• The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
    Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More
  • Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Everyone's complaining about the lack of Facilier, and that's fine since he's probably the best Disney baddy since Ursula and would have added much needed tension. But Ray was the beating heart of the film, one of the most unique Disney animated characters ever, and his absence here is glaring.
 

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
They did??
maybe those over 50% ers should have walked under the tikis in Adventureland instead of waiting in line at Splash …..pretty dumb use of their time, no?
Definitely not the same thing. My point was that I'm sure they enjoyed the thrills and the benefit of being cooled down. I planned a trip specifically to see Splash one last time before it closed, I did enjoy the attraction. But at it's core, I didn't really connect with the characters or the story. Yes the music was fun, but that was about it, outside of the thrill and cool down.
 

basas

Well-Known Member
Definitely not the same thing. My point was that I'm sure they enjoyed the thrills and the benefit of being cooled down. I planned a trip specifically to see Splash one last time before it closed, I did enjoy the attraction. But at it's core, I didn't really connect with the characters or the story. Yes the music was fun, but that was about it, outside of the thrill and cool down.

Nothing wrong with that, but appreciate that others did.
 

MerlinTheGoat

Well-Known Member
Everyone's complaining about the lack of Facilier, and that's fine since he's probably the best Disney baddy since Ursula and would have added much needed tension. But Ray was the beating heart of the film, one of the most unique Disney animated characters ever, and his absence here is glaring.
If they had included Facilier in the manner that I suggested a while back (as a spirit who we meet after stumbling upon his grave and falling into the Other Side), it would doubled as a convenient way to include Ray as well, since he would also be a spirit. Ray helping to save and guide us up the final lift out of danger. Big missed opportunity not to include an impressive fiber optic curtain effect for him there too. Could have hit two birds with one stone, but instead they missed both birds.

Ray is still more a part of this retheme than Facilier though, his voice is used in some of the music. Makes no sense that his voice is present though within the context of the story they went with, I have to wonder if whoever edited that track didn't recognize it (or perhaps wasn't familiar with the movie's events) and left it there by accident...
 
Last edited:

basas

Well-Known Member
I feel like you're not getting what I'm saying. Do I think that Disney thought this story was good? Clearly. It's what they approved and spent 150M+ on. Do I agree that the story is good? No.

Do I think the (inevitable) Splash retheme was always going to be Tiana? Most likely. As I said, the only other contender would've been Moana and I think Disney was iffy about Moana at the time.

So why can’t you understand why I’m not happy as a stockholder? You just said management screwed up. You seem to be admitting that what they did was a poor use of money.
 

MerlinTheGoat

Well-Known Member
Kinda seemed like it was:
At the time this retheme was first announced, I do not believe that THIS version of the story was what people agreed to. I believe that there was an approval for a generalized PATF retheme with maybe a couple of different story pitch ideas. But this current version of the ride was not what everyone signed up for when they greenlit it. The old concept art of Mama Odie's boat and tree atop the mountain is good evidence that this was not the plan back then. Also the fact that Tony Baxter was willing to consult on the project early on and endorse it, but departed after they settled on something that he didn't like.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
If they had included Facilier in the manner that I suggested a while back (as a spirit who we bump into after stumbling upon his grave and being accidentally transported to the Other Side), it would also have also come with a convenient way to include Ray as well if they wanted. As he is also now a spirit, Ray could have helped guide us up the final lift and out of danger. Big missed opportunity not to include an impressive fiber optic curtain effect for him there too. Could have hit two birds with one stone, but instead they missed both birds.

Ray is still more a part of this retheme than Facilier though, his voice is used in some of the music. Makes no sense that his voice is present though within the context of the story they went with, I have to wonder if whoever edited that track didn't recognize it (or perhaps wasn't familiar with the movie's events) and left it there by accident...
I suspect whoever edited the music just didn't care.

The rest of your ideas are great, of course
 

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
Are you getting hung up on whether someone said "WOW"?? We can't know, man. But they don't tend to throw many, many millions of dollars at things they think are gonna tank, so like . . . yeah, it's somewhat implied that somewhere in the chain there was enthusiastic support for what was pitched.
 

basas

Well-Known Member
Are you getting hung up on whether someone said "WOW"?? We can't know, man. But they don't tend to throw many, many millions of dollars at things they think are gonna tank, so like . . . yeah, it's somewhat implied that somewhere in the chain there was enthusiastic support for what was pitched.

I actually agree with you. I think this was approved…which makes me think Disney’s upper management is more incompetent than ever before.
 

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
I actually agree with you. I think this was approved…which makes me think Disney’s upper management is more incompetent than ever before.
I mean, yes, it was built, it clearly was approved. This is a major corportation with many layers of oversight. Are people thinking there was some sort of conceptual bait and switch here? That would not be a realistic assessment of how these things work.
 

Mr. Sullivan

Well-Known Member
Are you arguing that $150-$200 million dollars is not a lot of money?
In terms of WDI's current average spending on attractions? No, it isn't really.

Several of their most recent attractions cost a good deal more than that, and I'd imagine several of the upcoming ones will as well. Part of that is the ride structure itself already existed, but a great deal of this budget I've no doubt went into things that are not guest facing such as updates to the ride's technical systems and operational components. Splash was notoriously unreliable, even before the final years of it's operation and their aim I'm sure beyond just getting a new IP in was to also have a reliable attraction that didn't require the constant work Splash did.

RotR cost around $450 million and Cosmic Rewind cost about $500 million. Disney has been spending a heavy amount on attractions for years now. TBA is a general splash in the bucket compared to other projects they've been working on lately.
 

eddie104

Well-Known Member
In terms of WDI's current average spending on attractions? No, it isn't really.

Several of their most recent attractions cost a good deal more than that, and I'd imagine several of the upcoming ones will as well. Part of that is the ride structure itself already existed, but a great deal of this budget I've no doubt went into things that are not guest facing such as updates to the ride's technical systems and operational components. Splash was notoriously unreliable, even before the final years of it's operation and their aim I'm sure beyond just getting a new IP in was to also have a reliable attraction that didn't require the constant work Splash did.

RotR cost around $450 million and Cosmic Rewind cost about $500 million. Disney has been spending a heavy amount on attractions for years now. TBA is a general splash in the bucket compared to other projects they've been working on lately.
Exactly Splash was “cheap” compared to other projects they’ve worked on.

For a ride of this magnitude the budget should’ve been bigger actually.
 

basas

Well-Known Member
In terms of WDI's current average spending on attractions? No, it isn't really.

Several of their most recent attractions cost a good deal more than that, and I'd imagine several of the upcoming ones will as well. Part of that is the ride structure itself already existed, but a great deal of this budget I've no doubt went into things that are not guest facing such as updates to the ride's technical systems and operational components. Splash was notoriously unreliable, even before the final years of it's operation and their aim I'm sure beyond just getting a new IP in was to also have a reliable attraction that didn't require the constant work Splash did.

RotR cost around $450 million and Cosmic Rewind cost about $500 million. Disney has been spending a heavy amount on attractions for years now. TBA is a general splash in the bucket compared to other projects they've been working on lately.

The fact that other recent additions cost more really doesn’t make it any better.

Besides, $150-$200 million was just thrown out there by a poster. Has this been confirmed? Does this include WDW and DL?

Regardless, hundreds of millions was spent…and it is MY opinion that it was not well spent given the financial position of the company. If you disagree, fine.
 

MerlinTheGoat

Well-Known Member
I mean, yes, it was built, it clearly was approved. This is a major corportation with many layers of oversight. Are people thinking there was some sort of conceptual bait and switch here? That would not be a realistic assessment of how these things work.
Well, it depends on who did the baiting and switching and who was on the receiving end, but it might not be out of the realm of possibility that someone was kept out of the loop. Carter and Smith probably knew the most. There have been claims that Bob Iger had some negative things to say about the retheme following an assessment of the nearly finished product, implying that he may not have been keeping up with the details over the past couple years. I initially disbelieved this rumor and was told it was false. But it's clear that not everything I heard ended up being accurate, whereas the people who reported this Iger story were right about a number of things. If true, perhaps Iger was actually the one who was kept out of the loop about some of this project's development. I dunno.
 

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
Exactly Splash was “cheap” compared to other projects they’ve worked on.

For a ride of this magnitude the budget should’ve been bigger actually.
That's not quite correct - for a redesign of an existing attraction, the budget for Tiana's was more than healthy. Looking at rides like Rise, a scratch-build, and Cosmic Rewind, a new attraction partially making use of an existing facility but largely new construction, is not a fair point of reference. Not to mention that those are two of the most bloated-budget attractions ever to exist (And just to say, my understanding is that Rise was closer to $350 Mil than $450. I have no idea where the money went for Cosmic Rewind or how it cost so much more than Rise, whose money was much more visibly spent).

