News Remy's Ratatouille Adventure coming to Epcot

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
How will this affect the force perspective of the Eiffel Tower? Am I the only one that can't see how this will work while maintaining the perspective?
Yeah I believe it will look a bit strange from the courtyard leading up to Rat. At least I'm of the opinion that it will. You will be far too close to it, practically underneath it, with nothing really in your foreground to contrast the diminutive tower to make it appear larger than it is. But no one will really care anymore, it will just be a "quaint, cute" little replica of the real thing. :(

Last thing insiders have said on this issue is that they're still thinking about it.
 

larryz

I'm Just A Tourist!
Theme is not the application of “stuff” onto a surface. Nor is it certain materials such as ornamental woodwork or scenic cement plaster. Themed entertainment is a storytelling medium and like all other storytelling mediums the themes are messages that are conveyed, and in the case of themed entertainment those messages are conveyed through built space. Built space is a large set of tools and methods, from form, space and order, to scale and mass, to light and shadow, to sound, to materials, textures and tectonics and so much more. In all of these ways space is shaped to convey an idea.

Facades are just one tool and when discussed even they are often reduced in their application to the stuff on the wall. Well crafted facades have variety in their forms and massing that also relates to their interiors, all of the spaces that are “on stage” are shaped and work together in a choreography of spaces to tell a story. Theme parks are a collection of these stories and spaces so they inevitably interact with each other. How these stories interact with one another should compliment each other, designed to work in harmony and not have one story ignore or disregard another.

The castle at the end of Main Street, USA is not a disregard for the story of Main Street. It is a play on typology. Main Streets were organized around an important civic structure and the castle occupies this position of importance. It is a signifier of distinction that also conforms. The scale is similar and fitting. The style is not Medieval but romantic revival of the street’s time period. Even the materials of heavy stone, while contrasting with the mostly wood construction of the street proper, is fitting of an important structure and is complimented by the brick of Main Street Station.

Cinderella Castle introduced a height factor that pushed out into other lands but one of the biggest differences in the design of lands between Disneyland and the Magic Kingdom is the verticality of their design. The lands of the Magic Kingdom reach upward in a way not seen at Disneyland, a reaching that reduces the visual impact of Cinderella Castle on their landscapes. Despite that effort there are areas with a less than stellar execution and those areas are often critized, namely the backside of Main Street, USA being visible near the Tomorrowland Terrace or the abrupt jump from Tomorrowland to Fantasyland. Design is described as practice because it is just that, practice. Their should be a building upon past work, not justify new lapses with old mistakes.

Future World eschewed the facade oriented, space making object design of Disneyland and the Magic Kingdom in favor of a design language rooted in objects in space. The story of Future World is also more abstract, not being rooted in any specific place or places. As objects in space, the pavilions take on larger forms that are part of their story but they are specific imitations of any singular object or place. This is a contrast to World Showcase, that is rooted in specific places and makes extensive use of facades. Despite this difference in approach, the two lands are part of a larger story celebrating human achievement and progress, it is the contrast of past and present in one larger narrative. The pavilions are visible from each other because they are part of that story, to be visually isolated would contradict the park’s message of togetherness.

The Transportation Pavilion and Soarin’ showbuilding may have somewhat similar material exteriors (metal) they are differ in their purpose and relationship to their context. The issue is not their materials. “Theming” is not just scenic cement plaster with applied props and ornament. Both the large polished panels of the Transportation Building and the prefabricated insulated metal panels of Soarin’ are valid materials for a themed environment, but that have to be used as part of telling a story. The metal exterior of the Transportation Pavilion was chosen as part of its expression of its story and then utilized in a manner related to its context, it’s massing is in line with the other pavilions of the park. Mexico’s pyramid is not supposed to be an dominating pyramid, it’s mass and scale is in line with the other World Showcase pavilions so it is not made more diminutive by the similar massing of the Transportation Pavilion. Soarin’s materials were chosen for utility, not to convey a message, and it then contradicts the Canada Pavilion in not just its mass, but also it’s corrugated finish that gives scale to that mass.

Michael Graves is probably the architect most identified with Postmodernism, and even when they were being developed the Walt Disney World Swan and Dolphin were anticipated works. Like the Soarin’ showbuilding, the massing and scale betray those of World Showcase, and are then themselves contrasted by the large sculptures. Why this contrast ultimately exists is even more problematic. Graves conceived a narrative behind the towering forms of the Swan and Dolphin, but that narrative is in many ways a commentary of the lack of context. Graves is responding to the nothingness of the hotel site. World Showcase is not being contrasted with as part of building or intertwining different stories but because it is not worth actually considering. How the Walt Disney World Swan and Dolphin relate to World Showcase is itself a highlight of Postmodernism’s fundamental theoretical flaw, learning from Las Vegas does not mean respecting Las Vegas. This lack of respect undermines the semiotic basis of Postmodernism and almost demands for it to be deconstructed.

Mass and scale are exactly what will make the north and east sides of the Ratatouille showbuilding so problematic. The size of the back wall compared to the Morocco Pavilion is already plainly visible. That contrast in mass will then be furthered by the clear demonstration that the mass is only four stories tall when stairs are added to this exterior. These stairs can be seen in the Paris showbuilding and the aerial photos show the same door openings in the girts that will support the exterior walls. Morocco’s minaret will not just be backdropped by a large surface, but also a clear visual identifier that the mass is only a four story building.
TL;DR
(yawn) Are there good rides in it?
 

P_Radden

Well-Known Member
How will this affect the force perspective of the Eiffel Tower? Am I the only one that can't see how this will work while maintaining the perspective?
20180827_201152.jpg

From out front, Rat is currently to the left. And hopefully more foilage will do the trick. That gondola tower though..
 
Last edited:

Missing20K

Well-Known Member
I suppose you could raise part of the building the Eiffel Tower stands on to hide the Skyliner, but that likely won't work from all angles.

When looking at the concept art again, I am wondering if they will in fact move the Eiffel Tower.

rat_epcot.PNG

epcot_tower.PNG


The concept art appears as though the tower is on the building to the south east. Looks like it could be a bit higher as well. Apologies if this has already been discussed. I assume this is the best they can do regarding keeping the tower and as much semblance of forced perspective from the new courtyard.
 

Herah

Active Member
When looking at the concept art again, I am wondering if they will in fact move the Eiffel Tower.

View attachment 307220
View attachment 307221

The concept art appears as though the tower is on the building to the south east. Looks like it could be a bit higher as well. Apologies if this has already been discussed. I assume this is the best they can do regarding keeping the tower and as much semblance of forced perspective from the new courtyard.
The concept art shows it on the ground behind the buildings, as if it were real.
 

Missing20K

Well-Known Member
The concept art shows it on the ground behind the buildings, as if it were real.

I respectfully disagree. I feel it shows it still attached to the roof of the show buildings. I believe it highly unlikely they will be constructing a new replica and placing it on the ground in the new courtyard.
 

Spash007

Well-Known Member
I respectfully disagree. I feel it shows it still attached to the roof of the show buildings. I believe it highly unlikely they will be constructing a new replica and placing it on the ground in the new courtyard.

This is what I was thinking too, even though it is hard to tell because the bottom of the tower in the concept art is blurred. If anything, it may be moved over slightly and pulled forward, which makes me wonder if they're going to try to have it not be visible from the new courtyard? With a change in the roofline in the back to add decorative elements, could they hide the Eiffel tower since you would be so close to it?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom