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

[Midwest Elitist]

One thing this overhaul has going for is it's lighting package.

Tiana's Bayou Adventure as with Tron will likely have lopsided wait times with longer queue duration in the evening and night due to it's lighting package. Inversely and prior to the Splash Mountain's closure, wait times at night were generally at their lowest. One could ride Splash several times before park closing without issue. This overhaul will no doubt "correct that" for better or worse. Early days these will be good candidates for rope drop. Once the initial buzz dies down, I suspect shortest wait times will be midday unless Disney works it's Genie magic to even it out. All said though, seems like riding this and Tron during the day will be a somewhat diminished experience.

Looks like it will be incredible at night.

You can ride most rides at night without any wait time. It was like 20 minute waits for all the E tickets (except Peter Pan lolololol) when I last went, and that was the weekend before Christmas. The lighting of Splash at night was "less is more". You didn't need things to be lit up like a rave, it would have ruined the backwoods aesthetic.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Yeah. TBA will be a hit because of that alone, just like Kali River.

KRR is easily one of the lowest quality raft rides in any theme park across the US, but it’s consistently 30+ minute standby because it’s a cool water ride with a shady queue in Central Florida’s near-tropical climate.

Most were likely to hear from the average (non-purist) guest is “well that wasn’t as good as Splash; let’s get a Dole whip”.

I think I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; whether or not the retheme is an upgrade or a downgrade, it will attract the same amount of people simply because it’s the water ride of the park.

 

[Drdcm]

You can ride most rides at night without any wait time. It was like 20 minute waits for all the E tickets (except Peter Pan lolololol) when I last went, and that was the weekend before Christmas. The lighting of Splash at night was "less is more". You didn't need things to be lit up like a rave, it would have ruined the backwoods aesthetic.

I’ve noticed that phenomenon. Part of why I get bummed when they close the parks so ridiculously early. I used to love nighttime splash with the lanterns and lighting.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

To be clear, I agree they’re trying to make it look less like a mountain—they’ve told us it’s a salt dome, after all—but I disagree with the idea that they’re trying to make it look less thrilling and more suitable for little kids.

I would agree that we don't know for certain what is going on in this regard, but my honest interpretation of everything we have seen is an effort to minimise the thrill element.

For a start, they have said quite a lot about the story and backstory but nothing (that I can remember) about how the drop fits into all of this. Indeed, nothing that they have mentioned so far would suggest a thrill ride if you didn't know it was going into the existing Splash Mountain. Considering the drop was the main feature around which the entire story of the original attraction was based, I feel it's reasonable to assume for this version they are at the very least trying to de-emphasize that thrill element.

Lopping off the main element that was designed to make the drop look taller and placing another tall structure next to it reinforces the impression they are also trying to downplay the drop visually.

 

[LittleBuford]

I would agree that we don't know for certain what is going on in this regard, but my honest interpretation of everything we have seen is an effort to minimise the thrill element.

For a start, they have said quite a lot about the story and backstory but nothing (that I can remember) about how the drop fits into all of this. Indeed, nothing that they have mentioned so far would suggest a thrill ride if you didn't know it was going into the existing Splash Mountain. Considering the drop was the main feature around which the entire story of the original attraction was based, I feel it's reasonable to assume for this version they are at the very least trying to de-emphasize that thrill element.

Lopping off the main element that was designed to make the drop look taller and placing another tall structure next to it reinforces the impression they are also trying to downplay the drop visually.

I suppose the drop looks so unavoidably prominent to me that I’m just not seeing things the way you and others are. If the aim really is to make this more appealing to little kids, the co-op backstory seems a weird way of going about it. I agree that the details they’ve released thus far give no indication of where the thrill element will come in, but that was true even with the earliest concept art, which retained the tree and even augmented it with Mama Odie’s house. My reading of the situation is that they’re trying to emphasise the earnestness of their intentions, which is why they’ve said next to nothing about the ride system itself. It’s my hope and expectation that the drop will remain visually and experientially a major part of the final product, even if they’re not currently discussing it.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

I think I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; whether or not the retheme is an upgrade or a downgrade, it will attract the same amount of people simply because it’s the water ride of the park.

Yeah, I mean I don't think Disney is in for some ground breaking return on investment here. Maybe slightly increased merch sales or longer lines into the night for a couple years?

 

[LittleBuford]

I’ll add that the idea that the water tower will necessarily make the mountain look smaller is also not entirely convincing to me. It could very well do the opposite by making whatever is above and behind it appear more distant and therefore taller. This isn’t to deny that the mountain will actually be shorter, of course; I’m referring to the way it might be perceived after the addition of the tower.

 

[Biff215]

One thing this overhaul has going for is it's lighting package.

Tiana's Bayou Adventure as with Tron will likely have lopsided wait times with longer queue duration in the evening and night due to it's lighting package. Inversely and prior to the Splash Mountain's closure, wait times at night were generally at their lowest. One could ride Splash several times before park closing without issue. This overhaul will no doubt "correct that" for better or worse. Early days these will be good candidates for rope drop. Once the initial buzz dies down, I suspect shortest wait times will be midday unless Disney works it's Genie magic to even it out. All said though, seems like riding this and Tron during the day will be a somewhat diminished experience.

Looks like it will be incredible at night.

While I agree this should look better at night and draw more attention, I think low after dark waits are primarily due to not wanting to get wet when the sun isn’t out (even though the Florida humidity could actually make it feel warmer).

Personally we often do the opposite. We rode Splash at DL last month as our last ride so we could at least head back to the hotel immediately afterward in case we got soaked. Plus I wanted it to be my last memory of that trip since that will be the last time I ever ride it!

 

[Tha Realest]

Did anyone here attend the GKTW events this weekend where Tony Baxter spoke? Did his remarks at all give us an update on this attraction or his role with it?

 

[FettFan]

Unless the claim is that Frontierland didn't have a weenie before the opening of Splash Mountain in 1992, I think the land will look just fine (to say nothing of the fact that the mountain itself isn't going anywhere, even if it is losing its tree).

It kind of didn’t, thanks to them keeping so much land vacant for the never built Western River Expedition.

Big Thunder Mountain itself is kind of hidden behind the elevated queue building when viewed from the rest of western Frontierland, and completely hidden by Tom Sawyer Island when viewed from eastern Frontierland and Liberty Square.

You only get a good look at it from the Haunted Mansion queue, TSI, or sailing past on the Liberty Belle.

 

[DCBaker]

Photos from today.

 

[Tha Realest]

Photos from today.

View attachment 709469View attachment 709470View attachment 709471View attachment 709472

Before and after

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I suppose the drop looks so unavoidably prominent to me that I’m just not seeing things the way you and others are. If the aim really is to make this more appealing to little kids, the co-op backstory seems a weird way of going about it. I agree that the details they’ve released thus far give no indication of where the thrill element will come in, but that was true even with the earliest concept art, which retained the tree and even augmented it with Mama Odie’s house. My reading of the situation is that they’re trying to emphasise the earnestness of their intentions, which is why they’ve said next to nothing about the ride system itself. It’s my hope and expectation that the drop will remain visually and experientially a major part of the final product, even if they’re not currently discussing it.

I’ll add that the idea that the water tower will necessarily make the mountain look smaller is also not entirely convincing to me. It could very well do the opposite by making whatever is above and behind it appear more distant and therefore taller. This isn’t to deny that the mountain will actually be shorter, of course; I’m referring to the way it might be perceived after the addition of the tower.

I understand these points and readily admit that we're largely discussing impressions rather than anything approaching objective characteristics of the ride at this point. I would agree that they are emphasising more than anything the earnestness of their intentions with this redo and, to a lesser extent, trying to reassure fans of the original ride that it will still include animatronics and more generally be an attraction of the same standard.

Just logically, I think one of the problems the design team has to confront with this project is mapping an IP with a younger fan base onto one of the parks' premier thrill rides without excluding too many of those younger fans who would otherwise be excited about going on the new Tiana ride. I'm not sure many people would argue with the notion that if you were designing a PatF ride from scratch that you wouldn't put this level of thrill into it any more than you would with a Little Mermaid or Beauty & the Beast ride. This, to me, helps explain why there is so far no hint of peril or thrill involved in how they are describing it, and I would not be surprised if the final version tries to present the drop in as calming a way as possible.

As for the structure, I do think there is a clear effort to downplay the height of it that is perceptible in the concept art:

In the first version, you clearly see an effort to make the drop and the surroundings look as perilous as possible, including by drawing the eye upward to the peak of the dead tree to make the mountain seem taller. In the concept art, the mountain itself more or less disappears behind the trees, greenery, and water tower and the drop presents more as a waterfall in a generally tranquil setting. The eye is also naturally drawn to the water tower rather than the peak, at least in the concept art.

I'm sure a lot of this has to do with their unnecessary obsession with the need to explain a mountain in Louisiana, but I do also think the presentation of the drop changes significantly from ominous to tranquil.

 

[GimpYancIent]

I understand these points and readily admit that we're largely discussing impressions rather than anything approaching objective characteristics of the ride at this point. I would agree that they are emphasising more than anything the earnestness of their intentions with this redo and, to a lesser extent, trying to reassure fans of the original ride that it will still include animatronics and more generally be an attraction of the same standard.

Just logically, I think one of the problems the design team has to confront with this project is mapping an IP with a younger fan base onto one of the parks' premier thrill rides without excluding too many of those younger fans who would otherwise be excited about going on the new Tiana ride. I'm not sure many people would argue with the notion that if you were designing a PatF ride from scratch that you wouldn't put this level of thrill into it any more than you would with a Little Mermaid or Beauty & the Beast ride. This, to me, helps explain why there is so far no hint of peril or thrill involved in how they are describing it, and I would not be surprised if the final version tries to present the drop in as calming a way as possible.

As for the structure, I do think there is a clear effort to downplay the height of it that is perceptible in the concept art:

View attachment 709465

View attachment 709466

In the first version, you clearly see an effort to make the drop and the surroundings look as perilous as possible, including by drawing the eye upward to the peak of the dead tree to make the mountain seem taller. In the concept art, the mountain itself more or less disappears behind the trees, greenery, and water tower and the drop presents more as a waterfall in a generally tranquil setting. The eye is also naturally drawn to the water tower rather than the peak, at least in the concept art.

I'm sure a lot of this has to do with their unnecessary obsession with the need to explain a mountain in Louisiana, but I do also think the presentation of the drop changes significantly from ominous to tranquil.

Hmmmmm........some alligators with opening and closing mouths at the foot of the plunge would take away some of that tranquility.

 

[LittleBuford]

I'm not sure many people would argue with the notion that if you were designing a PatF ride from scratch that you wouldn't put this level of thrill into it any more than you would with a Little Mermaid or Beauty & the Beast ride.

I agree that they would not have chosen The Princess and the Frog for such a ride under other circumstances, but I’m once again not convinced that that has anything to do with the film’s young fandom. After all, they’re supposedly designing a new Moana flume ride for Animal Kingdom.

As for the structure, I do think there is a clear effort to downplay the height of it that is perceptible in the concept art:

View attachment 709465

View attachment 709466

In the first version, you clearly see an effort to make the drop and the surroundings look as perilous as possible, including by drawing the eye upward to the peak of the dead tree to make the mountain seem taller. In the concept art, the mountain itself more or less disappears behind the trees, greenery, and water tower and the drop presents more as a waterfall in a generally tranquil setting.

