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

[MerlinTheGoat]

The reason why all the figures in Mermaid look "off-brand" is becasue Disney didn't build any of them, aside from Ursula. Garner Holt Productions built all the complex figures in that ride then another company called Advanced Animations built the more simple figures like the fish spitting out a fountain of water and the group of fish doing the conga line in Under the Sea. By looks of it with them releasing that character sketch of the Otter, it appears Disney is building and designing these figures so we'll be good I think

I don't know much about Advanced Animation. The problem with the simpler figures is they have such absurdly primitive motion, but their designs look fairly close to their movie variants. The advanced figures have the opposite problem, their movements are generally good but the designs (especially for Ariel) are absurdly off from the movie. There's also far more wrong with the ride than just the quality of the figures. The sets are also poorly designed and often badly lit (ample amounts of exposed backstage elements that shouldn't be visible too).

I do want to note that Garner Holt is a fine AA manufacturer and are not the ones at fault for why the Ariel figures look so off. It's the exterior skins that are the problem, and Disney were still the ones responsible for designing those.

It wouldn't be hard to fix the Ariel figures either. The hair either needs to be "real" or at least implement a fake hair texture (not just leave it smooth) and tone down the shine. The irises and pupils for the eyes also need to be made smaller. The rest would just involve some minor repaint on the face. She's basically lacking any of the makeup she had in the film and looks unfinished as a result. They need to add red lipstick, cheek blush, elongate the eyelashes, and make the eyebrows black (which are currently red, she has black eyebrows in the movie). You'd be surprised what a difference these minor details make.

Garner Holt apparently manufactured the goblins at Gringotts, and those look spot-on to the movie characters. Mostly because the artist who did the skin was actually competent at their job. And despite the lack of "compliance" technology to give them that fluid Disney motion, the head goblin even animates extremely well while speaking.

While I don't know if they're going to do this, I could see Disney outsourcing some of the more minor small critters out to GH. Including that Otter. It will be Disney's compliance tech as well as their skin design and programming that decides whether the figure is a success. Louis and the human figures I think are being done in-house though. I suspect Tiana and probably some of the other figures will be A-1000 models like the ones from Beauty and the Beast.

 

[Figments Friend]

I think the bigger issue is merchandise sales. The “diversity” angle was just a red herring.

I was at World of Disney this past week, and Tiana ceramic kitchenware had a rather large showing.

Just you wait and we’ll see Tiana Foods charcuterie sets, Flapper Tiana glassware, and those novelty toasters that burn Froggy Naveen into the side of the bread.

Why am I suddenly embarrassed to admit I HAVE this toaster….?

I never use it as the annoying tune that plays every time the toast pops up gets old really quick…and there is no OFF button to that feature.
Stupid.

-

 

[Brer Panther]

Why are all of the recent rides based on animated Disney movies conflict-free? Frozen Ever After, the Little Mermaid ride, Tokyo's Beauty and the Beast ride, and now this one will apparently be the same thing.

 

[EagleScout610]

Distant memories...happy memories

 

[DisneyHead123]

I don't know much about Advanced Animation. The problem with the simpler figures is they have such absurdly primitive motion, but their designs look fairly close to their movie variants. The advanced figures have the opposite problem, their movements are generally good but the designs (especially for Ariel) are absurdly off from the movie. There's also far more wrong with the ride than just the quality of the figures. The sets are also poorly designed and often badly lit (ample amounts of exposed backstage elements that shouldn't be visible too).

I do want to note that Garner Holt is a fine AA manufacturer and are not the ones at fault for why the Ariel figures look so off. It's the exterior skins that are the problem, and Disney were still the ones responsible for designing those.

It wouldn't be hard to fix the Ariel figures either. The hair either needs to be "real" or at least implement a fake hair texture (not just leave it smooth) and tone down the shine. The irises and pupils for the eyes also need to be made smaller. The rest would just involve some minor repaint on the face. She's basically lacking any of the makeup she had in the film and looks unfinished as a result. They need to add red lipstick, cheek blush, elongate the eyelashes, and make the eyebrows black (which are currently red, she has black eyebrows in the movie). You'd be surprised what a difference these minor details make.

Somewhat off topic (but relates to the thread as it’s a discussion of ride quality for more recent rides) question…. at various points on these boards, I’ve heard people reference what Journey of the Little Mermaid was “supposed” to be, and how some of the cool effects were cut due to budget. I recall there being an effect with water that would have created a more realistic “underwater” feel, but I’m not sure what it was. Wondering what was changed from the planned ride vs. the final product?

 

[BrerFoxesBayouAdventure]

You know, it's kinda funny they actually acknowledged the movie's existence in The Imagineering Story, I guess there was no hiding what it was based off of anymore.

 

[FettFan]

You know, it's kinda funny they actually acknowledged the movie's existence in The Imagineering Story, I guess there was no hiding what it was based off of anymore.

