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

[celluloid]

Yeah I know it's named after Tom Hamks Darryl Hannah movie. I personally thought the smart route to go was to still use the Splash Mountain name as well.

Yeah, that Eisner story gets exaggerated. So what he thought it was cute to use the term, but as you say, it still made perfect sense and it was not like a parking lot dedicated to a dumb chicken side character. It fit the nomenclature naming pattern of Space and Thunder. Things the attractions story feature.

 

[Casper Gutman]

It's going to be a LOT harder for them to get away with skimping on the scenery than Frozen. While Maelstrom has a lot of fans, it has never been remotely as popular or well regarded as Splash.

You care about the popularity, artistry, and cultural legacy of Splash. I care about the popularity, artistry, and cultural legacy of Splash. There is NO evidence that Disney cares about the popularity, artistry, and cultural legacy of Splash. In fact, everything about how they have undertaken this redo indicates that not only do they not care, they are so isolated by group think and arrogance that they don’t even understand those things.

As to concept art, I point you to the concept art for GotG vs the final product. It’s also worth noting that the Tiana concept art is very impressionistic, “capturing the feeling rather then the literal reality” (hence it’s framing by the looming Louie, likely not a feature of the actual ride, and the lack of a clear border to the flume) whereas the Frozen and misleading GotG art were more clearly “this is a representation of what you will actually see.”

 

[Midwest Elitist]

You care about the popularity, artistry, and cultural legacy of Splash. I care about the popularity, artistry, and cultural legacy of Splash. There is NO evidence that Disney cares about the popularity, artistry, and cultural legacy of Splash. In fact, everything about how they have undertaken this redo indicates that not only do they not care, they are so isolated by group think and arrogance that they don’t even understand those things.

As to concept art, I point you to the concept art for GotG vs the final product. It’s also worth noting that the Tiana concept art is very impressionistic, “capturing the feeling rather then the literal reality” (hence it’s framing by the looming Louie, likely not a feature of the actual ride, and the lack of a clear border to the flume) whereas the Frozen and misleading GotG art were more clearly “this is a representation of what you will actually see.”

This is a corporation who doesn't realize that their attractions are "art" and that people around the world care about them very much. They seriously thought they could just do a crappy turnover of a retheme before the budget was supposedly "increased".
This company is dead to me.

 

[celluloid]

This is a corporation who doesn't realize that their attractions are "art" and that people around the world care about them very much. They seriously thought they could just do a crappy turnover of a retheme before the budget was supposedly "increased".
This company is dead to me.

I often wish that OLC would have bought the parks off in a desperate time of it meant TDR quality came to the states.

The hubris does not matter if the company does not care for legacy or not, they can't get away with less than previous all the time or for a long time.

Walt was certainly right with "Quality will out."

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

I'm not expecting Facilier to return, again just because I get the feeling that Disney isn't aiming for that direction with the ride. And also because again, the two most recent princess rides haven't even included villains. But at the same time, i'm not sure his absence in promo material is definitive evidence of his absence from the ride. This ride has an original post-movie plotline (a plot they're making a cartoon series to tie into). So if he was returning, that would be a pretty major spoiler.

Another character i'm also curious about is Charlotte. She hasn't appeared in any of the official ride art (nor have they promoted her voice actress), but she was in one of the pieces of art by Sharika Mahdi. Disney Imagineers said they used her work for inspiration on the ride.

There's also at least three animals there that could conceivably be reskinned from the America Sings figures. I don't expect this scene to be adapted exactly as is, but I could see a lot of the characters there making it in the ride. This piece of art DOES look like it was tailor made for a scene though-

Also, I don't think that was an insider.

I'm not, nor do I want to present myself as one. The source who provided the information is the insider. I have good reason to trust them myself, but feel free to disregard it if you like. I'm still having a hard time believing it myself.

Some of the claims about animatronics already seem semi confirmed though. The recent art (if accurate) contains more AA's than the current scene. Remains to be seen if the other scenes follow that trend.

You care about the popularity, artistry, and cultural legacy of Splash. I care about the popularity, artistry, and cultural legacy of Splash. There is NO evidence that Disney cares about the popularity, artistry, and cultural legacy of Splash. In fact, everything about how they have undertaken this redo indicates that not only do they not care, they are so isolated by group think and arrogance that they don’t even understand those things.

I don't think Disney leadership cares about Splash itself, hence why they're removing it. That is a problem (really, THE problem). And in the early stages, they seemed to believe that this overhaul would be welcomed with open arms by the public just due to the nature of the IP alone, with little reason to put any money or effort into it.

That seemingly changed when they saw the backlash. It didn't scare them enough to cancel. But it was enough that they allegedly began to incrementally up budget, get some of the original Splash imagineers to help out, and take a good look at what people love about Splash. They have become aware that this project painted a huge target on their head, and I was told they are putting a lot of effort and pressure into trying to get it right to please as many people as possible. I argue they already flopped out the starting gate by even coming up with this project. But i've become curious enough that I want to see what they come up with as a solution.

Either way, I was just sharing some information that was given to me. I'm absolutely not on the "this is a good idea" bandwagon, it's hard to fathom that they could come close to creating a worthy replacement. I'll believe it when I see it. I just say keep the pitchforks sharpened for the day it opens, no need to fire off prematurely.

 

[BrerFoxesBayouAdventure]

I don't think Disney leadership cares about Splash itself, hence why they're removing it. That is a problem (really, THE problem). And in the early stages, they seemed to believe that this overhaul would be welcomed with open arms by the public just due to the nature of the IP alone, with little reason to put any money or effort into it.

That seemingly changed when they saw the backlash. It didn't scare them enough to cancel. But it was enough that they allegedly began to incrementally up budget, get some of the original Splash imagineers to help out, and take a good look at what people love about Splash. They have become aware that this project painted a huge target on their head, and I was told they are putting a lot of effort and pressure into trying to get it right to please as many people as possible. I argue they already flopped out the starting gate by even coming up with this project. But i've become curious enough that I want to see what they come up with as a solution.

Either way, I was just sharing some information that was given to me. I'm absolutely not on the "this is a good idea" bandwagon, it's hard to fathom that they could come close to creating a worthy replacement. I'll believe it when I see it. I just say keep the pitchforks sharpened for the day it opens, no need to fire off prematurely.

When I saw the initial reveal for the overhaul I thought it looked extremely tacky and hastily put together, guess I was right in that regard. They saw what was going on in the rest of the world and wanted to get rid of the Song of the South characters as quickly as they could without really thinking it through. Now, we're nearly 3 years after the fact and they're finally getting the gears moving.

The way they've approached this ride is frankly horrible, you should never go out and try to appeal to as many people as possible because that'll just leave a disjointed, tonally inconsistent mess of a ride that will age poorly once we get over the honeymoon phase and people start to ask for the original version to come back. None of the concept art pieces have sold me on the ride, because I'm far too used to them "overselling" an attraction and making it look more interesting than it actually is.

 

[Kirby86]

I don't think Disney leadership cares about Splash itself, hence why they're removing it. That is a problem (really, THE problem). And in the early stages, they seemed to believe that this overhaul would be welcomed with open arms by the public just due to the nature of the IP alone, with little reason to put any money or effort into it.

That seemingly changed when they saw the backlash. It didn't scare them enough to cancel. But it was enough that they allegedly began to incrementally up budget, get some of the original Splash imagineers to help out, and take a good look at what people love about Splash. They have become aware that this project painted a huge target on their head, and I was told they are putting a lot of effort and pressure into trying to get it right to please as many people as possible. I argue they already flopped out the starting gate by even coming up with this project. But i've become curious enough that I want to see what they come up with as a solution.

Either way, I was just sharing some information that was given to me. I'm absolutely not on the "this is a good idea" bandwagon, it's hard to fathom that they could come close to creating a worthy replacement. I'll believe it when I see it. I just say keep the pitchforks sharpened for the day it opens, no need to fire off prematurely.

If true this is what is wrong with modern Disney thought process. They think they can just plaster an IP on something and do a sub par job and we'll eat it up. I'm glad they relize now how important it is to do a good job on this retheme. However it shouldn't have taken backlash to make them relize that.

 

[SpectroMagician]

Goodbye dear friend. You were one of my favorite rides and always will be.

I am not excited about throwing a new IP on an existing track. Also its absurd it is going to take almost 2 years to just re-skin it. Disney is useless in getting projects done now.

 

[MisterPenguin]

This is a corporation who doesn't realize that their attractions are "art" and that people around the world care about them very much. They seriously thought they could just do a crappy turnover of a retheme before the budget was supposedly "increased".
This company is dead to me.

With that attitude then no ride or attraction would ever be rethemed because it's destroying "art."

So, let's restore Superstar Limo and respect the art!

 

[Midwest Elitist]

Superstar Limo was open for a year. The dishonesty in that comparison... The park is STILL open because of the Splash queue on it's 3rd day from closing.

I don't think Disney leadership cares about Splash itself, hence why they're removing it. That is a problem (really, THE problem). And in the early stages, they seemed to believe that this overhaul would be welcomed with open arms by the public just due to the nature of the IP alone, with little reason to put any money or effort into it.

That seemingly changed when they saw the backlash. It didn't scare them enough to cancel. But it was enough that they allegedly began to incrementally up budget, get some of the original Splash imagineers to help out, and take a good look at what people love about Splash. They have become aware that this project painted a huge target on their head, and I was told they are putting a lot of effort and pressure into trying to get it right to please as many people as possible. I argue they already flopped out the starting gate by even coming up with this project. But i've become curious enough that I want to see what they come up with as a solution.

I agree with everything here. I guess I am a bit curious on how Tiana will turn out, but I don't think it will match up to Splash. My stance was always "I don't care about the ride as long as the songs live". Well they killed the songs, which was mind-blogging to me, so I just don't care about Disney anymore. They've already fooled me once with Star Wars. Fine, they got me again, but you know how the old adage goes...

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

With that attitude then no ride or attraction would ever be rethemed because it's destroying "art."

So, let's restore Superstar Limo and respect the art!

As usual, you ignored half of that post.

Limo was so universally detested that it's considered one of the worst rides Disney ever created and didn't even last a year. Splash is the opposite. Considered one of their best, universally loved by the majority of guests, still commanding extremely long lines and one of the highest guest satisfaction ratings over three decades in.

Put in visual terms, Splash Mountain is the left (fittingly the damaged spots are also analogous to the current condition of the ride itself) and Superstar Limo is Monkey Christ-

 

[MisterPenguin]

Put in visual terms, Splash Mountain is the left

Yeah, that's the point. Splash *isn't* like the art on the left.

Claiming it's high art that needs preservation like a centuries-old fresco is quite the hyperbole.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Yeah, that's the point. Splash *isn't* like the art on the left.

Claiming it's high art that needs preservation like a centuries-old fresco is quite the hyperbole.

Not anywhere near as hyperbolic as you absurdly comparing Splash and Limo as equally unworthy of preservation. Do you legitimately not understand why Splash commands the level of high regard it gets, while something like Limo is reviled and remembered only as one of their worst rides?

I'm probably going to regret even asking you this question. Do you have ANYTHING personally very important to you that, while perhaps you wouldn't call it "high art", you want to prevent others from destroying? Don't bother answering by the way. If the answer is anything other than yes, you're lying. Everyone has something like that. Splash is like that for a ton of people.

Splash is an expression of great artistic creativity within its field. It is also loved by most people who visit the parks and considered one of Disney's best rides (among all theme parks for that matter). It doesn't matter if you consider it "high art" or not, it is a form of art with a huge fanbase. And it warrants preservation. That is all that should be said on this matter.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Not anywhere near as hyperbolic as you absurdly comparing Splash and Limo as equals, one just as worthy of keeping around as the other. Do you legitimately not understand why Splash commands the level of high regard it gets, while something like Limo doesn't?

I'm probably going to regret even asking you this question . Do you have ANYTHING personally very important to you that, while perhaps you wouldn't call it "high art", you want to prevent others from destroying? Don't bother answering by the way. If the answer is anything other than yes, you're lying. Everyone has something like that. Splash is like that for a ton of people.

Splash is an expression of great artistic creativity within its realm. It is also loved by most people who visit the parks and considered one of Disney's best rides (among all theme parks for that matter). It doesn't matter if you consider it "high art" or not, it warrants preservation. That is all that should be said on this matter.

The bolded is a really intense oversimplification of the Splash Mountain situation.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

The bolded is a really intense oversimplification of the Splash Mountain situation.

It really isn't. Unless you're referring to the political motivations behind this change. In which case, i'm not interested in arguing that nonsense anymore and not taking that bait. It always just leads to a bunch of baseless accusations that disappear as soon as the mods wake up.

Splash Mountain is at its core a fantastic ride that the vast majority of park goers love. And yes, it certainly has earned becoming a permanent attraction. 30 years on, I can't even think of a single thing that needs "plussing" (just bring back routine maintenance). I think i've been pretty polite and even headed about this overhaul thus far, but the fact remains that getting rid of the ride is itself a massive mistake. That's the entire problem.

Give Tiana her own purpose-built ride. It's a win-win in that case. We won't lose an already A+ ride and the park would see a net gain to its capacity. If a hypothetical new build Tiana is also a good ride, that's another plus. Has a better chance too without being constrained to the limitations of an existing layout that it was never designed for. Unless they don't think they can create something that can stand on its own without destroying something else in the process.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Yeah, that's the point. Splash *isn't* like the art on the left.

Claiming it's high art that needs preservation like a centuries-old fresco is quite the hyperbole.

It’s popular art, which is every bit as valuable and worthy of preservation, celebration, and study as “high” art - just like comics or commercial film or television (or Shakespeare or Dickens in their day, before they were deified and their popular roots forgotten). Going on about the unique value of “high art” makes you sound like a wealthy dowager outraged by Groucho’s antics.

And yes, acknowledging theme parks as art presents unique challenges. There has to be some sort of balance between the need for preservation in some form and the reality that theme parks thrive on change. No one has seriously tried to have these discussions at a meaningful level. In general, the issue has been left to a largely unspoken agreement between fans and corporations that certain landmark attractions should be more or less left untouched. That agreement isn’t tenable in the long run, and at some point academics, fans, and other stakeholders will begin to consider the matter more seriously, as they have with other forms of popular art.

Splash highlights the problem because of its unique status as a masterpiece of the form that has become socially problematic. I don’t really have answers regarding how to properly deal with theme park art, I just know that we need to start considering the question more seriously.

 

[tl77]

It really isn't. Unless you're referring to the political motivations behind this change. In which case, i'm not interested in arguing that nonsense anymore and not taking that bait. It always just leads to a bunch of baseless accusations that disappear as soon as the mods wake up.

Splash Mountain is at its core a fantastic ride that the vast majority of park goers love. And yes, it certainly has earned becoming a permanent attraction. 30 years on, I can't even think of a single thing that needs "plussing" (just bring back routine maintenance). I think i've been pretty polite and even headed about this overhaul thus far, but the fact remains that getting rid of the ride is itself a massive mistake. That's the entire problem.

Give Tiana her own purpose-built ride. It's a win-win in that case. We won't lose an already A+ ride and the park would see a net gain to its capacity. If a hypothetical new build Tiana is also a good ride, that's another plus. Has a better chance too without being constrained to the limitations of an existing layout that it was never designed for. Unless they don't think they can create something that can stand on its own without destroying something else in the process.

I totally agree with you, Tiana should get her own little land. The north side of The Rivers of America have plenty of space for New Orleans Square, that could be, and really "Should" be an equivalent space for her to the new Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and Seven Dwarfs Mine Train section of Fantasyland.

The problem with Splash Mountain is basically the same problem they had with Alien Encounter, "some people loved it, and other people found it upsetting and felt it didn't belong in the Magic Kingdom." ...but the solution they came up with, to swap out the unpleasant alien with the more comedic Stitch, pleased no one, and really didn't put Stitch in a very good light either. I like Stitch, I think he's a fun character, and he should of got his own great attraction instead of being used as a "band aid" to fix a problematic attraction.

I was a teenager when Splash Mountain opened, and I grew up watching Song of the South on local TV. Every Saturday or Sunday afternoon one of the local TV station in Philadelphia, where I'm from, would play old kids movies. Each week it would be something different, Mary Poppins this weekend, Willy Wonka the next, then Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Swiss Family Robinson, Davy Crockett, so on... Song of the South was one of the films in that rotation, it was also one of the oldest films in that line up, and like Old Yeller and Johnny Tremain it had this heavy moral to it, and it was kind of going out of style in the early to mid 1980's. I thought it was really strange Disney chose to build a huge theme park attraction based on it at the time they did, but it's a really beautiful attraction...

The point is, I understand why people are uncomfortable with the Song of the South characters, but also I think Splash Mountain as a whole could still work with out those characters. A few years ago I went through Pirates of the Caribbean with my 3 young nieces, and when we got to the original auction scene it was uncomfortable, I could tell our 3 young girls didn't understand what was happening, and felt like "that scene" probably need to be changed... but not the entire ride need to be changed.

The core experience of Pirates of the Caribbean, which people love, still works, that one aspect needed to be reworked... and I think completely changing Splash Mountain because of a few out dated characters is a mistake, it's to me the biggest mistake since the altered Imagination and tore down Horizons... and Tiana will probably get a lot of ill will like Eric Idle and Stitch do, or like Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway does, which is a shame

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

It really isn't. Unless you're referring to the political motivations behind this change. In which case, i'm not interested in arguing that nonsense anymore and not taking that bait. It always just leads to a bunch of baseless accusations that disappear as soon as the mods wake up.

Splash Mountain is at its core a fantastic ride that the vast majority of park goers love. And yes, it certainly has earned becoming a permanent attraction. 30 years on, I can't even think of a single thing that needs "plussing" (just bring back routine maintenance). I think i've been pretty polite and even headed about this overhaul thus far, but the fact remains that getting rid of the ride is itself a massive mistake. That's the entire problem.

Give Tiana her own purpose-built ride. It's a win-win in that case. We won't lose an already A+ ride and the park would see a net gain to its capacity. If a hypothetical new build Tiana is also a good ride, that's another plus. Has a better chance too without being constrained to the limitations of an existing layout that it was never designed for. Unless they don't think they can create something that can stand on its own without destroying something else in the process.

I'm not baiting you into anything. I'm saying that insisting Splash Mountain is deserving of "preservation" in a form where that does not exist misses realities that are in some cases obvious and in other cases complex.

Not to mention that insisting you somehow have the final word on the matter is . . . troubling. But I'm really not interested in opening any discourse with you on this, only suggesting your posts here might be worthy of some self reflection.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

I'm not baiting you into anything. I'm saying that insisting Splash Mountain is deserving of "preservation" in a form where that does not exist misses realities that are in some cases obvious and in other cases complex.

Not to mention that insisting you somehow have the final word on the matter is . . . troubling. But I'm really not interested in opening any discourse with you on this, only suggesting your posts here might be worthy of some self reflection.

"Troubling" would be removing a ride that needs no improvement aside from basic upkeep and is as well loved and high on the guest satisfaction rating as Splash. Not me just stating the obvious on the general consensus about the ride and its importance.

Disney are responsible for deciding the preservation status of park attractions. I would personally strongly argue that they shouldn't be the sole (or even primary) voice in this matter. The people paying for the tickets should have far more of a say in matters like this. We've lost a tremendous amount of incredible experiences because of a lack of preservation. We could use more of it than currently exists.

 

[Midwest Elitist]

"Troubling" would be removing a ride that needs no improvement aside from basic upkeep and is as well loved and high on the guest satisfaction rating as Splash. Not me just stating the obvious on the general consensus about the ride and its importance.

Disney are responsible for deciding the preservation status of park attractions. I would personally strongly argue that they shouldn't be the sole (or even primary) voice in this matter. The people paying for the tickets should have far more of a say in matters like this. We've lost a tremendous amount of incredible experiences because of a lack of preservation. We could use more of it than currently exists.

My point wasn't even that Splash had to be preserved in it's current state, it was just easy for the Disney Defense Force© to attack that simplification. So I will break it down so I don't get railroaded by logical fallacies:
Disney rides are experiences that people are very fond of, worldwide. So when you say "We are changing literally the most popular ride in the most popular theme park because of <reason, not playing this game>", it's expected that you understand it's serious. But what we've heard and seen is that they believed they could simply do an asset flip and call it a day, and all that's needed to justify it is <reason>. And even though they have increased the budget, they are still pushing that primary <reason> as a key feature of the ride. Splash didn't do this. It told a simple story, linked it with ride elements, didn't shove anything in your face.
But what really puts a bad taste in my mouth is the slimyness of "lol it's a new ride coming in 2024" corporate PR BS. HELLO!? The ride EXISTS currently. We're not stupid. The Streisand effect is an hilarious thing, these people don't learn.
We're fond of this attraction, Disney. So we expect you to give us something special in return. Which means you need to spend $$$$$$$$ on this retheme.
The expectations are overwhelming, they bit off more than they could chew, and I don't feel bad for them.