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

[James Alucobond]

You're being ridiculous. How does it not matter that signs are already illuminated throughout the land? Either your immersion is already broken or it's not. If it's not an exception to the rule, then why would you expect it to be treated differently? Disney doesn't do "immersive" realistic lighting at night. They do fantasy lighting, safety lighting, and accessibility lighting.

 

[celluloid]

You're being ridiculous. How does it not matter that signs are already illuminated throughout the land? Either your immersion is already broken or it's not. If it's not an exception to the rule, then why would you expect it to be treated differently? Disney doesn't do "immersive" realistic lighting at night. They do fantasy lighting, safety lighting, and accessibility lighting.

A marquee of an attraction should never have the modern lighting on it without an attempt to hide it or disguise it. The perspective of the guest's naked eye, and the concept art shows very clearly floodlight fixtures aiming at Tiana's signage, where your eyes are supposed to go to.

Safety breaks immersion because it has to. There is nothing ridiculous about that. The other lighting sources as in where they emit from, are typically hidden as best as they can be or themed to something of an appropriate time period/in theme light source.

It is ridiculous, but it is also Imagineering.

 

[LittleBuford]

Yep, nothing can be hidden perfectly. Some of that is for safety. But the bulbs lighting Tiana's logo on a water tower...does not quite seem genuinely comparable now does it?

I don't think they're trying to hide anything. The ride is gorgeously lit up in reds, pinks, blues, and greens. It's supposed to look fantastical, and it does.

 

[celluloid]

I don't think they're trying to hide anything. The ride is gorgeously lit up in reds, pinks, blues, and greens. It's supposed to look fantastical, and it does.

The lighting sources are visible on the tower which is the marquee. It was brought up that nothing facing River's of America depicts 1920s-30s. And this is false. That is why it was brought up.

It is not about the color, but the lighting fixtures.

 

[James Alucobond]

Again, you are complaining about an out-of-scale 3-D rendering with an out-of-date, unfinished design for the tower from a viewing angle guests can't actually experience. It is pointless to discuss until lighting is installed because we can clearly see that the rendering does not match reality. If the tower hadn't been installed yet and there were questions about which design they were going with, there might be some shred of a relevant conversation to be had.

 

[celluloid]

Again, you are complaining about an out-of-scale 3-D rendering with an out-of-date, unfinished design for the tower from a viewing angle guests can't actually experience. It is pointless to discuss until lighting is installed because we can clearly see that the rendering does not match reality. If the tower hadn't been installed yet and there were questions about which design they were going with, there might be some shred of a relevant conversation to be had.

Ah, right , almost going into the second part of the cycle mentioned earlier! When it is finished, you will be able to go to the third.

It is totally ok to talk about concept art becuase the project has not been finished. But if you would like to tactfully insult discussion, sure. Have fun.

 

[𝕴𝖒𝖆𝖌𝖎𝖓𝖊𝖊𝖗97]

Ah, right , almost going into the second part of the cycle mentioned earlier! When it is finished, you will be able to go to the third.

It is totally ok to talk about concept art becuase the project has not been finished. But if you would like to tactfully insult discussion, sure. Have fun.

This debate is pointless because this is a ridiculous attraction anyway. I mean, seriously, don't waste your time.

They've got a modern mural painted on the barn for Pete's sake. I don't think they're going to care if they have floodlights visible. None of this matters to them anymore. They might even put a spaceship in the finale. It wouldn't matter.

 

[celluloid]

This debate is pointless because this is a ridiculous attraction anyway. I mean, seriously, don't waste your time.

They've got a modern mural painted on the barn for Pete's sake. I don't think they're going to care if they have floodlights visible. None of this matters to them anymore. They might even put a spaceship in the finale. It wouldn't matter.

I know, but I love how people like to believe declining by degrees does not bring more. First the movies, now the parks!

