A sequel? Nah, not this one

[UNCgolf]

No, it is in Norway.


(watch beginning at 1:04)

That doesn't mean it's set in Norway. Just saying it is meaningless. It's very obviously set in a fictional fantasy kingdom.

To be fair, that applies to most of Disney's animated films -- while Beauty and the Beast is nominally set in France, it doesn't really have any specific connection to the actual country. Which is another reason they mostly don't eally belong in the World Showcase.

 

[UNCgolf]

Aladdin's story as Middle-Eastern has a few holes: one being that it takes place in China, after that initial place-setting, there is nothing in the story that would confirm either a Chinese or Middle-Eastern place-setting, and, it may not even be a traditional Middle-Eastern tale to begin with since it was added to One Thousand and One Nights by a European by way of a Syrian story-teller and there are no pre-existing evidence of the story.




Many modern European nations were once made up of smaller kingdoms, sort of like states or counties. E.g., the Kingdom of Wessex in Great Britain.

A "Kingdom of Arendelle" is not necessarily the whole nation of Norway as far as modern boundaries go. Everything we've seen of Arendelle makes it more like a city-state.

And being fictional doesn't mean it can't be firmly identified as being part of an identifiable state or country. Gotham is in the U.S. Brigadoon is in Scotland.

I'm the last person who needs a history lesson, especially on ancient and medieval Europe.

Arendelle is a fictional place. I don't understand this attempt to now claim it was always intended to actually be part of Norway. I'm not aware of the writers of Frozen ever indicating they actually wanted people to believe it was a real place in Norway in the past.

Brigadoon and Gotham are also fictional places that would not belong in the World Showcase even though they are supposedly located within real countries.

 

[_caleb]

No, it is in Norway.


(watch beginning at 1:04)

Retconned

 

[tirian]

Yup. Maybe that rumor persists because the World's Fairs that Disney used as the model for Epcot have now begun to fade from public memory. Nobody who attended the 1964 World's Fair in Flushing Meadows would have likely assumed that visiting, for example, the Swedish pavilion and eating some meatballs would have shown them all they need to know about the country. The intention was to whet the appetite for actually visiting the real country (although given the state of Swedish cuisine at the time, maybe "appetite" is not a good metaphor).

Good point.

Also, you’re right about the World’s Fair connection.

 

[tirian]

Yup. Maybe that rumor persists because the World's Fairs that Disney used as the model for Epcot have now begun to fade from public memory. Nobody who attended the 1964 World's Fair in Flushing Meadows would have likely assumed that visiting, for example, the Swedish pavilion and eating some meatballs would have shown them all they need to know about the country. The intention was to whet the appetite for actually visiting the real country (although given the state of Swedish cuisine at the time, maybe "appetite" is not a good metaphor).

Most guests in 2020 probably don’t think that, either. The problem is, it’s become fashionable online to use gotcha techniques against anything that isn’t 100% accurate at every single moment, as if entertainment is a history lesson (this is from the same crowd that made Hamilton a hit, but I digress).

A Hypothetical Situation:

You might get five people who tweet, “Nobody dresses like that anymore! World Showcase is outdated and racist!” Perhaps they’ve never been to Epcot and don’t realize it’s a theme park emphasizing an idealized view of a historic culture. Maybe they have been and are too stupid to separate the differences between a theme park and a museum.

Disney’s solution: “Millions of guests know it’s not the real thing, but we had five angry tweets. Let’s whitewash the whole concept and fill it with cartoons. Then it’ll be more Disney too!”

 

[Mac Tonight]

Disney’s solution: “Millions of guests know it’s not the real thing, but we had five angry tweets. Let’s whitewash the whole concept and fill it with cartoons. Then it’ll be more Disney too!”

... don't forget, "more relevant, more timeless, and more family!"

 

[Heppenheimer]

Most guests in 2020 probably don’t think that, either. The problem is, it’s become fashionable online to use gotcha techniques against anything that isn’t 100% accurate at every single moment, as if entertainment is a history lesson (this is from the same crowd that made Hamilton a hit, but I digress).

A Hypothetical Situation:

You might get five people who tweet, “Nobody dresses like that anymore! World Showcase is outdated and racist!” Perhaps they’ve never been to Epcot and don’t realize it’s a theme park emphasizing an idealized view of a historic culture. Maybe they have been and are too stupid to separate the differences between a theme park and a museum.

Disney’s solution: “Millions of guests know it’s not the real thing, but we had five angry tweets. Let’s whitewash the whole concept and fill it with cartoons. Then it’ll be more Disney too!”

