So I just discovered this concept video of what The Little Mermaid ride was gonna be like before they built it.
(Don't get mad at me, but I hate the Little Mermaid
) I'm not a fan of this new ride either except for the fact that it has nice air conditioning. I would ride this ride more times than the new one. I like how it has a darker theme and isn't as happy as the current ride.
Enjoy!
Don't worry, I'm not a fan of the craptastic, overly plasticated version that was constructed. Nice queue, though. And A/C although it was in January when we rode it so we weren't trying to escape the heat. LOL!
WDW didn't get anything like this amazing concept video because it was built by Disney. I would imagine this sort of thing being built by the likes of OLC in one of their parks because their approach is entirely different. For them, design drives budget. In the US parks budget drives design. When design drives budget awesome things are imagined then funds are put together to make them happen as designed. When budget drives design awesome things are imagined but then details peeled away like the layers of an onion as lack of funding dictates. Sad, really. If you're going to imagine something so incredible be committed and follow thru. Anything done half- comes off as half-done which, to me, is exactly what NFL got with their mermaid ride. But it's a nice queue. I'd almost dare to say a lot of those elements came from the budget for NextGen which is why you see a very different level of detail in the 2 parts of the whole. The queue got more budget so it got more detail.
This looks like the exact ride - the only difference is that this is computer generated so it looks much better than the ride itself. I love the ride only because of the air conditioning but I will never stand in line for more than 5 mins for it. The ride itself is pathetic and looks like something that belongs in a new start up theme park not at the Magic Kingdom
Gotta disagree here. One of the BIGGEST differences I saw was that when you progress under the sea you don't just turn a corner with some bubble lighting and water sound effects to simulate the transition. The ride vehicle actually physically dipped down under the surface of the "water". The ride vehicles were so much better because you felt more like you were in a shell vs. the same ol' clam mobiles from Nemo/Epcot. Also, when you dipped under the water it looked like there was a transition to an overhead track. There was much more meandering thru some of the scenes which felt like you were more involved in those. It's more of an investment in the environment for the guest. Think of it in terms of looking thru the window vs. going inside and wandering the room at-will. The scenes were far more complete in that the environments were complete. The floor in front of the vehicle was the water surface or the ocean floor. The ceiling above the scenes were complete in that they were sky or water vs. darkened backstage voids that don't exactly pull off "Don't look here." The environments were complete free of voids. This made the entire experience far more immersive.
Another huge difference is that this concept was not the standard omni-mover. You didn't see a vehicle in front of you. This is more akin to how the vehicles move thru ToT. Imagine if they had integrated a track-less system like the elevators. A compromise might even be the way the vehicles are spaced a little in attractions such as Peter Pan. With additional scenes, more movement thru more complete scenes, more levels, and more to explore you can space out the vehicles or even make the vehicles a larger capacity (in the video they sat twice as many as the clam-mobiles) without sacrificing as much on overall capacity.
Disney HAS the technology to do these things. They HAVE the Imagineers and the ability to create these types of mind-boggling things. They don't have to be the things of concepts and non-Disney owned/operated parks. What Disney lacks in it's US parks is commitment to design and willingness to spend what it takes to not compromise. Budget drives design here. That's why we get things that are a mere shadow of the original designs. On some level, I find the paired-down versions constructed of what the brilliant Imagineers dream up to be an insult to those talented folks. As a creative-type person, if I designed something and saw it only half-created I'd either not allow it to be created to begin with or trash it. I take pride in what I create. If it's not complete and correct it's not complete or correct. I won't have that because I. do. not. compromise.
Disney makes it crystal clear that their commitment is to Wall Street. What they do particularly in the US parks has not a darned thing to do with pride in product and form. Oh sure, I'll have the flamers casting their jabs at me for saying that: "Sorry to burst your bubble but Disney is a business and they have to make money to survive." Well, that's all fine and good but how many of us go to the Disney parks or stay in the Disney resorts so we can admire the amount of money they're raking in? What? You don't? You go to be immersed in rich environments that escape the daily tribulations of life/work/school???? Hmmmm..... Interesting.....
