mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Oh ok right right
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Tiana's Bayou Adventure: Disneyland Watch & Discussion
- Thread starter Californian Elitist
- Start date
Oh ok right right
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
What a silly thing to feign confusion over. Someone who’s 25 looks older than someone who’s 15 but isn’t old. Taylor Swift is older now than when she first came on the scene but isn’t old. Do I need to provide further examples to illustrate a distinction you understand perfectly well already?
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
So when people have been saying she looks older or old did you think they meant she looks 65 years old? I don’t think anyone is saying that. The point is that she looks like a Middle Aged mom not the young princess from the movie.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
I don’t think she looks middle-aged. So I hope you’ll now accept that we are indeed seeing and saying different things.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Oh that’s right. Just “mature.”
SuddenStorm
Well-Known Member
As someone who recently noticed their hair thinning- all this talk of old/older is hitting a bit close to home.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Lol just ride it out man! Don’t do anything drastic.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I don't think she looks old or middle-aged; I just don't think she looks that much like Tiana. If I didn't know it was supposed to be Tiana, I'm not sure I could identify her -- although admittedly the costume and different hairstyle don't help.
That said, I don't think it's a major concern. I think people will know it's Tiana when they're on the ride, and it's not going to have any significant effect on the overall quality of the attraction.
That said, I don't think it's a major concern. I think people will know it's Tiana when they're on the ride, and it's not going to have any significant effect on the overall quality of the attraction.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
I said she looks more mature, and I stand by that. Her outfit and hairstyle have a lot to do with it. But do I think she looks middle-aged? No, I don’t.
Speaking of maturity, you’re not displaying much of it in this exchange. Whereas I’m happy to leave you to your opinion—you’re perfectly entitled to view her as middle-aged if that’s how you see her—you seem intent on sarcastically ridiculing mine. It’s all so puerile and unnecessary.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
I think you might be reading me wrong.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
I wonder if it’s one of the downsides of using these more advanced animatronics. Tokyo’s Belle looks similarly off to me, though there her hair and dress are consistent with the film, making her easier to identify.
Consumer
Well-Known Member
Instead of constant bickering, let's actually compare the film to the animatronic.
The first and most obvious difference is the hair style. This has been discussed a lot but other than that Superman curl, the hair is very different than the cartoon. It's shorter, it's down instead of pulled back or in a bun, which is how Tiana is always seen wearing it. Changing the hair style would drastically help this figure, I imagine.
Second, and this is relating to the hair, but we cannot see Tiana's ears. Because we only ever see Tiana with her hair up or pulled back in the movie, we always see her ears. Here, her ears are hidden.
Third, the nose. This is just one of those tricky aspects of converting 2D to 3D. The animated Tiana has a wide but still subtle nose, giving only the nostrils and the ala. Obviously that's impossible to do when working with a three-dimensional figure, but the presence of the nose tip, especially being so prominent, makes it feel off.
Fourth, I mentioned this one a while back, but the lips are too thin. Tiana's lips are full and red, whereas the animatronics are thinner and more subdued. Additionally, and I will say fifthly, the lips are too wide as well as the entire face, making the figure seem less youthful.
Sixthly, the animatronic's eyebrows are ever so slightly wider than the animated version. Note how thin Tiana's eyebrows get closer to her ears in the cartoon where as the animatronic gets no where close to that.
Last point I'll make, at least comparing these two images, the animated Tiana appears to have more pronounced rouge on her cheeks, which seems consistent throughout the movie. This could, admittedly, be lighting, but the animatronic does not seem to have as strong of blush for the princess.
I think a big test for this attraction will be once we see the animatronic from this piece of concept art as the design seems much more consistent with what we're used to from the movie.
Anyway, that's my breakdown of the animatronic. I swear I'm not being hateful just to be hateful. I would genuinely love for this attraction to be great. Splash Mountain was fantastic and Princess and the Frog is one of Disney's best movies since the turn of the millennium. I just don't see much reason to expect this new ride to be anything to get excited about.
The first and most obvious difference is the hair style. This has been discussed a lot but other than that Superman curl, the hair is very different than the cartoon. It's shorter, it's down instead of pulled back or in a bun, which is how Tiana is always seen wearing it. Changing the hair style would drastically help this figure, I imagine.
Second, and this is relating to the hair, but we cannot see Tiana's ears. Because we only ever see Tiana with her hair up or pulled back in the movie, we always see her ears. Here, her ears are hidden.
