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

[yensidtlaw1969]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[MrPromey]

I still support the idea that replacing SotS was absolutely justified.

But I haven't felt like this since they destroyed EPCOT in the late 90s.

PS: It needs to be restated that SotS has been a problem since it opened in '46. Go back and read the debate in the media from the time. Look at the comments from the NAACP (again that's the 1946 NAACP). This is an issue with long, deep historical roots.

All that said, you don't need SotS to give the ride edge, tension, humor. All of those could have been present in the new version. The lack of them can be attributed to a lot of factors, but a major one is a corporation terrified of offending guests of ANY political persuasion, not just from one side or the other. It's the same cowardice that prevents the development of a new vision for EPCOT, that makes everything bland and safe.

To me, the problem here is for them to pull a change like this off, this needed to be better than Splash Mountain.

Instead, they replaced it with something that clearly seems to be not as good.

They gave us better animatronics, sure, but not a better attraction.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

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.

Bob Iger is not someone you can keep out of the loop - if he wants to know, he knows. In this particular case he felt the project was of particular significance and was more looped in than usual. As I've said before, he'd "ridden" the CG renderings of the attraction more than once in the DISH.

He is not the only executive who would have done so, merely the highest, and there are many points of oversight in addition to that which would have to receive executive approval before progressing to next stages. Skipping that is a thing - you don't get money without telling the people what you're building, and not without being prepared for some of them to leaf through it with a fine-tooth comb. You don't just change what you're building after getting that approval without losing your job and getting hit with a lawsuit so severe your grandchildren feel it.

The bait and switch idea is not a thing.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

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.

I'm sure they're never actually going to get into the details of what the money was spent on, but I do agree with you.

Even as someone who really likes what they see of the ride and the POV, it is hard for me to say that if they did spend $150-$200 million on this that what we see is the result of that as lovely as it is. That's why I think they did a pretty significant overhauling of things that guests have nothing to do with.

It's been mentioned before Splash was due for a pretty extensive refurbishment, even well beyond it's normally couple month closure at the top of every year. I really think part of what they were doing with this was of course converting the attraction, but also completely modernizing the ride system and working out the kinks that Splash had from the very day it opened from an operational standpoint.

I would also not be surprised if Splash was out of code and while it was grandfathered in, their decision to do this retheme meant that that grandfathering in was no longer valid and they had to do a lot of work structurally and around the attraction itself to get it up to modern building codes whether that be adding new emergency exits or making it more accessible.

I'd not be surprised to discover that a big chunk of the budget was earmarked for those things.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

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.

Just because you may not know the scope doesn't mean that other people don't.

The budget was more than healthy. Which is part of why the results are so perplexing. Handsome though some elements are.

Didn't ignore anything, just hard to catch all the incoming messages while actively posting. But the money spent on the "bones" did not cut into the budget for show elements. That's not how things are budgeted.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

I don’t want to single anyone out, but….. This narrative that “no one approved” this attraction is absolutely bonkers.

Disney as a company has SOOOOOOOO much red tape and meetings about literal nonsense. Every single stage of this attraction was approved by someone, larger aspects like actual story and content, caliber of show scenes, etc were probably approved by at the bare minimum, Josh. Iger probably had to approve “milestones” in the attractions development, like after the story was complete, how was it being executed, how are they fitting those scenes into a pre-existing space, etc. Than comes CG renderings, which are pretty darn close to the final product. This attraction in its final stage (as we see it now) was approved by Iger.

 

[basas]

Bob Iger is not someone you can keep out of the loop - if he wants to know, he knows. In this particular case he felt the project was of particular significance and was more looped in than usual. As I've said before, he'd "ridden" the CG renderings of the attraction more than once in the DISH.

He is not the only executive who would have done so, merely the highest, and there are many points of oversight in addition to that which would have to receive executive approval before progressing to next stages. Skipping that is a thing - you don't get money without telling the people what you're building, and not without being prepared for some of them to leaf through it with a fine-tooth comb. You don't just change what you're building after getting that approval without losing your job and getting hit with a lawsuit so severe your grandchildren feel it.

The bait and switch idea is not a thing.

Regardless how much Bob was involved, as head of the company he is responsible, as are the senior people below him. To quote Truman, the buck stops with him.

 

[Vclguy90]

Can anyone tell me what's the last good thing Bob actually did?

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I'm sure they're never actually going to get into the details of what the money was spent on, but I do agree with you.

Even as someone who really likes what they see of the ride and the POV, it is hard for me to say that if they did spend $150-$200 million on this that what we see is the result of that as lovely as it is. That's why I think they did a pretty significant overhauling of things that guests have nothing to do with.

It's been mentioned before Splash was due for a pretty extensive refurbishment, even well beyond it's normally couple month closure at the top of every year. I really think part of what they were doing with this was of course converting the attraction, but also completely modernizing the ride system and working out the kinks that Splash had from the very day it opened from an operational standpoint.

I would also not be surprised if Splash was out of code and while it was grandfathered in, their decision to do this retheme meant that that grandfathering in was no longer valid and they had to do a lot of work structurally and around the attraction itself to get it up to modern building codes whether that be adding new emergency exits or making it more accessible.

I'd not be surprised to discover that a big chunk of the budget was earmarked for those things.

These are understandable guesses, but not quite in line with the reality of the project.

There was infrastructural work done, which included ride system and control updates, but these were accounted for with their own budget. There would have had to be some pretty massive issues with those elements to have had significant money unexpectedly diverted from the show budget, and given the accelerated timeline on which the ride opened (remember, 6 months earlier than originally planned) that was not the case.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Can anyone tell me what's the last good thing Bob actually did?

Leave?

But then he came back, so.

 

[basas]

Bob Iger is not someone you can keep out of the loop - if he wants to know, he knows. In this particular case he felt the project was of particular significance and was more looped in than usual. As I've said before, he'd "ridden" the CG renderings of the attraction more than once in the DISH.

He is not the only executive who would have done so, merely the highest, and there are many points of oversight in addition to that which would have to receive executive approval before progressing to next stages. Skipping that is a thing - you don't get money without telling the people what you're building, and not without being prepared for some of them to leaf through it with a fine-tooth comb. You don't just change what you're building after getting that approval without losing your job and getting hit with a lawsuit so severe your grandchildren feel it.

The bait and switch idea is not a thing.

Iger seems to have his nose in everything. Wasn’t this Chapek’s complaint? I may be wrong, but he seems to be a bit of an ego-maniac.

 

[Vclguy90]

Leave?

But then he came back, so.

And he botched that by putting Chepek in there. I kinda feel bad for that dude, now.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Iger seems to have his nose in everything. Wasn’t this Chapek’s complaint? I may be wrong, but he seems to be a bit of an ego-maniac.

He is. Purportedly. By many.

Doesn't have his nose in everything, but he has it where he wants to. Tiana's was one such place.

We shouldn't pretend he drafted the scenery or painted the Animatronics, but he approved the spending and not blindly. Which is why the "Bob called it Boring!" story is so nonsensical. Plus I'm pretty sure he wasn't even in Florida the week that was supposed to have happened.

 

[basas]

He is. Purportedly. By many.

Doesn't have his nose in everything, but he has it where he wants to. Tiana's was one such place.

We shouldn't pretend he drafted the scenery or painted the Animatronics, but he approved the spending and not blindly. Which is why the "Bob called it Boring!" story is so nonsensical. Plus I'm pretty sure he wasn't even in Florida the week that was supposed to have happened.

Right, and as I said, as head of the company the buck stops with him.

 

[basas]

And he botched that by putting Chepek in there. I kinda feel bad for that dude, now.

Was Chapek given a chance? Was he constrained by Iger? I don’t know the answers.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Right, and as I said, as head of the company the buck stops with him.

I don't disagree with that. My point is more that he doesn't personally approve every expenditure within the parks, but this was a case where he was more involved than normal.

But yes, ultimately responsibility for keeping the ship right falls to him.