News Remy's Ratatouille Adventure coming to Epcot

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
For sure. That said, I’d even take Under the Sea over Rat, which has nothing to top the Ursula AA or namesake scene, IMO.

I don't know if I would -- normally it would be a no brainer because physical sets and AAs are so much better than stuff happening on a screen for me, but the ones in Little Mermaid are very poorly designed. The Under the Sea scene in that ride is cheap and bare bones compared to what it should be.
 

DonaldDoleWhip

Well-Known Member
I don't know if I would -- normally it would be a no brainer because physical sets and AAs are so much better than stuff happening on a screen for me, but the ones in Little Mermaid are so poorly designed. The Under the Sea scene in that ride is cheap and bare bones compared to what it should be.
You're not wrong, but there are still a few moments of Under the Sea that redeem it for me. Scuttle is charming. The transition underwater is neat. Finally, the "Under the Sea" scene itself is lively and vibrant, and that's primarily from the colors, the music, and the volume of figures–even if most of them are weak.

Ratatouille also has a lovely score, but that's about it, as fas as I'm concerned. Also, if you want static, unconvincing props (and very few of them), can't think of much else that compares.

The screen-based segments didn't convey true motion to me (then again, Flight of Passage doesn't either), but clearly some feel differently.
 

DonaldDoleWhip

Well-Known Member
It’s the new shiny thing that gives the twaddle department something to market. Give it a year.
Yep, and I also recognize that Ratatouille was never supposed to be the shiny new thing for the 50th. In another universe, it would have been open for 12-15 months by now, with Tron and Guardians taking the spotlight they deserve.

(I know Tron has its critics but I really enjoyed it, and I expect Guardians to be a highlight all-around, even if the fit is questionable.)
 

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member
Yep, and I also recognize that Ratatouille was never supposed to be the shiny new thing for the 50th. In another universe, it would have been open for 12-15 months by now, with Tron and Guardians taking the spotlight they deserve.

(I know Tron has its critics but I really enjoyed it, and I expect Guardians to be a highlight all-around, even if the fit is questionable.)
They’ll certainly be given a spotlight for 4-5 years after opening.
 

Wendy Pleakley

Well-Known Member
Yeah, but they are charging for it like a super-E so… that’s a failure.

Wasn't the original purpose of a paper E-ticket to be used for an attraction with high demand, as opposed to a measure of quality?

That's why Disney will charge for access to this attraction. It's new and demand will be high.

Over time, A through E-Tickets have become an informal way of ranking attractions, but charging for Rat would be consistent with their original purpose.
 

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member
I still argue Rat is an E. There’s nothing on Jungle Cruise, in particular, that makes it more immersive, and it is an E.

E tickets are a rather diverse group because they are the highest.
 

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
Regardless of highly subjective classification, I agree with @Wendy Pleakley that, in this instance, VQ is about mitigating demand rather than a declaration of quality. I would expect Ratatouille to convert to standby by the time Cosmic Rewind launches at the latest. They'd have to make some significant modifications to the system to have two VQs function well in the same park, which I don't see them doing.
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Wasn't the original purpose of a paper E-ticket to be used for an attraction with high demand, as opposed to a measure of quality?

That's why Disney will charge for access to this attraction. It's new and demand will be high.

Over time, A through E-Tickets have become an informal way of ranking attractions, but charging for Rat would be consistent with their original purpose.

The ticket levels were meant to be a way to pay for the ride you were going on. Rides like Space Mountain cost the company more to make, and so they charged more to ride. E-Tickets were the highest value ticket.

Rides that cost significantly more were also usually the most astounding rides, and thus, the most popular.

However, over time, with the selling of Tickets in a book, they were used as crowd control by throwing a bunch of the lower tiered tickets in the book to encourage people to ride the cheaper and less popular ride. Over time some rides moved up the tiers as a form of discouraging long lines, and some rides moved down in tiers to encourage people to go on the rides that were waning in popularity.

Once the tickets were removed, Imagineering continued to use the E-Ticket designation internally for projects that were very expensive and cutting edge and deeply immersive. We don't have their list of what they consider to be "Es". And even if we did, Imagineering is held in such low regard that people would immediately be dismissive of the list: "Are they crazy thinking that piece of garbage is an E-Ticket?!!"

For guests, an E-Ticket is any ride that is popular and has long lines regardless of its immersiveness or cost to build or how cutting edge the tech is.

IOW, the "E-Ticket" designation is now pretty useless without a trusted source to make the declaration of what is or isn't "E."

The theme park connoisseurs of this forum can't even agree on it.
 

Wendy Pleakley

Well-Known Member
The ticket levels were meant to be a way to pay for the ride you were going on. Rides like Space Mountain cost the company more to make, and so they charged more to ride. E-Tickets were the highest value ticket.

Rides that cost significantly more were also usually the most astounding rides, and thus, the most popular.

However, over time, with the selling of Tickets in a book, they were used as crowd control by throwing a bunch of the lower tiered tickets in the book to encourage people to ride the cheaper and less popular ride. Over time some rides moved up the tiers as a form of discouraging long lines, and some rides moved down in tiers to encourage people to go on the rides that were waning in popularity.

Once the tickets were removed, Imagineering continued to use the E-Ticket designation internally for projects that were very expensive and cutting edge and deeply immersive. We don't have their list of what they consider to be "Es". And even if we did, Imagineering is held in such low regard that people would immediately be dismissive of the list: "Are they crazy thinking that piece of garbage is an E-Ticket?!!"

For guests, an E-Ticket is any ride that is popular and has long lines regardless of its immersiveness or cost to build or how cutting edge the tech is.

IOW, the "E-Ticket" designation is now pretty useless without a trusted source to make the declaration of what is or isn't "E."

The theme park connoisseurs of this forum can't even agree on it.

I give this post a D.
 

disneygeek90

Well-Known Member
The ticket levels were meant to be a way to pay for the ride you were going on. Rides like Space Mountain cost the company more to make, and so they charged more to ride. E-Tickets were the highest value ticket.

Rides that cost significantly more were also usually the most astounding rides, and thus, the most popular.

However, over time, with the selling of Tickets in a book, they were used as crowd control by throwing a bunch of the lower tiered tickets in the book to encourage people to ride the cheaper and less popular ride. Over time some rides moved up the tiers as a form of discouraging long lines, and some rides moved down in tiers to encourage people to go on the rides that were waning in popularity.

Once the tickets were removed, Imagineering continued to use the E-Ticket designation internally for projects that were very expensive and cutting edge and deeply immersive. We don't have their list of what they consider to be "Es". And even if we did, Imagineering is held in such low regard that people would immediately be dismissive of the list: "Are they crazy thinking that piece of garbage is an E-Ticket?!!"

For guests, an E-Ticket is any ride that is popular and has long lines regardless of its immersiveness or cost to build or how cutting edge the tech is.

IOW, the "E-Ticket" designation is now pretty useless without a trusted source to make the declaration of what is or isn't "E."

The theme park connoisseurs of this forum can't even agree on it.
Are F tickets the ones for IAS now?
 

orky8

Well-Known Member
The discussion right now is more about Under the Sea, as someone made an interesting parallel between it and Rat: they're both fairly large-scale attractions with purportedly high budgets and scope that (for many) fell flat from expectations.

It's an interesting debate as to which is better: I'd personally choose Under the Sea but can understand why Rat wins for others.

Ultimately, though, neither attraction warrants long-term waits above an hour, a virtual queue only, or having to pay to ride. That's one thing that irritates me with the Epcot Ratatouille opening.

I prefer under the sea as well. I was very excited for Rat when I got to go in Paris -- my first trackless ride I've heard so much about. I thought it was just ok. And now, it's the third trackless ride to come to WDW and, by far in my humble opinion, the least exciting.

I do think it's a great fit and excellent addition for Epcot, which desperately needs more family friendly D ticket rides. There is nothing wrong with D-ticket rides, I wish Disney would add many more (without spending hundreds of millions of dollars on each), but the idea that this is the only new attraction we are getting to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Magic Kingdom is horrible.
 

DonaldDoleWhip

Well-Known Member
I prefer under the sea as well. I was very excited for Rat when I got to go in Paris -- my first trackless ride I've heard so much about. I thought it was just ok. And now, it's the third trackless ride to come to WDW and, by far in my humble opinion, the least exciting.

I do think it's a great fit and excellent addition for Epcot, which desperately needs more family friendly D ticket rides. There is nothing wrong with D-ticket rides, I wish Disney would add many more (without spending hundreds of millions of dollars on each), but the idea that this is the only new attraction we are getting to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Magic Kingdom is horrible.
Completely agreed. I'm honestly surprised the Epcot version has been generally well-received, as I see it as the kind of experience this group usually tears apart.

Perhaps it's the pent-up desire for anything new, or already knowing what to expect from WDS. In any case, it seems to be meeting expectations, but it certainly doesn't compare to what Disneyland received for its 50th (or even what WDW received for DL's 50th!).

Fingers crossed the nighttime entertainment wows us, and that Tron + Guardians can open before the celebration concludes.
 