Third, the nose. This is just one of those tricky aspects of converting 2D to 3D. The animated Tiana has a wide but still subtle nose, giving only the nostrils and the ala. Obviously that's impossible to do when working with a three-dimensional figure, but the presence of the nose tip, especially being so prominent, makes it feel off.
Fourth, I mentioned this one a while back, but the lips are too thin. Tiana's lips are full and red, whereas the animatronics are thinner and more subdued. Additionally, and I will say fifthly, the lips are too wide as well as the entire face, making the figure seem less youthful.
Sixthly, the animatronic's eyebrows are ever so slightly wider than the animated version. Note how thin Tiana's eyebrows get closer to her ears in the cartoon where as the animatronic gets no where close to that.
Last point I'll make, at least comparing these two images, the animated Tiana appears to have more pronounced rouge on her cheeks, which seems consistent throughout the movie. This could, admittedly, be lighting, but the animatronic does not seem to have as strong of blush for the princess.
I think a big test for this attraction will be once we see the animatronic from this piece of concept art as the design seems much more consistent with what we're used to from the movie.
Anyway, that's my breakdown of the animatronic. I swear I'm not being hateful just to be hateful. I would genuinely love for this attraction to be great. Splash Mountain was fantastic and Princess and the Frog is one of Disney's best movies since the turn of the millennium. I just don't see much reason to expect this new ride to be anything to get excited about.
Last edited:
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
Yeah, Belle doesn't look that great either (her face is too round), but I think she's more easily identifiable than Tiana.
That said, as you mention, the hair/dress have a significant effect.
PiratesMansion
Well-Known Member
No, but I don't think it's bold to say that some people are being a bit, well, extra about this particular change. And I suppose it's not a shock, as many people have been extra this entire time about this particular topic. I'm still not convinced that it's because Splash was the bestest and most unique attraction in the history of ever, as it is often framed, but whatever. People are going to think what they're going to think at this point. And if people continue to air their grievances over every single thing announced for this ride, there's nothing wrong with myself or others voicing that we just don't understand the level of vitriol every piece of news related to this project offers.
Just as you look in and post in a variety of threads, I do the same, which sometimes means I end up here, naturally enough. It's not like there's anything else definitive and coming soon on the horizon, you know. And as news dries up, as people leave this side of the boards and/or posting in forums in general, and the number of people posting on this forum visiting the parks on a regular basis seems to shrink, we've ended up with a fairly concentrated set of topics. There are only so many active places to be on this side of the forum at this point in time.
And if people can comment about whether or not my posts fit whatever criterion is in their head (as they have, and I imagine will continue to do so), I surely have a right to do the same. If you don't care for my content, you likewise have the option to ignore it and move on.
SuddenStorm
Well-Known Member
Great breakdown. The only thing I disagree with is your last sentence about wanting this ride to be good. I want this ride to tank, for a few reasons.
It replaced my all time favorite attraction, and because of that my interest in Disneyland is significantly reduced.
Princess and the Frog is a great film, and inherently timeless because it's hand drawn. It deserves better than a reskinned flume. It should have gotten an incredible sit down restaurant attached to a world class dark ride.
And, I think Mission Breakout started a dangerous trend. I want this to tank so bad that Disney is scared to retheme any other major attraction for a few decades.
Alanzo
Well-Known Member
"Well, little girl, you might have liked that ride you just went on but that's only because you are too young, too naive, and quite frankly, too stupid to look at the animatronics closer and realize that Tiana's hair has been cut and her face seems more aligned with a middle aged woman struggling to deal with her mother's declining health and her own questions about her existential purpose and her inevitable, inescapable death.
No, little girl, she's not --old-- per say, but she's no longer young, and shame on Disney and more importantly shame on you for not being more alarmed about this."
No, little girl, she's not --old-- per say, but she's no longer young, and shame on Disney and more importantly shame on you for not being more alarmed about this."
Consumer
Well-Known Member
Fair points.
Yeah this might surprise you but satisfying little girls should not be the standard of a multibillion dollar theme park industry.
SuddenStorm
Well-Known Member
Yep- something that appeals to a narrow demographic shouldn't be a major headliner for the park. Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique and Pixie Hollow are perfect examples of building something that appeals to a narrow demographic (elementary aged girls) without taking up an insane amount of space.
Splash, Space, Matterhorn, Thunder, Incredicoaster, MB, Soarin', etc appeal to both boys and girls of all ages, assuming they meet the height requirement.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
My kids have so many toys. But to them, nothing beats an empty box.