EPCOT Remy's Ratatouille Adventure coming to Epcot

[Timothy_Q]

It is not what usually happens except in more recent projects. “It’s a small world” (Disneyland) would be the most similar situation. Attractions like the Indiana Jones Adventure and Expedition Everest continue the pattern language of their respective lands, they continue to shape space in a similar manner. They’re spatially connected to their larger environment. In figure-ground Ratatouille would read as more backstage than part of the pavilion space.

That's because we know it currently as backstage.

Once it is properly themed, it'll read like an extra Parisian street you can walk down in the pavillion.

Exactly like what happened for the Harambe Market

 

[lazyboy97o]

That's because we know it currently as backstage.

Once it is properly themed, it'll read like an extra Parisian street you can walk down in the pavillion.

Exactly like what happened for the Harambe Market

Theming is not just ornament and props. The plan and organization of space are very much part of themed design. Much of that can be known now, it doesn’t require “theming” to be understood.

 

[Timothy_Q]

Theming is not just ornament and props. The plan and organization of space are very much part of themed design. Much of that can be known now, it doesn’t require “theming” to be understood.

So how would you have added a ride to the France pavillion in a better way, without doing any of the things they avoided doing?

-without removing any existing facilities
-without crowding the current tiny paths of the pavilion with the extra crowd levels the ride will bring
-without using the front half of the pad between France and Morocco (so it can theoretically still be used for a future country)
-without putting the show building in the path of the Skyliner

 

[FigmentFan82]

Theming is not just ornament and props. The plan and organization of space are very much part of themed design. Much of that can be known now, it doesn’t require “theming” to be understood.

Expansions have to go somewhere. Why is 'around back' not good enough for you? They planned and organized the space based off what they originally wanted to build. Now new things are built, and you fit them where they can. I don't see the negative of this.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Expansions have to go somewhere. Why is 'around back' not good enough for you? They planned and organized the space based off what they originally wanted to build. Now new things are built, and you fit them where they can. I don't see the negative of this.

The difficult thing is adding to an existing themed area without diluting the existing theme. In recent years Disney has done this with a varied level of success.

 

[justintheharris]

Theming is not just ornament and props. The plan and organization of space are very much part of themed design. Much of that can be known now, it doesn’t require “theming” to be understood.

Theming is not just ornament and props. The plan and organization of space are very much part of themed design. Much of that can be known now, it doesn’t require “theming” to be understood.

Would putting it’s entrance between Morocco and France have made you happy? Doubt it. If anything, I love the new layout. Given the fact you will be able to stand in a new area of the France pavilion without being able to see World Showcase lagoon, I would argue this format is even MORE immersive than most of the pavilion. The only distraction may be the gondolas but we’ve yet to actually walk the new courtyard so I’ll reserve that judgment.

 

[justintheharris]

 

[Indy_UK]

That's coming along quickly.

I know this ride isn't going to change th earth but for where it being put, not taking up much space and in theme, it's perfect

 

[rreading]

There has been discussion here as to how Rat can be improved. The question I have (not having ridden it) is whether there are truly simple tweaks to make it better? I would assume (ha!) that TWDC would be aware that something could be better and that a simple modification would be easy - especially in a new build.

So if it would be easy to do better, then why not? I don't believe that Disney is lazy, for the most part.

 

[JohnD]

This is a textbook example of finding fault for the sake of finding fault.

"Epcot needs more attractions!"

Disney builds Rat.

"It's around back."

There's no pleasing some people. Maybe he would prefer the show building in front, like GOTG?

 

[shortstop]

"Epcot needs more attractions!"

Disney builds Rat.

"It's around back."

There's no pleasing some people. Maybe he would prefer the show building in front, like GOTG?

To be fair, there are other ways to do it. The show building for Indiana Jones Adventure is extremely detached from the rest of Adventureland - however, they managed to properly integrate the attraction into the land. Sure, the queue is long, but the entrance isn’t difficult to find or isolated from everything else. Similarly, the exit takes you back to where you started from (I.e. in the land).

On the other hand, to access Ratatouille, you have to go around the entire pavilion. It seems like it will be “themed” well from an aesthetic standpoint (it looks like Paris) but it’s spatial layout relative to the rest of the pavilion is awkward, at best, which is unfortunate, because spatial layout is important in themed design as well. IJA shows that just because the show building is in an awkward place doesn’t mean it has to feel out of the way.

 

[ToTBellHop]

"Epcot needs more attractions!"

Disney builds Rat.

"It's around back."

There's no pleasing some people. Maybe he would prefer the show building in front, like GOTG?

Yes, it’s one of the more absurd complaints. A new ride that fits in the park theme and replaces nothing should be a home run. I wish MMRR was handled like this (“around back of Disney Junior”).

 

[ToTBellHop]

To be fair, there are other ways to do it. The show building for Indiana Jones Adventure is extremely detached from the rest of Adventureland - however, they managed to properly integrate the attraction into the land. Sure, the queue is long, but the entrance isn’t difficult to find or isolated from everything else. Similarly, the exit takes you back to where you started from (I.e. in the land).

On the other hand, to access Ratatouille, you have to go around the entire pavilion. It seems like it will be “themed” well from an aesthetic standpoint (it looks like Paris) but it’s spatial layout relative to the rest of the pavilion is awkward, at best, which is unfortunate, because spatial layout is important in themed design as well. IJA shows that just because the show building is in an awkward place doesn’t mean it has to feel out of the way.

I disagree. There’s more than one street in Paris.

 

[Lensman]

All this talk of the organization of the new themed area leading up to and around the Ratatouille attraction got me thinking about when in history the original France pavilion is set and when the Ratatouille area is set.

I mean, I'm aware that even modern Paris is filled with period architecture, but is the main pavilion Second Empire vs the expansion representing another period because the attraction is set in the timeframe of the movie, which is speculatively somewhere between the 1960s and the early 00s?

This could explain the discordant architecture of the crêperie.

I will defer to our resident architectural and Epcot historical experts.

 

[ToTBellHop]

All this talk of the organization of the new themed area leading up to and around the Ratatouille attraction got me thinking about when in history the original France pavilion is set and when the Ratatouille area is set.

I mean, I'm aware that even modern Paris is filled with period architecture, but is the main pavilion Second Empire vs the expansion representing another period because the attraction is set in the timeframe of the movie, which is speculatively somewhere between the 1960s and the early 00s?

This could explain the discordant architecture of the crêperie.

I will defer to our resident architectural and Epcot historical experts.

World Showcase at large is set in present day. That wasn’t always the case, but is now.

 

[justintheharris]

All this talk of the organization of the new themed area leading up to and around the Ratatouille attraction got me thinking about when in history the original France pavilion is set and when the Ratatouille area is set.

I mean, I'm aware that even modern Paris is filled with period architecture, but is the main pavilion Second Empire vs the expansion representing another period because the attraction is set in the timeframe of the movie, which is speculatively somewhere between the 1960s and the early 00s?

This could explain the discordant architecture of the crêperie.

I will defer to our resident architectural and Epcot historical experts.

In actual Paris, hundred year old buildings stand right next to modern skyscrapers. As they do in many old cities.

 

[ToTBellHop]

In actual Paris, hundred year old buildings stand right next to modern skyscrapers. As they do in many old cities.

Le gasp.

 

[justintheharris]

To be fair, there are other ways to do it. The show building for Indiana Jones Adventure is extremely detached from the rest of Adventureland - however, they managed to properly integrate the attraction into the land. Sure, the queue is long, but the entrance isn’t difficult to find or isolated from everything else. Similarly, the exit takes you back to where you started from (I.e. in the land).

On the other hand, to access Ratatouille, you have to go around the entire pavilion. It seems like it will be “themed” well from an aesthetic standpoint (it looks like Paris) but it’s spatial layout relative to the rest of the pavilion is awkward, at best, which is unfortunate, because spatial layout is important in themed design as well. IJA shows that just because the show building is in an awkward place doesn’t mean it has to feel out of the way.

As MansionButler said, Paris is a big city with many blocks.

It’s fascinating how many people are doing logical backflips to try and explain how every Disney ride being built is somehow a giant mistake.

 

[Lensman]

In actual Paris, hundred year old buildings stand right next to modern skyscrapers. As they do in many old cities.

I'm not an idiot and am aware of that*, however, I thought that Disney chose a period aesthetic for the France pavilion. I haven't noticed any modern skyscrapers represented in the pavilion.

Note: I live in a 130 year old building that stands a few doors down from a new luxury condo. What was most surprising was when my contractor showed me the gas pipes for the lighting before he ripped them out. The building's old coal chute is also fairly quaint.

* Don't worry, I'm not offended or anything.

 

[ToTBellHop]

I'm not an idiot and am aware of that*, however, I thought that Disney chose a period aesthetic for the France pavilion. I haven't noticed any modern skyscrapers represented in the pavilion.

Note: I live in a 130 year old building that stands a few doors down from a new luxury condo. What was most surprising was when my contractor showed me the gas pipes for the lighting before he ripped them out. The building's old coal chute is also fairly quaint.

* Don't worry, I'm not offended or anything.

Most WS pavilions are a (slightly nonsensical) hodgepodge of architectural styles to represent a full country in one block. Thus the creperie.