Tokyo Disneyland Resort Expansion

ThemeParkTraveller

ThemeParkTraveller

Well-Known Member
SplashJacket said:
Definitely looks better than FEA. Its scenes seem highly effective unlike most of FEA (notably barring the initial Olaf scene, imho).

Dang, it’s a shame if there’s no “I’ve Got a Deeam” scene. There are some of the guys from Snuggly in the “I See the Light” scene including the floating naked baby man, but regardless.

What’s the corona scene from the concept art?
Click to expand...

This one, which is captured in the videos above. I really like this scene, adds the touch of grandeur and scale it was missing before.

Rapunzels-Lantern-Festival-Tangled-Ride-DisneySea.jpeg
 
Markiewong

Markiewong

Well-Known Member
The critique is interesting to read, because it was never the intention to have all four rides being an E-ticket. This is the closest we've ever got to a new generation Fantasyland, even more than Shanghai's I would say. TDS could've used the money to built two ROTR scope rides, but I argue that the money is better spent this way.

Standards for dark rides have changed a lot in the last decades and not necessarily for the better. There is nothing wrong with multiple animatronic that aren't A1000's. Luckily OLC understood that.
 
O

OzAn

Member
Not going to lie, getting goosebumps from every scene of the tangled ride shown in the media previews. It's everything you want a Disney dark ride to be. Magical

If only a full blown I've got a Dream scene got adapted too. Would have been perfect for the ride
 
UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Tangled actually looks like a better attraction than both Peter Pan and Frozen -- everything I've seen for it looks wonderful. It's definitely the one I'd be most excited to ride (and I've never even seen the movie).

To be fair to Frozen, although I've been down on it, I think that movie just doesn't translate well to a ride. They've done a pretty good job of capturing the film; it's just not very interesting from an attraction perspective because so many scenes are relatively barren and only have one or two characters. That's another reason they should have done something other than a book report so they could have more freedom for scene setting (or used a different IP entirely, but that was never going to happen with Frozen's popularity).

Peter Pan just doesn't look interesting at all.
 
Last edited:
SplashJacket

SplashJacket

Well-Known Member
Markiewong said:
The critique is interesting to read, because it was never the intention to have all four rides being an E-ticket. This is the closest we've ever got to a new generation Fantasyland, even more than Shanghai's I would say. TDS could've used the money to built two ROTR scope rides, but I argue that the money is better spent this way.

Standards for dark rides have changed a lot in the last decades and not necessarily for the better. There is nothing wrong with multiple animatronic that aren't A1000's. Luckily OLC understood that.
Click to expand...
I’m not really sure where this is coming from? Perhaps you’re commenting on criticism from outside the forum?

Frozen and Pan were absolutely built to be E-ticket attractions.

Tangled and Tink attractions were not. I don’t see anyone complaining about Tink, and the consensus on here seems to be that Tangled is punching above its weight regardless of whatever their goal was.

That said, unlike some other non-E-ticket attractions, Tangled seems like it could be greatly elevated into the next tier of attractions with a simple scene upgrade, whereas most C/D tickets usually would need several additional things.

I don’t really think that’s complaining that everything isn’t an E, it seems to be a very impressive ride for what it is.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom