News Splash Mountain retheme to Princess and the Frog - attraction discussion only

tanc

Active Member
A tree house retheme would be awesome, that's a way smaller loss compared to Splash.

Or Tiana's restaurant or something.
 

Magicart87

Premium Member
Advertisement
A tree house retheme would be awesome, that's a way smaller loss compared to Splash.

Or Tiana's restaurant or something.
It would satisfy the people clamoring for PatF in Orlando. It wouldn't however address Splash's "problematic" scenes.

Disney needs to find a compromise. The cheaper solution, at least how I see it, would be to keep Splash "mostly the same" and then just put Tiana and Co elsewhere, at a later date.

If OLC has Disney by their "short and curlies" holding them hostage on a more significate overlay well then just do the bare minimum needed to "fix" Splash. A few character changes, a song replacement, etc. If Disney truly want to keep it inexpensive fix the few issues instead of doing a full out IP replacement. Then in time or when finances are back up, add the PaTF IP elsewhere... like the lower tier attractions in Adventureland. (Aladdin spinner and the Treehouse.)
 
Last edited:

Brer Oswald

Well-Known Member
Intricate sets will typically be cheaper than intricate sets plus a new facility. Given its age and ride system I think committing to reusing Splash Mountain before a proper assessment was made is a risk, but that sort of assessment would not have resulted in the desired outcome. If reusing Splash Mountain was deemed cost prohibitive it would have resulted in Splash Mountain being razed, not saved.
Destroying a top 3 most popular attraction for the 200,000 petition signers? For a resort that gets around 60 million visitors a year? Sorry, don’t buy that.
This decision was all about replacing an Eisner ride about a Walt IP with an IP from the last 15 years, making a big deal about it, in an effort to make someone look good. They were waiting on an outcry for a retheme to pull the trigger (and if that hadn’t of happened, it would have been announced right before that someone left. A parting “gift” if you will).

Merchandise and food opportunity was second. Potential for attendance boosts third. Morality And inclusivity last.

As for whether or not it would be cheaper to retheme an existing attraction, typically I’d say yes. This is a weird case though. The exterior is large, intricate, integral to the ride experience, and most importantly, based on an IP. It’s going to take a lot of work to make this into a new ride. “Shoehorn” is a term often thrown around in regards to rethemes, but that is literally the case here.

Perhaps it’s cheaper than making a new E Ticket, but they were never going to make a new PatF E Ticket. It would’ve gotten a C at best, if anything at all.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Destroying a top 3 most popular attraction for the 200,000 petition signers? For a resort that gets around 60 million visitors a year? Sorry, don’t buy that.
This decision was all about replacing an Eisner ride about a Walt IP with an IP from the last 15 years, making a big deal about it, in an effort to make someone look good. They were waiting on an outcry for a retheme to pull the trigger (and if that hadn’t of happened, it would have been announced right before that someone left. A parting “gift” if you will).

Merchandise and food opportunity was second. Potential for attendance boosts third. Morality And inclusivity last.

As for whether or not it would be cheaper to retheme an existing attraction, typically I’d say yes. This is a weird case though. The exterior is large, intricate, integral to the ride experience, and most importantly, based on an IP. It’s going to take a lot of work to make this into a new ride. “Shoehorn” is a term often thrown around in regards to rethemes, but that is literally the case here.

Perhaps it’s cheaper than making a new E Ticket, but they were never going to make a new PatF E Ticket. It would’ve gotten a C at best, if anything at all.
Again, it‘s a matter of cost. If demolition was known as a cheaper alternative there would have been no qualms about doing that. The cost of doing a separate new attraction was not nor would have been considered.
 

Brer Oswald

Well-Known Member
It would satisfy the people clamoring for PatF in Orlando. It wouldn't however address Splash's "problematic" scenes.

Disney needs to find a compromise. The cheaper solution, at least how I see it, would be to keep Splash "mostly the same" and then just put Tiana and Co elsewhere, at a later date.

If OLC has Disney by their "short and curlies" holding them hostage on a more significate overlay well then just do the bare minimum needed to "fix" Splash. A few character changes, a song replacement, etc. If Disney truly want to keep it inexpensive fix the few issues instead of doing a full out IP replacement. Then in time or when finances are back up, add the PaTF IP elsewhere... like the lower tier attractions in Adventureland. (Aladdin spinner and the Treehouse.)
Splash wouldn’t need to be fixed to remain the same. The Zoomers on Twitter have very weak cognitive skills, and since they haven’t seen SotS (since Bobby said it’s a no no), they “think” they’re putting two and two together, and they start calling for change. Not to mention the fact that they grew up with PatF, so it’s perfect!

Truth is, the “problematic” aspects of SotS didn’t make the cut. Most of the issues were in the live action segments, and they took out the one problem from the animated segment. Anyone with critical thinking skills and a knowledge on the subject realizes this. There isn’t much else they could do. Aside from, you know, control the narrative in a way that’s accurate, instead of the Boogeyman legends found online. But, that doesn’t fit with what they want to do. So they’ll go with the Twitter narrative.

Whatever. It’s their property. Do what you want with it.
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
Ah, love the ol' argument: "Surely, Disney would *never* do X!! We wouldn't like it!! Therefore, they won't do X!!"

All free and disconnected from history, financial reality, and any actual inside information (or pretending contravening inside information doesn't exist). All backed up with an inflated self-regard of the *true fans* as to their import and number, and therefore, over-estimated sense of influence.

It's like every popular attraction that has ever existed and then was removed or radically changed had never happened.

Just spend time visiting one of the "defunct Disney" sites for a sense of what Disney can and will do and imagine what it would have been like on Internet discussion boards if they had existed back then. Or just go back to the thread where Tower of Terror in DL was being rethemed to Guardians. The hue and cry of *true fans* very, very rarely makes a difference.
 

CJR

Well-Known Member
Do you think this could cool off once Iger steps out of Disney next year?

Chapek and D'Amaro don't seen to have the same passion about it. The former seems to be more interested in saving money, from what a couple insiders have said. I believe something will still happen eventually, but the rapid nature of it will probably change once Iger can only comment as a shareholder.
 

Brer Panther

Well-Known Member
Do you think this could cool off once Iger steps out of Disney next year?

Chapek and D'Amaro don't seen to have the same passion about it. The former seems to be more interested in saving money, from what a couple insiders have said. I believe something will still happen eventually, but the rapid nature of it will probably change once Iger can only comment as a shareholder.
That's assuming Iger DOES step out of Disney next year. He COULD extend that contract again.
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
Do you think this could cool off once Iger steps out of Disney next year?

Chapek and D'Amaro don't seen to have the same passion about it. The former seems to be more interested in saving money, from what a couple insiders have said. I believe something will still happen eventually, but the rapid nature of it will probably change once Iger can only comment as a shareholder.
That discussion is in the politics/social thread since it requires discussing the political/social situation that brought about the decision in the first place.


That's assuming Iger DOES step out of Disney next year. He COULD extend that contract again.
It's a possibility, of course.

Depends on what the BoD thinks of Chapek running everything... which would be a discussion for a different thread.
 

larryz

Completely Saponificated
Premium Member
I dunno, I still have my doubts that this retheme is really gonna be that less expensive than building a Princess and the Frog ride from scratch. Splash Mountain is a very big, highly-themed ride. Retheming it ain't gonna be easy.
DLR's HM gets the Nightmare Before Christmas overlay every year, and it fundamentally transforms the ride and show building facade. It's easy enough to do in a couple of weeks.
 

Magicart87

Premium Member
DLR's HM gets the Nightmare Before Christmas overlay every year, and it fundamentally transforms the ride and show building facade. It's easy enough to do in a couple of weeks.
Easy install but not inexpensive or all that successful depending on who you ask. Good comparison though. This will be just like Jack and Sally taking over a beloved attraction.
 

Brer Oswald

Well-Known Member
DLR's HM gets the Nightmare Before Christmas overlay every year, and it fundamentally transforms the ride and show building facade. It's easy enough to do in a couple of weeks.
Do you really think they want Princess Tiana in SotS Land? That’s way more of an issue than the “animals only” ride they have now. They will have to gut most of this attraction.
 

larryz

Completely Saponificated
Premium Member
Do you really think they want Princess Tiana in SotS Land? That’s way more of an issue than the “animals only” ride they have now. They will have to gut most of this attraction.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying I want them to do it, but it's entirely possible to do it without gutting the current AAs and scenery. Design/fabricate new skins for the AAs, reprogram the movements to match the new music, close it down for a couple of weeks to install the overlay et voila!, you have Tiana's Molehill Mountain, or whatever they want to call it.
 

V/N McQueen

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Destroying a top 3 most popular attraction for the 200,000 petition signers? For a resort that gets around 60 million visitors a year? Sorry, don’t buy that.
This decision was all about replacing an Eisner ride about a Walt IP with an IP from the last 15 years, making a big deal about it, in an effort to make someone look good. They were waiting on an outcry for a retheme to pull the trigger (and if that hadn’t of happened, it would have been announced right before that someone left. A parting “gift” if you will).

Merchandise and food opportunity was second. Potential for attendance boosts third. Morality And inclusivity last.

As for whether or not it would be cheaper to retheme an existing attraction, typically I’d say yes. This is a weird case though. The exterior is large, intricate, integral to the ride experience, and most importantly, based on an IP. It’s going to take a lot of work to make this into a new ride. “Shoehorn” is a term often thrown around in regards to rethemes, but that is literally the case here.

Perhaps it’s cheaper than making a new E Ticket, but they were never going to make a new PatF E Ticket. It would’ve gotten a C at best, if anything at all.

I think the "official" PatF petition topped out at 21k signatures whereas the petition to save splash is at 85k signatures. Even the pro-Disney parks blog has a variety of mixed responses, which frankly i'm surprised the naysayer comments even got approved.

Totally agree with what you're saying.
 

Brer Oswald

Well-Known Member
I think the "official" PatF petition topped out at 21k signatures whereas the petition to save splash is at 85k signatures. Even the pro-Disney parks blog has a variety of mixed responses, which frankly i'm surprised the naysayer comments even got approved.

Totally agree with what you're saying.
Had they’ve ignored the Mountain, I think it would have gotten more signatures. Likely wouldn’t have topped 100K, as it doesn’t really impact most guests. It was DisTwitter’s “Rent Free” moment. “HAHA! WE got Disney to make a major change!”

Jokes on them. They were the ones that got played the hardest.
 
They got rid of Mr Toad to replace it with an infinitely more popular IP. If they didn’t have the funds to replace it at the time, they likely wouldn’t have.

Also, a C-Ticket Fantasyland Dark Ride isn’t on the same level as an E-Ticket Thrill Ride.

Toad was, however, insanely popular. My point was not that Pooh was a bad decision, just that the popularity of the existing ride doesn't factor in.

I was also 2 years old when all of that happened, so don't take my word as gospel :)
 

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

Top Bottom