Intelligibility of Splash Mountain's plot

[_caleb]

I think you are trying to force a strict linear plot expectation and the idea the ride should be free standing in concept. I don't think either of these things are necessities nor were they intended.

I think we are seeing people 20yrs later who have no idea about the brer rabbit stories and question how these show scenes make sense. They aren't setup to tell a free standing narrative inclusive of character development, conflict, and climax.

Yes, I think you’re right. I am fascinated by the idea that in themed, immersive storytelling, show scenes need to reliably tell a story as a whole. And this might actually require show scenes that don't hold up to linear, scene-by-scene scrutiny. It seems to me this was a strength of what they did with Splash Mountain.

Because Splash wasn't a book/film report–but rather a "new" story using component pieces based on the original animated portions of the film, I wonder if Imagineers inadvertently introduced a new problem: guests who were familiar with the tales as told in the films projecting those same stories onto this new, composite version, which was trying to do something slightly different (and less associated with the story told in the films).

 

[flynnibus]

Yes, I think you’re right. I am fascinated by the idea that in themed, immersive storytelling, show scenes need to reliably tell a story as a whole. And this might actually require show scenes that don't hold up to linear, scene-by-scene scrutiny. It seems to me this was a strength of what they did with Splash Mountain.

Because Splash wasn't a book/film report–but rather a "new" story using component pieces based on the original animated portions of the film, I wonder if Imagineers inadvertently introduced a new problem: guests who were familiar with the tales as told in the films projecting those same stories onto this new, composite version, which was trying to do something slightly different (and less associated with the story told in the films).

I think the construct is more common than you may realize. You mention the 'book report' format where we get an abbreviated snapshot version through a film.. but there are other formats that build upon 'familiar concepts' or stories without feeling the need to lay it all out like a prep-from-zero film or take the person through a traditional story arc with protagonists, conflict, resolution, etc.

Can you from memory list out the linear plot or project the Winnie the Pooh rides are based on?

The haunted mansion is another key example that has story and theme - but not a linear plot like a traditional film.

Jungle Cruise is another... These attractions setup a construct and take you through an experience that relies on concepts, predisposed ideas, or topics the guest brings in with them. The riverboat is another twist on this.. where it tried to use history and setting as the connecting theme rather than a finite story... because the experience, not the story really is the big takeaway on the riverboat. The scenes are more to create placemaking in time and setting than they are meant to be the attraction themselves.

In all of these examples we can say the story is still important... but in all of them what part of "story" they use and we refer to is different and has a different application.

So many people get hooked on Disney, get exposed to Disney methods and principals like story.. and then fall into the trap of convincing themselves that this successful example is how it must be done.. and apply it verbatim as a test to everything else. Or take certain things too literal vs understanding the example is to show how a tool achieves a result. They mistakeningly think that you necessarily must use the same tool, in the same way, every time -- instead of focusing on the objective and why that objective was important.

"Back story" is a great example of this. Now everyone has a hard-on for everything needing a backstory and adherence to it. The point of a backstory is to help build cohesiveness in flushing out a concept. It's something that help provides a litmus test to see how concepts fit together or not and if your tale can be digestible. When exposed properly it can help guide the consumer through the journey and give more connecting tissue without necessarily having to call it all out literally... because ideas often convey certain assumptions without having to spell it all out. Typhoon Lagoon is a great example of this where exposed properly to the user, it helps them buy into and fill in all these gaps in comprehension they may otherwise have.

I think the irony of Splash is given its incredible length... we're still talking about how they shortcut the actual laying out of the premise and characters. IMO it shows how the focus was not on hammering home the plot, but more about atmosphere, the experience, and throwbacks... and assumes you brought in some of the folk tales with you. They have all this time in the attraction, including basically dead-air time outside and they use very little of it on setup of characters/story. Same with the queue.. very minimal setup done.

You do find that in most attractions.. they know they have you for such a short amount of time and you are hit with so much.. that they don't try to get too complex on the premise.

Contrast that with say.. Expedition Everest... which REALLY uses the queue to stage all the premise of the ride. It takes this idea of the abominal snowman that maybe people have crossed.. and now forms it into this mystical yeti and an identity and premise you experience on the ride itself.

Splash I think takes people on a detour because the scenes like the laughing place and snare trap lose a lot of their context if you aren't familiar with the prior folk tales.

