News Tiana's Bayou Adventure - latest details and construction progress

[Basil of Baker Street]

I don't see much evidence that people want less theming in their theme parks, though. If anything, we have a bit of an arms race between Disney and Universal on that front that (unfortunately, IMO) has taken the Harry Potter lands as the model for trying to create lands that wholly immerse visitors in particular worlds and stories.

As far as Disney is concerned, I think the problem is that they've become too literal in imagining 'story' means a cohesive narrative which involves, for example, typing out a biography for a store owner or character on a ride rather than creating a loose backstory that allows guests to fill in the blanks themselves. Attractions like Haunted Mansion or Big Thunder are good examples of where story drives a strong theme without being a straitjacket.

Splash was a bit of an anomaly in that it did have a narrative storyline, but worked as a fun thrill ride whether you knew it or not. That will hopefully also be the case for Tiana. However, the way they have drip fed information is a little as if Big Thunder had been presented to the public through a great deal of exposition over several years about the owner of the mine, labor conditions for the miners, how fluctuating prices on global markets for precious metals affected the fortunes of those working there, and how the effects of environmental degradation would be reflected in the landscape of the mountain.

Well said.

 

[michmousefan]

Not really. Most of them are predictable cries of “A child could have painted that”, which is about the laziest form of criticism possible.

Indeed... along the same vein of the art looking like graffiti or something painted on the side of a building in an urban environment — and implying that those works are not "proper art," whatever that might be.

 

[zipadee999]

I don't see much evidence that people want less theming in their theme parks, though. If anything, we have a bit of an arms race between Disney and Universal on that front that (unfortunately, IMO) has taken the Harry Potter lands as the model for trying to create lands that wholly immerse visitors in particular worlds and stories.

As far as Disney is concerned, I think the problem is that they've become too literal in imagining 'story' means a cohesive narrative which involves, for example, typing out a biography for a store owner or character on a ride rather than creating a loose backstory that allows guests to fill in the blanks themselves. Attractions like Haunted Mansion or Big Thunder are good examples of where story drives a strong theme without being a straitjacket.

Splash was a bit of an anomaly in that it did have a narrative storyline, but worked as a fun thrill ride whether you knew it or not. That will hopefully also be the case for Tiana. However, the way they have drip fed information is a little as if Big Thunder had been presented to the public through a great deal of exposition over several years about the owner of the mine, labor conditions for the miners, how fluctuating prices on global markets for precious metals affected the fortunes of those working there, and how the effects of environmental degradation would be reflected in the landscape of the mountain.

Exactly. Couldn’t agree more! It seems that modern WDI has been desperately trying to catch the lightning in a bottle that Uni caught with Hogsmeade but simply isn’t capable. Uni can do a better hyper-immersive land while balancing story and fun, and I think Disney needs to roll over and accept that instead of just becoming a cheap imitation of something they’ll never quite figure out. Even though Disney will never have a hogsmeade, Uni will never have a Pirates, Haunted Mansion, or dare I say splash mountain! Both companies have different strengths, and it saddens me to see modern WDI abandoning its own strengths just to copy the strengths of somebody else and become an imitation

 

[James Alucobond]

Exactly. Couldn’t agree more! It seems that modern WDI has been desperately trying to catch the lightning in a bottle that Uni caught with Hogsmeade but simply isn’t capable. Uni can do a better hyper-immersive land while balancing story and fun, and I think Disney needs to roll over and accept that instead of just becoming a cheap imitation of something they’ll never quite figure out. Even though Disney will never have a hogsmeade, Uni will never have a Pirates, Haunted Mansion, or dare I say splash mountain! Both companies have different strengths, and it saddens me to see modern WDI abandoning its own strengths just to copy the strengths of somebody else and become an imitation

IMO, it isn't really even a particular strength of Universal. It is a strength of the Harry Potter franchise. I am very interested to see where the popularity of Potter-Paris winds up once EU settles in.

 

[zipadee999]

IMO, it isn't really even a particular strength of Universal. It is a strength of the Harry Potter franchise. I am very interested to see where the popularity of Potter-Paris winds up once EU settles in.

True, I think that parks tend to do well with outside properties in general because of input from their creators. I can only imagine what potter and Nintendo world would look like without input from Rowling and Miyamoto respectively

 

[celluloid]

True, I think that parks tend to do well with outside properties in general because of input from their creators. I can only imagine what potter and Nintendo world would look like without input from Rowling and Miyamoto respectively

See Disney's concept/patent art for their pitch and control. It was essentially Toy Story Mania with circular seating

 

[celluloid]

Most attractions have a backstory that guests don't ever know about--this is how Imagineers make attractions that have internally consistent themes. Disney's fandom-oriented PR makes much more of backstories and inspirations and source materials because sorts we geek out about these sorts of things. If someone is bothered by seeing all these background details, I'd encourage them to avoid threads like this one.

Sort of.
HM bride stories that does not work, make much synergy money or movie attempts is the extreme geek layer.
HM as narrated and paced tour of a ghostly retirement is intrinsic to its success to this day.
A certain level of "geek" is required. Look to Walt's quote on "cheese."

What we have lately is Disney struggles with the intrinsic and convelutes to justify.

 

[_caleb]

Sort of.
HM bride stories that does not work, make much synergy money or movie attempts is the extreme geek layer.
HM as narrated and paced tour of a ghostly retirement is intrinsic to its success to this day.
A certain level of "geek" is required. Look to Walt's quote on "cheese."

What we have lately is Disney struggles with the intrinsic and convelutes to justify.

At some point, WDI went though a process of deciding to put the bride in HM. At that time, they came up with a backstory for that element; the backstory is what organized the efforts of a team of people to add this element in a way that fit the story, visual design, tone, feel, etc.

So it is will what little Disney has shared about TBA. It's mostly backstory at this point, we don't know much about the ride's storyline or what changes they're making in the retheming construction.

It's totally fine if someone doesn't like the backstory details, doesn't think they fit, or that Disney turns some of those backstories into PR/social media fodder (which are sometimes embellished). But development of backstories is essential to good themed environments and immersive storytelling, and for some of us, learning more about an attraction's backstory adds a fun layer of depth to our enjoyment of it.

 

[celluloid]

At some point, WDI went though a process of deciding to put the bride in HM. At that time, they came up with a backstory for that element; the backstory is what organized the efforts of a team of people to add this element in a way that fit the story, visual design, tone, feel, etc.

So it is will what little Disney has shared about TBA. It's mostly backstory at this point, we don't know much about the ride's storyline or what changes they're making in the retheming construction.

It's totally fine if someone doesn't like the backstory details, doesn't think they fit, or that Disney turns some of those backstories into PR/social media fodder (which are sometimes embellished). But development of backstories is essential to good themed environments and immersive storytelling, and for some of us, learning more about an attraction's backstory adds a fun layer of depth to our enjoyment of it.

It's not always a guaranteed success and as of late, convelutes or diminishes.
Not essential. A good story is essential. A backstory is not.
A good story told is essential for a well done film or book. A prequel or retconning is not.

 

[Eric Graham]

Not really. Most of them are predictable cries of “A child could have painted that”, which is about the laziest form of criticism possible.

Funny story. My sister worked at a frame shop next to the zoo here during her interim at college. Some artist came in and was totally enamored by a picture and how great that it was. My sister had to tell him that an elephant painted the picture with its trunk....

 

[Sir_Cliff]

At some point, WDI went though a process of deciding to put the bride in HM. At that time, they came up with a backstory for that element; the backstory is what organized the efforts of a team of people to add this element in a way that fit the story, visual design, tone, feel, etc.

So it is will what little Disney has shared about TBA. It's mostly backstory at this point, we don't know much about the ride's storyline or what changes they're making in the retheming construction.

It's totally fine if someone doesn't like the backstory details, doesn't think they fit, or that Disney turns some of those backstories into PR/social media fodder (which are sometimes embellished). But development of backstories is essential to good themed environments and immersive storytelling, and for some of us, learning more about an attraction's backstory adds a fun layer of depth to our enjoyment of it.

