News Remy's Ratatouille Adventure coming to Epcot

[Castle Cake Apologist]

I'm not sad to say it. No one would care if it weren't attached to a movie, Figment was a character for the park, Remy can't be too? I'd take Rat over Nemo, Donald, Guardians and Frozen.

But I get what you're saying.

Movie tie-in or not, it would still be a somewhat mediocre ride through poorly-integrated screens. It doesn't have anything to do with the subject matter or any characters, the ride itself just isn't that great.

And you kind of proved my point by basically saying "well, it's better than these other bad choices."

 

[DisneyDodo]

People often fail to consider the fact that a major part of the reason that it's worthwhile for a media company like Disney to enter the amusement park business is BECAUSE of their bank of popular IPs. There's a reason you don't see other massive companies like Walmart or Exxon Mobile building amusement parks. There's also a reason why amusement park companies that DON'T have access to those IPs don't attempt to build highly-themed, immersive attractions - it's simply not profitable. Those types of rides (e.g. Horizons) are extremely expensive to build and maintain and they don't compensate for the cost by drawing in tons of people. At this point, Disney has enough IPs that they can build a ride for just about any theme and infuse it with an IP without having to sacrifice on originality. They may not always succeed in creating an amazing ride experience, but the IP is not what's to blame.

 

[Amidala]

People often fail to consider the fact that a major part of the reason that it's worthwhile for a media company like Disney to enter the amusement park business is BECAUSE of their bank of popular IPs. There's a reason you don't see other massive companies like Walmart or Exxon Mobile building amusement parks. There's also a reason why amusement park companies that DON'T have access to those IPs don't attempt to build highly-themed, immersive attractions - it's simply not profitable. Those types of rides (e.g. Horizons) are extremely expensive to build and maintain and they don't compensate for the cost by drawing in tons of people. At this point, Disney has enough IPs that they can build a ride for just about any theme and infuse it with an IP without having to sacrifice on originality. They may not always succeed in creating an amazing ride experience, but the IP is not what's to blame.

I'm aware of that, but I think unfortunately Disney (under Iger especially) often does sacrifice originality for the sake of IP. I'm obviously not saying all attractions and land tied to an IP are creative failures. I'm also not saying that IPs have no place at the parks whatsoever. Part of the issue here is that IPs are being shoehorned into places where they stick out like a sore thumb (e.g. GOTG in Future World). GOTG would be a fine fit at DHS ("Movies" is a fairly vague theme, so most IPs will fit at DHS), and I doubt people would be up in arms to the same extent. IPs like Inside Out, BH6 and Wall-E would lend themselves well to edutainment attractions (or even thrill rides, particularly in the case of BH6) and still allow Disney to capitalize on its movies at Epcot. For that same reason, I'm 100% fine with Ratatouille (the movie is truly a love letter to Paris) in WS France, but YMMV there.

Then there's the fact that Disney execs know tying a popular IP to an attraction will make it instantly appeal to guests. There are modern IP-based rides like Pooh's Hunny Hunt that are really works of art, with boundary-pushing tech and top-tier immersion. But then you have rides like TMM, a basic shooter (even if it's a lot of fun!) billed as an E-Ticket largely because of Toy Story's popularity. So yeah, of course IP-based rides won't necessarily be uncreative, but it definitely gives Disney the option to boost the popularity of otherwise mediocre attractions by tying in popular franchises.

& I think it's also fair to say that truly spectacular original concepts will still be a draw for guests! Look at the success of rides like Soarin', Expedition Everest, Mystic Manor, Sinbad's Storybook Voyage, Journey to the Center of the Earth and countless others. Disney 100% has the money and the talent to throw some original rides into the mix every once in a while, and I really think it would benefit them to do so. So I can see why people are disappointed that pretty much all of the major announcements at D23 revolved around IPs.

 

[DisneyDodo]

Disney isn't shoeing GotG into Future World any more than they shoed Ellen in - it's hard to argue that GotG has less to do with energy than Ellen does. In the end of the day, it's not always a question of which IP they use, but rather, how they use it. If you want to make the argument that, based on what we've heard about the ride from @marni1971, it doesn't sound like a good fit or a fun ride, that's fine (though I would encourage you to wait until the ride is built and you've had a chance to ride it before coming to a final determination). However, my point is that if the ride does stink and/or feel out of place, that would reflect negatively on the ride-design, rather than the IP-choice. The fact that Disney has decided to keep the exterior of EEA intact at least gives some indication that they care about the feel of the land.

 

[FigmentForver96]

Disney isn't shoeing GotG into Future World any more than they shoed Ellen in - it's hard to argue that GotG has less to do with energy than Ellen does. In the end of the day, it's not always a question of which IP they use, but rather, how they use it. If you want to make the argument that, based on what we've heard about the ride from @marni1971, it doesn't sound like a good fit or a fun ride, that's fine (though I would encourage you to wait until the ride is built and you've had a chance to ride it before coming to a final determination). However, my point is that if the ride does stink and/or feel out of place, that would reflect negatively on the ride-design, rather than the IP-choice. The fact that Disney has decided to keep the exterior of EEA intact at least gives some indication that they care about the feel of the land.

The Ellen IP worked because behind her, Bill Nye and the overal story, it all came down to still learning about energy. Through a comedic story, we learned where fossil fuels came from and how we are studying new forms of energy. Guardians, while I imagine will be loosely tied to Energy, is not going to "teach" us about energy. For one, nobody who loves Guardians is going to want to sit and learn about energy. They're going to want a fast paced crazy adventure like I'm the movies because that's what they've come to expect from this IP. Anything less than that would just upset the main fan base.

Second, the ride is going to be a coaster meaning that there is no way we're going to have a chance to learn much of anything other than what crazy adventure we find ourselves in. I have no doubt the ride will be fun. In fact, I expect it to be a quality ride with good thrills and special effects. But at the end of the day the only reason they want it in Epcot is to get it into a park that needs new thrilling experinces because they've allowed it to rot.

 

[Amidala]

The Ellen IP worked because behind her, Bill Nye and the overal story, it all came down to still learning about energy. Through a comedic story, we learned where fossil fuels came from and how we are studying new forms of energy. Guardians, while I imagine will be loosely tied to Energy, is not going to "teach" us about energy. For one, nobody who loves Guardians is going to want to sit and learn about energy. They're going to want a fast paced crazy adventure like I'm the movies because that's what they've come to expect from this IP. Anything less than that would just upset the main fan base.

Second, the ride is going to be a coaster meaning that there is no way we're going to have a chance to learn much of anything other than what crazy adventure we find ourselves in. I have no doubt the ride will be fun. In fact, I expect it to be a quality ride with good thrills and special effects. But at the end of the day the only reason they want it in Epcot is to get it into a park that needs new thrilling experinces because they've allowed it to rot.

Exactly. My point (and I may not have explained it well enough) was that GOTG isn't "inherently" a property that fits the mission statement of Epcot. I would feel slightly better about a BH6 coaster even if that coaster didn't offer edutainment, because it's a thematic fit. In order to justify GOTG @ Epcot, the attraction itself would need to stay true to the theming of Future World. Like, an attraction where the guardians learn about something and share their knowledge w/ guests (similar to UoE) wouldn't bother me. Honestly, if this coaster even had a preshow and queue that hinted at edutainment, I would be comforted.

And OTOH...if Epcot is moving away from edutainment 100%, then there needs to be a new theme. In the same way that DHS is moving away from being a "studio" park toward being a park that immerses you in different movies. And I guess I'm just leery about a GOTG coaster as the first attraction to signal a theme change for Future World.

 

[jgg]

The Ellen IP worked because behind her, Bill Nye and the overal story, it all came down to still learning about energy. Through a comedic story, we learned where fossil fuels came from and how we are studying new forms of energy.

Except that you didn't; in fact, you were actively misinformed. Protip: Dinosaurs have the same relationship to energy as Frozen does to Norway - i.e., if you squint really hard you can rationalize some sort of connection but everyone knows that they're there to draw crowds, not to accurately inform.

 

[danyoung56]

Not sure what you're saying here. They said very pointedly in the Ellen show that fossil fuels didn't come from dinos, but from the general sludge of plants and animals. The dinosaurs were there because "dinosaurs are just cool!".

 

[Jenny72]

I think the reason I get frustrated with all the movie IP stuff is that it makes the park so uni-dimensional. If I take my kids around the park, they don't know who anyone is. I have to just keep saying, "it's from a movie." More variety is needed.

And yes, I know: Splash Mountain. You don't have to have seen the movie to appreciate it. But in a backwards way, doesn't the success of Splash Mountain, which everyone says is based on a movie no one has seen, call into question the whole notion that they need IPs in everything to make it successful? Everyone keeps saying that they need to use IPs to draw people in, but do we know that that is actually the case? Joe Rohde keeps saying that you don't need to have seen Avatar to enjoy the land. Ok, well -- then why do we need to start with a movie in the first place?

I think the only reason to include them is *not* to draw people to the park, but to get more people to watch and buy the movies. In other words, it's the park in service of the movies, not the reverse. Because now if I go to the parks, I need to buy a whole stack of movies so we'll know who's in the meet and greet.

 

[jgg]

Not sure what you're saying here. They said very pointedly in the Ellen show that fossil fuels didn't come from dinos, but from the general sludge of plants and animals. The dinosaurs were there because "dinosaurs are just cool!".

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying: dinosaurs were made the centerpiece of the attraction because they would draw crowds, not because of any actual commitment to education. Covering it up with that line is about as convincing a fig leaf as a certain Polaroid...

 

[Amidala]

But in a backwards way, doesn't the success of Splash Mountain, which everyone says is based on a movie no one has seen, call into question the whole notion that they need IPs in everything to make it successful? Everyone keeps saying that they need to use IPs to draw people in, but do we know that that is actually the case? Joe Rohde keeps saying that you don't need to have seen Avatar to enjoy the land. Ok, well -- then why do we need to start with a movie in the first place?

