Tiana's Bayou Adventure: Disneyland Watch & Discussion

[SplashGhost]

He certainly isn’t landing this Zoomer. And all my fellow Zoomer friends who I’ve recommended the Disney Parks to for years, defending them above all else? I’ll be telling them to go to Universal instead when Super Nintendo World opens.

Nothing personal, just better bang for your buck over there.

I am glad to hear that, I feel like recent changes were to market towards the Instagram Influencer crowd, especially with Chapek's obsession with things being "instagrammable." Of course, Zoomers can also fall into the same group that I am in with loving the Disney Parks for the deep personal connections, but sadly Chapek isn't going after anyone that feels that way. He is just going after food and merch sales, and trying to make things feel trendy.

But Josh says we love it because it’s more Contemporary

Disneyland should not feel Contemporary in the slightest, outside arguably Tomorrowland. If anything on the West side of the park feels Contemporary, it is a massive failure compared to how Disneyland should feel.

 

[PiratesMansion]

Disney has targeted all my favorite 90s attractions. It's as though they see this era as entirely expendable.

Which ones?

The nineties attractions have been better preserved than average. Other than WDW's Splash and potentially Alien Encounter I can't think of a single one that closed or is in danger of closing.

 

[mickEblu]

On my way home tonight I saw an old ROTR billboard that’s right near my house. You know the one with the transport vehicle and the two AT-ATs. I can’t help but feel like that scene didn’t live up to expectations. You can tell they thought it was going to be this new age Star Wars Version of the Battle Ship scene from POTC yet it just didn’t deliver for me. Granted, I was impressed by the scale (and Scared by the House of Wax Finn AA) but I was also exhausted and delirious from a very long/ anxiety filled day waiting for my boarding group 107 to be called. I think I got on the ride at around midnight and woke up at 5:30 am that day. Maybe it all just happens so fast? Anyway I wonder is it the execution that’s lacking or the theme for me? As human beings we can relate to caverns and bayous/ water and spooky houses. Then Disney puts their fantasy spin on it of course but its all still more relatable. More so than a sterile space ship with giant robots. Maybe it’s not even the fact it’s not relatable but more so that it’s just not interesting or provocative?

 

[mickEblu]

I am glad to hear that, I feel like recent changes were to market towards the Instagram Influencer crowd, especially with Chapek's obsession with things being "instagrammable." Of course, Zoomers can also fall into the same group that I am in with loving the Disney Parks for the deep personal connections, but sadly Chapek isn't going after anyone that feels that way. He is just going after food and merch sales, and trying to make things feel trendy.



Disneyland should not feel Contemporary in the slightest, outside arguably Tomorrowland. If anything on the West side of the park feels Contemporary, it is a massive failure compared to how Disneyland should feel.

Not even Tomorrowland. TL should feel futuristic and pretty much every other land takes place in a romanticized version of the past except Toontown. Not liking that boat on a tree on the west side of the park. Completely out of place.

 

[SplashGhost]

Not even Tomorrowland. TL should feel futuristic and pretty much every other land takes place in a romanticized version of the past except Toontown. Not liking that boat on a tree on the west side of the park. Completely out of place.

I agree that Tomorrowland should feel futuristic, but I can see how some people might argue that it could have more contemporary elements in it than the rest of the park, since its original intention was to predict the actual, real future.

Not to veer things off topic, but I think the best course for a Tomorrowland redo is to base it off the idea of what people in the 50s and 60s thought the future would be like. Making the land themed to retrofuturism would help it remain more timeless.

 

[mickEblu]

I agree that Tomorrowland should feel futuristic, but I can see how some people might argue that it could have more contemporary elements in it than the rest of the park, since its original intention was to predict the actual, real future.

Not to veer things off topic, but I think the best course for a Tomorrowland redo is to base it off the idea of what people in the 50s and 60s thought the future would be like. Making the land themed to retrofuturism would help it remain more timeless.

I agree and was very happy when I first saw the concept art for the new entrance. Of course, even then I was worried if they would fully commit. Now we can probably forget about anything at all for the next 5 years or more. I think the key is they should make TL be like what we hope the future to be and not what we think it will be. In that way, it can never be outdated.

