprietary 3D (like Dolby 3D) might have more expensive glasses, but anything using passive 3D (polarized lenses) is pennies at scale in 2025.

This can be proved with a couple of Google searches. You can buy polarized 3D glasses online, take them into the parks, and use them on the attractions. You can even pickup bulk Dolby 3D glasses at not-insane prices (Star Tours/FoP) and I imagine with Disney's purchasing power - even cheaper.

Those glasses work on TSMM and the 3D shows, they do not work on attractions like Transformers which use the proprietary glasses of the 3D manufacturers.

 

[Goofyernmost]

If they are so hellbent on removing 3D glasses, why did they just open a 3D show at DAK? They could have easily removed the 3D there if cost to clean glasses was a major concern. It would have become a presentation similar to MILF.

Maybe 3D really does make people sick on rides and this was deemed problematic on a ride with no height requirement that they really want grandma to be able to ride with 3-year old grandson.

The calculus is different on Star Tours. It’s a thrill ride with a height requirement that already excludes many who experience motion sickness.

OK, then the message is that short people are more prone to motion sickness than tall people. Note taken!

 

[Conno]

Removing 3D would have a much greater impact.

Cutting somethings doesn’t mean you have to cut everything

Those glasses work on TSMM and the 3D shows, they do not work on attractions like Transformers which use the proprietary glasses of the 3D manufacturers.

Yeah, like I said in my last post, Dolby 3D - which uses colour filters in the glasses instead basic polarization lenses (used by 3D shows). Nothing special about it, commercially available for years. Only marginally more expensive than polarization at scale.