News Splash Mountain retheme to Princess and the Frog - Tiana's Bayou Adventure

Status
Not open for further replies.

retr0gate

Well-Known Member
As kind as they don’t have those “projected” faces like FEA, I’m good with that.
I hope to god they don't. Can't imagine they would do that with the animals, but can't be too certain about the human characters. Something akin to the animatronics in the Tokyo Beauty and the Beast attraction would be much more ideal, especially now that we know they're capable of doing it.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Also worth mentioning, the otter pictured above is the same one featured in this previously released concept art:
View attachment 679060
View attachment 679061
Plans obviously change over time and I don't want to place too much emphasis on a single piece of concept art, but if this artwork is anything to go by we can make out at least ~8 more characters not counting Naveen, Tiana, Louis and the otter. The specific number here isn't necessarily important, but it pushes the idea that the flume will still be lined with musical critters.
Come on, we’ve been through this before, and very recently. Artwork from much later in the process for GotG showed a spectacular preshow with Groot and Rocket AAs and a life size Milano. That was for the most expensive ride Disney ever built based on the most successful franchise in pop culture history - and it was cut. In that case, Disney defenders explained at length that anyone who trusted concept art was a fool.

There is absolutely no precedent in the last 20 years of Disney being able or willing to build an AA ride on the scale of Splash. When was the last AA-dependent ride E-ticket - Dinosaur? I could see an argument for RotR, but that seems more like a (well done) example of the sort of rides Disney has been building and what we can expect here - one AA in a largely empty room in front of a screen.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
This is a strange read of that concept art. Rocket, Groot, and the robotic swing arm looked like physical setpieces, but the Milano definitely did not.
It looks to me like a physical ship in front of a projected starfield. Presumably the other cast members would have appeared as projection effects in the cockpit.
 

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
It looks to me like a physical ship in front of a projected starfield. Presumably the other cast members would have appeared as projection effects in the cockpit.
I just think that's really difficult to assume from the artwork, and I'm not entirely sure how it would've made much sense? Like, you wouldn't be standing in a cargo bay while the hatch leading into the vacuum of space was open right in front of you. It would definitely make more sense for you to be seeing the ship on a viewscreen.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
I just think that's really difficult to assume from the artwork, and I'm not entirely sure how it would've made much sense? Like, you wouldn't be standing in a cargo bay while the hatch leading into the vacuum of space was open right in front of you. It would definitely make more sense for you to be seeing the ship on a viewscreen.
You’d be looking at a docked ship. I don’t think scientific realism is a big concern here - the most famous room on RotR is a docking bay with a giant opening into space.

It’s pretty clear that a lot of the convoluted plot rigmarole in the CR pre-show is making excuses for why the Guardians don’t appear in person as originally planned.
 

Joel

Well-Known Member
I'm going to be super honest here. While I know there are some fans who are unhappy about this change because they are going to miss an attraction they love, I think some (maybe even many) people are pessimistic about the whole thing because of the perceived rationale behind the change and all the social/political perspectives they perceive to be behind it.
This factors into things somewhat for me, although much less than the confirmed details of the retheme that have been released thus far. To be super honest myself, I don't really see a problem with it. Splash is being replaced -- whether one agrees with it or not -- due to "perceived" (lol) motivations other than simply creating a better attraction. Even if you agree with those motivations, it seems pretty understandable how you could be suspect of the resulting output.

Of course, that doesn't mean it won't still turn out to be great! I'm much less hopeful than I was when it was first announced, though.
 

retr0gate

Well-Known Member
Come on, we’ve been through this before, and very recently. Artwork from much later in the process for GotG showed a spectacular preshow with Groot and Rocket AAs and a life size Milano. That was for the most expensive ride Disney ever built based on the most successful franchise in pop culture history - and it was cut. In that case, Disney defenders explained at length that anyone who trusted concept art was a fool.

There is absolutely no precedent in the last 20 years of Disney being able or willing to build an AA ride on the scale of Splash. When was the last AA-dependent ride E-ticket - Dinosaur? I could see an argument for RotR, but that seems more like a (well done) example of the sort of rides Disney has been building and what we can expect here - one AA in a largely empty room in front of a screen.
I agree it was rather disappointing that we didn't get the rumored Groot and Rocket animatronic, but I think the life size Milano is a bit of stretch. It would've been nice, but having seen that concept art there's nothing to imply it would have been a physical prop instead of a screen (like what we have now). Even with that in mind, Guardians is a roller coaster and nobody was expecting a multitude of animatronics aside from those that were rumored for the preshow. A better comparison would be if Cosmic Rewind reutilized the pre-existing Universe of Energy vehicles / layout, and they kept the dino diorama without any of the actual dinos. In its current form, the lack of animatronics in Cosmic Rewind is disappointing but I wouldn't say it was all that surprising given the nature of the ride.

The same can be said for a lot of recent WDI projects, specifically those that were overhauls of pre-existing attractions. They may not have been animatronic heavy, but in what cases were they expected to be? Runaway Railway? Definitely not, and the concept never implied otherwise. Frozen Ever After? Yes actually, and in that case, there was not really a net loss. The ride isn't good, but it's not like I expected a retheme of Maelstrom to have any more animatronics than Frozen currently has. Splash Mountain is a musical log flume through a bayou turning into... a musical log flume through a bayou. There's nothing to imply a drastic reduction in characters aside from Disney's track record of cutting an animatronic or two from projects that don't suffer without them.
 

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
You’d be looking at a docked ship. I don’t think scientific realism is a big concern here - the most famous room on RotR is a docking bay with a giant opening into space.

It’s pretty clear that a lot of the convoluted plot rigmarole in the CR pre-show is making excuses for why the Guardians don’t appear in person as originally planned.
I'll leave it to your read, I suppose, but I think it's a bit much to fault them for the Milano when it's very easy to see how the intention may have been different from how you happened to interpret it. Rocket, Groot, sure; I think the concept art is clear there, with them standing on what look like physical platforms in the space. The ship itself, eh, I don't think what was shown could be considered deceptive in that case (other than the obvious difference in narrative from what we got in the final product).
 

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
And I've said it before (maybe on page 43, lol) that the ONLY reason Tony Baxter is on board is to save face between the diehard fans of Splash and TWDC...as soon as it opens, (well, maybe within 6 months) Tony is going to retire and sail off into the sunset...if anyone thinks the multitude of unique AA's, which is one of the reasons Splash was so awesome IMHO, are going to remain, I can't (and won't) help you...I'd offer to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, but these days, you'd make too much money from tolls...perhaps some crypto currency from FTX
At the risk of undermining the veracity of your other statements . . . the Brooklyn Bridge is toll free.
 

MerlinTheGoat

Well-Known Member
I'll reiterate that the last claim I was made aware of is that the overhaul has a very healthy budget now. Substantially increased multiple times after initial negative reactions. And it will apparently not result in a reduction of the animatronics. Allegedly they're keeping the existing Splash AA's and also adding a decent number of new top of the line ones for the added human characters (I assume this to mean the type used for Beauty and the Beast with physical robotic faces, not projection).

Feel free to take this with a mine of salt. But again, these claims are from someone who is most definitely no Disney shill (quite the opposite) and hated this overhaul as much as anyone reasonably can. They've been through all of the same criticism and concerns as myself and everyone else here. It cannot be overstated how much venom they were spewing at this overhaul up until very recently. And indeed, earlier variations of the ride were looking to be disastrous (anemic budget, mass removal of AA's, screens and empty blank sets, bad story etc). So their sudden shift in opinion to "the new finalized concept actually looks really promising and could be as good as Splash" got my attention.

If you're someone who is only interested in the Song of the South IP and characters and can't accept anything else, then I couldn't say whether you would like this ride. But if you're someone in the "bargaining" stage of grief at this point and are just hoping for a quality ride that can stand up against Splash Mountain on its own merits (which to me would mean a good old days AA-rich classic Disney ride), a "wait and see" approach can't hurt. There will be ample opportunity to absolutely tear into the ride if it does turn out awful. I'll also be rejoining everyone if these claims end up being false, and shoot the messenger if they were lying (though again i've little reason to assume they are).
 
Last edited:

MaximumEd

Well-Known Member
At the expense of what exactly? None of this is changing, unless you don't consider PaTF to have a great story / catchy music which, to be fair, is a legitimate criticism. They're not changing the ride's capacity, the ride isn't going to become shorter, they're certainly not rerouting the railroad, and the whole "less AA's" argument is based off of pure speculation. I understand the sentiment but all the things that you described that make Splash Mountain so great are not expected to change. Same setting, different IP.
At the expense of reimagining one to the other instead of just building the other. Same way it was a mistake to kill GMR for Railway when you have Launch Bay begging to be used for a ride. The parks are lacking capacity and we keep getting replacements instead of additions.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
I’m not going to let you bait me.

If you’re curious, you can look at how DISNEY has responded to negative criticism of Star Wars, or Ms. Marvel.
Man, Ms. Marvel was just excellent. The villains were a bit rushed, but the character work and directing were spectacular. And Iman Vellani was an amazing find, tremendously charming - Marvels casting is incredible.

So what particular criticism do you mean? And what was objectionable about Disney’s response?
 

celluloid

Well-Known Member
So is this a new development--Tony Baxter's supposed lack of integrity--or has he always been a person of low character?

What sort of person was he when he proposed an attraction that included characters from Song of the South?

The dude knows good themed entertainment. That is why you find him more at Universal Orlando's HHN than you do on Disney property these days.

I can't blame him for cashing the check and making the best out of it.
 

Incomudro

Well-Known Member
Egg on my face…just naturally assumed that EVERY bridge in NYC had a toll…I guess I should change it to the Verrazano…lol THAT, I know you need a home equity loan to cross (especially in a truck) lol
As a former Staten Islander the Verrazano Bridge toll is so high that I used to refer to it as an admission fee.
Matter of fact, I used to say that it was so expensive it should do something like rides do.
Perhaps have a loop on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Back
Top Bottom