 

[𝕴𝖒𝖆𝖌𝖎𝖓𝖊𝖊𝖗97]

I know, but I love how people like to believe declining by degrees does not bring more. First the movies, now the parks!

Did @KevinYee coin that phrase?

I'd love to hear his thoughts on the parks right now.

 

[celluloid]

Did @KevinYee coin that phrase?

I'd love to hear his thoughts on the parks right now.

I don't think he coined it, but for theme parks he specifically made it very popular. David Younger's Theme Park design text book sums it up well.

 

[James Alucobond]

Ah, right , almost going into the second part of the cycle mentioned earlier! When it is finished, you will be able to go to the third.

It is totally ok to talk about concept art because the project has not been finished. But if you would like to tactfully insult discussion, sure. Have fun.

I am not the one setting arbitrary criteria for this attraction above and beyond the standards other stores and attractions in the area are held to, so I'm not in any cycle you've imagined; my opinion on the matter remains unchanged in that this would be no more immersion-breaking than other lighting in the area. Even if you discount the obvious floodlights and recessed lights all over the place, locales like the Diamond Horseshoe, for example, have very clear modern spotlights illuminating their signs at night as well. A themed light is superior, but these things have never been universally well-hidden in all cases for the entire lifetime of the parks. This is not an example of declining by degrees; it has always been a concession in some cases. This on top of the fact that you're basing your opinion on a design we know to be outdated relative to what has been installed.

There are many legitimate things to complain about that will either certainly or potentially impact this attraction's ability to fit into the land. This probably isn't one of them.

 

[celluloid]

I am not the one setting arbitrary criteria for this attraction above and beyond the standards other stores and attractions in the area are held to, so I'm not in any cycle you've imagined; my opinion on the matter remains unchanged in that this would be no more immersion-breaking than other lighting in the area. Even if you discount the obvious floodlights and recessed lights all over the place, locales like the Diamond Horseshoe, for example, have very clear modern spotlights illuminating their signs at night as well. A themed light is superior, but these things have never been universally well-hidden in all cases for the entire lifetime of the parks. This is not an example of declining by degrees; it has always been a concession in some cases. This on top of the fact that you're basing your opinion on a design we know to be outdated relative to what has been installed.

There are many legitimate things to complain about that will either certainly or potentially impact this attraction's ability to fit into the land. This probably isn't one of them.

Yes, your opinion is surely the superior one. You intiially said nothing facing River's of America let's in on the 1930s time period when you quoted about the same time period as Mickey Mouse's origin time period. Nothing on the attraction let's in on that facing River's of America. The lighting and other design choices from the height of the water tower, that reach as far as towards Liberty Square's junction, indeed do.

Floodlights and other lighting are visible if you look, but have never been prominent on a water tower marquee for an attraction with out of time period for the themed area it is in. You can surely see the difference there. It is not about being well hidden, it is about being the goal of attention. You are literally parking in the cycle posted and time stamped before your response with that. And it is ok to take that stance, but it is common. If blantant design choices like this does not bother you that is fine. Just don't get so annoyed when others point it out.

It is not an opinion to say that the lights depicted on the plans for the water tower are out of thematic time for the area.
Maybe they will have improved on it. If you want to take the wait until its down part of the cycle, sure. And that is fair, but it rarely deviates that much on such things.

 

[James Alucobond]

Yes, your opinion is surely the superior one. You intiially said nothing facing River's of America let's in on the 1930s time period when you quoted about the same time period as Mickey Mouse's origin time period. Nothing on the attraction let's in on that facing River's of America. The lighting and other design choices from the height of the water tower, that reach as far as towards Liberty Square's junction, indeed do.

If you're going to nitpick, I qualified that by saying "so far" it has been "mostly true". So, first, I was talking about current state. They could obviously add a huge banner to the front of the barn with anachronistic font choices. They could also add hulking high-beams to the tower. They haven't yet. You're the one who introduced a possible future based on a known outdated rendering to the conversation and ignored the qualifiers in the original statement. I also said "mostly", which obviously leaves allowances for small exceptions.

And that is fair, but it rarely deviates that much on such things.

We know it deviates. They're not using that design for the water tower.

 

[celluloid]

If you're going to nitpick, I qualified that by saying "so far" it has been "mostly true". So, first, I was talking about current state. They could obviously add a huge banner to the front of the barn with anachronistic font choices. They could also add hulking high-beams to the tower. They haven't yet. You're the one who introduced a possible future based on a known outdated rendering to the conversation and ignored the qualifiers in the original statement. I also said "mostly", which obviously leaves allowances for small exceptions.


We know it deviates. They're not using that design for the water tower.

Remember how the placement of the Hatbox Ghost was not ideal? And then the concept art of the plans had some lit door and window set and then remember how whe it opened the lighting was worse to many posters than what was in the concept art?
Things tend to not improve from concept art's best ideal depiction.

You appear to be in the second stage of the aforementioned cycle.

 

[James Alucobond]

The concept art/rendering you posted is known to be inaccurate. There is a difference between hoping art that's probably final won't come to fruition and continuing to reference something that is verifiably out of date. I didn't keep looking at old renderings of the EPCOT spine when they were no longer being built; I looked at the newer ones.

 

[celluloid]

The concept art/rendering you posted is known to be inaccurate. There is a difference between hoping art that's probably final won't come to fruition and continuing to reference something that is verifiably out of date. I didn't keep looking at old renderings of the EPCOT spine when they were no longer being built; I looked at the newer ones.

Cool. Since you are in the second stage let's just go by what is actually there then to your thought of nothing agregious going against the 1800s theme facing River's of America. You stated nothing let's in from the outside that we are in an era where Mickey Mouse from Walt already exists or is a year from existing...

Call me ridiculous, becuase you did, but I just really want the marquees of an attraction in an 1800s area, taller than any other outdoor marquee to not say Est 1927.

 

[James Alucobond]

I said your argument about lighting was ridiculous relative to what already exists in the land, which it was. This point is completely different, and valid. A written year doesn't change the fact that there is no stylistic clash between what we see on the Rivers-facing ride exterior and the rest of the land, but it certainly is one of the many potential problems with the placement. They could alleviate this by embracing a temporal journey as well as a geographic one down the river since we already visibly move from the founding era to the 1840s in Tom Sawyer to the Reconstruction to the 1890s at Big Thunder in full view, but there's no indication that they have any desire to do that.

 

[celluloid]

, but there's no indication that they have any desire to do that.

And that, is called...

Declining by degrees.

They are fine with puting a year on the tower clear as day that it is taking place in 1927 and beyond from a tall marquee seen across the land. But surely, surely they would not do something so silly as to put 1930s flood lights on the tower. Thinking they may do that(whether the concept art is outdated or not) is me being ridiculous. Pretty justifiable to presume that it could happen.

 

[James Alucobond]

You're just arguing about random things and then connecting them back to a point you only imagine I ever disagreed with. I never said things weren't declining by degrees. I never said they wouldn't potentially do silly, nonsensical things when designing this attraction. I even pointed out elements of this ride I'm concerned about, like the mural and the overt time period it is set in.

As far as anything I disagreed with you on relative to lighting, I only said that a) the renderings with the spotlight are outdated and b) even if they are ultimately added as shown, they are not themselves a meaningful example of declining by degrees because they would not be unique amongst the lighting in Frontierland.

 

[celluloid]

As far as anything I disagreed with you on relative to lighting, I only said that a) the renderings with the spotlight are outdated and b) even if they are ultimately added as shown, they are not themselves a meaningful example of declining by degrees because they would not be unique amongst the lighting in Frontierland.

What other original light source on a major attraction marquee can you point to to in that area that has modern lighting with no attempt to conceal or theme it?

Your point gets confusing. You say they won't add it and it must be another aspect that has been revised, but according to you they have already broken it. It feels like you are just offended?