Tiana's Bayou Adventure: Disneyland Watch & Discussion

[_caleb]

All of them. Every Splash figure was in sync with the audio when fully working. Even Br'er Bear would move his head to simulate his laughing or yelling in pain.

The AAs without eyelids blinked their eyes? I'd love to see that!

Great point in regards to the Florida/ Tokyo AAs but why does it matter how they got there? The point is they there were there and the ride was better for it. I guess he’s trying to say you can’t fault TBA for not having as many high quality animatronics. Your point about the Florida AAs shuts that down pretty quick but I’m left wondering why we should care?

Shuts it down? I was making observations, not arguments. It may not matter to you. The comparisons between Splash and TBA AAs are something I find interesting, and I'd love to discuss this with people who also find it interesting.

 

[_caleb]

The ones in Florida and Tokyo were newly designed animatronics for Splash. They reused similar character designs from America Sings, but they also weren’t one to one copies. Many were posed quite differently as well, such as the Geese that were fishing in Florida (they did not fish in California because they weren’t deigned to do so in America Sings).

Yeah, I've never made it to DL Tokyo, but I hear they're really well done.

In the video I just looked at, they seem to be electric, not hydraulic. Do you know if that's true?

 

[mickEblu]

'm not trying to steer the conversation. I'm trying to compare as we evaluate, is all.

All of the AAs in TBA, limited-motion and A1000, are electric and benefit from the improved technology of electric motors and digital programming. The limited-motion ones have fewer points of articulation--sometimes only one or two

ou seem to be comparing as though there were only two types: "actual AAs" OR "back and forth + moving figures/props." But Splash had many AAs, and they ranged from no-articulation to many points of articulation.

TBA likewise has a range of types, from the A-1000 (which you number at 12-ish), down to the frogs in the shrinking scenes, and the back-and-forth rocking ones in the band.

So you can see why I'm confused. You've been referring to all of the figures in TBA as electric AA's. In the post (below) of mine you responded to (also below) I was specifically speaking about the limited motion figures and your responded speaking about electric AA's.

I agree with all this except your last line. I do not find the figures in TBA to be nicer or have better costuming than the AAs on Splash. Moving faster is also irrelevant. Rocking back n forth faster is not a point of advantage over the old AAs

Not faster, but maybe more fluid. With electric AAs, the movement acceleration/deceleration is variable, which improves on the jerkiness of old-fashioned AAs. Notice how the timing of the drummers' arms differs between left and right? I think this is sufficient to provide the illusion of playing the drums.

From my understanding the only AA's on TBA are the Tiana's, Mama Odies and Louis'. The rest are considered figures if I'm not mistaken.

I keep bringing them up because I think they are very special, and I see that's how some are evaluating TBA ("TBA's critters aren't Splash-level!"). But in some sense, I think those AAs were wasted on Splash because (except when there was a log jam), the blinking eyes weren't noticed by guests.

It's the part you say that they were wasted on Splash that throws me off. The blinking eyes aren't the only things that made them more special than the figures in TBA. They were much more detailed, charming (I know I know - subjective) and had more articulation. To me it's just feels like you are saying this to justify the lower quality figures in TBA. Almost as if to say let's not fault TBA because they overdelivered with Splash. It's kind of a really twisted way to give Disney a pass on underdelivering with those critter figures on TBA.

 

[mickEblu]

The AAs without eyelids blinked their eyes? I'd love to see that!

Shuts it down? I was making observations, not arguments. It may not matter to you. The comparisons between Splash and TBA AAs are something I find interesting, and I'd love to discuss this with people who also find it interesting.

sorry did "shut it down" come off aggressive? Didn't mean for it to.

 

[zipadee999]

Articulation aside (the Splash critters for the most part were vastly more complex than anything found on TBA with the exception of the main characters), I feel like the character designs really suffered here. The Marc Davis character designs felt like a natural progression of a 2D design made three-dimensional, and the characters were loaded with charm and emotion simply at the visual level. The TBA critters look like bad high school mascot costumes or fur suits you’d see at comic-con. They have no charm, character, or defining qualities. Most of them look like Disney went on Amazon, searched “Bear mascot suit,” and then placed the costume on a swaying mechanism.

 

[EagleScout610]

Articulation aside (the Splash critters for the most part were vastly more complex than anything found on TBA with the exception of the main characters), I feel like the character designs really suffered here. The Marc Davis character designs felt like a natural progression of a 2D design made three-dimensional, and the characters were loaded with charm and emotion simply at the visual level. The TBA critters look like bad high school mascot costumes or fur suits you’d see at comic-con. They have no charm, character, or defining qualities. Most of them look like Disney went on Amazon, searched “Bear mascot suit,” and then placed the costume on a swaying mechanism.

My biggest problem with the bear scene is the random fox next to them. The bears I understand since they're supposed to be a family, but the fox looks like the result of this sort of discussion:

[Imagineer 1] "Uh, we've installed all the figures except this fox. What should we do with it?"
[Imagineer 2] "Just put it anywhere"
[1] "Well, there's space next to the bears"
[2] "Perfect! That's lunch!"

 

[flynnibus]

And they found 4 bands doing this on the same day too! On the evening they needed them! Amazing.

Like I said before... if they wanted to tell a getting the band back together story... They should have watched The Blues Brothers first

 

[flynnibus]

They're completely different systems, and hydraulics are messy, require a lot of maintenance, and are much more limited in their movement. I imagine Disney was happy to rip out all the hoses and be done with oil leaks.

The biggest driver for the electric and solid state is SIZE. The electric systems can be lighter and smaller. Lighter animation elements -> less structure needed for the figure and less powerful components to drive it. The lighter the figure, the simpler controlling motion is too. Weight has a compounding effect in robotics and show elements.

 

[flynnibus]

Splash was awesome and benefitted from the America Sings figures. TBA was designed without those, and WDI went with these limited motion electric figures

Read that aloud to yourself... You're saying Splash got to benefit from 15yr old AA figures.. while TBA being designed from scratch for AA figures... somehow was at a disadvantage?

Disney was recycling.. and avoiding new investment... not giving Splash some special advantage... In contrast where TBA was designed with nearly 50yrs of advancement from those America Sings days.. and here you're saying Splash had an advantage over TBA because of them...

I personally feel these streamlined figures were simply a creative choice.. they are distinctively crude as it were intentional vs their 'hero' figures... and the animation style is more true to the classic dark ride. Problem is when you mix in slick adjacent to basic.. without the right setting... they stand out more. Plus, when you lost so much of the SCALE Splash had.. the choice stands out even more.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

The animal figures on TBA are embarrassing. Worst of all is that they literally just made copies of them and plopped the same ones in the finale...including that annoying little bear who's looking off to the side in both scenes. Honestly, they all look kind of soulless to me, and the fact that they just rock back and forth is extremely disappointing. If there's one thing WDI used to do well, it was animatronic animals singing and dancing. This is just embarrassing.

 

[mickEblu]

Honestly, they all look kind of soulless to me, and the fact that they just rock back and forth is extremely disappointing.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Yeah, I've never made it to DL Tokyo, but I hear they're really well done.

In the video I just looked at, they seem to be electric, not hydraulic. Do you know if that's true?

I’m pretty sure they’re pneumatic? Might be harder to maintain (in theory) compared to electric, but there are some benefits to using them (likely performs better in the more humid show buildings, and less frequent maintenance required). Plus, the Tokyo ones look as fluid as any other well maintained animatronic. They are really impressive.

 

[Brer Oswald]

So you've said. Obviously some of the Rabbit AAs were more animated than others. Which one had the blinking eyes and perfectly synched mouth? If I remember correctly, you have the Splash scenes memorized.

I've gone back and looked at older videos (since we all know things fell into disrepair toward the end there), but most of them don't show this.

In WDW, they all had eye movement, and at the very least, leaving home Brer Rabbit, Jumping Brer Rabbit, and Finale Brer Rabbit could blink. Brer Frog blinked as well. I know that in the rides final three years, they replaced the face masks on the first and last Brer Rabbit so that he has static eyes. That was a change that bothered me a lot.

As for the mouths, they were as synched to the audio as any other A1 model animatronic (pirates, CBJ, etc) was. The A1000s are a new development, and the “big feature” with them is their incredibly precise lip and facial movement. I don’t really think this is a necessary feature for cartoon animal figures, but it definitely looks great on the more human style characters.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Great point in regards to the Florida/ Tokyo AAs but why does it matter how they got there? The point is they there were there and the ride was better for it. I guess he’s trying to say you can’t fault TBA for not having as many high quality animatronics. Your point about the Florida AAs shuts that down pretty quick but I’m left wondering why we should care?

Splash was a ride designed under several creative and design limitations, and I think it was a better ride for it. A lot of the best Disney attractions came into fruition under a lot of restrictions. I think they make for more grounded and intimate experiences that stick with us a lot longer.

Most of the attractions today have far less technical limitations, but are now enforced with specific IP mandates. Tiana was made with both physical and IP restrictions.

The old way of making attractions: “We want to create this type of experience/environment. Is there existing material we have access to that could enhance the experience? If not, we can create our own.”

The new way: “We have to make a ride for this IP. Should we make it trackless, a boat ride, or a coaster?”

 

[mickEblu]

Splash was a ride designed under several creative and design limitations, and I think it was a better ride for it. A lot of the best Disney attractions came into fruition under a lot of restrictions. I think they make for more grounded and intimate experiences that stick with us a lot longer.

Most of the attractions today have far less technical limitations, but are now enforced with specific IP mandates. Tiana was made with both physical and IP restrictions.

The old way of making attractions: “We want to create this type of experience/environment. Is there existing material we have access to that could enhance the experience? If not, we can create our own.”

The new way: “We have to make a ride for this IP. Should we make it trackless, a boat ride, or a coaster?”

Yup. Throw in the DEI stuff guiding many decisions and the project was doomed.

 

[_caleb]

To comment on something you said a while ago. “I’m good animation, the most important elements of a scene are given more movement and detail in order to capture the audience’s attention. Less important aspects of the scene should deliberately be presented in softer focus- less movement, less attention-grabbing.”

While that is true for animated cartoons, where you are deliberately showing audiences where to look, on an attraction where you can have multiple ride thrus, you can’t really tell an audience where to look. Unless it’s Haunted Mansion where the doombuggies rotate to each scene.

The one scene right after Tiana and Louis is with the critter band, there’s a band all by them selves. If they were just supporting roles, why give them a whole scene all to themselves?? Shouldn’t they have more movements since they are now upgraded to a major role?? That’s where I’m confused on the whole “supporting” and “major” roles.

Good points here. You’re right that short of clamshell-style omnimovers, they can’t really keep us from looking around us on a ride. But even in a 360° full-themed environment, imagineers use little design tricks to try to direct the audience’s gaze.

This isn’t because they’re trying to be controlling, it’s because it’s really hard to tell any kind of linear story if the audience is always distracted from scenes or dialog that communicate key story elements.

Typically, they do this with lighting, clustering of elements and deliberate inclusion of blank/empty spaces. They also include transition/story beat elements (Splash did this well and HM and PotC) with “gateway” framing to transition between scenes. This helps guests distinguish between scenes that are proximate to one another and contain overlapping elements.

Examples:

• On Splash, they deliberately used construction paper cutouts for the flowers. This helped evoke the 2D animation of the source material, but also helped by not competing visually with the AAs or key props.
• On Indy, they use increases/decreases in detail to draw our eyes toward the story elements. Try looking the opposite direction of any of the Indy AAs- there’s like nothing to look at!
• It’s a Small World uses lighting, color, detail, and density to highlight and frame vignettes.

Maybe rather than thinking of only “main” and “supporting” roles, it’s better to think in terms of degrees of focus?

On TBA, it seems to me they really want us to pay lots of attention to those A-1000s and signage, a little less attention to critter bands, a little less attention than that to fireflies and props (until a few come into story focus, like when magnified in the bottle), and even less attention to the trees and plants, and no attention to the ride infrastructure (lights, evac paths, infrared cameras, access doors, etc. Even though all these things are clearly visible from the guest’s POV.

I am not defending how any of this is handled on TBA, as I haven’t experienced it yet. But you can tell they’ve used lighting and movement to try to bring focus to main scenes.

 

[Consumer]

View attachment 793832
My biggest problem with the bear scene is the random fox next to them. The bears I understand since they're supposed to be a family, but the fox looks like the result of this sort of discussion:

[Imagineer 1] "Uh, we've installed all the figures except this fox. What should we do with it?"
[Imagineer 2] "Just put it anywhere"
[1] "Well, there's space next to the bears"
[2] "Perfect! That's lunch!"

I cannot begin to express my absolute hatred of that fox. Just a revolting, disgusting, truly horrible character design. That figure out to be smashed with a sledgehammer and set on fire. It is easily the worst design for an animatronic ever placed in a Disney park, and dare I say possibly the world. I am sickened just looking at his terrifying grin and soulless eyes.

The Marc Davis foxes were just so masterful and lovely to look at in comparison. Why couldn't they just keep some of them? Why couldn't they keep the foxes, raccoons, the possums, and other critters that belong in the bayou? None of the excuses I heard are satisfy.

Side note: Did this fox from America Sings ever end up on Splash Mountain? I feel like he did but I can't place him. I pulled him up to showcase good character design vs. the grotesque monstrosity on the new ride, but I'm not even sure he was on the old ride.

 

[Brer Oswald]

I cannot begin to express my absolute hatred of that fox. Just a revolting, disgusting, truly horrible character design. That figure out to be smashed with a sledgehammer and set on fire. It is easily the worst design for an animatronic ever placed in a Disney park, and dare I say possibly the world. I am sickened just looking at his terrifying grin and soulless eyes.

The Marc Davis foxes were just so masterful and lovely to look at in comparison. Why couldn't they just keep some of them? Why couldn't they keep the foxes, raccoons, the possums, and other critters that belong in the bayou? None of the excuses I heard are satisfy.

Side note: Did this fox from America Sings ever end up on Splash Mountain? I feel like he did but I can't place him. I pulled him up to showcase good character design vs. the grotesque monstrosity on the new ride, but I'm not even sure he was on the old ride.
View attachment 793989

Pretty sure this was him leading the mule cart in the finale

 

[Consumer]

Pretty sure this was him leading the mule cart in the finale

Those are the tisket-tasket foxes (and cats).

 

[Brer Oswald]

Those are the tisket-tasket foxes (and cats).
View attachment 793990

Yep, you are correct. Was just skimming through an America Sings video and found them. I guess he didn’t make it then?