I'm sure a lot of this has to do with their unnecessary obsession with the need to explain a mountain in Louisiana, but I do also think the presentation of the drop changes significantly from ominous to tranquil.

While I agree they’re trying to make the structure look more mound-like, I personally don’t see it as “disappear[ing] behind the trees, greenery, and water tower”, nor do I read the drop as a waterfall. It still looks pretty big and imposing to me. That said, all of this is based on my impressions of a few bits of concept art, and I’ll happily (or rather disappointedly) acknowledge my mistake if the final product does indeed end up looking underwhelming.

 

[EagleScout610]

Photos from today.

View attachment 709469View attachment 709470View attachment 709471View attachment 709472

And the retheme is 80% done

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Yeah, I mean I don't think Disney is in for some ground breaking return on investment here. Maybe slightly increased merch sales or longer lines into the night for a couple years?

Don't forget a chance to rise prices and sales of ILL for this "new" attraction.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I understand these points and readily admit that we're largely discussing impressions rather than anything approaching objective characteristics of the ride at this point. I would agree that they are emphasising more than anything the earnestness of their intentions with this redo and, to a lesser extent, trying to reassure fans of the original ride that it will still include animatronics and more generally be an attraction of the same standard.

Just logically, I think one of the problems the design team has to confront with this project is mapping an IP with a younger fan base onto one of the parks' premier thrill rides without excluding too many of those younger fans who would otherwise be excited about going on the new Tiana ride. I'm not sure many people would argue with the notion that if you were designing a PatF ride from scratch that you wouldn't put this level of thrill into it any more than you would with a Little Mermaid or Beauty & the Beast ride. This, to me, helps explain why there is so far no hint of peril or thrill involved in how they are describing it, and I would not be surprised if the final version tries to present the drop in as calming a way as possible.

As for the structure, I do think there is a clear effort to downplay the height of it that is perceptible in the concept art:

View attachment 709465

View attachment 709466

In the first version, you clearly see an effort to make the drop and the surroundings look as perilous as possible, including by drawing the eye upward to the peak of the dead tree to make the mountain seem taller. In the concept art, the mountain itself more or less disappears behind the trees, greenery, and water tower and the drop presents more as a waterfall in a generally tranquil setting. The eye is also naturally drawn to the water tower rather than the peak, at least in the concept art.

I'm sure a lot of this has to do with their unnecessary obsession with the need to explain a mountain in Louisiana, but I do also think the presentation of the drop changes significantly from ominous to tranquil.

It would have taken more time and money in the short term, but for what they really wanted to do, it would have made more sense to tear most, if not all, of Splash down.

No need to deemphasize the drop. No need to explain an existing mountain. No need to figure out how to fit things into existing show spaces etc. Instead, a chance to start from scratch with greater potential to succeed with fewer limitations.

 

[LittleBuford]

but I do also think the presentation of the drop changes significantly from ominous to tranquil.

Just to add: on this specific point I more or less agree. The new design does not look thematically foreboding, even if (to me) the drop still looks physically substantial and imposing. That creates a sort of disjuncture in my eyes, which could end up being interesting in the flesh or discordant.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Just to add: on this specific point I more or less agree. The new design does not look thematically foreboding, even if (to me) the drop still looks physically substantial and imposing. That creates a sort of disjuncture in my eyes, which could end up being interesting in the flesh or discordant.

To me the most telling thing about the intent is where your eye immediately goes with both versions. For the new version, they don't seem to want guests to focus on the mountain and the drop. Maybe not quite as explicitly as in this concept art, but something along these lines!

As for the disjuncture, it makes sense if the sensation is now supposed to be more joyous exhilaration than thrill. For example, if the final lift hill is a colourful, musical journey during which Mama Odie tells you "The secret ingredient is... turmeric! Now, off to the party!" before you go over the drop, it makes sense she's sending you down a pretty waterfall rather than some kind of perilous plunge.