News Remy's Ratatouille Adventure coming to Epcot

[MisterPenguin]

not really, (marni correct me if wrong) but rat took up the expansion pad for a future pavilion between Morocco and France, I dont believe it took whats left of or part of Morocco's space. The plot between Morocco and France was never really earmarked for a Morocco expansion, although they certainly could have instead of giving it to France.... ha I know it sounds like were making new borders or countries here lol.

Check out...

1981...

View attachment 293863

Sometime later...
View attachment 293864

And today...

View attachment 293902

A few things:

• Orange areas are open areas.
• Red areas are where there would need to be some deconstruction before reconstruction. In the end, these are expendable if you have the sponsors for a new pavilion:
  • World Showplace (Millennial Village)
  • Canada's Garden and nipping a bit from Imagination.
  • Sommerhus
• The place where the African Outpost is designated for two pads, but, being up against the fireworks works, the eastern part on the canal would have to be covered and hardened against fireworks.
• The IG is taking up part of one of the original pads. A half-pad is still open between it and the UK as well as backstage areas.

 

[BromBones]

I don't like the IP's being so overt in World Showcase.
It's one thing to have the occasional character happen to be in their particular country.
It's also okay to have a character topiary, but overtly placing IP's in World Showcase changes what the pavilions were supposed to be.
They were supposed to transport you into that particular country. Because when I go to France I am not going to see Gusteau's Restaurant.

Once they changed Maestrom to the Frozen (This is not about Norway anymore) Ride...that was the point of no return.

 

[DisneyfanMA]

Well, we're getting the Poppins go 'round. The problem is all RIDES (not shows) are at either one end or the other of WS. There needs to be at least one or two rides in the middle countries. American Adventure is certainly an old-school E-ticket in caliber, though.

Oh yeah forgot about Poppins. Is it confirmed as a ride? Great news if so. You’re right 1 more ride in the middle of WS would round it out........at least they’ve listened and come to reason that WS needed more interactive (rides) attractions. Don’t get me wrong. I love WS and the food and the theming and overall experience but clearly it will benefit the whole Park by adding some rides.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Oh yeah forgot about Poppins. Is it confirmed as a ride?

Not yet, if at all.

 

[BubbaisSleep]

I don't like the IP's being so overt in World Showcase.
It's one thing to have the occasional character happen to be in their particular country.
It's also okay to have a character topiary, but overtly placing IP's in World Showcase changes what the pavilions were supposed to be.
They were supposed to transport you into that particular country. Because when I go to France I am not going to see Gusteau's Restaurant.

Once they changed Maestrom to the Frozen (This is not about Norway anymore) Ride...that was the point of no return.

It really just depends how it is implemented. I'm not sure how Gusteau's can really impact your view-point though it is placed in the back of an unchanged pavilion, away from view. I also like how Rat takes place in a real country, so both of my points wouldn't take away from being transported to that particular country. I can't put up the same argument for Frozen though. But since it constructed before Rat, maybe there is a point of return for tasteful additions. Isn't Mary Poppins suppose to be hidden around a corner as well? I might be wrong though.

 

[Rich Brownn]

Thats how I feel about the Japan show building lol, that big building is just for offices and storage?? shame.

Well, as we know, that was supposed to house "Meet The World" carousel building.....

 

[RobWDW1971]

Wow you all would've been great at Disneyland in Walt's era.
"OMG!!! New Orleans next to FRONTIERLAND?! THAT MAKES NO SENSE!!!"
"OMG!! I can see a mountain from Main Street USA! What a distracting catastrophe! I'm calling Walt!!"
"They're building WHAT?! A ROLLER COASTER?! THAT DOES NOT BELONG IN DISNEYLAND!!!! IT'LL ATTRACT TEENAGERS!!"

Because our standards in 2020 should not have evolved since 1966. That makes sense.

