Well, we don't know for sure until the ride opens.
The ride may - and hopefully turns out to be great.
But for me, leaving out what I consider to be the best parts of the film - and every indication we have says they did - does a disservice to an excellent movie.
I too will be disappointed if there is no element of danger or suspense before the drop. And it's not at all unlikely that such elements will be absent. But so much about this attraction's rollout has been surprising and inconsistent that I think it's pointless to assume too much when the vast majority of the attraction—every single one of its scenes—remains under wraps. For my part, I honestly have no idea if the ride will turn out to be great or not. I will not hold back from offering an honest assessment once we actually have a finished product.
I've been told by multiple sources on multiple occasions that
The Disneyland version is completely gutted inside. No sets, no AAs, nothing at all. This comes from 3 different sources over the course of about a week.
I've been told by multiple sources on multiple occasions that
The Disneyland version is completely gutted inside. No sets, no AAs, nothing at all. This comes from 3 different sources over the course of about a week.
Don Carson (project lead on WDW Splash) told me that all of the interiors of the MK version were carved concrete, and he was curious how they were going to address that (i.e. go for a full gutting or just redressing). His implication was that it would be difficult to completely gut it as a result of this.
From what I was told, and what we've seen of Magic Kingdom's, both are keeping alot of Splash's sets, albiet redressed due to the fast turnaround. They don't have the time/money to completely gut it.
People were pointing out that the initial interior photos released last year looked like it had a particular tree trunk that carried over from Splash. The corridor between Brer Frog fishing atop the alligator and prior to the dip drop. I'm not 100% sure if it was an exact match, though other parts of the scene did seem to be removed. Namely all of the animal houses in this stretch.
It almost looks like the space is larger than before though, IF it is indeed the same area. I'm also not really sure if most of the Splash scenery was even solid concrete. Perhaps some of these large trees were, and of course the evac and service walkways. But a lot of the time, things look much more solid than they are. Sometimes they just use a mesh chickenwire-like structure and a thinner layer of concrete over the surface. These parts are quite hollow and not particularly difficult to tear into.
I've ridden Splash when it was really dilapidated, and when there were visible holes or temporary tarps covering said holes in what would normally look like solid concrete. So I got to see how hollow some of the scenery really was. Again though, probably depends on the specific parts of scenery.
People were pointing out that the initial interior photos released last year looked like it had a particular tree trunk that carried over from Splash. The corridor between Brer Frog fishing atop the alligator and prior to the dip drop. I'm not 100% sure if it was an exact match, though other parts of the scene did seem to be removed. Namely all of the animal houses in this stretch.
It almost looks like the space is larger than before though, IF it is indeed the same area. I'm also not really sure if most of the Splash scenery was even solid concrete. Perhaps some of these large trees were, and of course the evac and service walkways. But a lot of the time, things look much more solid than they are. Sometimes they just use a mesh chickenwire-like structure and a thinner layer of concrete over the surface. These parts are quite hollow and not particularly difficult to tear into.
I've ridden Splash when it was really dilapidated, and when there were visible holes or temporary tarps covering said holes in what would normally look like solid concrete. So I got to see how hollow some of the scenery really was. Again though, probably depends on the specific parts of scenery.
Exact same tree Br'er Frog and Gator were lounging on. The distinct swirl pattern on the bottom right lines up perfectly.
You can see in the 2nd pic that at least part of the houses that Br'er Roadrunner used to stand on was also redressed. The two trees close to one another are the giveaway as they sort of framed Roadrunner.
Figured I would repost this, since I shared it two years ago in the old (now defunct) thread (I know it discusses Splash, but there's relevant bits about the construction that are pertinent to our discussion):
When this was announced back in June of 2020, I reached out to Don Carson, one of the Imagineers of the WDW version of the attraction and asked him some questions about Splash Mountain, the retheme, and Imagineering. Here's what he had to say (his words are in the quote boxes):
[In an introductory email, I asked if he would be willing to answer my questions]
I would be happy to answer your questions. Although I am sad to see the old Splash going away I am sure the designers at WDI will create a wonderful new attraction in its place. The "mountain" has "good bones" and I think it will support the changes they make, and the original did get a 28 year run so it isn't all sad news.
How did you join the team designing WDW's Splash Mountain, and what were the guiding principles (or directives) for starting your design? Given that it was a "duplicate" attraction, was the budget for WDW's version of Splash Mountain the same as the original?
I was assigned to Splash the very first day I joined WDI. It was meant to be a two-week assignment that included taking the Disneyland design and "cookie-cutter" it to the Florida site. The ride vehicle doubled in width which made the flume wider and the scenes smaller so everything needed to be re-designed to fit... and I ended up working on the project for two and a half years, right up to the opening. The budget was about the same, Tokyo's Splash was over twice as much since it included a lot more and encompassed an entire land.
It's clear that the design of the mountain's exterior is meant to fit more in the Frontierland theme, but what has always fascinated me about the three Splash Mountains is the log on top being different for each version of the attraction. Is there any particular reason for this? And who came up with the fantastic Hidden Mickey (side profile made of rocks) at the top of the lift hill?
Each attraction has a different rockwork designer. Ours was John Gauld and the look of the mountain and the tree atop it took on his style... hence the different designs. WDI designers seldom do out of their way to hide Mickeys, the on Splash is pure serendipity rather than by design.
The storyline in WDW's version is much easier to follow than the Disneyland version, due in part to the presence of Brer Frog in the queue and ride itself, as well as additional animatronics of Brer Fox and Brer Bear scheming to catch Brer Rabbit. There are other scenes omitted or added in WDW as well as much brighter lighting. How did you decide what to change, add or subtract from the story and the ride layout/set-up? How did this affect what could be re-used (dialogue, music, and animatronic molds)?
The advantage to doing the "second" version of an attraction is that you get to step back and learn from the first. We decided that the story needed help to make it clearer to an audience that might not be familiar with the Brair Rabbit stories, and we felt it was important to really create a contrast between the real world of Frontierland and the cartoon world of the film characters.
I had always been under the impression that the Tokyo and WDW versions were developed simultaneously, with the logs being so similar in their seating arrangement. But after viewing the Tokyo version on YouTube, it is more different than I would have expected. To what extent did you work with the Tokyo design team in crafting the sequence and look of the attraction?
Tokyo Splash's design was headed up by my friend Joe Lanzisero, in fact it was his storyboard designs for the scenes that Florida based our character placement on. The rest took on the style of the artists that worked on it. The two attraction models were built right across the hall from each other so they influenced each other's designs a little but Tokyo's is much more Fantasyland influence while Florida pulls more from the animation sequences in the film.
Was there anything in the plan for WDW's Splash Mountain that couldn't be or wasn't realized, and if you could change something about the way it turned out, what would it be?
I realized in hindsight that I could have changed Florida's design even more than I did. If I could do it again I would have made the Laughing Place an outside scene rather than a cave (which never appears in the film). At this point, this is mute as the Princes Frog will soon be residing in Chickapin Hill.
Looking at WDW and Disneyland now, what current project are you most interested in seeing completed? If you were working for Disney now and could propose and oversee a new attraction (either a replacement for something or an altogether new project), what would it be?
Regarding the new Princess and the Frog attraction, I am looking forward to seeing what the Imagineers come up with (though I really wonder if Tony Baxter will actually have any input or if this is merely symbolic), but I do worry about whether they will be given a large enough budget to come anywhere close to Splash Mountain's level of detail and quality. Honestly, since the two versions of Splash Mountain are so different, it might be challenging for them to carbon-copy the designs.
I too look forward to seeing what the WDI designers come up with. I think they will do a splendid job. Tony is purely a consultant and I am sure he will be able to give his input. It will be interesting to see how they deal with the existing scenery since in both attractions this is all carved concrete. Time will tell.
Holy crap! I got busy for a few weeks and came back to 100 pages that swelled to 130 pages during the journey. But I made it. I figured with all that there had to be crazy reveals and dates and presentations and such. Not quite, but we did get to meet the critters and see the animatronics. Cool.
True! But everyone was less concerned then....
I do believe they should start morphing the Tall Tale In to a suitably themed New Orleans restaurant to at least help the newly themed ride fit into the area a little better....There is a portal to Adventureland whish is a perfect transition... Add another just after CBJ ...and create a real New Orleans Riverbend area...
This has come up a lot. Pecos Bill's and Tortuga Tavern share a kitchen if I recall correctly, and the Southwest and Latin fare probably were easy to serve from the same place. I wonder how much New Orleans cuisine crosses over with Tortuga to keep that relationship going... although I suppose they could shift focus to more French Caribbean than... well... Mexican.
Wait, I checked the menu... Tortuga is serving barbecue and Asian? Huh... Things have changed.
The big reveal is a children’s book called Tiana‘s Perfect Plan seems like it’s based on the ride.
Tiana’s in laws (the royals) are coming to town and she has to look for a “secret ingredient“ to make something for them she needs to go on adventure for the ingredient. Sometimes the secret ingredient isn’t what you think…man that sounds familiar.
This came in the middle of discussions on whether Naveen was disowned forever or just until marriage and jokes of succession. Until I saw the picture a few posts later and realized this was legit, I thought this was a joke description of her plan to poison the in-laws and assume the throne.
I really really hope, if they had any sense, they kept the hanging possums for the bayou....I mean why not? Im sure we all had a favorite thing about splash, that would be mine. Also the shadow effect of the rocking chair behind the rocks in the queue? loved that...I hope they did something similar and just didn't close it up,, but knowing them...
Now, the other debate was the outside of the ride was being 'dressed' in some way to minimize how scary the drop is. This group included those claiming some sort of forced perspective was going on to that end. The people against that were people like me who basically said, "Ummm... can you point out where this forced perspective is? Are they making the flowers smaller or bigger as you go up the mountain?"
Hehehe. Once again, I'm unsure if I got lumped in here, but I was saying (around the time I last checked before the 100+ pages) that I didn't notice the forced perspective of the original ride until it was pointed out to me in this thread. Features did shrink towards the top and there was nothing surrounding it closely. Now with those shrinking features hidden by greenery and large props put right up against it... it feels like all the evidence of a purposeful attempt at the opposite. I felt that so much so that I just assumed it was fact. As for the flowers, they don't need to shrink because simply making it look like its real height is more than enough. Splash Mountain is less than 90' tall. Avery Island is 163 feet at its highest point.
But I think if they did it, it's simply to fit the setting rather than not scare children.
Huzzah! The mystery crates have arrived! I wonder what's inside. Doesn't say. Ah, classic box stacks a.k.a. the pinnacle of modern Imagineering. All that's missing is a random lantern placed on top. There's still time.
I don't know how long you've been in this thread, but if you missed it, that was solved hundreds of pages ago. Beignets. The crates are full of beignets Tiana is shipping down river.
The bayou empty again. The water keeps getting filled and drained. Could it be that the lily pads are not static, but made to float on the surface? It would be the best look for them. Perhaps since they won't hang rigidly in the air during drainings, they're waiting until they aren't doing this as much to install them.
I really dig among all the fancy lighting the bare truth of the bright yellow lantern over the mill entrance. It tickles me that I can picture it attracting bugs and that actually enhancing the show.
I already had to replace two LED boards in two different celing fans and the LED board in my refrigerator has a temperature issue, I had it out multiple times and can’t track down the issue, it works well enough, so I am not going to pay $100 dollars for a new “light” for my refrigerator.
Mama Odie would actually be a good replacement. It makes sense for her to have omniscient narrator knowledge and it would be a good nod to the two narrators before her. This line really reads this way to me, a little cheery summation at the end of the adventure right after the party.
As I went through pictures and saw more close shots of the building, it all looked worn just as people seemed to complain they wanted. I thought it was a trick of the whole thing looking better together with the accessories or hyperbole by those complaining, but I suppose it was done in post.
I will say that, while expressing earlier than the big mural complaints seemed to be a nothing-burger, the way it ended suddenly seemed odd. But I don't remember back then the amount of wall down to the stone and up to the soffit being the same. It looks less awkward now. Sorta balanced.
Yeah it needs an intermediate layer that’s staggers from 1/2 the grass height to just about the water as it tapers out toward the boats and becomes more sparse.
Right now it looks like what it is. A wall of grass (I wonder how durable all these thin grasses are. will they start to wilt in the summer months)
I've been told by multiple sources on multiple occasions that
The Disneyland version is completely gutted inside. No sets, no AAs, nothing at all. This comes from 3 different sources over the course of about a week.
During my time "away" from this thread, I've been reflecting on this ride quite a bit, so my apologies for the long post. I'm going to put part of it in under the Spoiler button because I talk about the yet-to-be-opened Frozen attraction in Tokyo.
In a thread discussing the new Tokyo Frozen ride, we were talking about "book report" rides (which is what Frozen Journey is) VS "setting" rides, which rely less on strength of story and more on embracing the setting or place of the ride. I think the same discussion applies here.
PatF is a great story, with a great villain, a great setting, great music, etc. It is the ideal choice for a book report ride, particularly one that is overlaid on another ride with storytelling built into the track layout itself. Frozen (the movie, not the franchise), on the other hand, is not conducive to a book report attraction. The setting is great, but it's hard to structure a ride around the story (as we've seen from their multiple attempts). I'd much rather go on a bobsled through the hills of Arendelle than watch Anna and Elsa's misunderstanding begin, deepen, and be resolved. That's not an ideal theme park ride in my book.
For example, the new Tokyo ride has tons of great animatronics, including three of Elsa singing Let it Go. How do they pull that off? Well, you see her singing the first verse, then you see another one of her singing the next part, finally you see her once more, singing the refrain. But it's almost boring, which is weird to say because the animatronics are so stellar.
Back to PatF: While the setting of PatF is great, it's not necessarily enough to create a Navi River Journey-style ride that merely takes you around a cool place. A PatF ride should tell a story that leans into the setting. Some of you might say, "That's exactly what they did with TBA!" Well, they tried. While a PatF storytelling ride based on the film would have been epic, as many thought this retheme would be when it was announced, there were serious roadblocks to this ever happening, mainly related to how long Tiana spends as a frog as opposed to a human. So, they can't use the story that is tailormade for an attraction like this. So they set out to make a new story that really leans into the setting. The problem I see here is that they are leaning TOO hard on the setting while forgetting about what makes good attraction storytelling. The interiors might be beautiful, but why are we going down waterfalls? Why is the only option for party musicians an eclectic group of critters? What even is the point of all of this?
It didn't have to be this way, either. They could have come up with any excuse for Dr. Facilier to come back and cause a little mayhem. We didn't have to be chasing after ambitious beaver drummers. There is a kids book about one of Mama Odie's magic stones being stolen, and Tiana has to find it. Even that would have been more appealing.
Instead, they focused almost all their energies on immersing us in the bayou setting, which feels incomplete to me. It certainly doesn't do justice to the PatF IP.
We'll see what the final product looks like (I like the look of some of the lights, but I still think the top of the mountain looks like a bleu cheese salad), but for now, I remain skeptical that the storytelling on this attraction is done well.
Mermaid is not a disappointing ride because it is a book report, it is a disappointing ride because it is a sing along that does not even do that well and focuses attention on a very select few things that almost seem out of context.
Peter Pan is a book report ride and is famous to this day.
While book report attractions tend to be less exciting or enthralling, people take that Baxter dish on it a bit as if it should always be a bad thing.
Things don’t always end up like they sound on paper. While we certainly know an inordinate amount (literally the most ever) and the bones of the attraction is well known and experienced by all…
Sometimes things that sounded perfect on paper don’t live up to the expectation and vis versa. It is a bit strange complaining this isn’t a book report while Frozen is being pilloried for the same right now.
Other things that sounded different than reality: Gringotts, Millenium Falcon, Mario.
This will live and die by execution and not facts and figures at this point.
Mermaid is not a disappointing ride because it is a book report, it is a disappointing ride because it is a sing along that does not even do that well and focuses attention on a very select few things that almost seem out of context.
Peter Pan is a book report ride and is famous to this day.
While book report attractions tend to be less exciting or enthralling, people take that Baxter dish on it a bit as if it should always be a bad thing.
Peter Pan is a tour of Neverland with one or two scenes from the movie along the way. Very very little of the movie's plot is there.
Similarly, TBA is (looking like) a tour of the Bayou with one or two scenes from the movie along the way (though updated to fit the post-movie time frame).
Actually seems pretty comparable to PPF from what we've seen assuming that the Bayou full of cartoon critters singing is a fun place to tour like Neverland is
Mermaid is not a disappointing ride because it is a book report, it is a disappointing ride because it is a sing along that does not even do that well and focuses attention on a very select few things that almost seem out of context.
Peter Pan is a book report ride and is famous to this day.
While book report attractions tend to be less exciting or enthralling, people take that Baxter dish on it a bit as if it should always be a bad thing.
Here's another reason TBA isn't a book report of PatF. She's a frog during most of the movie, hence the setting post PatF. I agree a lot of us, including me, were concerned about the salt mine/CO-OP/finding ingredient storyline. But with the focus now about rounding up critters to complete a band while floating around the bayou is giving me more hope. I won't, however, be the prognosticator of doom before it opens as some around here are determined to do.
