EPCOT Remy's Ratatouille Adventure coming to Epcot

[ToTBellHop]

To be fair, Hagrid would love a talking chef rat.

 

[jpeden]

It certainly wasn’t when it was built. Even Eisner admitted it. After opening.

Wasn’t there a contractual obligation to build a second park and this was done after the financial issues with TWDC in the 90’s and that’s why it was done on the cheap?

Or am I making that up? I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

 

[SpaceMountain77]

good addition for what the park will be

 

[nickys]

Trying to get through all this Hagrid talk - BUT CAN ANYONE TELL ME when we this attraction is likely to open in Epcot ?

April-June 2020, most likely April.

This is the best place to get info on timelines etc. I’ve linked to the Epcot section.

Rumor - WDW Rumor and Timeline Tracker v.2

This thread is a summary of rumors from our insiders (a from a few outside insiders). Please do not start discussing the content of the rumor (e.g., whether you like it or not). However questions or discussion about the status of the rumors (e.g., is that source reliable?) are fine. For...

forums.wdwmagic.com

 

[MisterPenguin]

Trying to get through all this Hagrid talk - BUT CAN ANYONE TELL ME when we this attraction is likely to open in Epcot ?

I don't think Hagrid's will ever open in Epcot.

 

[ToTBellHop]

I don't think Hagrid's will ever open in Epcot.

I'm so sick of this. They had to pull the workers from the blast-ended skrewt who were working on covering up the pole through his butt so they could work on the Storm Trooper A-As on RotR. This kinda crap doesn't happen at Dollywood.

Rubbish.

 

[marni1971]

Briefly returning to the screens of Rat, here’s a screen cap from what I shot last week. Hopefully you can see the size of screen and how the RV parks within in.

 

[Skibum1970]

I don't think Hagrid's will ever open in Epcot.

Caught me off guard and snort-laughed on this.

 

[dreday3]

I mean, while you think it was built on the cheap, and I TOTALLY get what you're saying, it literally wasn't though ... lol. Not a defense just the truth. They spent *money* and it's still a flawed-minimal use of the technology-attraction.

And now Hagrid's has kinda shown that Slinky and Mine Train could have been at least 10x better than they are now (not even talking about the speed of Hagrids; I'm good with the speed of Slinky and Mine Train, they serve different purposes, I'm aware, but I'm talking about the animatroics and having the coaster surrounded by trees and greenery and water, not to mention the queue and build up to the ride). I hope they knock it out of the park with the Guardians coaster, as much as I dislike it's park location ... a lot to live up to from down the street. Not that I feed into the "fan war" between the two parks but it's hard not to see the vast difference in coaster experiences.

I haven't been on Hagrid's yet, so just from watching the video - I think Hagrid's wins on coaster length, twists/turns, speed, etc.,...but animatronics? In my opinion, no way does it beat Mine Train's animatronics. I reserve the right to change my mind once seeing it in person, but at this point those animatronics on Hagrid's are actually kind of a let down from what I was expecting.

Again, video probably isn't helping my opinion.

 

[RobotWolf]

Would there be much improvement if, as some have suggested, the RVs scooch around a bit during the simulator sections?

 

[Mickeyboof]

Would there be much improvement if, as some have suggested, the RVs scooch around a bit during the simulator sections?

The vehicles do move. Ever so slightly. It’s like a slight bump.

The vehicles need more degree of motion to actually simulate anything happening in the projections.

Terminator, Spider-Man and Fast and the Furious (not a good ride at all, but it does move!) rides all move in a dramatic manor that matches the projections.

The rat ride does not- as much. For example, when you “fall,” the vehicle slightly tips forward, but it feels like an accident and you can barley feel the vehicle settle back down for the “landing.”

The movement and falling and scurrying in the videos are big and bold- fast turns and darting around the place. The vehicle barley moves to match this.

Soooo... yes! More movement and less visible seams between the screen and, well, nothingness would be absolutely beneficial.

 

[Movielover]

Terminator, Spider-Man

I assume you meant Transformers, since Terminator's seats had exactly 1 movement, the big drop at the end. While I do prefer those ride vehicles as they do allow for a more intense ride experience they lend to a more limited rider base. Rat has no minimum height requirement and as such allows for more children to ride. Now Disney does have arguably their own version of Spiderman's RV's, the Indiana Jones/Countdown to Extinction's RV, which I wish they would do more with, however the trade off would be more rides that young children would not be able to experience. I see people complain that Universal just reused Spiderman's system for Transformers. I argue that they should use it more as it leads to a fun ride.

 

[ToTBellHop]

The vehicles do move. Ever so slightly. It’s like a slight bump.

The vehicles need more degree of motion to actually simulate anything happening in the projections.

Terminator, Spider-Man and Fast and the Furious (not a good ride at all, but it does move!) rides all move in a dramatic manor that matches the projections.

The rat ride does not- as much. For example, when you “fall,” the vehicle slightly tips forward, but it feels like an accident and you can barley feel the vehicle settle back down for the “landing.”

The movement and falling and scurrying in the videos are big and bold- fast turns and darting around the place. The vehicle barley moves to match this.

Soooo... yes! More movement and less visible seams between the screen and, well, nothingness would be absolutely beneficial.

But they wanted to avoid the 40” height requirement.

 

[Kman101]

I haven't been on Hagrid's yet, so just from watching the video - I think Hagrid's wins on coaster length, twists/turns, speed, etc.,...but animatronics? In my opinion, no way does it beat Mine Train's animatronics. I reserve the right to change my mind once seeing it in person, but at this point those animatronics on Hagrid's are actually kind of a let down from what I was expecting.

Again, video probably isn't helping my opinion.

Well, there's a few ways to look at it. And I agree they don't seem as impressive as I would have expected. Yes the mine train ones seem better. But that's not really my point. You're focusing on the animatronics but I'm talking about the whole package as presented. It makes Mine Train and Slinky, while serving a slightly different theme park demographic, pale in comparison and I think tells folks ... they could have done a LOT better. And we know they could have. The main complaint about both is that they're too short. They had a lot of theming cut from around the track of Slinky. Speed and maybe not getting a good view of things around the track isn't a good reason to cut them. Hagrids goes like 50 mph ... But this is the Rat thread so I guess ... moving on ... and I'm drifting and not even sure what the point was ... I need coffee ... but I do get what you're saying. They are better. I wasn't really even trying to debate which were better, lol, just saying the 'overall package' is impressive.

Anyway ... would be nice if they upgraded our Rat ride but again, they do the bare minimum ... I'm sure it'll still be a fun time and Epcot needs anything it can get at this point.

 

[larryz]

The worst aspect, beside the ride vehicles having little to no simulator ability is the awful seam between screen and black shiny floor.

The YouTube videos all cut out this seam, but with human eyes you see it. The whole time. You physically can’t not see it.

The screen doesn’t wrap around, and the glasses do not act as a frame. It’s just a real shame.

I am so so hopeful that Disney will improves on the ride, blurring this seam as well as providing ride vehicles that actually have motion to them when stuck flat in front of the many many many projector screens.

To sum it up, I didn’t understand why we sat in front of a screen, then moved through brief moments of still, plastic scenery only to be plopped in front of another screen (which projected boring chasing sequences) Why did we move. Why wasn’t this just a big simulator. Why are we moving through the space?

You don't seem to understand that after the decades of relative non-development at Epcot, people would line up to be run over by that runaway Roman chariot that escaped from Spaceship Earth.

 

[larryz]

Had the same thought. A third layer would be something.

Not to mention a wonderful paean to the multiplane camera.

 

[Bender123]

The vehicles do move. Ever so slightly. It’s like a slight bump.

The vehicles need more degree of motion to actually simulate anything happening in the projections.

Terminator, Spider-Man and Fast and the Furious (not a good ride at all, but it does move!) rides all move in a dramatic manor that matches the projections.

The rat ride does not- as much. For example, when you “fall,” the vehicle slightly tips forward, but it feels like an accident and you can barley feel the vehicle settle back down for the “landing.”

The movement and falling and scurrying in the videos are big and bold- fast turns and darting around the place. The vehicle barley moves to match this.

Soooo... yes! More movement and less visible seams between the screen and, well, nothingness would be absolutely beneficial.

I get the feeling that you are trying to put far too much on a ride that was never designed to be super headliner...Its a ride that is closer in scale to a Snow White Scary Adventure or Little Mermaid than one that is even trying to be at the scale of a Spiderman/FoP/Etc...

Yeah, we could armchair design improvements all day, but that not what it is trying to be. Its trying to be a kid friendly ride in a part of the park that has almost nothing to offer a child.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I get the feeling that you are trying to put far too much on a ride that was never designed to be super headliner...Its a ride that is closer in scale to a Snow White Scary Adventure or Little Mermaid than one that is even trying to be at the scale of a Spiderman/FoP/Etc...

It’s cost and size would disagree.

 

[Bender123]

It’s cost and size would disagree.

Its installation in Paris and many rides disagree on your point. Its just not that type of ride, no matter how much we want it to be. Its very tech heavy, making it expensive, but its not a a high speed thrill ride, nor is it made to be height restricted.

Its just a futuristic upgrade of the old school dark rides. Cost/size is irrelevant here, what is relevant is scale and scope, which is limited and medium, placing it solidly into a c/d range.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Its installation in Paris and many rides disagree on your point. Its just not that type of ride, no matter how much we want it to be. Its very tech heavy, making it expensive, but its not a a high speed thrill ride, nor is it made to be height restricted.

Its just a futuristic upgrade of the old school dark rides. Cost/size is irrelevant here, what is relevant is scale and scope, which is limited and medium, placing it solidly into a c/d range.

Height restrictions and speed are not directly related to scale and scope, nor are they what make a marquee attraction. Cost and size are much, much more related. This was supposed to be a big marquee attraction. What it delivers doesn’t change what was intended.