It does feature a large portion of the show dedicated to the most successful merch and media money maker of all time for the company. I know it is not seen as relevant enough to the krumugen though.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Splash Mountain retheme to Princess and the Frog - Tiana's Bayou Adventure
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
- Status
It does feature a large portion of the show dedicated to the most successful merch and media money maker of all time for the company. I know it is not seen as relevant enough to the krumugen though.
Surferboy567
Well-Known Member
Have you heard anything new?
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Western River Expedition is the only acceptable replacement. Time to combine the two mountains and create one amazing experience as intended 50 years ago.
The documentation of the ride in Marc Davis In His Own Words is outstanding.
The documentation of the ride in Marc Davis In His Own Words is outstanding.
Marc Davis Fan
Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It is an IP. It is not a franchise.
FettFan
Well-Known Member
I like this idea.
Another idea would be turning Splash into an original attraction featuring another famous Disney rabbit...
Let's face it, Oswald has been woefully underutilized by Disney. (and Runaway Railway could have easily been a Trolley Troubles ride....)
And PatF could still have a great original home on Tom Sawyer Island. Because Tom Sawyer is pretty much dead anyway.
And I'm sorry to say it, but I have a very low opinion of Mark Twain. When I was a teenager, I was devouring Wells, Asimov, King, and Crichton on a weekly basis. But Twain bored me to tears. I didn't really give a crap about Tom Sawyer. By the time he was in the church rafters watching his own memorial service, I was wishing the little creep would have died for good.
Last edited:
Brer Panther
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but Bob Iger's Disney doesn't consider theme park original characters "IPs" for some reason.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
They’re not franchises. That’s the distinction. The focus is on franchises, not just IP.
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
Which is ridiculous...they have huge followings and could be built into very profitable IPs if they desired.
Brer Panther
Well-Known Member
Well, does The Princess and the Frog really qualify as a "franchise"? Doesn't a "franchise" have to consist of more than one movie, or at least one movie and a TV show?
owlsandcoffee
Well-Known Member
Nah, it doesn't. The reason they're doing PatF is to save face with people who are concerned about the racism of Song of the South. If they hadn't had public pressure they likely would've gone with Aladdin or something.
Truth is, Iger's angle is basically making the biggest improvement on rider numbers. Hence Frozen gets squeezed into Maelstrom. Splash Mountain already gets huge numbers so the only real reason to change the IP is because they're all seeing their shadows over the Uncle Remus stories.
FettFan
Well-Known Member
Disney: We won't put SotS on Disney Plus because we stand for wholesome, inoffensive family entertainment!
Also Disney:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I’ve got a BIG scoop for u!<br><br>I’m hearing <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DisneyPlus?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc^tfw">#DisneyPlus</a> <br>is DEFINITELY creating adult section<br>for <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Fox?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc^tfw">#Fox</a> & <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Touchstone?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc^tfw">#Touchstone</a> content!<br><br>You’ll need a pin code or something like that to unlock it as a parental control.<br><br>I’ll make a video when <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Disney?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc^tfw">#Disney</a> officially announces it w/ branding etc! <a href="https://t.co/Iw0Aa2CfQS">pic.twitter.com/Iw0Aa2CfQS</a></p>— Grace Randolph (@GraceRandolph) <a href="">August 18, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Discussed here:
Also, shouldn't you express your outrage for things that actually happen instead of only might happen?
CJR
Well-Known Member
Country Bears is actually closer to a franchise than PatF since it has the attraction and its movie, which Disney probably likes to forget. At the moment, PatF is just a movie.
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
Depends on what the bar is for a "franchise". If you're talking the literal definition, generally more than one movie is indicative, but if there's merchansiding potential worth capitalizing on (even if not quite enough to greenlight a sequel) then the bar is met.
The crux of this whole thing is Disney's interest in doing away with Song of the South. That's the definitive starting point. Disney does not wish to perpetuate its usage in any form. We've reached the point where they no longer wish to exempt Splash Mountain from that.