Actually, go to a fest in Bavaria or Austria, and you'll see plenty of people wearing the traditional garb ("Tracht") without ironic intent. Young people in particular seem to enjoy the chance to dress up.

And their outfits are usually much nicer than the mass-produced stuff Disney cast members wear.

 

[tirian]

Actually, go to a fest in Bavaria or Austria, and you'll see plenty of people wearing the traditional garb ("Tracht") without ironic intent. Young people in particular seem to enjoy the chance to dress up.

And their outfits are usually much nicer than the mass-produced stuff Disney cast members wear.

Good point!

 

[_caleb]

Most guests in 2020 probably don’t think that, either. The problem is, it’s become fashionable online to use gotcha techniques against anything that isn’t 100% accurate at every single moment, as if entertainment is a history lesson (this is from the same crowd that made Hamilton a hit, but I digress).

A Hypothetical Situation:

You might get five people who tweet, “Nobody dresses like that anymore! World Showcase is outdated and racist!” Perhaps they’ve never been to Epcot and don’t realize it’s a theme park emphasizing an idealized view of a historic culture. Maybe they have been and are too stupid to separate the differences between a theme park and a museum.

Disney’s solution: “Millions of guests know it’s not the real thing, but we had five angry tweets. Let’s whitewash the whole concept and fill it with cartoons. Then it’ll be more Disney too!”

I know you’re just making a point, but do you really think Disney’s actions the last few years have been in reaction to just a small vocal minority? I’ve been in all the Splash threads and the old PC Pirates changes threads and the “5th Key” thread- I know there are a lot of folks here who seem to think that Disney reacts to complaints from a few haters and ignores the input from the faithful majority.

But that doesn’t make sense to me. How would it help Disney to anger their biggest supporters just to pander to a few?

It seems to me that either:

1. There are a LOT more people upset about these things than most here know about and Disney is trying to appease this audience, OR
2. Disney is pursuing it’s own agenda and is willing to risk alienating their core audience to do it.

Thoughts?

 

[Brer Oswald]

I know you’re just making a point, but do you really think Disney’s actions the last few years have been in reaction to just a small vocal minority? I’ve been in all the Splash threads and the old PC Pirates changes threads and the “5th Key” thread- I know there are a lot of folks here who seem to think that Disney reacts to complaints from a few haters and ignores the input from the faithful majority.

But that doesn’t make sense to me. How would it help Disney to anger their biggest supporters just to pander to a few?

It seems to me that either:

1. There are a LOT more people upset about these things than most here know about and Disney is trying to appease this audience, OR
2. Disney is pursuing it’s own agenda and is willing to risk alienating their core audience to do it.

Thoughts?

It’s definitely #2. The evidence has piled up in favour of it.

Disney is a mega corporation, and as it continues to grow, people are going to continue to criticize them simply because they are a mega corporation. Most people I know hate Disney for this fact alone. So they are going to do what’s simple and easy to get themselves a bit of good press.

Does that mean occasionally taking advantage of more serious situations? Of course it does, but if they do it in the right way, nobody is going to catch on or care.

They will cut the fat where they see necessary. To some of us, the “fat” is something we love about Disney. But it really doesn’t matter what a small group of hardcore fans think. That doesn’t pay the bills. Usually not, anyways.

 

[Jrb1979]

It’s definitely #2. The evidence has piled up in favour of it.

Disney is a mega corporation, and as it continues to grow, people are going to continue to criticize them simply because they are a mega corporation. Most people I know hate Disney for this fact alone. So they are going to do what’s simple and easy to get themselves a bit of good press.

Does that mean occasionally taking advantage of more serious situations? Of course it does, but if they do it in the right way, nobody is going to catch on or care.

They will cut the fat where they see necessary. To some of us, the “fat” is something we love about Disney. But it really doesn’t matter what a small group of hardcore fans think. That doesn’t pay the bills. Usually not, anyways.

I agree its all about how much IP they can jam into every corner of the parks.

 

[tirian]

I know you’re just making a point, but do you really think Disney’s actions the last few years have been in reaction to just a small vocal minority? I’ve been in all the Splash threads and the old PC Pirates changes threads and the “5th Key” thread- I know there are a lot of folks here who seem to think that Disney reacts to complaints from a few haters and ignores the input from the faithful majority.

But that doesn’t make sense to me. How would it help Disney to anger their biggest supporters just to pander to a few?

It seems to me that either:

1. There are a LOT more people upset about these things than most here know about and Disney is trying to appease this audience, OR
2. Disney is pursuing it’s own agenda and is willing to risk alienating their core audience to do it.

Thoughts?

#2

IP all day because it sells toys.

BTW, I shopped at a Disney Store in-person for the first time in years (not including World of Disney), and WOW! the quality has gone downhill. But the store was at Covid capacity with a queue stretching into the mall, and people were buying tons of stuffed animals and toys for their kids. Very little looked like something you couldn’t pick up at Target or Kohl’s. The quality is poor and generic, but as long as people buy it, the Iger/Chapek version of Disney will eschew the company’s heritage and pursue the toy sales. That’s just how corporations work. I’m not happy about it, but I’ve accepted it.

 

[Haymarket2008]

It doesn't take place in Norway. A fictional old magical kingdom isn't Norway, regardless of its inspiration.

I think claiming otherwise is silly -- you could just as easily say that Lord of the Rings takes place in the UK because parts of it are inspired by the English countryside (and I believe it's supposed to be Earth in the ancient past).

It literally does though. They mention it outright in one of the Frozen shorts. It is canon.

Edit: Didn't see that this was already proven.....again a few responses back.

 

[Ldno]

#2

IP all day because it sells toys.

BTW, I shopped at a Disney Store in-person for the first time in years (not including World of Disney), and WOW! the quality has gone downhill. But the store was at Covid capacity with a queue stretching into the mall, and people were buying tons of stuffed animals and toys for their kids. Very little looked like something you couldn’t pick up at Target or Kohl’s. The quality is poor and generic, but as long as people buy it, the Iger/Chapek version of Disney will eschew the company’s heritage and pursue the toy sales. That’s just how corporations work. I’m not happy about it, but I’ve accepted it.

85% of the toys sold there are just rebranded at the Parks as “exclusive” merch. Don’t forget the recycle bag fee I always forget to bring

 

[LittleBuford]

The obsession with location of setting in nonsensical. Many stories associated with a particular culture take place elsewhere. Morocco may not be physically in or adjacent to Arabia but it is culturally part of the Arab world, is a member of the Arab League and its people are largely Muslim Arab-Berbers.

Your hyphenation is misleading. Berbers generally do not regard themselves as, and are not considered to be, Arabs. They speak a different language (or rather groups of languages), have a different ethnic heritage, follow distinct traditions, and do not live in the Arab world outside North Africa.

In terms of architecture, Morocco belongs to the cultural entity known as the Maghrib, meaning Arab lands west of Egypt (historically including Spain). The architecture of Agrabah is a fanciful mishmash, but it has less to do with the Maghrib than with more eastern Islamic traditions.

But let’s say the movie was a more faithful adaptation and we more conclusive evidence of the story being of Arab origin. Then it would definitely belong in an Arab pavilion even though the setting of this hypothetical movie is now China.

You’re treating the Arab world as a monolith, ignoring important cultural differences between the various countries that fall under this umbrella term. “Arab” is really no more specific in this context than “European”. The claimed source for Aladdin was Hanna Diyab, a Maronite Christian from Syria. The story is no more a natural fit for Morocco than Don Quixote would be for Italy.

 

[LittleBuford]

I agree that Morocco is culturally near to other Arab countries.

Fun fact: the Moroccan dialect of Arabic is unintelligible to speakers of Egyptian Arabic, let alone Arabs further east. The difference between these two so-called dialects (they’re more appropriately thought of as separate languages) is greater than that between Italian and Spanish.

 

[LittleBuford]

Where are you getting China from with Aladdin? Arabian Nights, Ali Baba (his father) and with Agrabah taking place in the Levant.

The original story (which doesn’t belong to the canonical One Thousand and One Nights anyway) is set in China, though nothing about it is particularly Chinese; the characters‘ names and the cultural references are all Middle Eastern. (Note that Ali Baba is a separate story altogether, and again not part of the original Nights.)

In the UK, pantomime productions of Aladdin retain the Chinese setting. (“Pantomime“ in the British context refers to a kind of comedic play staged for children.)

 

[Brer Panther]

It literally does though. They mention it outright in one of the Frozen shorts. It is canon.

Well, Olaf's Frozen Adventure came out after Frozen Ever After opened, so...

 

[Heppenheimer]

So why not just base the damn thing in Norway to begin with? Norway was part of Sweden during the period where it looks the movies take place, so just make Elsa a Grand-Duchess, or something immediately below the rank of Queen.

I'm over-thinking this. Its a fictional country that although it vaguely resembles 19th century Norway, it clearly isn't, no matter what a short says about "canon". Norway is a real place, Arandelle is not.

 

[Brer Panther]

So why not just base the damn thing in Norway to begin with? Norway was part of Sweden during the period where it looks the movies take place, so just make Elsa a Grand-Duchess, or something immediately below the rank of Queen.

Grand Duchesses don't sell toys as well as queens or princesses.