Home

[dagobert]

I suppose they don't want other companies having their logos everywhere. Also isn't Star Tours currently sponsored by IBM? Plus it seems in recent years Disney have been getting rid of sponsors anyway, there was the big thing with getting rid of all the Mcdonalds branding worldwide.

I think the main reason behind getting rid of McDonalds was, that TWDC didn't want to be associated with unhealthy food, but themepark food, especially fast food, isn't healthy at all.

I'm not sure, but I think IBM isn't a sponsor of Star Tours anymore, although IBM is still s sponsor of the resort. Autopia was sponsored by Ford until the contract wasn't renewed. Indy was sponsored by Esso, but anymore. I think Kodak still sponsors Captain EO. Opel sponsored Moteurs...Action! and Orange/SonyEricsson still sponsor the Studio Tram Tour. Nestle and Unilever companies still sponsor restaurants and bars.

[davewasbaloo]

Sponsorship only works if businesses are willing to buy in. Sadly, sponsorship is not a good return on investment, and frankly, with the state DLP is in, when I used to work in a multinational, I would have never signed off on such a deal unless they improved their standards.

[DopeyDad]

Dave, when do you think there'll be any more signs about WDI interest in DLP Fantasyland?

[CafeFantasia]

but without any new rides people get tired of DLRP and will not return.

It sounds like, at least for Disneyland Park, they don't actually need to add any new attractions, but rather, replace existing ones. They don't need to expand the park, they need to freshen up and change what's already there, to keep it state-of-the-art, current, and really attractive to today's guests.

But the Walt Disney Studios Park, that place definitely needs new attractions and facilities, to increase the size of the park and improve its capacity.

[davewasbaloo]

Dave, when do you think there'll be any more signs about WDI interest in DLP Fantasyland?

Not sure, will make some enquiries, but I have to be careful on this one, it's a sensitive one.

[Anthony]

An official construction photo of the Florida version from Disney Parks Blog:



I didn't realise the ride will have a different name in Florida: Under the Sea – Journey of the Little Mermaid. What's the reason for that? Just to differentiate between the two very different exteriors?

[Josh]

Will the actual rides be mostly the same in both parks?

[alka1]

Will the actual rides be mostly the same in both parks?

Yeah, the ride layout is supposed to be identical for both rides. The only difference will be the exterior building/facade.

[dagobert]

Here's the first video of the ride:

[youtube:12qh1ncd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIarm5FEQXI[/youtube:12qh1ncd]

I think it looks great and I'm sure lines will be long. I think they should have ended the rided before the last scene.

Here's a picture of the loading area:


Thanks to Alain Littaye: http://disneyandmore.blogspot.com/2011/ ... ersea.html

[ulak]

Little disappointing for me. Nothing big for WOW. Dancing Ariel looks very weird with red icecream on the head. Little out of life - too much sterile and robotic.
But water efect with bubbles is very nice and "Kiss the Girl" scene is cute!

[CafeFantasia]

Yes, while it looks great, and all excellent quality, it doesn't strike me as the next big thing. Aside from the going underwater effect, and the animatronic hair, there isn't anything particularly innovative or next-generation about this attraction. I guess I was somehow expecting more.

Still, I totally would not complain if this came to Paris :-)

[alka1]

This was never meant to be a huge, earth-shattering ride. It was planned as a family dark ride to supplement the many new additions coming to the park. It replaces a film attraction that was never really popular with guests, so it's definitely an improvement and a welcome addition to the park.

The real "E-Ticket" attraction is expected to debut next year with the opening of Radiator Springs Racers.

[Josh]

The ending was very sudden, but it was a nice ride overall, and worth the wait.

[pussinboots]

Rides like this aren't really supposed to be about technological innovation, as much as I know you crave that, Alan, haha. It's all about atmosphere and charm. Ingenious uses of simple tricks, that's a Disney dark ride in a nutshell. The Imagineers have managed quite a bit using cardboard and glow-in-the-dark paint in the past, and the projections on the shell buggy in front of you as you dip under water are certainly in that category. Why not use the back of a ride vehicle a projection surface? Simple and effective.

What I'm finding unfortunate are slightly creepy Ariel animatronics — particularly the Under The Sea one, Ursula's less-than-convincing lip sync (she seems to be suffering from an urgent medical condition) and that odd CGI image of Ariel getting her legs. And it's only the last one you can really blame Disney for.

Oh, and some of the voices seem "off," rather in the manner of cheap sequels. Have the original actors died or become litigious? I'm somehow guessing it's the latter.

I like the nods to classic dark rides, particularly the loading area mural and the happily-ever-after-smiling-bride-and-groom scene. And the unapologetically visible ceiling and wire holding the schools of fish in place. And the Cast Member sailor costume is superbly appropriate. (Is it wrong that I want one?)

Overall, it looks like a lovely, solid Disney dark ride to me. Fun fun fun fun, as one visionary has put it. The sort of ride you can do over and over again. And it sets a new category — what kind of "ticket" would this be? A D-Ticket? It seems to inhabit a new space between a Fantasyland dark ride and Pirates of the Caribbean.

And I just realized that this is the first proper dark ride based on a '90s film. Please let this be the start of a trend, haha. Aladdin would make such a good dark ride. The child in me (never particularly far below the surface) would be ecstatic.

[SM:M3]

Rides like this aren't really supposed to be about technological innovation, as much as I know you crave that, Alan, haha. It's all about atmosphere and charm. Ingenious uses of simple tricks, that's a Disney dark ride in a nutshell. The Imagineers have managed quite a bit using cardboard and glow-in-the-dark paint in the past, and the projections on the shell buggy in front of you as you dip under water are certainly in that category. Why not use the back of a ride vehicle a projection surface? Simple and effective.

What I'm finding unfortunate are slightly creepy Ariel animatronics — particularly the Under The Sea one, Ursula's less-than-convincing lip sync (she seems to be suffering from an urgent medical condition) and that odd CGI image of Ariel getting her legs. And it's only the last one you can really blame Disney for.

Oh, and some of the voices seem "off," rather in the manner of cheap sequels. Have the original actors died or become litigious? I'm somehow guessing it's the latter.

I like the nods to classic dark rides, particularly the loading area mural and the happily-ever-after-smiling-bride-and-groom scene. And the unapologetically visible ceiling and wire holding the schools of fish in place. And the Cast Member sailor costume is superbly appropriate. (Is it wrong that I want one?)

Overall, it looks like a lovely, solid Disney dark ride to me. Fun fun fun fun, as one visionary has put it. The sort of ride you can do over and over again. And it sets a new category — what kind of "ticket" would this be? A D-Ticket? It seems to inhabit a new space between a Fantasyland dark ride and Pirates of the Caribbean.

And I just realized that this is the first proper dark ride based on a '90s film. Please let this be the start of a trend, haha. Aladdin would make such a good dark ride. The child in me (never particularly far below the surface) would be ecstatic.

Sums it up perfectly, it never was going to be a Forbidden Journey Spiderman uber ride, more a Fantasyland classic and thats what it is. I think one thing is that the animatronics are a bit shiny, and almost IASW creepy at times.Talking of fun;