I hear you on what you're saying. You are absolutely right and all of this is panning out negatively on that subject even though it was not meant to. The issue - and should have been thought about more in-depth - is what Disney decided to replace for the representation of the subject. That was an absolutely horrible idea to replace Tiana in such an iconic and globally wellknown ride that was loved by all. Disney pretty much welcomed/quasi-induced the hate for this by unwantingly shoving her down peoples' throats when nobody asked for it - this way. Absolutely, Tiana and the representation deserves a ride but they should've given her the respect of giving her her own ride. Disney approached this in such a drastic, aggressive very poorly planned way. They wanted to cover up the roots of a mistake they made a very long time ago by replacing it with something that - people like - but nobody wanted it to replace what people love. Even if someone likes something, it doesn't mean they want it to replace what they love. They made us choose and incited a divide (seemingly, without understanding the political implications it could have pertaining to the subject matter they are trying to cover up???). The fault is not of Tiana or the subject-matter but of Disney and it being so out of touch with reality or it's consumers. I literally think there is a chance that this ride may not even open to the general public due to the massive backlash it's having. I think all this negativity is stemming from people are tired of Disney's disrespect towards the consumer (in many aspects of the company). It's a full circle - why did Disney remove one of the best rides in the world to poorly overlay it as a political agenda? And why didn't they deem her or the agenda more deserving of it's own ride system, show building, and way more thought out planning. Imagine how big of a win this would've been for Disney if they used the Beauty in the Beast ride system in a new show building specifically for Tiana with these same animatronics - while keeping splash mountain. Point being, Disney is pretty dumb now and makes no logical sense anymore.
Honestly, retheming Splash made sense when you view it from TWDC’s perspective (at least at Disneyland), as it would be much cheaper than building a new PATF ride AND they wanted to replace Splash at some point anyway.
PATF also really lends itself to a boat ride IMO given much of the film’s setting, as well as a classic book report ride with its fantastic music by Randy Newman. I’m having a hard time of thinking what IP would really work better over in Anaheim.
So, it killed a bunch of critters with one stone; while I was disappointed that we lost a literal masterpiece of an attraction, Splash (especially at Disneyland) really needed a large update and this promised us that. That was especially true as the project evolved into a larger scope and scale with proper funding.
Though at MK, the risk was always that because Splash was arguably the park’s best ride, it would impact the experience more there, for better or worse.
The problem is we got a ride that is almost ashamed to be a Princess and the Frog ride in an attempt to reinvent the wheel proving something to someone in the process, but I don’t know what. Book reports don’t work for everything: Star Wars, Harry Potter, Avatar, you name it. But PATF? It screams it, and Splash was already a “book report” set in a larger “world” you’re taking in. It’s world building like Pirates of the Caribbean but also with a plot. Does that not sound like something PATF could do?
Absolutely, at least from my point of view.
The world is pretty much self-contained in the film’s story and the path from movie to ride for that kind of film has already been paved, so a book report would’ve been a no brainer, easy A.
For TBA to have so little plot (while having a lot of dead space too), it’s also wildly unfocused on it, jumping around in really strange and unfashionable ways. It does appear as if they didn’t know what to do. I know saying that is like beating a dead horse at this point, but it couldn’t be more accurate. What a really weird project all around.
I’ve probably watched over a dozen POVs now—being sick in a hotel room most of the past few days. I really am trying to be as objective as possible: Splash wasn’t perfect, anyone that says so is kidding themselves, it was brilliantly designed however, but nowhere near up to modern standards, and didn't have anything on the beauty much of TBA’s interior now has. That, nor do cool robots make a ride, so it can only go so far. They are means to an end, but not
the means.
Splash did so much more with so much less in terms of technology and style. It just was exceptionally well put together with every piece of the ride informing the other. That’s not to say it wasn’t a colossally budgeted ride, it was, but despite its datedness it had a timeless sense to it.
But remarkably for TBA, they just seem to have struggled on the creative front after being boxed in with it not having a book report plot. In the same vein as Galaxy’s Edge being frozen in time between two polarizing films, though this is obviously even more impactful on the story (as Rise proved there could still be stories to tell there).
Something that I hadn’t considered that does help a lot is that I’m so familiar with the layout already, so it feels like I have a better grasp than I would if it was a completely new ride which makes it all the more disheartening. Excuse my dramatics, but it’s true.
I don’t even think Na’vi River Journey is that great of a ride, but the environments of TBA look like they are just as stunning. Except in the case of TBA, there’s nothing to look at. You’re supposed to focus on a couple of awkward AAs instead that are saying a lot of nothing, and doing a lot of nothing. The magic of it is it’s just supposed to be us watching an AA I guess. It just feels like a jumbled mess.
The great layout with a healthy dose of thrills and prettiness alone likely means TBA is not insufferable and it’ll still be fun to a degree, but holy is the sum of its parts painfully mediocre. I think what allows a ride to stand the test of time is if it can still function without just the shock and awe factor. Cosmic Rewind needed a good layout rather than just relying on its unique vehicle technology. Flight of Passage needed a good film to match the level of tech behind it as well.
Money didn’t end up being a large issue here like with Imagination 2/3.0 either. This is on Imagineering and other areas involved with creative choices. It also shows a lack of executive leadership and understanding for not reigning in on it.
That being said, I genuinely think the ship is being righted now over at the parks, post-TBA, but time will tell. I was hoping it would apply to this ride too, and while it appears to have not, there are a plethora of reasons to be optimistic overall if you love theme parks, so I wouldn’t let this bring you down entirely.
Again, don’t be surprised to see some changes made to Disneyland’s version because of MK (beyond the fact that it was made with DL’s in mind).
Remember when Universal upgraded
Jurassic World: The Ride over at Universal Hollywood after fans complained? Let’s see if Disney respects theirs as much. To me that speaks volumes about Uni, and because there’s so much work to be done on TBA in Anaheim at this point in the project, a lot—especially things like set placement—can still change if they want it to.
So in a way, I think it lets Disney off the hook by saying it was completely dead on arrival. They botched the execution is what happened just like when Test Track 2.0 was a downgraded from the original by favoring style and forgetting about the story—albeit one that is now being righted with 3.0. Let’s hope it doesn’t take a decade or two.
Though, in TBA’s case, I have to admit it is strange to have such a large PR emphasis on “storytelling” for it to completely lack it.
