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

[TalkingHead]

While I don’t have anything novel to say, I will admit the ride is growing on me. The POV Disney put out is awful compared to the new ones I’ve seen so far this week. In isolation, it seems to have the bones of a very good ride, and could be “fixed” fairly easily (though they won’t).


At a minimum, they could change the dialogue to make the story flow a little better:

Tiana 1 (mill lift hill): “The big party’s tonight, but I’ve been so busy, I forgot about the band. Louis said he knows a few friends down in the bayou who can help. See you there!”

Tiana 4 (before dip drop): “I hear some music coming from inside that log, but we’re too big to see what’s inside.”
Mama Odie (screen): “Then it’s time to think big… and get tiny!”

Mama Odie (screen before lift hill): “The party’s already started, but Juju knows a shortcut to the city. I just gotta grow y’all back to size.”
Mama Odie (first animatronic): “That’s more like it! Now you’ll really make a splash at that party!”

What do they teach undergrads in creative writing class on day 1? Show, don’t tell.

 

[MK-fan]

Fantasy Springs is millions of times better than this. It doesn’t look “exactly” like this. Sure this builds up an atmosphere like Fantasy Springs (an aspect of Tiana’s I enjoy) but for the actual attractions they are nothing alike.

Frozen - Is way more advanced then this will ever be and has conflict (Elsa running away, Anna freezing etc). Far better show scenes then Tiana’s as well.

Tangled - Is like you said conflict-free which isn’t a bad thing because the story of Rapunzel going to the lantern festival is portrayed nicely. Tiana’s is also not as advanced as tangled. Tangled is also not meant to be a E-ticket.

Peter Pan - You are correct, it’s a screen based ride. That being said, it works incredibly well and is probably one of the best uses of a screen attraction I’ve seen. Probably my favorite ride in fantasy springs ironically.The attraction also has conflict (John is captured by Captain Hook and we and the darlings are there to rescue him with Pan’s help).

Fantasy Springs is also a land with 3 attractions, a hotel, and lots of eateries that are very well done/themed and from what I’ve seen well received. Apples and oranges comparison between a single land and one attraction.

I understand where you’re coming from with this but what’s the use in citing Tokyo Disney in comparison? Disney has no control over Tokyo, as we all know, they are owned by OLC who have deep unlimited pockets full of cash to spend on anything. The pockets of the Disney company and the 10 parks they own don’t go nearly as far. Disney’s favorite word is budget and it’s usually the final say on anything the Disneyparks brand puts out.

 

[Surferboy567]

I understand where you’re coming from with this but what’s the use in citing Tokyo Disney in comparison? Disney has no control over Tokyo, as we all know, they are owned by OLC who have deep unlimited pockets full of cash to spend on anything. The pockets of the Disney company and the 10 parks they own don’t go nearly as far. Disney’s favorite word is budget and it’s usually the final say on anything the Disneyparks brand puts out.

A poster before said that Tiana’s was exactly like Fantasy Springs. I was responding to that, I wouldn’t have used that direct comparison either.

 

[Tha Realest]

What do they teach undergrads in creative writing class on day 1? Show, don’t tell.

How many more banners do you want?

(These are actually bad examples of telling rather than showing)

 

[_caleb]

Serious question for those who are bothered by the criticism. If the posts referencing politics were disregarded (as they should be), and you were left reading the posts of those who are critical of the redo, what reason do you have to be troubled by it?

So I'm one who often gets called a pixie-duster (apparently "shield" is the new term of depreciation?). I have not waded into the fray since the POV video was released, mostly because the sheer volume over-the-top dramatic (and self-congratulatory) displays of confirmation bias does not interest me.

TBA is a project I've followed since its announcement, and one that I have particular interest in. Your post seemed like one of the few here that might invite good faith discussion. If I'm wrong and my thoughts are met with mocking antagonism, I'll be happily bow out so everyone can carry on gnashing their teeth.

I would not use the word "troubled" to describe how I feel about the responses here, maybe "annoyed," or "frustrated," or even "disappointed" would be more accurate for me? I am not defending Disney, I'm not being paid, and I'm not blind to the less-successful work of WDI. I'm a fan of imagineering and themed entertainment, and I've ridden Splash dozens of times. I have been looking forward to TBA.

Releasing that POV video seems like a strange mistake on Disney's part. I'm not sure if the release was intentional or accidental, but it seems clear that it hasn't helped Disney's cause at all, because it did not show TBA in its best light. But so many comments here make wild assumptions about why they released it. If I wanted crazy conspiracy theories, I'd hang out on Twitter or Facebook.

SHOW SCENES
Reacting strongly to what was shown/heard in the POV video seems foolish. The POV video was edited to skip some sections (for some reason), and because the camera did not turn to face show scenes, several were missed. And this confirmed (for those with this bias) "long stretches of emptiness" where there were actual scenes and AAs. But we know that Imagineers often deliberately build in "lulls" in the action in order to tell the story well (Splash did this quite a bit). We also know that some show scenes are designed to grab guests' attention, and so they intentionally make surrounding areas sparse as not to compete with key narrative elements/scenes. We don't know if this was the case in TBA, and really won't until we ride it or see more guest videos that react/respond to the environment by turning their cameras towards whatever grabs their attention.

RIDE MUSIC/AUDIO
The POV audio wasn't great. Yet folks here are talking about the poor mixing and complaining that they just used the studio recordings rather than a special arrangement, or that certain AAs don't song/speak. Better audio that has come out since, and it seems most of that criticism was unfounded.

STORY
Many here complain about the story, but the POV video skipped the queue and loading area, where a great deal of story information is often provided. Can you imagine trying to follow the story on Indy without the info given in the queue and loading areas? People got so bent out of shape about the Co-op backstory, even though it just served (like all attraction backstories) to help guide coherent placemaking; this is why there are crops on the exterior, kitchens and food storage in the queue, and the salt mine is how they explain the exterior setting and drop.

SIGNAGE/GRAPHIC DESIGN
I've appreciated the good faith critiques of TBA's signage, banners, logos, etc. Most of it doest come down to "how well do the details of these elements combine to transport me to a themed place?" But those who complain that TBA uses signage in storytelling while ignoring that this is pretty commonly done in most attractions comes across as disingenuous.

COMPARISONS TO SPLASH
The least honest criticisms seem to be those comparing the worst of TBA to the best of Splash. "TBA's AAs just stare and gesture;" so did the ones on Splash. "There are long stretches of nothing;" just like on Splash. "The story is convoluted;" it was to many guests on Splash. How could anyone reasonably expect 30-seconds of the brand-new Secret Spice to make you feel as good as Zip-A-Dee, the song you've heard a thousand times and brings a rush of childhood nostalgia from some of the happiest times in your life? I get that these are sincere reactions, but they're mostly not offered in good faith or with a sober assessment of what Splash actually was.

I get it, people are still sad about losing Splash I am sympathetic to that. Some are upset about other things. In the end, I don't find it fun or interesting to engage with people who assuage their grief and air their grievances by criticizing things unfairly and then extrapolate entire narratives based on those criticisms. I prefer thoughtful conversation with people who are honest and respectful of their peers. Several here have attempted, only to be drowned out by the seething disdain for anything and everything about this ride, about Disney, Bob Iger, perceived ideological opponents, and Star Wars (for some reason).

Some might say, "well too bad, that's how internet discussions work!" But I've been around here long enough to know that it doesn't have to be like this.

Here's an example of what I consider a thoughtful, even-headed pre-opening review based on the POV:

 

[Phineas]

Upon having a long weekend to reflect on this less than stellar showing, I think I figured it out: This is what happens when you try to create art via committee. You get a disjointed, soulless, directionless end result. If you’re afraid of offending anyone, you’ll often wind up with a bland, milquetoast product.


I mean, think about it: Superstar Limo, one of the most reviled, dreadful misfires WDI has ever produced, had a more consistent and easily understood narrative than Tiana’s Bayou Adventure.

And anytime you can favorably compare Superstar Limo to literally anything on Disney property, you’ve lost the plot.


This is more than salvageable. But I don’t see current leadership doing anything. What a disservice to those truly stunning animatronics.

 

[UNCgolf]

The least honest criticisms seem to be those comparing the worst of TBA to the best of Splash. "TBA's AAs just stare and gesture;" so did the ones on Splash. "There are long stretches of nothing;" just like on Splash. "The story is convoluted;" it was to many guests on Splash. How could anyone reasonably expect 30-seconds of the brand-new Secret Spice to make you feel as good as Zip-A-Dee, the song you've heard a thousand times and brings a rush of childhood nostalgia from some of the happiest times in your life? I get that these are sincere reactions, but they're mostly not offered in good faith or with a sober assessment of what Splash actually was.

These issues with the ride have been pointed out by some of the most level-headed posters here, and certainly not only by people who were opposed to the re-theme from the start. While there are absolutely people who are ranting about this attraction and have been for well over a year (and who can be safely ignored), they're far from the only source of criticism.

The first two points (the stand and gesture AAs and the long empty stretches) you're just handwaving away, but I'm really not sure how you could believe that. The side by side comparisons disprove that pretty clearly. On Splash, the figures were generally engaged in some other kind of activity -- in TBA, the main figures from the film (Tiana especially) are usually doing nothing except waiting for the riders to pass by. Splash also had a tendency to fill in most spaces with some additional detail to look at whereas TBA has often left those spaces empty except for foliage (this would be a relatively easy fix if they wanted to do so, though). That's not true 100% across the board, but it is a noticeable difference.

That doesn't make it inherently worse, because what someone prefers is subjective, but arguing that they're exactly the same feels like the same kind of bad faith argument you're pushing back against. It's just not supported by the evidence.

As I've said above, I don't think it's a bad attraction at all. But I think it would be better as a regular boat ride that was a couple of minutes shorter -- it really doesn't feel designed to take advantage of the ride system and it would make more sense without the drop.

 

[Incomudro]

So I'm one who often gets called a pixie-duster (apparently "shield" is the new term of depreciation?). I have not waded into the fray since the POV video was released, mostly because the sheer volume over-the-top dramatic (and self-congratulatory) displays of confirmation bias does not interest me.

TBA is a project I've followed since its announcement, and one that I have particular interest in. Your post seemed like one of the few here that might invite good faith discussion. If I'm wrong and my thoughts are met with mocking antagonism, I'll be happily bow out so everyone can carry on gnashing their teeth.

I would not use the word "troubled" to describe how I feel about the responses here, maybe "annoyed," or "frustrated," or even "disappointed" would be more accurate for me? I am not defending Disney, I'm not being paid, and I'm not blind to the less-successful work of WDI. I'm a fan of imagineering and themed entertainment, and I've ridden Splash dozens of times. I have been looking forward to TBA.

Releasing that POV video seems like a strange mistake on Disney's part. I'm not sure if the release was intentional or accidental, but it seems clear that it hasn't helped Disney's cause at all, because it did not show TBA in its best light. But so many comments here make wild assumptions about why they released it. If I wanted crazy conspiracy theories, I'd hang out on Twitter or Facebook.

SHOW SCENES
Reacting strongly to what was shown/heard in the POV video seems foolish. The POV video was edited to skip some sections (for some reason), and because the camera did not turn to face show scenes, several were missed. And this confirmed (for those with this bias) "long stretches of emptiness" where there were actual scenes and AAs. But we know that Imagineers often deliberately build in "lulls" in the action in order to tell the story well (Splash did this quite a bit). We also know that some show scenes are designed to grab guests' attention, and so they intentionally make surrounding areas sparse as not to compete with key narrative elements/scenes. We don't know if this was the case in TBA, and really won't until we ride it or see more guest videos that react/respond to the environment by turning their cameras towards whatever grabs their attention.

RIDE MUSIC/AUDIO
The POV audio wasn't great. Yet folks here are talking about the poor mixing and complaining that they just used the studio recordings rather than a special arrangement, or that certain AAs don't song/speak. Better audio that has come out since, and it seems most of that criticism was unfounded.

STORY
Many here complain about the story, but the POV video skipped the queue and loading area, where a great deal of story information is often provided. Can you imagine trying to follow the story on Indy without the info given in the queue and loading areas? People got so bent out of shape about the Co-op backstory, even though it just served (like all attraction backstories) to help guide coherent placemaking; this is why there are crops on the exterior, kitchens and food storage in the queue, and the salt mine is how they explain the exterior setting and drop.

SIGNAGE/GRAPHIC DESIGN
I've appreciated the good faith critiques of TBA's signage, banners, logos, etc. Most of it doest come down to "how well do the details of these elements combine to transport me to a themed place?" But those who complain that TBA uses signage in storytelling while ignoring that this is pretty commonly done in most attractions comes across as disingenuous.

COMPARISONS TO SPLASH
The least honest criticisms seem to be those comparing the worst of TBA to the best of Splash. "TBA's AAs just stare and gesture;" so did the ones on Splash. "There are long stretches of nothing;" just like on Splash. "The story is convoluted;" it was to many guests on Splash. How could anyone reasonably expect 30-seconds of the brand-new Secret Spice to make you feel as good as Zip-A-Dee, the song you've heard a thousand times and brings a rush of childhood nostalgia from some of the happiest times in your life? I get that these are sincere reactions, but they're mostly not offered in good faith or with a sober assessment of what Splash actually was.

I get it, people are still sad about losing Splash I am sympathetic to that. Some are upset about other things. In the end, I don't find it fun or interesting to engage with people who assuage their grief and air their grievances by criticizing things unfairly and then extrapolate entire narratives based on those criticisms. I prefer thoughtful conversation with people who are honest and respectful of their peers. Several here have attempted, only to be drowned out by the seething disdain for anything and everything about this ride, about Disney, Bob Iger, perceived ideological opponents, and Star Wars (for some reason).

Some might say, "well too bad, that's how internet discussions work!" But I've been around here long enough to know that it doesn't have to be like this.

Here's an example of what I consider a thoughtful, even-headed pre-opening review based on the POV:
AA

As for your Comparisons to Splash comment - as I've repeatedly said - the AA's in Splash did not just stare and gesture.
Where are you getting that from?
Nearly every major - and many minor AA scene in Splash was a complete composition in and of itself.
There was movement and action in their set up and placement.
There is nothing like that going on in Tiana's.

 

[AndyS2992]

The more POVs I watch, the more disappointed I get. The animatronics and some scenery are great but that's about it. They thrust food in your face yet the actual ride is about finding a band for a part. Lacklustre. And then the empty areas and dark spaces are unforgiveable. It's just a complete mess. If Disney is proud of this then the future is bleak.. very bleak.

And then what happened to that mist screen at the top of the drop? That didn't last long.

 

[_caleb]

These issues with the ride have been pointed out by some of the most level-headed posters here, and not just from people who have been opposed to the re-theme from the start -- some of us were fully on board with the re-theme.

Yes, I agree. Which is why I included:

Several here have attempted, only to be drowned out by the seething disdain for anything and everything about this ride,

I honestly feel like you're responding to bad faith in kind rather than actually engaging with the legitimate criticism.

I was responding to the question:

Serious question for those who are bothered by the criticism. If the posts referencing politics were disregarded (as they should be), and you were left reading the posts of those who are critical of the redo, what reason do you have to be troubled by it?

I thought I was doing so in good faith, so I'm sorry if it came across otherwise. Should I add examples of the reasons I gave for not wanting to weigh in here?

The first two points (the stand and gesture AAs and the long stretches of nothing) you're just handwaving away as though they were the same, but I honestly don't see how you could even attempt to argue that they're the same. The side by side comparisons disprove that pretty clearly.

I didn't even intend to give any opinion about TBA at all in my post, just commentary on why I was "bothered" by the discussion here. No handwaving of opinions from me, I'd much prefer that those criticizing what they see as TBA's shortcomings by comparing it to Splash would also acknowledge the similarities (where there are some).

BTW, yours would be among of the commentary I appreciate.

 

[shambolicdefending]

Releasing that POV video seems like a strange mistake on Disney's part. I'm not sure if the release was intentional or accidental, but it seems clear that it hasn't helped Disney's cause at all, because it did not show TBA in its best light.

Are we sure it's not showing TBA in its best light? If this is really just a matter of a poorly filmed and edited video then "strange mistake" would be an understatement. I'm not sure I'm buying that explanation, though.

I'm more inclined to think Disney took the unique step of releasing an official POV because they've tasted too much of their own medicine and thought it would be a home run.

 

[Ayla]

So I'm one who often gets called a pixie-duster (apparently "shield" is the new term of depreciation?). I have not waded into the fray since the POV video was released, mostly because the sheer volume over-the-top dramatic (and self-congratulatory) displays of confirmation bias does not interest me.

TBA is a project I've followed since its announcement, and one that I have particular interest in. Your post seemed like one of the few here that might invite good faith discussion. If I'm wrong and my thoughts are met with mocking antagonism, I'll be happily bow out so everyone can carry on gnashing their teeth.

I would not use the word "troubled" to describe how I feel about the responses here, maybe "annoyed," or "frustrated," or even "disappointed" would be more accurate for me? I am not defending Disney, I'm not being paid, and I'm not blind to the less-successful work of WDI. I'm a fan of imagineering and themed entertainment, and I've ridden Splash dozens of times. I have been looking forward to TBA.

Releasing that POV video seems like a strange mistake on Disney's part. I'm not sure if the release was intentional or accidental, but it seems clear that it hasn't helped Disney's cause at all, because it did not show TBA in its best light. But so many comments here make wild assumptions about why they released it. If I wanted crazy conspiracy theories, I'd hang out on Twitter or Facebook.

SHOW SCENES
Reacting strongly to what was shown/heard in the POV video seems foolish. The POV video was edited to skip some sections (for some reason), and because the camera did not turn to face show scenes, several were missed. And this confirmed (for those with this bias) "long stretches of emptiness" where there were actual scenes and AAs. But we know that Imagineers often deliberately build in "lulls" in the action in order to tell the story well (Splash did this quite a bit). We also know that some show scenes are designed to grab guests' attention, and so they intentionally make surrounding areas sparse as not to compete with key narrative elements/scenes. We don't know if this was the case in TBA, and really won't until we ride it or see more guest videos that react/respond to the environment by turning their cameras towards whatever grabs their attention.

RIDE MUSIC/AUDIO
The POV audio wasn't great. Yet folks here are talking about the poor mixing and complaining that they just used the studio recordings rather than a special arrangement, or that certain AAs don't song/speak. Better audio that has come out since, and it seems most of that criticism was unfounded.

STORY
Many here complain about the story, but the POV video skipped the queue and loading area, where a great deal of story information is often provided. Can you imagine trying to follow the story on Indy without the info given in the queue and loading areas? People got so bent out of shape about the Co-op backstory, even though it just served (like all attraction backstories) to help guide coherent placemaking; this is why there are crops on the exterior, kitchens and food storage in the queue, and the salt mine is how they explain the exterior setting and drop.

SIGNAGE/GRAPHIC DESIGN
I've appreciated the good faith critiques of TBA's signage, banners, logos, etc. Most of it doest come down to "how well do the details of these elements combine to transport me to a themed place?" But those who complain that TBA uses signage in storytelling while ignoring that this is pretty commonly done in most attractions comes across as disingenuous.

COMPARISONS TO SPLASH
The least honest criticisms seem to be those comparing the worst of TBA to the best of Splash. "TBA's AAs just stare and gesture;" so did the ones on Splash. "There are long stretches of nothing;" just like on Splash. "The story is convoluted;" it was to many guests on Splash. How could anyone reasonably expect 30-seconds of the brand-new Secret Spice to make you feel as good as Zip-A-Dee, the song you've heard a thousand times and brings a rush of childhood nostalgia from some of the happiest times in your life? I get that these are sincere reactions, but they're mostly not offered in good faith or with a sober assessment of what Splash actually was.