 

[_caleb]

I think the construct is more common than you may realize. You mention the 'book report' format where we get an abbreviated snapshot version through a film.. but there are other formats that build upon 'familiar concepts' or stories without feeling the need to lay it all out like a prep-from-zero film or take the person through a traditional story arc with protagonists, conflict, resolution, etc.

Can you from memory list out the linear plot or project the Winnie the Pooh rides are based on?

The haunted mansion is another key example that has story and theme - but not a linear plot like a traditional film.

Jungle Cruise is another... These attractions setup a construct and take you through an experience that relies on concepts, predisposed ideas, or topics the guest brings in with them. The riverboat is another twist on this.. where it tried to use history and setting as the connecting theme rather than a finite story... because the experience, not the story really is the big takeaway on the riverboat. The scenes are more to create placemaking in time and setting than they are meant to be the attraction themselves.

In all of these examples we can say the story is still important... but in all of them what part of "story" they use and we refer to is different and has a different application.

So many people get hooked on Disney, get exposed to Disney methods and principals like story.. and then fall into the trap of convincing themselves that this successful example is how it must be done.. and apply it verbatim as a test to everything else. Or take certain things too literal vs understanding the example is to show how a tool achieves a result. They mistakeningly think that you necessarily must use the same tool, in the same way, every time -- instead of focusing on the objective and why that objective was important.

"Back story" is a great example of this. Now everyone has a hard-on for everything needing a backstory and adherence to it. The point of a backstory is to help build cohesiveness in flushing out a concept. It's something that help provides a litmus test to see how concepts fit together or not and if your tale can be digestible. When exposed properly it can help guide the consumer through the journey and give more connecting tissue without necessarily having to call it all out literally... because ideas often convey certain assumptions without having to spell it all out. Typhoon Lagoon is a great example of this where exposed properly to the user, it helps them buy into and fill in all these gaps in comprehension they may otherwise have.

I think the irony of Splash is given its incredible length... we're still talking about how they shortcut the actual laying out of the premise and characters. IMO it shows how the focus was not on hammering home the plot, but more about atmosphere, the experience, and throwbacks... and assumes you brought in some of the folk tales with you. They have all this time in the attraction, including basically dead-air time outside and they use very little of it on setup of characters/story. Same with the queue.. very minimal setup done.

You do find that in most attractions.. they know they have you for such a short amount of time and you are hit with so much.. that they don't try to get too complex on the premise.

Contrast that with say.. Expedition Everest... which REALLY uses the queue to stage all the premise of the ride. It takes this idea of the abominal snowman that maybe people have crossed.. and now forms it into this mystical yeti and an identity and premise you experience on the ride itself.

Splash I think takes people on a detour because the scenes like the laughing place and snare trap lose a lot of their context if you aren't familiar with the prior folk tales.

See, I think Splash’s attempt to tell a linear story was actually its weakness. With other rides (classics like Haunted Mansion, Jungle Cruise, BTMRR, Space Mountain, etc.) there doesn’t seem to be any real attempt to tell a linear story. I think you could enter those at any point and the ride would still make sense. Despite fans’ attempts to impose a truly linear narrative, even Pirates only sort of has a “story.”

In some ways, MMRR is similar to Splash in that it uses key frames (scenes) to tell a linear story with a beginning, a middle, and an end. We’ll see how successful it is, but I think the zaniness of jumping from scene to scene sort of relieves some of the pressure from each individual scene to work well in order for the whole story to really make sense.

We’ve talked a lot about backstory around here, but I completely agree with you about the place, purpose, and value of a good backstory. My preference is for rides that keep the backstory in the background.

 

[Tha Realest]

See, I think Splash’s attempt to tell a linear story was actually its weakness. With other rides (classics like Haunted Mansion, Jungle Cruise, BTMRR, Space Mountain, etc.) there doesn’t seem to be any real attempt to tell a linear story. I think you could enter those at any point and the ride would still make sense. Despite fans’ attempts to impose a truly linear narrative, even Pirates only sort of has a “story.”

In some ways, MMRR is similar to Splash in that it uses key frames (scenes) to tell a linear story with a beginning, a middle, and an end. We’ll see how successful it is, but I think the zaniness of jumping from scene to scene sort of relieves some of the pressure from each individual scene to work well in order for the whole story to really make sense.

We’ve talked a lot about backstory around here, but I completely agree with you about the place, purpose, and value of a good backstory. My preference is for rides that keep the backstory in the background.

