I hadn’t visited WDW in 1982, it was a decade later before my first experience. My views are nothing to do with with not wanting change.
As for Maelstrom, you might as well say that the Morocco souk is unrelateable to anyone not from Morocco, or that the Canadian totem poles mean nothing to anyone other than Canadians. The WS pavilions provide a snapshot of the country in question, a representation. The fact that many of them have architecture based on real places is perhaps lost on many but adds to the distinct feel of each country.
The Frozen ride is only relatable to a demographic of pre-teens; I didn’t even realise it was supposed to be a kind of sequel to the movie - and I’ve seen it. The ride was an attempt to capitalise on the success of a movie that was very tenuously inspired by a story that came from Scandinavia, written by a Dane. The closest connection it has to Norway specifically is that the town in the movie is similarly named to a region of Norway - a region that is on the opposite side of the country with no fjords and pretty flat as far as Norway can be! At least Maelstrom contained trolls, oil, river rapids and a waterfall - all of which are connected to the real Norway.
As for the other changes, I admit to having been quite excited by the “bar on legs” as an interesting architectural building, but just not in place of Innoventions. It didn’t fit there and would have been better placed somewhere else. Ditto the new water feature walk-through.