Sir_Cliff

Well-Known Member
Completely agreed - I hadn't thought much about the entertainment (seeing as this year it became more of a non-factor), but that's so true as well. Mariachi Cobre adds so much to Mexico, and I hope Matsuriza (the Taiko drummers of Japan) return at some point. Serveur Amusant in France would also catch my eye unexpectedly.
I really hope management continues to understand how much the entertainment adds to WS as they start to bring the park back up to normal operations. It almost feels like a throwback to "old Disney" that they have continued to put the effort into finding and paying good, appropriate entertainment for each pavilion.

I like your attitude toward the rest of World Showcase - the base might be old, but it's still so good (it's not like ornate Moroccan architecture can get stale!), and there are aspects of it that are fresher. The food scene has also seen frequent updates, with many of the newer restaurants (from Via Napoli to Takumi-Tei) being well-received. I'd be shocked if we never receive a new pavilion, and hopefully post-COVID reopening there's more of an impetus for another country to establish a presence in WS (or an IP integration Disney can't resist building out, like Encanto).
Thinking again about the "old Disney" throwbacks, it did also occur to me that World Showcase is one of the few places where the shops sell different things mostly related to each pavilion/land and often not even Disney-branded. There are actually some interesting, unique shops still in this part of a WDW park! While I get why some may not find "shopping as entertainment" all that compelling, I do think it adds at least some interest to looking in the shops as you may still find something random you want to buy that you can't just pick up at World of Disney. Perhaps the benefit of neglect, but I do hope there is decent management at the park that understands why this kind of thing is what sets Epcot apart at a time it is struggling for an identity.

On that note and perhaps randomly, I think fondly sometimes of this video of Liberace giving a tour of his Palm Springs home (don't ask how I came across it by chance!) and mentioning a purchase from WDW that is a testament to the kinds of, ahh, unique things they used to sell in the parks:




Also agreed that AK is my favorite park! Unpopular opinion, clearly, but it's my favorite Disney park, edging out DisneySea and Disneyland, and that's more for the continent lands (Africa and Asia) than Pandora. When they tear out Primeval Whirl, somehow it'll be even better.
Glad to find another big AK booster! For me it's also far more about the continent lands than Pandora. If I'm honest, while I can see that Pandora is an impressive feat of Imagineering, it doesn't really do much for me as a land. Seems more a case of how Rhode and those working with him were able to do something great with a bad brief. Also agree with Primeval Whirl, which may have been my least favourite WDW attraction!

Wow, what a place to quarantine! Of course I imagine it wasn't so magical at the time, with the park and resort closed - will probably change her impression of the HKDL Resort forever.
Once she got out and the resort was open again she went back to HKDL despite not being a Disney fan as such, so I guess she wasn't too scarred! Apparently they did bus them through the HKDL carpark to the very grim quarantine centre, though!

That attitude about extended time abroad is fantastic, and it's something I really wish I did (never studied abroad for a semester, and haven't worked abroad yet). Hong Kong seemed like a great option for a while, but the volatility now is sad to see; I hope things stabilize soon.
Yeah, it is certainly sad to see what has been happening in HK. It has such a huge expat community that I imagine China wants to keep there generating wealth, but I guess this will probably result in the expat bubble becoming even more impenetrable.

Between you and me, neither of these attractions is that bad! It's easy to get into critic mode when we have certain expectations (for instance, I expect motion out of a trackless ride vehicle, which Ratatouille is fairly light on), but they're all pleasant enough. Frozen's blank walls look cheap, but the AAs are fluid and impressive, while Under the Sea wins me over with the joy of its signature scene, even if the figures are lame.

As for Ratatouille....it might be the score? Perfectly pleasant soundtrack for a few minutes, even if not much is happening with the vehicle.
Well, yes, neither is Superstar Limo or Primeval Whirl! I do see some positives in Under the Sea and I get that old school Fantasyland rides were always simple, but for me this one is off in terms of charm and scale. I'll be honest and admit that I don't really notice the Frozen walls when on the attraction, but I get why it is an issue others do notice.

For Ratatouille, the music certainly helps and I guess I just find it fun and kind of charming. It's certainly not perfect and the lack of motion is noticeable. But, what can I say, I liked it!
 

pdude81

Well-Known Member
Completely agreed. I'm honestly surprised the Epcot version has been generally well-received, as I see it as the kind of experience this group usually tears apart.

Perhaps it's the pent-up desire for anything new, or already knowing what to expect from WDS. In any case, it seems to be meeting expectations, but it certainly doesn't compare to what Disneyland received for its 50th (or even what WDW received for DL's 50th!).

Fingers crossed the nighttime entertainment wows us, and that Tron + Guardians can open before the celebration concludes.
It's a new ride at Epcot without destroying anything else. That's worth celebrating.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom