Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA For me, "it's a small world" is a totally different type of experience than a 'Mr. Toad' or 'Pinocchio' or 'Peter Pan.' From a presentation perspective, it's okay to me that the lights, ceiling and inner-workings can be seen in 'it's a small world' -- it's that type of show.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Mr. Toad isn't a trip through the movie's scenes, is it?" Who knows. Has anyone actually scene the movie? I'm serious.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "From a presentation perspective, it's okay to me that the lights, ceiling and inner-workings can be seen in 'it's a small world' -- it's that type of show." Yep, and that's exactly how I see Mermaid. I agree, though, that there should be more characters in the under the sea scene.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<I'm trying to figure out how this description is any differs from any other popular Disney dark ride, particularly the much beloved Mr. Toad, which is nothing more a bunch of nicely done glow in the dark cardboard cutouts and sound effcts.>> IMO, the classic dark rides are more frenetic in their pace, more intimate in their scale, and the quick pace adds to the interest of the ride. There's just a lot more fun to be had on them then on Mermaid. Mermaid tries to be them, while also trying to be a knockoff Haunted Mansion, and fails at being good at either, IMO.
Originally Posted By Manfried <<Not not true. Splash opened in March of 1984, and Eisner was named CEO that September (after months of behind the scenes maneuvering). According to Tony Baxter and other Imagineers involved in the design of the attraction, Eisner repeatedly insisted that the film should be promoted in the attraction.>> That is re-invented history. Though Eisner did want it to have the word "ride" in the title.
Originally Posted By leobloom I've seen the Mr. Toad movie and the ride is merely inspired by the film - same characters but it doesn't retell the story. There's no scene in hell, for instance. There's a courtroom scene (the judge is in the ride) and the bartender is a character who is called to testify against Toad. Anyway, point being that Mermaid is far more literal in its retelling.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I prefer the non-linear rides vs. the "let's try and retell the whole story ride in 2 minutes using a few key scenes" kind. I think they have a much longer shelf life and aren't dependent on seeing the source material to understand it. Mr. Toad is the perfect illustration of this. Monsters Inc. is the opposite. I enjoy the ride and they did some really clever effects in it, but I always wonder what someone who hasn't seen the movie would think of it. I think in general, Disney does a good job of designing most attractions so that they work for people who haven't seen the movie. Hopefully if Avatar happens, they'll start out from that perspective.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "IMO, the classic dark rides are more frenetic in their pace, more intimate in their scale, and the quick pace adds to the interest of the ride. There's just a lot more fun to be had on them then on Mermaid." I agree with your assessment. Riders on Toad or Snow White play a more active role in the storytelling than Mermaid, a difference which adds a level of enjoyment that Mermaid lacks. Still, as far as overall ride design and showmanship goes, I prefer Mermaid over any of the traditional Fantasyland dark rides. Now I'm wondering what the opinion would be of a Disney newbie, say a family of four with young children who are unfamiliar with Disney parks, their history, or background knowledge. I'm not really trying to make a point; with so many varied opinions among fans I'm genuinely curious to know what the general perception of Mermaid from the average guest who isn't a frequent visitor.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Who knows. Has anyone actually scene the movie? I'm serious.>> I own the movie on DVD. I think Mr Toad is suppose to be going through the book. But, yes it does feel like you are going through a very abreviated version of the movie.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Who knows. Has anyone actually scene the movie? I'm serious>> Really? It is one of my favorites. I loved the book by Kenneth Grahame - IMHO it is as good as anything by AA Milne, Lewis Carroll and JM Barrie. It is such a wonderful set of tales and Toad is one of the greatest literary characters - so immensely likeable despite his obvious faults. The Disney version is far from perfect - it shares similar distortions to Disney's take on the Alice books. However it tried very hard to keep the original characterizations particularly the mannerisms. Does that mean you haven't seen Ichabod Crane either?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Of course I've seen the Legend of Sleepy Hollow. If I'm not mistaken it used to be shown on the Wonderful World of Disney during Halloween back when I was a kid, and the full version is on Youtube. Come to think of it I should check there for Toad.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I was going to ask you Doug if you have ever heard Baxter tell that tale himself. I've never heard anyone from the original project tell it as it has been documented elsewhere.<< I have heard him talk about Eisner's involvement vis-a-vis "Splash," but I have never heard a "gospel" version. But yes, Tony has said that Eisner wanted to make this about Splash. Bear in mind, they started pitching this attraction to management some five years before its long-delayed opening. >>That is re-invented history. Though Eisner did want it to have the word "ride" in the title.<< On what basis is this assertion made? It sounds so confident that I am sure there must be some sort of corroboration available. >>I didn't know there were a lot of negative comments running around about TLM.<< I haven't heard a lot, but the vast majority of those I have run across have been on the internet. I think the idea of "reinventing" in this attraction was the amalgamation of omnimovers with the classic movie-based character ride. It gives the attraction a much bigger capacity, but it certainly loses the charm of the individual vehicles. With the exception of the Under the Sea room, I believe the producer and designers made best use of this technology with the sets and story (as it is). I have already stated my objections to Under the Sea. I believe it could be remedied with dimmer lighting and more characters-- more action. The dimmer lights would also make it possible to truly "spotlight" Sebastian, who is a pretty sophisticated little character. The other big failing (and even the Imagineers would be inclined to agree, I think) is the awkward way they dispatch Ursula. There were apparently a lot of attempts to handle this. It reminds me of the Disneyland finale of Snow White. Abbreviated.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Oh! I have also seen Ichabod AND Mr. Toad. And Avatar, for that matter.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA The only Michael Eisner story that I recall, is that he was instrumental in changing the name of Disney-MGM Studios E-Ticket attraction. Originally "Great Moments at the Movies" to "The Great Movie Ride" Thud...
Originally Posted By Manfried <<Originally "Great Moments at the Movies" to "The Great Movie Ride">> That is accurate.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "The only Michael Eisner story that I recall, is that he was instrumental in changing the name of Disney-MGM Studios E-Ticket attraction." E-Ticket? I would never waste an E-ticket on that ride. A C, yeah. Maybe a D.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I like both Nemo at Epcot and Monsters at California Adventure. They aren't great rides, but they aren't bad either. While I really enjoy Peter Pan, Alice and Toad, I think the other "classics are pretty forgettable.
Originally Posted By Manfried << While I really enjoy Peter Pan, Alice and Toad, I think the other "classics are pretty forgettable.>> I agree with RoadTrip. The other two "classic" dark rides in Fantasyland are in a word, BORING.