From there they went "if we're gonna get rid of the Song of the South elements in Splash Mountain, then what could we replace them with?" - So they turned to properties that 1) Make money, either through movies or TV or merchandise, and 2) Could be made to fit on the bones of the existsing Splash Mountains. In that order.
Princess and the Frog has merchandising behind it - more than Song of the South ever did or Splash Mountain ever will. Is it their biggest money maker? No, but it does make money, there are cultural incentives to add it (internally and externally, lest it be thought I'm saying the public made this decision for them) AND there isn't a more obvious property that covers all the necessary bases. Not one that follows their order of operations, at least. You could find another property that makes more sense in Frontierland, but it won't be one that makes as much money as Tiana, for example, so the scale doesn't tip.
The setting of PATF also has potential to work nestled up to New Orleans Square at Disneyland (in theory, at least), which is also a consideration - they don't want to redesign the different Splash Mountains into two different new attractions. So what's good for the Gander is good for the Goose, in this case - they're splitting the difference on what could pass on both coasts.
And THEN, probably after ALL that comes the consideration of what could actually make for, you know, an actual good attraction. Princess and the Frog has some fun characters, good music, and interesting locations that have the potential to translate into a fun theme park experience. AND a good portion of the movie takes place on waterways, and therefore could be served by a flume ride. Bingo. Or at least, you know, close enough.
Considering how many boxes there are to check, and the order in which Disney prioritizes them, there really isn't an existing property better suited to replacing Splash Mountain - which, again, is the pin on which this whole thing turns and that really bears repeating. Their interest is in doing away with Splash Mountain in its current form - and because that's decided the question then becomes what to do with what will be left of the ride. Which is SUPER different from the flow of logic in the opposite direction, which is what many people here seem to think.
Kicking the Brer's out of Splash was the first domino in this chain, not the last. Therefore, PATF being brought in is a solution to a foregone conclusion, not an assertion over the ride as we know and love it. You know?
Brer Panther
Well-Known Member
Well, their plan to remove any trace of Song of the South isn't gonna work. Tokyo refused to retheme their version, and the characters still make cameos in films like Who Framed Roger Rabbit and The Lion King 1 1/2.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Tiana is one of the 12 official Disney Princesses, a multi-billion dollar franchise.
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
Outside of the Tokyo debacle . . . I don't think Disney is worried about those particular uses of the characters. Considering those two films have scorched earth of their own, those brief appearances are pretty negligible.
Alright, let's get pedantic:
"Franchise" would apply to any IP that has more than one thing based on it. Swiss Family Robinson has a movie and a walk-thru attraction. It's a franchise... technically. PatF has a movie, M&Gs, a cruise ship restaurant, and its various characters (both Tiana and Facilier) showing up in a whole bunch of shows and in other franchises, such as The Disney Princesses. So, PatF is a franchise.
"IP" is any intellectual property trademarked or copyrighted. So Frozen and Figment are both IPs.
But in the context of park rides and attractions, the context of "based on an IP" narrows the meaning to exclude Figment because, in general, people really mean "based on a pre-existing TV or Movie IP."
"Franchise" would apply to any IP that has more than one thing based on it. Swiss Family Robinson has a movie and a walk-thru attraction. It's a franchise... technically. PatF has a movie, M&Gs, a cruise ship restaurant, and its various characters (both Tiana and Facilier) showing up in a whole bunch of shows and in other franchises, such as The Disney Princesses. So, PatF is a franchise.
"IP" is any intellectual property trademarked or copyrighted. So Frozen and Figment are both IPs.
But in the context of park rides and attractions, the context of "based on an IP" narrows the meaning to exclude Figment because, in general, people really mean "based on a pre-existing TV or Movie IP."
Tavernacle12
Well-Known Member
They’re barely more than cameos in those movies, and in the case of Roger Rabbit they’re contemporary-ish to the setting anyways.
I don’t think a ton of Americans are gonna fly to Japan for Splash Mountain either.
- Status