 

[justintheharris]

Actually, I'm not that way at all - but I'll play along since you are assuming a lot of what I think... The attention to cohesive story and transition within lands was a key focus. Disneyland's premise was always about discrete lands focusing on an overarching theme. They didn't necessarily connect to each other and didn't have to. They were meant for broad-based themes that entertained families (of that era) and harkened back to genres which everyone (again, at the time) related to. So, as a result, Disneyland and Magic Kingdom worked because the overarching story works. And, other than maybe with SW:GE, it's remained that way since Day 1. It's definitely evolved and flexed. But, other than maybe TL, the focus of Frontierland, New Orleans Square, Bear Country/Critter Country, MainStreet USA, etc. haven't changed. What they feature and how it's executed has. But, the theme has not largely.

Here, you have what was once a very realized theme going to an inconsistent theme. Much like happened in Tomorrowland and Hollywood Studios. Are the countries in World Showcase trying to be a representation of their real world versions? Is it how the real world has inspired Disney films? Is it the Disney version of each country? That's where my issue is. I appreciate that not everyone cares about that level of detail - but many do. And, I'd argue that level of detail and consistency is what drives Pandora and SW Galaxy's Edge. I would bet many would find it odd if they put a Wall-E attraction into Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge - unless they redid the theme for Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge into something that allowed for both SW and Wall-E to be in the same place.

My bigger point is many of the expansions and additions have been great. I've been an AP for years making multiple trips a year until recently. This is a new direction which could have been avoided with better storytelling and appreciation for what is there (while still adding plenty of "new").

And, FYI, I'd not I am not a "What Would Walt Do" person. I grew up with WDW.

So.... did you flip out when the Three Caballeros got added into the Mexico Pavilion? I'm going to bet on a 'no.'

It easy to build something perfectly executed from scratch. Adding onto it is much more difficult. Think of it as building a ship then building the bottle around it vs. building the ship WITHIN the bottle. Obviously in the 1980s nobody could have predicted a Ratatouille ride and therefore, they must make it work as best as they can within the sight lines and details of the pavilion and this forum thrives off of nitpicking every project beyond any reasonable belief. I have never seen a group of people so devoted to trash talking every new project. There's people who don't have a single positive thing to say about anything new since 2014 despite the average guest (and by average I mean 95% of them) enjoying everything. Half of the complaints are hard to even take seriously given that most of the rides haven't even opened. And many people on here can tell me "oh well if Disney did this..." but the reality is no, you don't want Disney to do that. You want another reason to complain.

And your Wall-E/Star Wars analogy isn't as sensible as you make it seem. They have been established as two separate universes. Putting Ratatouille in the France pavilion is far more comparable to putting a Alice in Wonderland ride in Fantasyland. Does Fantasy specifically call upon Alice in Wonderland? No. But it fits. Just as Ratatouille fits in France.

 

[marni1971]

That big building behind there is just the load area??? Wow

Crazy huh? Here’s something I did a while back:

 

[brihow]

 

[Epcot82Guy]

So.... did you flip out when the Three Caballeros got added into the Mexico Pavilion? I'm going to bet on a 'no.'

It easy to build something perfectly executed from scratch. Adding onto it is much more difficult. Think of it as building a ship then building the bottle around it vs. building the ship WITHIN the bottle. Obviously in the 1980s nobody could have predicted a Ratatouille ride and therefore, they must make it work as best as they can within the sight lines and details of the pavilion and this forum thrives off of nitpicking every project beyond any reasonable belief. I have never seen a group of people so devoted to trash talking every new project. There's people who don't have a single positive thing to say about anything new since 2014 despite the average guest (and by average I mean 95% of them) enjoying everything. Half of the complaints are hard to even take seriously given that most of the rides haven't even opened. And many people on here can tell me "oh well if Disney did this..." but the reality is no, you don't want Disney to do that. You want another reason to complain.

And your Wall-E/Star Wars analogy isn't as sensible as you make it seem. They have been established as two separate universes. Putting Ratatouille in the France pavilion is far more comparable to putting a Alice in Wonderland ride in Fantasyland. Does Fantasy specifically call upon Alice in Wonderland? No. But it fits. Just as Ratatouille fits in France.

I appreciate your passion on this - like we all have. If I could offer a suggestion for all of us (myself included), we should avoid making assumptions about how someone feels. Asking a question about their position is great. But, making assumptions turn message boards (and frankly American society right now) into a series of actual arguments vs. debates.

With that, to answer the question you posed but answered, I actually was very suspicious of GFT - as is, in fact, documented in these boards. But, to get at the heart of your question, storytelling is why. I personally don't like the addition of IPs at Epcot, but I get it. And I get the need to expand. My issue for all of these attractions has been focus. Epcot - World Showcase specifically - should be about the countries. While I would have loved an updated version of El Rio Del Tiempo and Maelstrom, if a movie tie in is needed, the attraction should still remain about the country IN EPCOT'S WORLD SHOWCASE. If done "correctly" (my opinion), you should not be able to clone an Epcot ride to another park outside of maybe Tomorrowland or vice versa.

GFT is a Donald/3 Cabs ride with Mexico as a loose setting. If it was about them showing Mexico vs. finding Donald, I actually would be ok with it. (See my posts on Coco - where I think a Coco attraction with Miguel explaining Dias de los Muertos would be wonderful - but not a "Coco" ride). If Frozen was about how Norwegian culture helped them create Frozen (say with real world versions of their costumes vs. the movie) - behind that. Rat - if it was about Remy teaching us classic French culinary techniques, behind it. Awesome Planet at The Land looks to be a great addition and 100% good use of IP to me.

I say that just to help showcase my point. The focus of Epcot is changing to be about the characters vs. using the characters to talk about something in the real world. I haven't met anyone, including die hard character fans, who would like those versions of the rides any less than what we are getting. So, it's muddling Epcot and its message vs. adding to it - when it didn't have to.

 

[justintheharris]

I appreciate your passion on this - like we all have. If I could offer a suggestion for all of us (myself included), we should avoid making assumptions about how someone feels. Asking a question about their position is great. But, making assumptions turn message boards (and frankly American society right now) into a series of actual arguments vs. debates.

With that, to answer the question you posed but answered, I actually was very suspicious of GFT - as is, in fact, documented in these boards. But, to get at the heart of your question, storytelling is why. I personally don't like the addition of IPs at Epcot, but I get it. And I get the need to expand. My issue for all of these attractions has been focus. Epcot - World Showcase specifically - should be about the countries. While I would have loved an updated version of El Rio Del Tiempo and Maelstrom, if a movie tie in is needed, the attraction should still remain about the country IN EPCOT'S WORLD SHOWCASE. If done "correctly" (my opinion), you should not be able to clone an Epcot ride to another park outside of maybe Tomorrowland or vice versa.

GFT is a Donald/3 Cabs ride with Mexico as a loose setting. If it was about them showing Mexico vs. finding Donald, I actually would be ok with it. (See my posts on Coco - where I think a Coco attraction with Miguel explaining Dias de los Muertos would be wonderful - but not a "Coco" ride). If Frozen was about how Norwegian culture helped them create Frozen (say with real world versions of their costumes vs. the movie) - behind that. Rat - if it was about Remy teaching us classic French culinary techniques, behind it. Awesome Planet at The Land looks to be a great addition and 100% good use of IP to me.

I say that just to help showcase my point. The focus of Epcot is changing to be about the characters vs. using the characters to talk about something in the real world. I haven't met anyone, including die hard character fans, who would like those versions of the rides any less than what we are getting. So, it's muddling Epcot and its message vs. adding to it - when it didn't have to.

I understand the criticism of Frozen given that Frozen never even mentions Norway but Ratatouille in its entirety is drenched in French culture. Similarly, I don’t entirely remember if Coco even mentions Mexico but it is unmistakably taking place in Mexico (save for the land of the dead of course). Ratatouille’s incorporation into the France pavilion was about as tasteful an IP incorporation can get.

 

[rreading]

I appreciate your passion on this - like we all have. If I could offer a suggestion for all of us (myself included), we should avoid making assumptions about how someone feels. Asking a question about their position is great. But, making assumptions turn message boards (and frankly American society right now) into a series of actual arguments vs. debates.

With that, to answer the question you posed but answered, I actually was very suspicious of GFT - as is, in fact, documented in these boards. But, to get at the heart of your question, storytelling is why. I personally don't like the addition of IPs at Epcot, but I get it. And I get the need to expand. My issue for all of these attractions has been focus. Epcot - World Showcase specifically - should be about the countries. While I would have loved an updated version of El Rio Del Tiempo and Maelstrom, if a movie tie in is needed, the attraction should still remain about the country IN EPCOT'S WORLD SHOWCASE. If done "correctly" (my opinion), you should not be able to clone an Epcot ride to another park outside of maybe Tomorrowland or vice versa.

GFT is a Donald/3 Cabs ride with Mexico as a loose setting. If it was about them showing Mexico vs. finding Donald, I actually would be ok with it. (See my posts on Coco - where I think a Coco attraction with Miguel explaining Dias de los Muertos would be wonderful - but not a "Coco" ride). If Frozen was about how Norwegian culture helped them create Frozen (say with real world versions of their costumes vs. the movie) - behind that. Rat - if it was about Remy teaching us classic French culinary techniques, behind it. Awesome Planet at The Land looks to be a great addition and 100% good use of IP to me.

I say that just to help showcase my point. The focus of Epcot is changing to be about the characters vs. using the characters to talk about something in the real world. I haven't met anyone, including die hard character fans, who would like those versions of the rides any less than what we are getting. So, it's muddling Epcot and its message vs. adding to it - when it didn't have to.

Just chiming in to say that that adding a Frozen ride to replace Maelstrom which "was about how Norwegian culture helped them create Frozen" sounds like a lose-lose. Take away something that was authentic though imperfect to replace it with something for the kids that the kids don't like? Count me out.

 

[justintheharris]

Just chiming in to say that that adding a Frozen ride to replace Maelstrom which "was about how Norwegian culture helped them create Frozen" sounds like a lose-lose. Take away something that was authentic though imperfect to replace it with something for the kids that the kids don't like? Count me out.

Exactly another fantastic point. If Remy all of a sudden turned to the camera and started explaining how Ratatouille (the dish) has its origins in French culture and talked about French cooking styles, nobody would like it (not average guests nor Disney purists) and this forum would erupt in more hatred for the attraction. If Disney is smart, they'll never even attempt to cater to this forum given that they've made it apparent they will hate on any new project regardless of what it is. I wish I was on this forum pre-2017 so I could've seen how people probably were rooting for a Tron coaster, more rides in Epcot and have COMPLETELY reversed course now that they got their wish.

AND there is such thing as subconscious learning. I mean, the France pavilion's architecture speaks and so does the Japan pavilion's architecture and the Germany pavilion's architecture. An extension including an attraction that can still carry the atmosphere of the country it represents should be a welcome addition. Remy doesn't need to explain French cooking. The attraction demonstrates French culture purely in its environments and little touches much better than it would if it slapped you on the head.

 

[rreading]

Exactly another fantastic point. If Remy all of a sudden turned to the camera and started explaining how Ratatouille (the dish) has its origins in French culture and talked about French cooking styles, nobody would like it (not average guests nor Disney purists) and this forum would erupt in more hatred for the attraction. If Disney is smart, they'll never even attempt to cater to this forum given that they've made it apparent they will hate on any new project regardless of what it is. I wish I was on this forum pre-2017 so I could've seen how people probably were rooting for a Tron coaster, more rides in Epcot and have COMPLETELY reversed course now that they got their wish.

AND there is such thing as subconscious learning. I mean, the France pavilion's architecture speaks and so does the Japan pavilion's architecture and the Germany pavilion's architecture. An extension including an attraction that can still carry the atmosphere of the country it represents should be a welcome addition. Remy doesn't need to explain French cooking. The attraction demonstrates French culture purely in its environments and little touches much better than it would if it slapped you on the head.

Definitely correct re: the passive appreciation for things. If there's a warm fuzzy for the Norwegian look (clothing/landscape) because Frozen drew them in then kids will want to visit and see where they came from. Clearly we know that Arendelle is fictitious same as Batman's Gotham has been fictitious but they are both inspired by real places and are authentic in that regard. Moana's island may not actually exist but its culture is based on reality. One of the real effects of migration over the last century is that some places are less authentic then they used to be, but Disney does a great job of representing what they should (traditionally) be.

Re: this forum: there has always been skepticism about TWDC or its decisions - I personally tend to find myself trying to balance much of the negative perspective. But it's mostly limited to this subforum as trip reports and general discussion are not usually as negative.

Some of the negativity is based on widespread perspective (most agree that Imagination needs a redo) but often it is a matter of perspective (why did they need a Tron coaster right next to Space Mountain? The Main Street Theater would have been a much better decision); other times it is wistful memories of the past, but sometimes it is based on knowing how much better things could have been (I expect that no members would have complained about 7DMT as it was initially planned to be but readily complain that the finished product is too short).

There has actually been less negativity over the last couple of years. Either way, I appreciate the members who do post - negative or not - as I am interested in hearing the news and understanding their perspective.

 

[Prototype82]

Random thought that I felt like I should drop here. Maybe I'm rambling. One could argue that after Frozen's two attractions(FEA and Sommerhus) received photo-realistic facades based off of extensive research: Ratatouille's toony-meets-realism facade has no place in world showcase. But gaining Frozen gutted a LOT of history and substance. WDI knew they had to make up for it by constructing the historic castle ruins and the authentic cottage. We aren't losing the same kind of integrity with our culinary rat's new ride. It's an added bonus instead of a replacement. That integrity still lives in the Palais du Cinema(hopefully forever) and the front of the pavilion for now. Having that edge of whimsey in the back won't be damaging. I really don't think so.

 

[doctornick]

Well, we're getting the Poppins go 'round. The problem is all RIDES (not shows) are at either one end or the other of WS. There needs to be at least one or two rides in the middle countries. American Adventure is certainly an old-school E-ticket in caliber, though.

Yep, Japan or Italy would be great locations for another ride to spread things out in WS. Especially if Poppins ends up at least being a ride.

 

[justintheharris]

Random thought that I felt like I should drop here. Maybe I'm rambling. One could argue that after Frozen's two attractions(FEA and Sommerhus) received photo-realistic facades based off of extensive research: Ratatouille's toony-meets-realism facade has no place in world showcase. But gaining Frozen gutted a LOT of history and substance. WDI knew they had to make up for it by constructing the historic castle ruins and the authentic cottage. We aren't losing the same kind of integrity with our culinary rat's new ride. It's an added bonus instead of a replacement. That integrity still lives in the Palais du Cinema(hopefully forever) and the front of the pavilion for now. Having that edge of whimsey in the back won't be damaging. I really don't think so.

The facade isn't even done....

 

[Prototype82]

The facade isn't even done....

I'm well aware of that......I'm not referring to the level of detail. I'm talking about the stylized shapes of the twisted smoke stacks. That design decision is clearly visible and it's apparent that some people aren't fond of them. I'm just defending them.

 

[brihow]

I'm well aware of that......I'm not referring to the level of detail. I'm talking about the stylized shapes of the twisted smoke stacks. That design decision is clearly visible and it's apparent that some people aren't fond of them. I'm just defending them.

The difference between Remy and FEA is that Remy didn't replace or change anything really, it's just an addition. So the France pavilion of yesteryear is still basically 100% intact. Even if you end up hating the finished product, you could go to the France pavilion and just not turn the corner and never have to look at the new Remy area.