This is where I’m concerned about the replacement. Most visitors will be familiar with Backstory 1 (the film PATF). Then, there’s going to be a Backstory 2 (post film, possibly aligned with the D+ series). To the extent this attraction or plot/story is a continuation of the new D+ series, there may be another narrative thread (Backstory 3) to explain why we meet Tiana at this juncture in her life and business endeavors.

 

[Tom Morrow]

I think the irony of Splash is given its incredible length... we're still talking about how they shortcut the actual laying out of the premise and characters. IMO it shows how the focus was not on hammering home the plot, but more about atmosphere, the experience, and throwbacks... and assumes you brought in some of the folk tales with you. They have all this time in the attraction, including basically dead-air time outside and they use very little of it on setup of characters/story. Same with the queue.. very minimal setup done.

This is something I miss about the old school attraction design. Splash Mountain embraced that it was also a log flume and as such, all of the outdoor portions have little to no show. Allowing you to take in simply being on a log flume ride. I hope the new version still embraces this style and doesn't try to cram narrative the entire way.

 

[_caleb]

This is something I miss about the old school attraction design. Splash Mountain embraced that it was also a log flume and as such, all of the outdoor portions have little to no show. Allowing you to take in simply being on a log flume ride. I hope the new version still embraces this style and doesn't try to cram narrative the entire way.

Yes! I agree that it’s okay for there to be stretches that are themed, but not “show.”

Also, I like the idea of “embracing” the ride mechanism. PeopleMover, Everest, Pirates, and even Test Track, come to mind.

 

[flynnibus]

This is something I miss about the old school attraction design. Splash Mountain embraced that it was also a log flume and as such, all of the outdoor portions have little to no show. Allowing you to take in simply being on a log flume ride. I hope the new version still embraces this style and doesn't try to cram narrative the entire way.

There are certainly elements that drive this home.. like the fact you enter that first lift after circling the drop. Around that section it very much feels like entering a traditional flume ride. I think the part that stands out to me is the slow-roll of the story elements out there. Maybe that was intentional... to start very much barren and build the layers... vs maybe having dialog start right away out there. Would be an interesting discussion with Baxter to understand if this was a build-up choice or if it was more practical (like weather resistant, or budgeting, etc)

 

[Sir_Cliff]

This is where I’m concerned about the replacement. Most visitors will be familiar with Backstory 1 (the film PATF). Then, there’s going to be a Backstory 2 (post film, possibly aligned with the D+ series). To the extent this attraction or plot/story is a continuation of the new D+ series, there may be another narrative thread (Backstory 3) to explain why we meet Tiana at this juncture in her life and business endeavors.

I suspect the actual plot of Tiana will be a lot simpler than that of Splash precisely because no prior knowledge can be assumed. From what we've heard so far, I wouldn't be surprised if there's just some dialogue from Tiana about trying to find the missing ingredient before the big party as she moves through a range of different settings, Mama Odie will help her arrive at the insight that the missing ingredient is some variation on the theme of love (I can't imagine the ride's climax is Tiana discovering paprika), we go down the drop, and finally join her at the joyous party with all her friends and family before sailing into unload.

I think signs and perhaps printed material in the queue will do the heavy lifting regarding the ownership structure of Tiana's Foods and telling us we're in a salt mine. Current WDI seems to like writing elaborate backstories for people to read, though they are not so strong at the execution of those backstories as convincing themed environments (see the modern graphics backing up the new backstories for Jungle Cruise and Main Street Confectionary).

 

[JustAFan]

It took me a few rides to pick up on all the subtleties, but I eventually got it.

 

[LittleBuford]

We're now at 122 responses. The picture remains pretty stable, with 59 of the respondents (48.4%) opining that they find the full story easy to follow from the ride alone. Since this way of reading the count proved controversial yesterday (largely because of the uncertainties surrounding the final two counterfactual options), if we were to exclude from consideration those who came to Splash Mountain with prior knowledge of the tales, we end up with 56 respondents (out of 100) who understood the full story from the ride alone and 44 (out of 100) who did not.

However you assess the data, the picture is much more complicated than many of us (myself included) had initially assumed in the other thread. I was convinced that certain aspects of the story were all but impossible to deduce from just the ride itself, while others were convinced that those same aspects were all but impossible to miss. It seems, as is so often the case, that the truth defies such generalisations.

 

[WondersOfLife]

I have never seen people try their hardest to overcomplicate anything so much in my life... Lol

 

[LittleBuford]

I have never seen people try their hardest to overcomplicate anything so much in my life... Lol

If the topic isn't interesting to you, why bother following this thread, much less participating in it?

 

[_caleb]

I have never seen people try their hardest to overcomplicate anything so much in my life... Lol

You never geek out about something you enjoy?

I find it much more interesting than making fun of people who like to discuss the things they like.

 

[CntrlFlPete]

I still would not know if I followed the story because I rode at a time when everything worked (I certainly found it hard to follow in later years) -- I would think the rabbit outfoxing the fox most likely came from the cartoons I watched in my youth more so than the fact I saw the movie.

What I find interesting is that so many of these rides tell stories via symbolism and such. I always viewed Splash as straightforward since it was so dialog driven, yet as I read here, I feel I may have missed a lot of symbolism that is present.

The turtles telling the rabbit to slow down -- does these cause a child to recall the tortoise and the hare? BUT Home can mean so much to so many people -- could/does it carry double meanings? For those who felt the rabbit would die -- would some believe that would take one 'HOME'? -- seems (to me) if one did not think the rabbit would make the fall, why would they not think he did die and went to their spiritual home?

Just tossing this out there as I have never thought of Splash as using abstract storying telling, that many theme park rides employ, as there tends not to be a solid 'one way' of seeing things so the story telling tossed in a little more than the one 'obvious' story.

 

[_caleb]

Oh, one thing I haven't mentioned is the strangeness of the briar patch being shown in places both outside and inside the mountain. I know that some of the indoor scenes are meant to be outdoors, but that part may have been a bit confusing.

 

[NelleBelle]

I never gave much thought to the storyline/plot of Splash (I think simply because I knew it from when I was little). But his thread has certainly made me think a of it in a lot deeper terms.

Now, my kids have been riding Splash since they've been tall enough to ride it (they're 19 and 16 now). I just asked each of them it they understood what was going on when they've ridden. The oldest said "yeah, mostly"--although I doubt he understood the nuances of Rabbit's use of reverse psychology. The youngest said he had no clue. This is despite both DH and I having explained the story of Splash and going into further depth of where the folk stories came from more recently. But the youngest said he still enjoyed the ride. I think for him there didn't have to be a linear story, just that the ride was "enjoyable", was themed, and long-ride, and got wet. I'm going to bet that for other kids, it's likely the same way.

Both my kids, even though they grew up with Splash, are going to totally identify with the new re-themeing more, just because they are certainly more familiar with those characters than they ever were with the Splash characters. Curious what a poll of the Under-18 (or actually Under 16) set would be?

 

[flynnibus]

I think for him there didn't have to be a linear story, just that the ride was "enjoyable", was themed, and long-ride, and got wet. I'm going to bet that for other kids, it's likely the same way.

Yeah - it's an interesting thought exercise for people. If Splash were a small world style boat ride.. or a omnimover... basically just a slow ride-through... would splash be as popular or liked?

I said earlier..

Splash got by through all the years because like Pan, it has more than just the story that people found enjoyable. The effects, the environments, the scale, the catchy music, the cute characters, and the basic fun of a flume ride. The ride had character, scale, and created memories... even if you didn't quite understand the purpose/plot connecting the scenes.

I think this speaks directly to your child's feedback. It was a fun cute flume ride to them.

 

[_caleb]

I think if one were to write out the story of Splash Mountain (like in a narrative format) using the only what was in the ride itself, it might be different than what some here think it was (as influenced by the film, books, and even discussion here).

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I think if one were to write out the story of Splash Mountain (like in a narrative format) using the only what was in the ride itself, it might be different than what some here think it was (as influenced by the film, books, and even discussion here).

True, but I feel that would be a little similar of anyone you asked to describe any of the rides based on existing source material if that person had literally zero awareness of that source material. If you literally had no idea who Peter Pan or Pinocchio were, would any of those rides make much sense based on the ride alone?

What I find interesting is that so many of these rides tell stories via symbolism and such. I always viewed Splash as straightforward since it was so dialog driven, yet as I read here, I feel I may have missed a lot of symbolism that is present.

I do feel this also fits into the prior knowledge that at least a lot of people bring to the ride. For example, for me seeing a grinning fox holding an axe next to a bear with a club both looking forward while a rabbit sits clearly out of their line of vision on top of the club laughing tells a clear story in and of itself. This thread has revealed, though, that image doesn't read so clearly to everyone.

 

[FettFan]

I’m from the Deep South; I knew the Brer Rabbit stories even before I knew of Disney’s adaptation of him.