 

[SplashGhost]

I agree and was very happy when I first saw the concept art for the new entrance. Of course, even then I was worried if they would fully commit. Now we can probably forget about anything at all for the next 5 years or more. I think the key is they should make TL be like what we hope the future to be and not what we think it will be. In that way, it can never be outdated.

We will probably never reach the ideal future in real life, but it would be great if we could visit an ideal future in Disneyland. I was hoping some major changes were on the way for the better after all the enhancements around the entrance, but they were likely delayed for several more years or dropped entirely once they realized that the shutdown would be long lasting.

 

[el_super]

Many people scoffed at this viewpoint back in January, but I do think there's something to it. When 4/5 of Disneyland's opening areas in 1955 clearly were designed to evoke it, and has gone on to affect so much of what the company has built since then, that's not an aspect of the park experience that can just be tossed aside as though it's nothing.

I will point out again that people have been complaining about classics being removed, and nostalgia being lost for 30 to 40 years now, and the places has still performed exceptionally well and gained even more fans and follows in that time.

This may be hard to hear or understand, but there is a huge gap in the concept of what Disneyland is between the fan community and between the broader group of people who like going to Disneyland but don't usually think about it all that much. The fan community will always weigh the value of the experience in the minute details of the tangible experience: how many rides a park has, how many animatronics a show has, which imagineer worked on which ride and which ones are connected to Walt. But the broader audience, the one that Disneyland was really built for, doesn't care about any of that at all. They go because they want to spend time with their family. They go because their kids like meeting the characters and they can post the pictures on Facebook. They go because the rides are fun to go on. Because the rides are thrilling or have cool effects or some character the kids like.

In short: they do not think about things in any detail and as soon as they leave, they are done thinking about Disneyland for another year.

I think we all generally understand that, as long as the Frog ride is good, people will ride it and not care that Splash was removed. As long as the ride is still evoking the same feelings as the original (being fun, thrilling, innovative, etc), people can still feel nostalgic when riding it, because it's the feelings it evokes that they are pining for, not the specific animatronics, the paint, or the art direction. And to expand that to the broader concept: as long as the core reason people visit Disneyland remains the same (the nostalgia for being with your family and friends) then it doesn't really matter which attractions they end up removing or replacing.

 

[waltography]

On my way home tonight I saw an old ROTR billboard that’s right near my house. You know the one with the transport vehicle and the two AT-ATs. I can’t help but feel like that scene didn’t live up to expectations. You can tell they thought it was going to be this new age Star Wars Version of the Battle Ship scene from POTC yet it just didn’t deliver for me.

To me at least, they hit that beat very early on in the experience in the transition from the ITS to the Star Destroyer hangar; the confined space opening up to a vast vista coupled with the subversion of the "in one door, out the other" trope for pre-shows is one of my favorite things in any Disney attraction.

I totally get where you're coming from regarding more natural settings, though, and I think that's why the meandering path from Hungry Bear to ROTR kind of fails spectacularly as an interesting area because it's not a particularly fantastical/Disneyesque interpretation of nature.

 

[mickEblu]

I will point out again that people have been complaining about classics being removed, and nostalgia being lost for 30 to 40 years now, and the places has still performed exceptionally well and gained even more fans and follows in that time.

This may be hard to hear or understand, but there is a huge gap in the concept of what Disneyland is between the fan community and between the broader group of people who like going to Disneyland but don't usually think about it all that much. The fan community will always weigh the value of the experience in the minute details of the tangible experience: how many rides a park has, how many animatronics a show has, which imagineer worked on which ride and which ones are connected to Walt. But the broader audience, the one that Disneyland was really built for, doesn't care about any of that at all. They go because they want to spend time with their family. They go because their kids like meeting the characters and they can post the pictures on Facebook. They go because the rides are fun to go on. Because the rides are thrilling or have cool effects or some character the kids like.

In short: they do not think about things in any detail and as soon as they leave, they are done thinking about Disneyland for another year.

I think we all generally understand that, as long as the Frog ride is good, people will ride it and not care that Splash was removed. As long as the ride is still evoking the same feelings as the original (being fun, thrilling, innovative, etc), people can still feel nostalgic when riding it, because it's the feelings it evokes that they are pining for, not the specific animatronics, the paint, or the art direction. And to expand that to the broader concept: as long as the core reason people visit Disneyland remains the same (the nostalgia for being with your family and friends) then it doesn't really matter which attractions they end up removing or replacing.