I heard a tale…Jim Hill I think it was…
But allegedly Disney under Eisner was looking at a DVD/Blu Ray release of SotS which would have the movie digitally remastered, as well as a short documentary about its creation and the controversy.

Supposedly, Whoopi Goldberg was one of the main forces pushing for it, and would have narrated the doc.

But then Maya Angelou chimed in thar she would be one of the first to protest against its release.

Not long afterwards, Eisner was out, Iger was in, and the rest was history.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Somewhat off topic (but relates to the thread as it’s a discussion of ride quality for more recent rides) question…. at various points on these boards, I’ve heard people reference what Journey of the Little Mermaid was “supposed” to be, and how some of the cool effects were cut due to budget. I recall there being an effect with water that would have created a more realistic “underwater” feel, but I’m not sure what it was. Wondering what was changed from the planned ride vs. the final product?

I know little to nothing about the development process behind the Little Mermaid ride we ended up getting. There is plenty of concept art floating around though. The figures don't look far off from what the art entailed, but the ride is a LOT darker and less colorful than the artwork. They also dropped the ball with making the sets look organic and detailed. Walls and ceilings are also rather barren and appear unfinished with exposed backstage objects.

I'll also mention Mermaid Lagoon land at Tokyo Disneysea. Because while there isn't a proper dark ride there (I think one was planned but scrapped), the interior complex is rather impressive in its own right. It shares a number of similar areas to the ride scenes (like Under the Sea, or Ariel's treasure grotto), but Tokyo's has a LOT more color and detail. Still some minor issues with the exposed ceiling, but even the surface waves are a lot more intricately detailed than the ride we got.

There was also a completely different Little Mermaid ride that was originally conceptualized back in 1992. It was designed by Tony Baxter and would have been built as an expansion to Disneyland Paris. No doubt canned due to that park's issues. There's a CGI ridethrough released as a bonus on one of the movie's DVD's. VERY ambitious, suspended dark ride ala Peter Pan but with vertically structured multilayered scenes. And a proper climax with a giant version of Ursula.

 

[TomboyJanet]

You should see her in B-mode. She gives this passive-aggressive wave and then you fall backwards.

She's like oh ummmmm......yeah.......uhhh.....why are you still here.......this is awkward...... Maybe she just doesn't know how to deal with people since she was locked away so long. Super social awkwardness

Why are all of the recent rides based on animated Disney movies conflict-free? Frozen Ever After, the Little Mermaid ride, Tokyo's Beauty and the Beast ride, and now this one will apparently be the same thing.

I feel like they think all kids are like so easily scared. It kinda insults their intelligence a bit, like the difference between giving a kid a toy that is actually cool and based on something or has it's own story and a toy that's just literally meant to keep them busy and really has no context or background to it.

I remember being a kid and not being mentally scared by anything like that, In fact I thought Brer Fox was a cool villain and Brer Bear was hilarious. Now it's like the whole park is becoming stitch's great escape

 

[TomboyJanet]

I know little to nothing about the development process behind the Little Mermaid ride we ended up getting. There is plenty of concept art floating around though. The figures don't look far off from what the art entailed, but the ride is a LOT darker and less colorful than the artwork. They also dropped the ball with making the sets look organic and detailed. Walls and ceilings are also rather barren and appear unfinished with exposed backstage objects.

I'll also mention Mermaid Lagoon land at Tokyo Disneysea. Because while there isn't a proper dark ride there (I think one was planned but scrapped), the interior complex is rather impressive in its own right. It shares a number of similar areas to the ride scenes (like Under the Sea, or Ariel's treasure grotto), but Tokyo's has a LOT more color and detail. Still some minor issues with the exposed ceiling, but even the surface waves are a lot more intricately detailed than the ride we got.

There was also a completely different Little Mermaid ride that was originally conceptualized back in 1992. It was designed by Tony Baxter and would have been built as an expansion to Disneyland Paris. No doubt canned due to that park's issues. There's a CGI ridethrough released as a bonus on one of the movie's DVD's. VERY ambitious, suspended dark ride ala Peter Pan but with vertically structured multilayered scenes. And a proper climax with a giant version of Ursula.

NOW THAT'S The Disney I know and love! THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE

 

[FettFan]

She's like oh ummmmm......yeah.......uhhh.....why are you still here.......this is awkward...... Maybe she just doesn't know how to deal with people since she was locked away so long. Super social awkwardness


I feel like they think all kids are like so easily scared. It kinda insults their intelligence a bit, like the difference between giving a kid a toy that is actually cool and based on something or has it's own story and a toy that's just literally meant to keep them busy and really has no context or background to it.

I remember being a kid and not being mentally scared by anything like that, In fact I thought Brer Fox was a cool villain and Brer Bear was hilarious. Now it's like the whole park is becoming stitch's great escape

Kids entertainment of the 1980s:

Kids entertainment today:

 

[MisterPenguin]

Why am I suddenly embarrassed to admit I HAVE this toaster….?

I never use it as the annoying tune that plays every time the toast pops up gets old really quick…and there is no OFF button to that feature.
Stupid.

-

In a new office I took over, there was a nice looking clock that played the stupidest tunes on the hour (e.g., Turkey in the Straw). No off button.

Opened it up. Cut the wires to the speaker. Done.

 

[SplashJacket]

I know little to nothing about the development process behind the Little Mermaid ride we ended up getting. There is plenty of concept art floating around though. The figures don't look far off from what the art entailed, but the ride is a LOT darker and less colorful than the artwork. They also dropped the ball with making the sets look organic and detailed. Walls and ceilings are also rather barren and appear unfinished with exposed backstage objects.

I'll also mention Mermaid Lagoon land at Tokyo Disneysea. Because while there isn't a proper dark ride there (I think one was planned but scrapped), the interior complex is rather impressive in its own right. It shares a number of similar areas to the ride scenes (like Under the Sea, or Ariel's treasure grotto), but Tokyo's has a LOT more color and detail. Still some minor issues with the exposed ceiling, but even the surface waves are a lot more intricately detailed than the ride we got.

There was also a completely different Little Mermaid ride that was originally conceptualized back in 1992. It was designed by Tony Baxter and would have been built as an expansion to Disneyland Paris. No doubt canned due to that park's issues. There's a CGI ridethrough released as a bonus on one of the movie's DVD's. VERY ambitious, suspended dark ride ala Peter Pan but with vertically structured multilayered scenes. And a proper climax with a giant version of Ursula.

Two quick comments, I am not a fan of DisneySea’s indoor Ariel area. I just don’t think indoor areas work in theme parks unless they’re themed to be indoors.

As for the suspended POV, while that attraction definitely would have been superior, the similarities between it and the current attraction are plentiful (from the animatronics to specific scenes)

The execution of the suspended concept may have may it the clear winner, but in terms of substance, it looks like we got the budget-cut version

 

[_caleb]

Why are all of the recent rides based on animated Disney movies conflict-free? Frozen Ever After, the Little Mermaid ride, Tokyo's Beauty and the Beast ride, and now this one will apparently be the same thing.

Little Mermaid ride is terrifying

 

[FettFan]

In a new office I took over, there was a nice looking clock that played the stupidest tunes on the hour (e.g., Turkey in the Straw). No off button.

Opened it up. Cut the wires to the speaker. Done.

 

[FettFan]

Little Mermaid ride is terrifying

The Hatbox Witch

 

[Brer Panther]

I feel like they think all kids are like so easily scared. It kinda insults their intelligence a bit

It's like they put Joy from Inside Out in charge of designing the dark rides. Skip all the scary stuff and just focus on the happy stuff.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

It's like they put Joy from Inside Out in charge of designing the dark rides. Skip all the scary stuff and just focus on the happy stuff.

True. I wonder which Disney Personality Island will crumble first. Old Fans Island or DVC Island...

 

[Sir_Cliff]

It is very interesting to compare the lighting in Mermaid Lagoon to that of the Under the Sea section of Voyage of the Little Mermaid. The former seems to create a colourful and convincing approximation of being in the underwater world of the film, whereas the latter seems to accentuate the feeling of moving slowly through a giant department store window display. Particularly considering how much the ride cost, it's surprising they did such a bad job on basically every aspect of the ride's main showpiece when even just better lighting design could have made such a big difference.

 

[DisneyHead123]

I know little to nothing about the development process behind the Little Mermaid ride we ended up getting. There is plenty of concept art floating around though. The figures don't look far off from what the art entailed, but the ride is a LOT darker and less colorful than the artwork. They also dropped the ball with making the sets look organic and detailed. Walls and ceilings are also rather barren and appear unfinished with exposed backstage objects.

I'll also mention Mermaid Lagoon land at Tokyo Disneysea. Because while there isn't a proper dark ride there (I think one was planned but scrapped), the interior complex is rather impressive in its own right. It shares a number of similar areas to the ride scenes (like Under the Sea, or Ariel's treasure grotto), but Tokyo's has a LOT more color and detail. Still some minor issues with the exposed ceiling, but even the surface waves are a lot more intricately detailed than the ride we got.

There was also a completely different Little Mermaid ride that was originally conceptualized back in 1992. It was designed by Tony Baxter and would have been built as an expansion to Disneyland Paris. No doubt canned due to that park's issues. There's a CGI ridethrough released as a bonus on one of the movie's DVD's. VERY ambitious, suspended dark ride ala Peter Pan but with vertically structured multilayered scenes. And a proper climax with a giant version of Ursula.

Thank you for the background info! The CGI ride-through is gorgeous, I assume that’s what people were referencing.