Rather than not liking the backstory details, I think it's more that the backstory details seem strangely pedestrian for a Disney thrill ride so far.

For example, look at what they have on the construction fence to pique interest: the logo of an employee-owned food brand and stamps to make the walls look like shipping crates used by a company that sells salt. It doesn't exactly conjure up romance, mystery, or excitement.

Surely if they're going to drop nuggets about the backstory, they should lead with things designed to get people excited about the experience.

 

[Tha Realest]

Rather than not liking the backstory details, I think it's more that the backstory details seem strangely pedestrian for a Disney thrill ride so far.

For example, look at what they have on the construction fence to pique interest: the logo of an employee-owned food brand and stamps to make the walls look like shipping crates used by a company that sells salt. It doesn't exactly conjure up romance, mystery, or excitement.

Surely if they're going to drop nuggets about the backstory, they should lead with things designed to get people excited about the experience.

They don’t seem to be emphasizing the thrill aspect so much as its empowerment.

 

[FettFan]

Contrary to what many here think, the narrative of Splash Mountain wasn't immediately clear to everyone either.

You’re being deliberately obtuse.

The narrative is: A bear and a fox want to eat rabbit. The rabbit outsmarts their traps but they finally catch him. The rabbit then escapes again, this time down the log flume into the briar patch, where he is celebrated by his friends.

 

[FettFan]

I think it is supposed to be somewhat in this style....that being said I do not like the style lol

Especially Naveen’s derpface.

Why do I keep hearing Bill Corbett’s Ice Cream Bunny laugh?

 

[LittleBuford]

You’re being deliberately obtuse.

No, I'm not. I even created a poll in which many of our fellow forumites acknowledged that the story was opaque to them.

Intelligibility of Splash Mountain's plot

I created this poll in response to a discussion taking place now over in the Splash Mountain thread. How much of the plot did you personally understand from the ride alone? The options I've provided seem to cover the full spectrum, but please let me know if you think I should add any. For those...

forums.wdwmagic.com

 

[_caleb]

It's not always a guaranteed success and as of late, convelutes or diminishes.
Not essential. A good story is essential. A backstory is not.
A good story told is essential for a well done film or book. A prequel or retconning is not.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here. The "backstory" isn't always an elaborate, detailed narrative. It's essentially just the "why" behind theming and design decisions. This certainly is essential! Without it, there's no answer to the question, "why are these elements here?" and there's no way a team of people could ever make artistic choices that all add up to an internally consistent thematic experience.

The "story" is what happens during a ride. The "backstory" is all that happened previously, creating the setting/context for the story of the ride.

 

[_caleb]

They don’t seem to be emphasizing the thrill aspect so much as its empowerment.

In the backstory

 

[McMickeyWorld]

I feel like they're exaggerating, since it's always been very clear that the story we're going to follow will be that we follow Tiana in search of the missing ingredient for her party. The rest is just background content.

 

[FettFan]

No, I'm not. I even created a poll in which many of your our forumites acknowledged that the story was opaque to them.

Intelligibility of Splash Mountain's plot

I created this poll in response to a discussion taking place now over in the Splash Mountain thread. How much of the plot did you personally understand from the ride alone? The options I've provided seem to cover the full spectrum, but please let me know if you think I should add any. For those...

forums.wdwmagic.com

37 out of 150 respondents is hardly “many”.

 

[Incomudro]

Rather than not liking the backstory details, I think it's more that the backstory details seem strangely pedestrian for a Disney thrill ride so far.

For example, look at what they have on the construction fence to pique interest: the logo of an employee-owned food brand and stamps to make the walls look like shipping crates used by a company that sells salt. It doesn't exactly conjure up romance, mystery, or excitement.

Surely if they're going to drop nuggets about the backstory, they should lead with things designed to get people excited about the experience.

Sums up much of present day entertainement.
They're so concerned with stories - even those dating hundreds of years back (PatF ride, Snow White live action) meeting present day standards of female empowerment, messaging, etc., that they've abandoned what made these stories timeless classics.