Some good points. However, do you think that Pixar Pier creates those same feelings as Fantasyland? If it does for the GP, then Disneyland fans are screwed. I’d like to think that things will decline by degrees to the point where the GP does begin to notice the difference. If Disneyland eventually feels like going to a Universal park will it still feel special? When everything is irreverent and contemporary?

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

The problem with the walker scene is the walkers don't look that big. They look squat and fat, as if they based it on the toy for the Kenner dolls and not the actual movie ones.

One of these looks towering and imposing and the other two look squat and fat.

 

[mickEblu]

To me at least, they hit that beat very early on in the experience in the transition from the ITS to the Star Destroyer hangar; the confined space opening up to a vast vista coupled with the subversion of the "in one door, out the other" trope for pre-shows is one of my favorite things in any Disney attraction.

I totally get where you're coming from regarding more natural settings, though, and I think that's why the meandering path from Hungry Bear to ROTR kind of fails spectacularly as an interesting area because it's not a particularly fantastical/Disneyesque interpretation of nature.

That ITS pre show was definitely one of the highlights for me. Although I’m not sure how repeatable that will be.

 

[mickEblu]

I will point out again that people have been complaining about classics being removed, and nostalgia being lost for 30 to 40 years now, and the places has still performed exceptionally well and gained even more fans and follows in that time.

This may be hard to hear or understand, but there is a huge gap in the concept of what Disneyland is between the fan community and between the broader group of people who like going to Disneyland but don't usually think about it all that much. The fan community will always weigh the value of the experience in the minute details of the tangible experience: how many rides a park has, how many animatronics a show has, which imagineer worked on which ride and which ones are connected to Walt. But the broader audience, the one that Disneyland was really built for, doesn't care about any of that at all. They go because they want to spend time with their family. They go because their kids like meeting the characters and they can post the pictures on Facebook. They go because the rides are fun to go on. Because the rides are thrilling or have cool effects or some character the kids like.

In short: they do not think about things in any detail and as soon as they leave, they are done thinking about Disneyland for another year.

I think we all generally understand that, as long as the Frog ride is good, people will ride it and not care that Splash was removed. As long as the ride is still evoking the same feelings as the original (being fun, thrilling, innovative, etc), people can still feel nostalgic when riding it, because it's the feelings it evokes that they are pining for, not the specific animatronics, the paint, or the art direction. And to expand that to the broader concept: as long as the core reason people visit Disneyland remains the same (the nostalgia for being with your family and friends) then it doesn't really matter which attractions they end up removing or replacing.

Also you re only focusing on what the result with the GP will be and not what the result of the park as a place will be. Most of these changes are just objectively not good if one is interested In quality story telling and theme park design. Things Disney used to prioritize before instagrammable moments. We know it’s all still possible because OLC is still doing it in Tokyo.

 

[mickEblu]

The problem with the walker scene is the walkers don't look that big. They look squat and fat, as if they based it on the toy for the Kenner dolls and not the actual movie ones.

View attachment 484518

View attachment 484519

One of these looks towering and imposing and the other two look squat and fat.

I’m not sure if them being taller would make me feel any different but I see what you re saying. I think the real issue is that they re not threatening. You re not in danger of them lifting their leg up and stomping you to death. They re just standing there like the Storm Trooper mannequins in the hangar.

 

[waltography]

The problem with the walker scene is the walkers don't look that big. They look squat and fat, as if they based it on the toy for the Kenner dolls and not the actual movie ones.

View attachment 484518

View attachment 484519

One of these looks towering and imposing and the other two look squat and fat.

I think part of the squat, flat feeling is also the result of the ceiling being far too close to the height of the AT-ATs. They aren't big anyway, and putting them in this cramped room is doing no favors.

 

[BuzzedPotatoHead89]

It is starting to annoy me that OLC does Disney parks better than Disney. It’s annoying to be a fan of product that is being overshadowed in Japan for the last 20 years. Everything they seem to do is with quality first in mind. Kind of like how it used to be here.

if this annoys you, you should see Japan’s approach to Pandemic preparedness.

Which ones?

The nineties attractions have been better preserved than average. Other than WDW's Splash and potentially Alien Encounter I can't think of a single one that closed or is in danger of closing.

I don’t know if I’d call them “90s attractions” but I do feel like the rotating changes to Star Tours, elimination of attraction several of us “90s kids” grew up on, be it Country Bears, the nightly MSEP, and even the bones of the ‘67 Tomorrowland were all stinging.

Given the legendary nature of Splash I can truly see why even these changes barely measure up to the level of cutting Splash Mountain. I began to think that it would be slashed to make way for a “contemporary” franchise given Iger’s disdain for SOTS. I also still think P&TF was a far more appealing franchise than most as it was fitting to the bayou theme and showboat finale.

While I still hold out hope that there is a possibility this could be a net positive I am also hoping this project is delayed in both parks and sees a similar fate as SE at Epcot. Primarily because I don’t believe the company’s current budget will support an equally sufficient quality attraction in this current form.

I think part of the problem with this “repeal and replace” attitude at TWDC also speaks to the issue with trying to appeal to pass holders that use the park as a regular playground. Of course they’re going to get bored of “old stuff”, because as much as I love the parks I’d be counting the cracks on the pavement too if I were there 4 times a week.

In these financial times it seems prudent to wait and give fans rightly deserved and sufficiently timed “final goodbye” given that the parks will need to rely heavily on nostalgia to maybe bring back your once and twice a year visitors who arguably spend more per capita. Heck, maybe once this pandemic is over even your “AP regulars” and instagram influencers on their 3,000th ride will realize the ride isn’t as objectionable as they remember in retrospect, since they say absence makes the heart grow fonder.

 

[Californian Elitist]

On my way home tonight I saw an old ROTR billboard that’s right near my house. You know the one with the transport vehicle and the two AT-ATs. I can’t help but feel like that scene didn’t live up to expectations. You can tell they thought it was going to be this new age Star Wars Version of the Battle Ship scene from POTC yet it just didn’t deliver for me. Granted, I was impressed by the scale (and Scared by the House of Wax Finn AA) but I was also exhausted and delirious from a very long/ anxiety filled day waiting for my boarding group 107 to be called. I think I got on the ride at around midnight and woke up at 5:30 am that day. Maybe it all just happens so fast? Anyway I wonder is it the execution that’s lacking or the theme for me? As human beings we can relate to caverns and bayous/ water and spooky houses. Then Disney puts their fantasy spin on it of course but its all still more relatable. More so than a sterile space ship with giant robots. Maybe it’s not even the fact it’s not relatable but more so that it’s just not interesting or provocative?

Nothing about the ride lived up to general expectations. The entire land is disappointing and without character.

 

[tirian]

Nothing about the ride lived up to general expectations. The entire land is disappointing and without character.

This thread is a fascinating look at the West Coast perspective. Meanwhile, at the DL-centric Chatty place for Mice, the official entries are weak, meaningless shill pieces that push bad decisions, ugly paint jobs, and merch sales. I’m glad to see you guys picking up the mantle for meaningful DL discussion.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

They should have just gotten real and accepted that the vast majority of people going into a Star War land weren't interested in the Disney trilogy. There's little to no demand for these new characters and the movies are very rapidly fading away. Turns out I wasn't in the minority not buying into this crap. Where's Luke, Han, Darth Vader? Where's the fun?? It's ironic that the land looks like a garbage dump.

 

[Brer Oswald]

They should have just gotten real and accepted that the vast majority of people going into a Star War land weren't interested in the Disney trilogy. There's little to no demand for these new characters and the movies are very rapidly fading away. Turns out I wasn't in the minority not buying into this crap. Where's Luke, Han, Darth Vader? Where's the fun?? It's ironic that the land looks like a garbage dump.

I’m all for creating new ideas and scenarios, but you have to hit the right amount of iconography that even the most casual observers like me will know what’s going on.

Like what if they did a section that was the Ewok Forest, and at the end of it you have a Launch Base for the Death Star. And then, have a ride where you board those floating bikes in the forest, travel to that Death Star, and prevent it from launching. I’m not sure if that makes sense to you Star Wars Fans. I just thought it was a cool idea mixed with iconic imagery from the films people care about.