I get it, people are still sad about losing Splash I am sympathetic to that. Some are upset about other things. In the end, I don't find it fun or interesting to engage with people who assuage their grief and air their grievances by criticizing things unfairly and then extrapolate entire narratives based on those criticisms. I prefer thoughtful conversation with people who are honest and respectful of their peers. Several here have attempted, only to be drowned out by the seething disdain for anything and everything about this ride, about Disney, Bob Iger, perceived ideological opponents, and Star Wars (for some reason).

Some might say, "well too bad, that's how internet discussions work!" But I've been around here long enough to know that it doesn't have to be like this.

Here's an example of what I consider a thoughtful, even-headed pre-opening review based on the POV:

I've been ruminating on the changes since the POV video came out and this is where I am at, too.

 

[brettf22]

While most of the time I genuinely enjoy the ability to instantly view and discuss every tiny update to the parks, sometimes I long for the simpler days of showing up and being surprised by new rides.

 

[DCLcruiser]

Stop watching the POV. Wait for the ride itself.

 

[UNCgolf]

Are we sure it's not showing TBA in its best light? If this is really just a matter of a poorly filmed and edited video then "strange mistake" would be an understatement. I'm not sure I'm buying that explanation, though.

I'm more inclined to think Disney took the unique step of releasing an official POV because they've tasted too much of their own medicine and thought it would be a home run.

POVs put out by others (like this site) are better than the official Disney POV. I'm not entirely sure why they released it, especially with the relatively poor quality.

That said, at least for me, the higher quality versions don't make a significant difference. They don't resolve any of my main issues with the attraction.

 

[UNCgolf]

Yes, I agree. Which is why I included:


I was responding to the question:

I thought I was doing so in good faith, so I'm sorry if it came across otherwise. Should I add examples of the reasons I gave for not wanting to weigh in here?


I didn't even intend to give any opinion about TBA at all in my post, just commentary on why I was "bothered" by the discussion here. No handwaving of opinions from me, I'd much prefer that those criticizing what they see as TBA's shortcomings by comparing it to Splash would also acknowledge the similarities (where there are some).

BTW, yours would be among of the commentary I appreciate.

That's fair. I certainly understand wanting to dismiss the people claiming things like it's worse than the Little Mermaid (or even more hyperbolically, that's it the worst attraction Disney has ever built). It's not even the worst re-theme they've ever done, much less the worst attraction.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

I'll most likely ride it eventually before the year is over. I have an AP currently and am a local. But I am avoiding the parks right now due to high temperatures and ongoing health issues with chronic pain that is heavily aggravated by heat. The vast majority of the complaints I have with the ride aren't the sort of things that would be fixed by riding in person regardless though.

 

[LittleBuford]

STORY
Many here complain about the story, but the POV video skipped the queue and loading area, where a great deal of story information is often provided. Can you imagine trying to follow the story on Indy without the info given in the queue and loading areas? People got so bent out of shape about the Co-op backstory, even though it just served (like all attraction backstories) to help guide coherent placemaking; this is why there are crops on the exterior, kitchens and food storage in the queue, and the salt mine is how they explain the exterior setting and drop.

I am sympathetic to much of what you wrote, but I have to disagree with you quite strongly when it comes to the story. One shouldn’t need the backstory or queue to enjoy the main attraction, even if those elements help flesh out what’s going on. Indeed, one doesn’t even have to understand the main story itself (plenty of people never followed the plot of Splash). As long as there is good pacing and appropriate shifts in mood, even a narrative in a language one doesn’t understand can be interesting and engaging. Tiana’s Bayou Adventure appears to be sadly lacking in this regard.

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

In a vacuum, everything shown in the preview with PJ Morton is very solid. That is why my initial opinion of this attraction was so much higher. I just wish there was MORE of it spread throughout the attraction. Needless to say this isn’t a disaster by any means, it’s FAR more salvageable than many rethemes they’ve done in the past, they just need to commit to making this even better similar to how Universal rushed to open Jurassic World early on, plussing the attraction much later putting it on par with JPRA

 

[doctornick]

Interesting. So TBA is just going to be inserted into Frontierland as is?

I still am a firm fan that if they want to do a NOLA area, do it on the backside of TBA, next to the train station. There's room there to create a mini-land and then you can continue to path to the (future) BBTM area