Splash Mountain Audio Mystery

[SuddenStorm]

I disagree. I think they are well-positioned and add great kinetics to the area.

Perhaps I'm ignorant (likely the case, haven't done much research on Expedition Everest beyond reading the chapter on it in Jason Surrell's book about a decade ago) but what's the reasoning given for having a fully fledged train/roller coaster inside Mount Everest?

Big Thunder is a runaway mine train, and works on many levels. Matterhorn is a bobsled run down a mountain, also a good thematic fit. Everest feels like a roller coaster inside a Mountain- not like the roller coaster and Mountain work together to strengthen the theme.

It looks to be an excellent ride, and it's probably tons of fun- I just wonder if the design could have been improved.

 

[PiratesMansion]

One notion I appreciate Tony Baxter doing when implementing Splash Mountain, is unifying Bear Country with New Orleans Square. Making both areas into a "Dixieland".

The problem with this theory is that Splash is not fully at home with its environment. In general, sure, it fits pretty well...but I refuse to consider this a flawless unification/transition when Haunted Mansion is RIGHT next to Splash and the two clash pretty terribly.

To the people talking about Everest, all I can say is you really need to experience it firsthand before adding judgment. Working Yeti or not, the attraction is still pretty stunning as an overall package. Far better than most of what's been built this decade.

 

[__r.jr]

The problem with this theory is that Splash is not fully at home with its environment. In general, sure, it fits pretty well...but I refuse to consider this a flawless unification/transition when Haunted Mansion is RIGHT next to Splash and the two clash pretty terribly.

Oh it isn't a theory. Tony Baxter openly stated that was one of his intentions when designing Splash Mountain.

It isn't a perfect unification granted. In fact, ironic enough, environmentally before the mountain's integration, Bear Country transitioned much better. With the Haunted Mansion being so close to such proximity that Splash Mountain ultimately settled in, the transition is utterly sloppy. However I cannot fully fault Baxter. He had to work with what the first generation of Imagineers left off from.

Disneyland grew up as the individuals who made it were still making up the rules as they went. A holistic theme park with lands that were siloed off from each other expanded, tacked new things onto areas where they were not meant to be, the areas bled together, additional demands for capacity forced development of unlikely spots and urbanization of the surrounding area eroded out hopes of propelling the park out very far beyond its railroad tracks.

It's a massive pile of ideas slammed down, one atop the other, with very little room to spare and as such it's very common to find areas where one kind of texture or surface treatment just ends because it collides with another. That is part of what gives Disneyland its character: its abrupt transitional resets. And Critter Country's backwoods aesthetic flushed up with the Haunted Mansion's plantation South answers to this.

I don't dare make excuses or give it a pass but given the context of why Splash Mountain was designed and placed where it is, it's warranted.

 

[PiratesMansion]

Oh it isn't a theory. Tony Baxter openly stated that was one of his intentions when designing Splash Mountain.

It isn't a perfect unification granted. In fact, ironic enough, environmentally before the mountain's integration, Bear Country transitioned much better. With the Haunted Mansion being so close to such proximity that Splash Mountain ultimately settled in, the transition is utterly sloppy. However I cannot fully fault Baxter. He had to work with what the first generation of Imagineers left off from.

Disneyland grew up as the individuals who made it were still making up the rules as they went. A holistic theme park with lands that were siloed off from each other expanded, tacked new things onto areas where they were not meant to be, the areas bled together, additional demands for capacity forced development of unlikely spots and urbanization of the surrounding area eroded out hopes of propelling the park out very far beyond its railroad tracks.

It's a massive pile of ideas slammed down, one atop the other, with very little room to spare and as such it's very common to find areas where one kind of texture or surface treatment just ends because it collides with another. That is part of what gives Disneyland its character: its abrupt transitional resets. And Critter Country's backwoods aesthetic flushed up with the Haunted Mansion's plantation South answers to this.

I don't dare make excuses or give it a pass but given the context of why Splash Mountain was designed and placed where it is, it's warranted.

I will grant you much of what you say, but they weren't "making up the rules as they went" by the late 80s. By that time there was a definite understanding of the rules of design and how theme parks were designed, and especially an understanding for what Disney theme park design is/was. I'll grant that they had circumstances and limitations relating to space, but it remains sloppy.

I'm not necessarily faulting Baxter specifically, for the record. But to say they were still coming to terms with what made a theme park in the 80s on any grand level is absurd.

 

[D.Silentu]

what's the reasoning given for having a fully fledged train/roller coaster inside Mount Everest?

I'm a poor candidate to answer, as I've never been on the ride. However, I recall that at some point during development the rumored story was that a temporary train had been constructed to supply a remote base camp for yeti researchers. In this version, during the ride's ascent, the researchers would communicate with the train via radio, only to yell that something was approaching. Growls would give way to static, as the radio is cut off, with the train reaching the torn up track section moments later. Obviously, the final ride was altered and the reasoning for the train fell by the wayside.

It’s not unfixable. Nobody wants to accept blame for it and pay for the fix.

Again, a second hand opinion, but I tend to agree with this. I've seen the yeti test footage and it does look spectacular, but now that it's established that it doesn't work they need to let it go. Everyone seems to think they need to fix the yeti, but realistically they should remove it completely and design a new climactic scene for the space.

 

[HMFan999]

Perhaps I'm ignorant (likely the case, haven't done much research on Expedition Everest beyond reading the chapter on it in Jason Surrell's book about a decade ago) but what's the reasoning given for having a fully fledged train/roller coaster inside Mount Everest?

The mountain you ride through isn't Everest itself, it is the "forbidden mountain."

The adventure begins in Asia at Disney’s Animal Kingdom, as guests join the Expedition Everest team and embark on a trek through Anandapur. The trail leads visitors to the village of Serka Zong, which means “fortress of the chasm.” In the early years, the Royal Anandapur Tea Company shipped its tea by train from Serka Zong through the Forbidden Mountain pass, but the railroad was closed after a series of mysterious accidents, rumored to be from the hand of the Yeti. Today, the village of Serka Zong is thriving and has moved beyond its tragic past, largely thanks to the efforts of local entrepreneurs. In spite of the local opposition, the Himalayan Escapes, Tours and Expeditions company has partially refurbished the railway and now offers transportation for adventurers to the base camp at Mt. Everest.

 

[__r.jr]

I will grant you much of what you say, but they weren't "making up the rules as they went" by the late 80s. By that time there was a definite understanding of the rules of design and how theme parks were designed, and especially an understanding for what Disney theme park design is/was. I'll grant that they had circumstances and limitations relating to space, but it remains sloppy.

I'm not necessarily faulting Baxter specifically, for the record. But to say they were still coming to terms with what made a theme park in the 80s on any grand level is absurd.

I am in no way stating that WED Enterprises/WDI were merely making things up as they go all the way up to the creation and inclusion of Splash Mountain.

You are absolutely correct. With at least 25 years of master planning, urban design and thematic narration, Splash Mountain's integration does not fully adhere to said principles precisely.

I am simply addressing why the designers took liberties the way that they did.

 

[shortstop]

Rohde? I've never understood the hype. His attractions and style of Imagineering have never appealed to me.

I agree with your thoughts on Davis, Coats, and Baxter, but I have to object to this. As DL-centric fans, it’s unfortunate that all we really have from Rohde is MB, because I truly think the man is a creative genius in many respects. DAK is my absolute favorite theme park, and with a higher attraction count, I think it would vault even higher in quality. It really does have to be seen, explored, and experienced in order to be understood. It’s somehow greater than the sum of its parts.

Rohde has a keen eye for detail and it shows. DAK oozes with detail in every corner (C&H aside, lol). I know fans like to joke about his “research trips”, but this man really knows his stuff when it comes to world cultures, art, nature, etc. Not to mention he flawlessly incorporated a James Cameron film into his park. He operates much differently than Baxter or Davis, but he’s a found a niche with which he is very successful.

 

[SuddenStorm]

The problem with this theory is that Splash is not fully at home with its environment. In general, sure, it fits pretty well...but I refuse to consider this a flawless unification/transition when Haunted Mansion is RIGHT next to Splash and the two clash pretty terribly.

A lot of this is simply because of how darn compact Disneyland is. I mean, you've got a spinning Rocket Ship ride 20 feet from the Plaza Inn. You've got a '50s style submarine fleet 10 feet from a Swiss Mountain.

Disneyland doesn't strictly adhere to any creative rules and principles- and because of that, it's far less sanitized than what a modern theme park would be. These thematic clashes that shouldn't make sense if going by the modern rules for themed design are what makes Disneyland so darn special- because somehow, it all works- and it makes Disneyland that much more unique.

Part of why Disneyland is so special is because it encompasses 60+ years of themed design- from the very beginning, to modern day. It creates a historic environment with creative depth.

Would someone design Splash Mountain to be right next to the Mansion if they were building a brand new park? Probably not- but all things considered, it works fairly well- and is at the bottom of the list of Disneyland issues that need addressing.

 

[SuddenStorm]

I agree with your thoughts on Davis, Coats, and Baxter, but I have to object to this. As DL-centric fans, it’s unfortunate that all we really have from Rohde is MB, because I truly think the man is a creative genius in many respects. DAK is my absolute favorite theme park, and with a higher attraction count, I think it would vault even higher in quality. It really does have to be seen, explored, and experienced in order to be understood. It’s somehow greater than the sum of its parts.

Rohde has a keen eye for detail and it shows. DAK oozes with detail in every corner (C&H aside, lol). I know fans like to joke about his “research trips”, but this man really knows his stuff when it comes to world cultures, art, nature, etc. Not to mention he flawlessly incorporated a James Cameron film into his park. He operates much differently than Baxter or Davis, but he’s a found a niche with which he is very successful.

You make excellent points, and hit the nail on the head as to why I'm not enthused with Rohde.

I will admit, having never been to Florida- my commentary on Disney Imagineering and themed design in general basically only comes from my visits to Disneyland. I've heard excellent things about Rohde's work on the East coast, but I look at his stuff as "how would his approach work in Disneyland?" (which I think is a natural thought process on a Disneyland discussion board) and I don't think it would.

I also look at how horrifically designed and scrappy Mission Breakout is, but it does sound like that's judging him on his worst project- it'd be like if I judged Baxter on Tomorrowland '98- which is basically the original Mission:OVERLAY.

 

[shortstop]

You make excellent points, and hit the nail on the head as to why I'm not enthused with Rohde.

I will admit, having never been to Florida- my commentary on Disney Imagineering and themed design in general basically only comes from my visits to Disneyland. I've heard excellent things about Rohde's work on the East coast, but I look at his stuff as "how would his approach work in Disneyland?" (which I think is a natural thought process on a Disneyland discussion board) and I don't think it would.

I also look at how horrifically designed and scrappy Mission Breakout is, but it does sound like that's judging him on his worst project- it'd be like if I judged Baxter on Tomorrowland '98- which is basically the original Mission:OVERLAY.

I tend to think he had his hand forced a bit with MB - the fact that he’s no longer leading the Marvel portfolio is pretty telling.

I agree that I’m not sure Rohde’s style would fit as well in DL, especially given the existing infrastructure of the park and its current space limitations. Rohde is a great world builder, but these concepts often require a creative blank slate and large amounts of space, two luxuries Disneyland doesn’t really have at this point. His best work is serious and gritty in tone whereas Disneyland, for the most part, has a much more whimsical feel. Of course, he could adapt his methods and style to suit the needs of Disneyland.

 

[PiratesMansion]

A lot of this is simply because of how darn compact Disneyland is. I mean, you've got a spinning Rocket Ship ride 20 feet from the Plaza Inn. You've got a '50s style submarine fleet 10 feet from a Swiss Mountain.

Disneyland doesn't strictly adhere to any creative rules and principles- and because of that, it's far less sanitized than what a modern theme park would be. These thematic clashes that shouldn't make sense if going by the modern rules for themed design are what makes Disneyland so darn special- because somehow, it all works- and it makes Disneyland that much more unique.

Part of why Disneyland is so special is because it encompasses 60+ years of themed design- from the very beginning, to modern day. It creates a historic environment with creative depth.

Would someone design Splash Mountain to be right next to the Mansion if they were building a brand new park? Probably not- but all things considered, it works fairly well- and is at the bottom of the list of Disneyland issues that need addressing.

Again, I'm not disputing any of that. I don't object to its presence (although I find DL to easily have the worst Splash Mountain). But if Splash was built today, it simply would not receive the pass it does now. That is all I'm saying.

I'm aware of Disneyland's history and its 'special status.' There's a reason I've been to DL so many times when WDW is much closer. I'm very much familiar with what makes Disneyland tick and what differentiates it from other parks. But it's not without flaws. I understand why and agree that sometimes those imperfections make it better or more interesting-but it's not perfect.

Also, is the Astro Orbiter a widely reviled attraction with terrible placement, or a part of what makes Disneyland unique and special? To me it really can't be both.

 

[SuddenStorm]

Again, I'm not disputing any of that. I don't object to its presence (although I find DL to easily have the worst Splash Mountain). But if Splash was built today, it simply would not receive the pass it does now. That is all I'm saying.

I'm aware of Disneyland's history and its 'special status.' There's a reason I've been to DL so many times when WDW is much closer. I'm very much familiar with what makes Disneyland tick and what differentiates it from other parks. But it's not without flaws. I understand why and agree that sometimes those imperfections make it better or more interesting-but it's not perfect.

Also, is the Astro Orbiter a widely reviled attraction with terrible placement, or a part of what makes Disneyland unique and special? To me it really can't be both.

What's the point you're trying to get across? That Splash Mountain doesn't fit in it's location? I think it does- it works very well where it is, certainly better than having a Bavarian castle at the end of a turn of the century American street, or having a Swiss Mountain feet away from a Monorail and fleet of submarines. Disneyland thrives on the thematic diversity that shouldn't work on paper, but ends up being the right thing to do.

I was using the Astro Orbiter as a different example of different themes being in close proximity, in the hopes that it would further reinforce my stance that the Haunted Mansion/Splash Mountain transition is hardly egregious or noteworthy on the list of Disneyland land transitions and flaws.

But being honest, Splash Mountain feels fairly organic in it's current location. I never really notice it when I'm by the Mansion, it's not until I get past the Mansion that it becomes the focus.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Disneyland is perfect themed design, I'm just trying to point out that the transition isn't even on my radar as an example of Disney screwing something up.

 

[SuddenStorm]

I tend to think he had his hand forced a bit with MB - the fact that he’s no longer leading the Marvel portfolio is pretty telling.

I agree that I’m not sure Rohde’s style would fit as well in DL, especially given the existing infrastructure of the park and its current space limitations. Rohde is a great world builder, but these concepts often require a creative blank slate and large amounts of space, two luxuries Disneyland doesn’t really have at this point. His best work is serious and gritty in tone whereas Disneyland, for the most part, has a much more whimsical feel. Of course, he could adapt his methods and style to suit the needs of Disneyland.

Very well said.

Another thought I just had, that could be incorrect but I think it's worth sharing- is that Baxter is a Disneyland fan from birth. The man was heavily influenced by Disneyland growing up, and has worked as a sort of caretaker trying to preserve and improve the park, while retaining the essence of what Disneyland "is". Because of this, many of his projects have been improvements to the park that feel natural, timeless, as if they were always there. They frequently reference and take queues from what came before them inside Disneyland, and very much feel like natural progressions of what the first generation of Imagineers did.

Rohde strikes me as a wonderful designer of themed entertainment, and as you said, is excellent at designing worlds and realizing his vision in a physical park- but he doesn't strike me as having the same affinity for classic Disney/Disneyland that Baxter has. I'm not sure I want to say he's more progressive than Baxter, but he certainly seems to take inspiration from different places.

 

[PiratesMansion]

What's the point you're trying to get across? That Splash Mountain doesn't fit in it's location? I think it does- it works very well where it is, certainly better than having a Bavarian castle at the end of a turn of the century American street, or having a Swiss Mountain feet away from a Monorail and fleet of submarines. Disneyland thrives on the thematic diversity that shouldn't work on paper, but ends up being the right thing to do.

I was using the Astro Orbiter as a different example of different themes being in close proximity, in the hopes that it would further reinforce my stance that the Haunted Mansion/Splash Mountain transition is hardly egregious or noteworthy on the list of Disneyland land transitions and flaws.

But being honest, Splash Mountain feels fairly organic in it's current location. I never really notice it when I'm by the Mansion, it's not until I get past the Mansion that it becomes the focus.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Disneyland is perfect themed design, I'm just trying to point out that the transition isn't even on my radar as an example of Disney screwing something up.

My point is that I'm aware of Disneyland and how it works, been there many times, yet I'm being talked to as if I'm some WDW fanboi who wandered into this thread by accident. I do not know how much more plainly I can state this: I do not view the placement of Splash as a problem, but was simply saying that I don't feel it fully works as a transition as was said earlier in the thread. Is the transition problematic? Not really, especially in the context of Disneyland. It works in context, it's charming, but I don't objectively feel it to be a great thematic transition.

 

[SuddenStorm]

Is the transition problematic? Not really, especially in the context of Disneyland. It works in context, it's charming, but I don't objectively feel it to be a great thematic transition.

It seems like you're trying to argue semantics? No one is saying it's a perfect thematic transition. We're saying that's not what it's supposed to be.

It's not meant to be a transition between two themes... but rather an extension of the Dixieland/New Orleans/Southern theme. Which is what others have said from the beginning.

So of course it doesn't work great as a thematic transition- that's not what it was designed to be. It's a thematic extension.

What would you have done to make it better? Place it somewhere else? Design a different facade for the attraction? Not build it at all?

Not trying to talk down to you, and I don't think you're talking from a place of ignorance. It feels like you're trying to make a point I don't understand, which is likely my shortcoming as a reader- but I'm trying to figure out what the problem you have is, since you started this discussion saying

The problem with this theory is that Splash is not fully at home with its environment. In general, sure, it fits pretty well...but I refuse to consider this a flawless unification/transition when Haunted Mansion is RIGHT next to Splash and the two clash pretty terribly.

But later, you've said it isn't a problem or that there is no problem. It sounds like you have issues with it's placement- and I'm curious to hear what those specific issues are. I've been trying to discuss and expand on points you've made and say why I think they work or don't in the hopes we can figure out why you think Splash's placement is "sloppy"

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

I thought there would be more of a distance between Haunted Mansion and Splash Mt. when I first visited Disney Land rather than them being directly next to one another. But I found that the close placement simply added to the charm. I prefer DL's tight quarters and bottlenecks to the huge open areas of concrete in the later Disney parks. If only Rocket Rods was still operating...

 

[Brer Panther]

Back in 1988, before the Disneyland version opened, an article about the ride was featured in an issue of Disney News magazine.

At one point in the article, it says this:

"So you have Brer Rabbit singing, "I'm headed for a little more excitement/I'm headed for a little bit of fun/I'm headed for a little bit of adventure/Time to be moving along.

In contrast, there's a roadrunner singing, "He's headed for a little bit of excitement/he's headed for a little bit of fun/But he's headed for a little bit of danger/time to be turning around."

So it would seem that the plan was for Brer Roadrunner - this guy, right here...

...and who is ALSO placed in-between Brer Rabbit and Brer Terrapin and the Hitchhiking Alligator - to be the one singing the verse. I do not know why they changed it.

This roadrunner ALSO appears in the Walt Disney World version, where he instead asks the riders if he can come along to the Laughing Place...

As for this other question...

Here's an off topic question: Why don't the Disneyland vultures have the top hats like they did when they were used in America Sings, but the (I'm assuming) purpose built ones used in Florida do?

Here's them in America Sings:

View attachment 352300

Here's them in Disneyland Splash Mountain:

View attachment 352301

But here's them in Florida Splash Mountain:

View attachment 352302

Seems weird that Florida would have the America Sings era tophats, but Disneyland which has the actual America Sings animatronis doesn't.[/MEDIA]

I always thought the Imagineers decided after the Disneyland version was built that they looked better with the top hats (and, to be honest, I think so too). That's just my theory, though.

 

[BasiltheBatLord]

The roadrunner would actually make a lot of sense, isn't he placed in kind of an awkward spot where it seems like he's supposed to be the focus of a scene but isn't doing anything?

 

[mccgavin]

Back in 1988, before the Disneyland version opened, an article about the ride was featured in an issue of Disney News magazine.

At one point in the article, it says this:


So it would seem that the plan was for Brer Roadrunner - this guy, right here...

View attachment 354015

...and who is ALSO placed in-between Brer Rabbit and Brer Terrapin and the Hitchhiking Alligator - to be the one singing the verse. I do not know why they changed it.

OH MY GOD! Thank you so much for bringing this to light! This had been bothering me for years on end and I'm so happy to finally have an answer. After all this time I guess we can finally call this case closed.