Yeah, I agree. IMO, recognizable IPs can go a long way towards capturing guests' attention, but if the ride experience itself is top-quality, guests will enjoy it regardless of IP. Soarin', Expedition Everest, Dinosaur, Test Track, Mystic Manor, Roaring Rapids, Sinbad's Storybook Voyage and plenty more are relatively new & highly popular original attractions–and only one of these is a coaster. If even one original concept for a ride had been announced at D23, I would be much less likely to complain. As it is, IPs are starting to feel like a crutch. Yes, there are plenty of fantastic IP-based attractions, but there are plenty of so-so ones as well...and there is more than one way to appeal to guests. A lot of the time, it just comes down to execution.

 

[Jenny72]

I just find it hard to believe that anyone is traveling to Disney because they want to see an attraction based on X movie. No one is going to say, I haven't been to Disney for a few years, but let's book some flights, because they have a ride based on Ratatouille now! The only IP that accomplished that is Harry Potter, and that has a series of hugely popular books behind it, not just movies. Star Wars might also draw people in. But do we need all these minor IPs everywhere? I'd rather they picked a couple of good ones and then let the rest be classic rides that are more timeless and based on big ideas. Use the IPs wisely and sparingly.

 

[MaximumEd]

I wouldn't mind IP near as much if they would just put it where and how it should be thematically. This cramming it into any nook and cranny is what seems lazy to me.

 

[Jenny72]

Maybe some of the details differ in how we see it, but I think a lot of us agree in a lot of ways -- and it seems possible that IPs *could* be used in a way that would make nearly everyone on this board happy, even with our differing views! Maybe some of us would still grumble, but if they used IPs in a discriminating way and put them in places that fit, and developed great, innovative designs, I think we wouldn't all be talking about it so much.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Maybe some of the details differ in how we see it, but I think a lot of us agree in a lot of ways -- and it seems possible that IPs *could* be used in a way that would make nearly everyone on this board happy, even with our differing views! Maybe some of us would still grumble, but if they used IPs in a discriminating way and put them in places that fit, and developed great, innovative designs, I think we wouldn't all be talking about it so much.

Too much attention is focused on the end result and not why that happens. Design is very much about process. Disney’s process is not one that celebrates the best ideas for themed entertainment, but one obsessed with following performance in other mediums as dictated by people with little interest in themed entertainment.

 

[MaximumEd]

Maybe some of the details differ in how we see it, but I think a lot of us agree in a lot of ways -- and it seems possible that IPs *could* be used in a way that would make nearly everyone on this board happy, even with our differing views! Maybe some of us would still grumble, but if they used IPs in a discriminating way and put them in places that fit, and developed great, innovative designs, I think we wouldn't all be talking about it so much.

Well said and agreed.

 

[danyoung56]

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying: dinosaurs were made the centerpiece of the attraction because they would draw crowds, not because of any actual commitment to education. Covering it up with that line is about as convincing a fig leaf as a certain Polaroid...

I don't know - it was pretty clear to me.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I just find it hard to believe that anyone is traveling to Disney because they want to see an attraction based on X movie. No one is going to say, I haven't been to Disney for a few years, but let's book some flights, because they have a ride based on Ratatouille now! The only IP that accomplished that is Harry Potter, and that has a series of hugely popular books behind it, not just movies. Star Wars might also draw people in. But do we need all these minor IPs everywhere? I'd rather they picked a couple of good ones and then let the rest be classic rides that are more timeless and based on big ideas. Use the IPs wisely and sparingly.

May I introduce you to hundreds of thousands of girls dressed as Disney princesses?

Or the hundreds of thousands of adults that go to comic book conventions throughout the world?

There is strength in the brand. And while a minor brand like Ratatouille may not be as strong as Frozen... add them all together in one place (like bunching all the princesses into one Disney Princess Brand) and it has a very very strong pull.

 

[Jenny72]

Well, I can't argue with you on the princesses, which is clearly a cash cow that goes way beyond the parks.

But I'm not sure about the rest. It's pretty hard for either of us to know why people go to theme parks. Based on various numbers, it does seem that for all the long wait times in "Avatarland", people do not seem to be flooding Disney specifically to go to it. I'm friends with a bunch of families who are considering going to Disney but don't even know that Avatarland exists, so their decisions are based on something else.

Sure, there are people who go to comic book conventions. Will they travel to Florida specifically to go on a GotG coaster? Maybe some will. But when you gain those people, do you eventually start to lose others, who lose interest in Disney because it's not what it used to be? I question the long term impact, not whether some people will be drawn by various IPs.

 

[bcoachable]

There is strength in the brand. And while a minor brand like Ratatouille may not be as strong as Frozen... add them all together in one place (like bunching all the princesses into one Disney Princess Brand) and it has a very very strong pull.[/QUOTE]

I would add that I think a big part of the Disney brand being so strong for so long is the fact that they did things well... specifically in the parks sector. If you do Rat (or Pandora, or Guardians) well, then IP does not play as big a factor.