Tiana's had the entire Splash Mountain complex to work with and build off of - that's an incredible financial savings against having to build a new facility. Adding $150-200 Mil on top of that (still trying to get a straight answer on the numbers) should have resulted in a spectacularly lavish attraction. And while I will say that I think not enough credit is being given for the expense of the production value that Tiana's Bayou Adventure does offer - and it does offer a significant amount - it should have been more. They should have been able to clear the bar of blowing Splash out of the water. Even with a less ambitious storyline. So for as handsome as many of the show elements are, it's strange that there aren't more of them or more to them.

I'm not sure I can think of a more expensive attraction redo than this one.
 

Mr. Sullivan

Well-Known Member
The fact that other recent additions cost more really doesn’t make it any better.

Besides, $150-$200 million was just thrown out there by a poster. Has this been confirmed? Does this include WDW and DL?

Regardless, hundreds of millions was spent…and it is MY opinion that it was not well spent given the financial position of the company. If you disagree, fine.
I don't think we know the actual figure no. Frankly, $200 million may be pushing it in terms of what the actual cost was, but it's gonna be hard to say unless Disney ever reports official figures in a press release or in an earnings call.

In regards to the company's financial position though...I cannot imagine this ride is going to do anything to worsen that. Even if it didn't prove to be successful--and to be clear, I'm almost positive that it will--it's not like it alone is going to be propping up the two resorts it's placed in. At this moment, we know of now fewer than 4 major projects taking place between both WDW and DL, all of which represent some of the largest commitments Disney has made to either resort in the last several years.

Of course they're making a big to do about this right now because it's the newest thing opening. But don't let Iger's promotion of it in earnings calls and their PR dupe you into thinking that Tiana's Bayou Adventure represented some sort of make or break for them in any way. It's just one part of a multi-year development plan.

Which, frankly, is another reason that I've been so in general frustrated with the discourse as if it's somehow standing as the sole representation of what WDI is aiming to do rather than just being one ride in a line up of potentially dozens.
 

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
The fact that other recent additions cost more really doesn’t make it any better.

Besides, $150-$200 million was just thrown out there by a poster. Has this been confirmed? Does this include WDW and DL?
Disney never confirms official amounts. I did not make up the number, it was posted on here but I don’t recall by whom. $150M seems like a good ballpark though. It would not include both coasts, but I’m sure there is some savings due to shared R&D costs. May bring the total cost per attraction down to a lower number but it’s definetly in the $125M-$200M range for each.
 

eddie104

Well-Known Member
That's not quite correct - for a redesign of an existing attraction, the budget for Tiana's was more than healthy. Looking at rides like Rise, a scratch-build, and Cosmic Rewind, a new attraction partially making use of an existing facility but largely new construction, is not a fair point of reference. Not to mention that those are two of the most bloated-budget attractions ever to exist (And just to say, my understanding is that Rise was closer to $350 Mil than $450. I have no idea where the money went for Cosmic Rewind or how it cost so much more than Rise, whose money was much more visibly spent).

Tiana's had the entire Splash Mountain complex to work with and build off of - that's an incredible financial savings against having to build a new facility. Adding $150-200 Mil on top of that (still trying to get a straight answer on the numbers) should have resulted in a spectacularly lavish attraction. And while I will say that I think not enough credit is being given for the expense of the production value that Tiana's Bayou Adventure does offer - and it does offer a significant amount - it should have been more. They should have been able to clear the bar of blowing Splash out of the water. Even with a less ambitious storyline. So for as handsome as many of the show elements are, it's strange that there aren't more of them or more to them.

I'm not sure I can think of a more expensive attraction redo than this one.
Did you ignore the other poster mentioning a lot of budget most likely being spent getting the “bones” of this attraction up to par before even installing interior scenes.

Also can’t ignore what other issues that may have occurred during the development of this project.

We can’t say what’s a healthy budget for a project like this considering we don’t know the scope they were planning.
 

basas

Well-Known Member
Disney never confirms official amounts. I did not make up the number, it was posted on here but I don’t recall by whom. $150M seems like a good ballpark though. It would not include both coasts, but I’m sure there is some savings due to shared R&D costs. May bring the total cost per attraction down to a lower number but it’s definetly in the $125M-$200M range for each.

Gotcha. My point is it’s a lot of money…and the company has a lot of better things it could have been spent on…like a new Tiana ride, geared towards a younger audience, in a New Orleans themed area behind Big Thunder Mountain, thereby increasing park capacity, targeted towards the younger consumer and maintaining a popular classic.

That is my opinion. My preference. I respect others who disagree. But clearly, for one reason or another, this ride has been poorly received.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom