James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
I mean, hidden Mickeys are subtle IP. Sometimes the point is the hidden anachronism or the little wink to where you are.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Remy's Ratatouille Adventure coming to Epcot
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Hidden Mickey’s have gone from being something actually hidden to deliberate and distracting motifs forced into designs.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
I can appreciate that you prefer the classic implementation of them better than what’s going on now, but the point still stands.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I think it's a fundamentally different thing. Hidden Mickeys are IP, but the space they're in isn't themed around hidden Mickeys.
If the goal is to use an IP as a draw for a space, then being subtle with it defeats the point. If you're going to be subtle, then the IP is just a little hidden treat and not main point of the theme.
Epcot82Guy
Well-Known Member
I disagree entirely. The entire concept of the subtle or hidden mickey goes against that idea. I agree in Chapek's world your statement is true. But, it goes to the concept of taste and quality. It's quite literally the difference between Art of Disney and Art of Animation. And you can see that difference in many of the current projects.
Steakhouse 71, the renovated Poly DVC (not hotel side) rooms, Gran Destino lobby and even the renovated AKL Rooms all use subtlety. They appropriately match their place and setting. They convey the quality of the resort/restaurant. They then use touches of characters to drive the greater setting of being at Walt Disney World. In fact, I would argue Yacht Club took it too far, and having the admiral Mickey lamp or something like that would have been a welcome subtle IP touch. It's a matter of taste and quality, I guess - driven by the price point.
Epcot82Guy
Well-Known Member
That identifies the issue for me. If the IP is going to be the draw, then that makes sense. Hence the Value Resorts. It's this weird mix of the two where they are trying to be luxury resort and IP character draw at the same time. It just doesn't work for me or make thematic sense. There's a reason Chef Mickey's isn't Signature but California Grill is.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
But that’s just it, the narrative isn’t supposed to be self referential that you are at “Disney”.
And I am shocked that the lobby that just abruptly turns into hard angles at Gran Destino is repeatedly being called out as good design.
Epcot82Guy
Well-Known Member
I would argue the narrative is the exact problem! Because now there isn't one. There are several and they clash. Leave aside the IP or not. They are all stories. Poly had a story. It was a location. And it was a theme. It is not the Moana hotel. It is not set in Moana's village. If Moana is the theme (i.e. the story), then it fails greatly. The resort should be themed to it. So, if it's not the theme, then it should fit into the theme. I would argue that is a retro tiki/luxury(ish) hotel set in the south seas. So where do you use Moana? In the the decor. The art work on the DVC side does that well. It's Disney's version of that story, so they use their characters to supplement the story. The characters are not the focus, and they fit. The hotel side fails on that. And, it also fails as the Moana hotel since it didn't push the idea far enough if that's the idea.
Place setting isn't story. And clashing stories are a problem. It would be like opening a modern Seattle/Portland coffee house in Wilderness Lodge because it's set in the Pacific Northwest. Or, to be more Disney, having buzz light year, Wall-E and Mickey in a jedi costume meet and greet in Galaxy's Edge. While some would enjoy that, it creates those clashing stories. That's the problem.
And yes, I know this isn't the first time going back to Splash even - but it doesn't make it better. These clashes takes you out of the story. It's ironic because they are absolutely draconian about this within a single IP land. Then throw it out the window when it's an existing land with a story.
As for Destino, I actually agree on the hotel design itself. There are some beautiful parts and some issues. I meant Destino was a great success on utilizing IP.
Place setting isn't story. And clashing stories are a problem. It would be like opening a modern Seattle/Portland coffee house in Wilderness Lodge because it's set in the Pacific Northwest. Or, to be more Disney, having buzz light year, Wall-E and Mickey in a jedi costume meet and greet in Galaxy's Edge. While some would enjoy that, it creates those clashing stories. That's the problem.
And yes, I know this isn't the first time going back to Splash even - but it doesn't make it better. These clashes takes you out of the story. It's ironic because they are absolutely draconian about this within a single IP land. Then throw it out the window when it's an existing land with a story.
As for Destino, I actually agree on the hotel design itself. There are some beautiful parts and some issues. I meant Destino was a great success on utilizing IP.
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
How long is the 7AM VQ staying open since ILL has been added and started taking up capacity?
Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
I finally rode it. Didn't do AP previews and wanted to wait until I didn't have to bother with a boarding pass.
It's... well, I don't think its very good. My expectations were low and I already knew what to expect, sure. But I see a lot of people saying essentially that it's acceptable because Epcot needed a new ride, especially another one for kids. But I don't think it's high enough quality even through that lens.
I doubt any of my criticisms haven't been addressed already, but:
- Being able to see the floor and the bottom of the screens really takes away from any sense of immersion. On Spider-Man and Transformers, you can't see the floor so you're much more immersed by the screens. Yes, you can see the floor in Rise and MMRR, but in those (with one exception in MMRR) you aren't in front of a screen that is simulating movement.
- I get that they wanted no height requirement, but so much screen simulated movement with close to no vehicle movement just feels weird.
- Audio mixing was very bad. Audio sounded low bitrate and lots of barely audible dialogue.
- The image quality on the screens seemed kind of bad? Blurry, too bright, and out of focus.
- Definitely saw at least one screen reset before it was out of our view.
- The queue is rather underwhelming. Mostly plain hallways and as far as I know, only one actual setpiece? (I'm not sure since I used Lightning Lane).
Other thoughts:
- the new area of the France pavilion is nice overall and makes France feel like one of the most grand World Showcase countries. The creperie seems like an afterthought? Maybe in 20 years the ride itself can be rethemed to something more appropriate for Epcot, assuming there's any semblance of classic Epcot left.
- The scale of the Eiffel Tower was never great, but now it's really, really off and I'm surprised they kept it at all or didn't move it.
It's... well, I don't think its very good. My expectations were low and I already knew what to expect, sure. But I see a lot of people saying essentially that it's acceptable because Epcot needed a new ride, especially another one for kids. But I don't think it's high enough quality even through that lens.
I doubt any of my criticisms haven't been addressed already, but:
- Being able to see the floor and the bottom of the screens really takes away from any sense of immersion. On Spider-Man and Transformers, you can't see the floor so you're much more immersed by the screens. Yes, you can see the floor in Rise and MMRR, but in those (with one exception in MMRR) you aren't in front of a screen that is simulating movement.
- I get that they wanted no height requirement, but so much screen simulated movement with close to no vehicle movement just feels weird.
- Audio mixing was very bad. Audio sounded low bitrate and lots of barely audible dialogue.
- The image quality on the screens seemed kind of bad? Blurry, too bright, and out of focus.
- Definitely saw at least one screen reset before it was out of our view.
- The queue is rather underwhelming. Mostly plain hallways and as far as I know, only one actual setpiece? (I'm not sure since I used Lightning Lane).
Other thoughts:
- the new area of the France pavilion is nice overall and makes France feel like one of the most grand World Showcase countries. The creperie seems like an afterthought? Maybe in 20 years the ride itself can be rethemed to something more appropriate for Epcot, assuming there's any semblance of classic Epcot left.
- The scale of the Eiffel Tower was never great, but now it's really, really off and I'm surprised they kept it at all or didn't move it.
Last edited:
Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
Great point. I like this idea. I also had an idea where Remy could take you on a tour of Paris and all the various Parisian cuisine he loves.
As it is, it pretty much doesn't fit with Epcot beyond "It takes place in Paris." It could have, and they surely could have even used the same ride layout but with different content, but they went the lazy route. Although from 2007 now, Nemo is similar. It could have been a field trip with Mr. Ray to teach us about the ocean or something, but instead it's just a recap of the film.
The IP should be molded to the park it's in. It's Tough to Be a Bug is a great example of this. But it seems they are no longer interested in going the extra mile to make it work.
Last edited:
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Some added context for why Ratatouille doesn't work for EPCOT specifically:
Ratatouille in Disney Studios Paris was meant to add more capacity/interest in multiple aspects of the park's experience; including rides, dining and retail. That's why Place de Remy has all three. An important thing to remember about Disney Studios Paris is that...there's nowhere to eat. When I last visited the park, the only where to get food besides ODV carts were the cafeteria in Studio 1, the buffet restaurant and the Ratatouille restaurant. That's it. Backlot Express is often closed, as is the tiny diner near the car stunt show. Disney Studios Paris isn't just a park lacking in rides, it's lacking in EVERYTHING. Place de Remy was another band aid for the park to give it not just more theming, but give guests more things to do in general. In that context, it serves its purpose quite well.
The ride itself is essentially an ad for the restaurant. You end the ride by seeing Remy there, and then the car turns and you see PEOPLE in there, in real life. The experience doesn't end on a screen at unload, it continues with you spending more time in Remy's world. Now the integration of ride/restaurant is not as good as San Angel Inn, or Blue Bayou/Lagoon, but it works at getting people's attention. From the exterior, you may not even know the restaurant is there unless people are sitting outside because you can't see through the windows into the dining room. The ride is about making your way to the restaurant, and the various mishaps along the way.
Now dining capacity is not a problem for EPCOT, which has an insane number of restaurants by any standard, including two already in the France pavilion. I don't blame them for not copying Chez Remy in Florida, but that ultimately makes the ride somewhat pointless. The setting of the ride doesn't correlate with anything else in the pavilion. The France pavilion isn't the Pixar Paris, it doesn't have any other references to Ratatouille the movie. As already mentioned, the ride's narrative wasn't changed to fit the park, so we walk behind the pavilion to take a journey to Remy's restaurant that ends in...a wall. It's conceptually lazy because the big reveal at the end (that you can visit Chez Remy for real) is gone. It's more like a ride-through of the movie's teaser trailer now. I guess that's fine, but considering the ride is several years old now, you'd think they could do better. This is to say nothing of the odd design of the expansion or the Crepe Restaurant that aesthetically and thematically feels removed from the rest of the park.
Floridian Disney fans are excited because the ride is new and many were never going to make a trip over the Atlantic to visit Disney's second-tier, second-gate, but considering how much EPCOT deserved a truly amazing and unique ride, it's incredibly disappointing that all we got was clone of what was far from Disney's best new ride of the last decade.
Ratatouille in Disney Studios Paris was meant to add more capacity/interest in multiple aspects of the park's experience; including rides, dining and retail. That's why Place de Remy has all three. An important thing to remember about Disney Studios Paris is that...there's nowhere to eat. When I last visited the park, the only where to get food besides ODV carts were the cafeteria in Studio 1, the buffet restaurant and the Ratatouille restaurant. That's it. Backlot Express is often closed, as is the tiny diner near the car stunt show. Disney Studios Paris isn't just a park lacking in rides, it's lacking in EVERYTHING. Place de Remy was another band aid for the park to give it not just more theming, but give guests more things to do in general. In that context, it serves its purpose quite well.
The ride itself is essentially an ad for the restaurant. You end the ride by seeing Remy there, and then the car turns and you see PEOPLE in there, in real life. The experience doesn't end on a screen at unload, it continues with you spending more time in Remy's world. Now the integration of ride/restaurant is not as good as San Angel Inn, or Blue Bayou/Lagoon, but it works at getting people's attention. From the exterior, you may not even know the restaurant is there unless people are sitting outside because you can't see through the windows into the dining room. The ride is about making your way to the restaurant, and the various mishaps along the way.
Now dining capacity is not a problem for EPCOT, which has an insane number of restaurants by any standard, including two already in the France pavilion. I don't blame them for not copying Chez Remy in Florida, but that ultimately makes the ride somewhat pointless. The setting of the ride doesn't correlate with anything else in the pavilion. The France pavilion isn't the Pixar Paris, it doesn't have any other references to Ratatouille the movie. As already mentioned, the ride's narrative wasn't changed to fit the park, so we walk behind the pavilion to take a journey to Remy's restaurant that ends in...a wall. It's conceptually lazy because the big reveal at the end (that you can visit Chez Remy for real) is gone. It's more like a ride-through of the movie's teaser trailer now. I guess that's fine, but considering the ride is several years old now, you'd think they could do better. This is to say nothing of the odd design of the expansion or the Crepe Restaurant that aesthetically and thematically feels removed from the rest of the park.
Floridian Disney fans are excited because the ride is new and many were never going to make a trip over the Atlantic to visit Disney's second-tier, second-gate, but considering how much EPCOT deserved a truly amazing and unique ride, it's incredibly disappointing that all we got was clone of what was far from Disney's best new ride of the last decade.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It was. The restrooms were originally permitted for that location.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
Sub in Magic Kingdom for EPCOT (and change the part about second-gate) and this sentence works for TRON too.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
Having ridden the one in Paris several times and never once been tempted to eat in the adjacent restaurant, I strongly disagree. The ride works very well indeed as a standalone attraction. Based on the photos of the expansion, my own knowledge of the France pavilion as it used to be, and most other people’s reports, I think the ride is a fitting and beneficial addition to World Showcase. I can’t wait to experience it next time I’m there.
It is.
It's a fun ride, plain and simple. Nothing but a positive addition.
And the expansion area fits seamlessly and is very pretty.
Job well done on this.
Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
It's technically a net positive for Epcot. But your bar must be pretty low if you don't think Epcot deserved better than a copy/pasted middle tier attraction that only ever got mixed reception, plopped into France because the movie it's based on takes place there.
With a little more effort they could have at least used the IP in a way that fits with Epcot. As mentioned earlier, following Remy as he gathers ingredients across Paris to show you how to cook something. A sort of tour of Parisian cuisine. Instead, you get chased around Gusteau's because... it was easier to just clone it exactly.
Unrelated: in my initial review post I mentioned that the screens look bad, and I wanted to elaborate on that. First of all, they were very blurry and out of focus. I don't know how a brand new attraction is already out of focus, but it was. Second, they are overly bright. In all of Universal's screen/dark ride hybrids, the screens are actually quite dim so that the scene projected looks more natural and doesn't cast harsh light onto the sets around them. The result is they blend more seamlessly. That is not the case with Ratatouille. The Rat screens are extremely bright, making it look like a giant backlit TV illuminating each scene. This, combined with being able to easily see the floor and where the screen ends, in addition to almost no movement, makes for a very non-immersive ride experience.
With a little more effort they could have at least used the IP in a way that fits with Epcot. As mentioned earlier, following Remy as he gathers ingredients across Paris to show you how to cook something. A sort of tour of Parisian cuisine. Instead, you get chased around Gusteau's because... it was easier to just clone it exactly.
Unrelated: in my initial review post I mentioned that the screens look bad, and I wanted to elaborate on that. First of all, they were very blurry and out of focus. I don't know how a brand new attraction is already out of focus, but it was. Second, they are overly bright. In all of Universal's screen/dark ride hybrids, the screens are actually quite dim so that the scene projected looks more natural and doesn't cast harsh light onto the sets around them. The result is they blend more seamlessly. That is not the case with Ratatouille. The Rat screens are extremely bright, making it look like a giant backlit TV illuminating each scene. This, combined with being able to easily see the floor and where the screen ends, in addition to almost no movement, makes for a very non-immersive ride experience.
No, my bar isn't low.
(but my attention span must be because I stopped reading after that)
Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
Oh ok I guess it's an amazing attraction and because Epcot needed a new ride, it should be void of any and all criticism, GO DISNEY! WOOOO!!