• The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
    Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More
  • Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Riverrafter21

Well-Known Member
I would have thought Pocahontas would have worked well for WDW as a Splash replacement. The story could be reworked a bit and there are lots of woodland creatures for the animatronics (or screens).

I would use the land above Big Thunder for Coco and Tiana attractions. Having Tiana be closer to the Riverboat for theming.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
This is weak….disney doesn’t give a rats *** about continuity. There’s something else at play here. Almost any new ride I can think of throws continuity to the wind. Guardians might be the exception.
Guardians threw continuity to the wind harder then any other attraction.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
This is weak….disney doesn’t give a rats *** about continuity. There’s something else at play here. Almost any new ride I can think of throws continuity to the wind. Guardians might be the exception.

I don’t make the rules. Disney set up their timeline for this attraction. It’s after the first film.

Could they use some conceit to bring Facilier back? Sure. Will they? I doubt it.
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
I’ll die on the hill stating this should have been a Coco retheme at WDW. Would have fit far more cohesively, and seeing as the climax of the movie has a dropping sequence, I state fairly easy to adapt. Not to mention it would have clicked all the right boxes:

-Popular and new
-Great Soundtrack
-Minority Character
-Great visuals
Okay, well RIP

BTW, Coco is my favorite!
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
I’ll die on the hill stating this should have been a Coco retheme at WDW. Would have fit far more cohesively, and seeing as the climax of the movie has a dropping sequence, I state fairly easy to adapt. Not to mention it would have clicked all the right boxes:

-Popular and new
-Great Soundtrack
-Minority Character
-Great visuals
I don’t think it’s a better or even a good fit. It’s too modern and set outside the USA.
 

Touchdown

Well-Known Member
Coco doesn’t have a set moment in time. There’s CRT TVs but all show black and white. Other than TV and Eletricity nothing in the Land of the Living really puts it in the 20th century. I posit it could work.
 

Touchdown

Well-Known Member
The repeated references to Frida Kahlo, who died in 1954, are a pretty big clue!
I said land of the Living, we already have a show in Frontierland that features a song from a 1950s TV Show. Inside the rides can be their own thing, besides we have a 1920s era Jungle Cruise coexisting with a 1600s Pirate fort one land over. And in Liberty Square, we have a piano appearing in the revolutionary period when harpsichords were far more popular in the states (and still extremely rare.)
 

matt9112

Well-Known Member
Guardians threw continuity to the wind harder then any other attraction.

Forgive me. I have never been on it. But It seemed like a fight with some big boss dude that we never saw in the MCU so I assumed nothing really breaking the story.

In any case my point is valid. Using the doctor is an obvious choice that makes sense and yet here we are thinking disney isn’t using him because he died?
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
I said land of the Living
I know. That’s where the repeated references to Frida happen. [ETA: Sorry, I misread your post; I was referring to the Land of the Dead.]

As to the rest of your post, I agree there are twentieth-century references already in Frontierland (CBJ in particular). Tiana’s Bayou Adventure will be another. But Coco feels too recent even by those standards. Miguel is shown throughout the film wearing a very contemporary-looking hoodie.
 
Last edited:

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Forgive me. I have never been on it. But It seemed like a fight with some big boss dude that we never saw in the MCU so I assumed nothing really breaking the story.

In any case my point is valid. Using the doctor is an obvious choice that makes sense and yet here we are thinking disney isn’t using him because he died?
They make convenient, plentiful time travel central to the story (even though it has absolutely no impact on the ride experience whatsoever) which very obviously demolishes the plot of Endgame.
 

TalkToEthan

Well-Known Member
coexisting with a 1600s Pirate fort
I'm not so sure about the 1600's; could have been but I'd say 1500's is the better guess.
Also, I wouldn't really call it a pirate fort. Pirates merely ransacked it. Spain built Caribbean forts in the 1500's for trading, protection and provisions for their ships.
 

Touchdown

Well-Known Member
I'm not so sure about the 1600's; could have been but I'd say 1500's is the better guess.
Also, I wouldn't really call it a pirate fort. Pirates merely ransacked it. Spain built Caribbean forts in the 1500's for trading, protection and provisions for their ships.
The golden age of piracy was 1650-1730 hence my pick of 1600s.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
I'm not so sure about the 1600's; could have been but I'd say 1500's is the better guess.
Also, I wouldn't really call it a pirate fort. Pirates merely ransacked it. Spain built Caribbean forts in the 1500's for trading, protection and provisions for their ships.
The costumes of Pirates of the Caribbean situate the ride in the eighteenth century, though some of the women are wearing dresses more suggestive of the nineteenth. The architecture could, of course, date from earlier, but the attraction's exterior belongs stylistically to the 1600s or 1700s.
 

TalkToEthan

Well-Known Member
I won't argue against costuming being 1700 and 1800ish but the fortress itself sure looks like some mighty early Spain creations as in 1500's. But yes, it just might be 1600 built.

Very possible that structures built hundreds of years earlier still get used.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
I won't argue against costuming being 1700 and 1800ish but the fortress itself sure looks like some mighty early Spain creations as in 1500's. But yes, it just might be 1600 built.

Very possible that structures built hundreds of years earlier still get used.
Well, we can stop wondering: there's a plaque on the building inscribed with its name and supposed date, which is 1643:

45745231582_24c33d300c_b.jpg


When this was added I don't know; it doesn't look to me like something from 1973, when the ride first opened. It's worth noting that the "A.D." is in the wrong place—it should precede the date, not follow it.
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
Well, we can stop wondering: there's a plaque on the building inscribed with its name and supposed date, which is 1643:

45745231582_24c33d300c_b.jpg


When this was added I don't know; it doesn't look to me like something from 1973, when the ride first opened. It's worth noting that the "A.D." is in the wrong place—it should precede the date, not follow it.
When I was a kid we always tried to read Roman numerals, so I'm something of an expert. That one clearly says: "med-kicks-lee-add."
 

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
Well, we can stop wondering: there's a plaque on the building inscribed with its name and supposed date, which is 1643:

45745231582_24c33d300c_b.jpg


When this was added I don't know; it doesn't look to me like something from 1973, when the ride first opened. It's worth noting that the "A.D." is in the wrong place—it should precede the date, not follow it.
I believe the plaque was added in 2006 during the refurbishment that added Jack Sparrow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Back
Top Bottom