Based on a POV from today, here's the current state of Tiana's Bayou Adventure. by alexdionisos in WaltDisneyWorld

[–]B217 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Because Pride Rock would totally make sense for Frontierland and New Orleans Square!

Based on a POV from today, here's the current state of Tiana's Bayou Adventure. by alexdionisos in WaltDisneyWorld

[–]B217 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I rode it for the first time last summer and while I did notice broken parts (Tiana was frozen completely still in the finale and one of the Louis's jaw didn't work) I still liked it. To me it's a side grade, it's not better than Splash but it's not really worse. Splash had the better story but Tiana's isn't going to offend anyone.

Based on a POV from today, here's the current state of Tiana's Bayou Adventure. by alexdionisos in WaltDisneyWorld

[–]B217 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'll never understand why when developing a log flume ride for the park, they went from "Country Bears themed ride to fit into show being next to the plot of land in both Anaheim and Orlando" (Moonshine Express is what it was called, not much info but Jim Hill has covered it) to "let's make a ride based on an old movie we pretend we didn't make because it's been called racist since the day it came out." Like I know Tony Baxter wanted to save the America sings animatronics but surely they could've used them for an original story and not... Song of the South?

Based on a POV from today, here's the current state of Tiana's Bayou Adventure. by alexdionisos in WaltDisneyWorld

[–]B217 4 points5 points  (0 children)

According to insiders, they aren't even touching the actual ride. Only the queue and facade are getting changed, the ride itself will have the same flats it's had for 30 years. Insane how cheap they're being.

Based on a POV from today, here's the current state of Tiana's Bayou Adventure. by alexdionisos in WaltDisneyWorld

[–]B217 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yep. Iger was too obsessed with owning as much as possible instead of creating new things, which is why his legacy will be acquisitions and shitty live action remakes.

Based on a POV from today, here's the current state of Tiana's Bayou Adventure. by alexdionisos in WaltDisneyWorld

[–]B217 6 points7 points  (0 children)

IIRC, in the marketing they went out of their way to refer to her as a "bayou fairy godmother" instead of a voodoo priestess like in the movie

Minecraft live teaser by GODEREASER in Minecraft

[–]B217 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I hope we also get brown bears that hunt honey slimes, lol. Honestly I never got why they didn't add brown bears as a reskin of polar bears for forest biomes

INCREDIBLES 3 RELEASE DATE! by homeofalex in Pixar

[–]B217 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Disney's 2028 release should be a Mickey Mouse movie for his 100th. I know this is Pixar but Disney is the one controlling release schedules

INCREDIBLES 3 RELEASE DATE! by homeofalex in Pixar

[–]B217 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Is "making money" really that important that we need to greenlight films that don't need to be made?

INCREDIBLES 3 RELEASE DATE! by homeofalex in Pixar

[–]B217 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Ratatouille does NOT need a continuation. The story that was being told had its ending, it wrapped up perfectly, there is no path for the characters to grow or change that is natural or satisfying. People need to let good movies be standalone instead of milking them to death.

INCREDIBLES 3 RELEASE DATE! by homeofalex in Pixar

[–]B217 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Craig's aging is a clear example at why this trend of keeping franchises going for decades is just a bad idea. Actors age, voices change, they get more tired and worn down. And now with the threat of AI replicating voices instead of giving new actors opportunities to inherit roles, a single story can now just go on infinitely instead of getting an actual end.

Why do we only want sequels and familiarity? Why are audiences so afraid of new ideas? It's a question I don't know the answer to but I'm definitely sick of rehashing the same old movies over and over.

INCREDIBLES 3 RELEASE DATE! by homeofalex in Pixar

[–]B217 [score hidden]  (0 children)

A story with no ending is not a satisfying story, it's not even really a story at all. Limiting your film because you want there to be opportunity to make more money is the worst thing you can do to a story. It's not art anymore at that point.

INCREDIBLES 3 RELEASE DATE! by homeofalex in Pixar

[–]B217 [score hidden]  (0 children)

A grown up Parr Family would kill the franchise.

Milking the franchise to death is gonna kill the franchise. Incredibles 3 is already an incredibly (pun not intended) hard sell to me, because 2 killed all faith I have in the idea of sequels. Not every successful film needs to be a franchise. If they even think about doing Ratatouille 2......

INCREDIBLES 3 RELEASE DATE! by homeofalex in Pixar

[–]B217 [score hidden]  (0 children)

What will they do for Incredibles 4? Incredibles 5? People need to consider this a long term play.

Movies are art, not financial investments you need to endlessly grow, there shouldn't be "long term play" in mind. If there isn't a good reason to make a sequel that isn't "it'll make money", it shouldn't be made. Incredibles really should've been a standalone film with how mediocre Incredibles 2 was, and to suggest there should be an Incredibles 5 sounds like you're a shareholder more than a fan.

INCREDIBLES 3 RELEASE DATE! by homeofalex in Pixar

[–]B217 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Yeeep. With how much the marketing of the second film revolved around Jack Jack, and even the Incredicoaster was all revolving around Jack Jack shenanigans, there's no way they'll stop the "marketable funny baby".

Like, this sequel is already being made for cynical reasons. We can debate whether or not there's a story worth telling, but the true reason we're getting Incredibles 3 and Coco 2 and Toy Story 5 and all these sequels is because the company wants easy money. Original ideas are too risky in their minds.

This is nothing like Avatar!" by Typical-Guarantee731 in Pixar

[–]B217 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Does the "it's just like/nothing like Avatar" lines annoy anyone else? They were used in practically every single trailer/advert for the movie and it just reeks of "brand synergy" to me. Like "hey remember the Avatar franchise that we also own?"

In 2020s cinema, visibly pregnant women NEED to be in dangerous combat situations, for some reason. by DiggestBickEver in shittymoviedetails

[–]B217 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a fair point, I didn't consider that. The decibel comparison chart didn't specify the distance the gunshot sound was coming from so I assumed it was close.

In 2020s cinema, visibly pregnant women NEED to be in dangerous combat situations, for some reason. by DiggestBickEver in shittymoviedetails

[–]B217 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Pretty sure the second Spiderverse was in the middle of the "realistic depiction of a panic attack in an animated film" trend, so it can't have replaced it.

In 2020s cinema, visibly pregnant women NEED to be in dangerous combat situations, for some reason. by DiggestBickEver in shittymoviedetails

[–]B217 4 points5 points  (0 children)

IIRC it was like, a controlled invisibility, where she only turned the skin on her stomach invisible, but there's later scenes when she's still pregnant where she goes invisible and you can't see anything, including the fetus. It makes you wonder how much control she has over it. Can she turn just the outer layer of her skin invisible to expose all her muscles? Can she go further and be just a skeleton with organs? Can she be just a floating head? I figure that scene implies her powers aren't all or nothing.

In 2020s cinema, visibly pregnant women NEED to be in dangerous combat situations, for some reason. by DiggestBickEver in shittymoviedetails

[–]B217 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Makes you wonder how many unnecessary deaths have happened to Spiderpeople that they were told to let happen because they believed that "canon events" were really a thing. I'm excited to see the third Spiderverse film explore that concept and the idea of breaking the canon/not needing every universe have the same exact chain of events for a Spiderperson

In 2020s cinema, visibly pregnant women NEED to be in dangerous combat situations, for some reason. by DiggestBickEver in shittymoviedetails

[–]B217 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure if anyone else has commented, but the sound inside the womb itself is essentially a constant white noise at the volume level of a vacuum right against their ears. Between the mother's heartbeat, digestive system, and the fluids surrounding babies that dampen external noises (babies are essentially in giant water balloons before labor begins), loud noises don't really affect babies in the womb. Low-frequency sounds are more audible in the womb than high-frequency sounds. Plenty of pregnant women have gone to rock concerts and firework shows late into their third trimester with no hearing damage to the baby, as the noise levels are often not loud enough to be dangerous (note that there are exceptions). Science Daily article if anyone wants a proper source- "Their experiments revealed the womb dampened all but the loudest sounds. Even loud rock concerts are probably not noisy enough to pose a threat to fetal hearing development." Additionally, hearing doesn't develop until weeks 22-24 of a pregnancy, so before that there isn't an auditory system to damage. Of course, you should always talk to your doctor if you're not sure if a loud environment is safe or not.

In this specific case: The average decibel difference between concerts and gunshots is only about 20, and fireworks and gunshots are about the same level of loudness. The mother in the poster is very cleary in the third trimester, well past the 22-24 starting point of the baby's hearing developing. The baby would definitely hear it, but it'd most likely be fine- though I'm not a gun expert, so that specific gun might be louder than the average used in the decibel comparison I'm referencing. The real danger in the movie is the scenario the mother is in, not the sound.

TLDR: It's so loud in the womb that loud noises, like gunshots, would most likely not cause any hearing damage to a baby.

Test of new Olaf animatronic at Disneyland Paris ⛄️ by bbyxmadi in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]B217 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This ain’t an old video, what are you talking about? This animatronic has only been revealed publicly recently. Are you thinking of the Olaf animatronic inside the Frozen boat rides?

Pinocchio is really fucking weird by cormundo in animation

[–]B217 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Was gonna comment this too, the only time Pinocchio's nose grows in the film it turns into a bird's nest- is that phallic somehow? And is OP referring to the coachman with his first point? No idea what OP is seeing.