Blizzard Beach Construction

[LittleBuford]

This is not to argue, I enjoy these discussions, but it just feels off, similar to how we discussed the font on the painted signage in Morocco. Sometimes things make sense in a theme park and other times it catch’s your attention and makes you question the reality of the fantasy you’re experiencing.

Fair enough. I suppose much of it boils down to what does and doesn’t personally affect us. I respect the fact that this bothers you, even if I don’t share your view. I will say, however, that the recent text debacle at Morocco is a somewhat special case in that the issues with it were/are measurable by objective standards rather than a matter of opinion: it was initially written backwards and, even in its correctly oriented version, uses an ugly computer-generated font that looks the opposite of handwritten.

 

[flynnibus]

Disney can’t win. The initial criticism was that they had inserted the characters unchanged, without any thematic consideration.

No - it was pointed out they don't fit the premise established with the park's story and setting.

Now people are complaining because the characters defy Frozen’s internal timeline, even though the result—which has the young Anna and Elsa playing with Snowgies—is actually responsive to the purpose and intended audience of the area in question.

No, because changing their age doesn't do anything to address the fundamental problem raised before. These are just additional examples of the lack of consistency EVEN WITHIN the Frozen stuff, let alone with Blizzard Beach.

You're playing grab-bag and creating strawmen.

 

[LittleBuford]

Your parade example is not a conflict because it's not a singular topic parade... You don't see the wrong character on the wrong float.. you see a series of DIFFERENT floats that are each consistent within themselves to their concept.

Yes, and that concept is sometimes just “princesses”, or “villains”, or (in the case of the boat at the end of Fantasmic) “a fun assortment of Disney characters from a bunch of unrelated films”. The parks have never been literal or pedantic in their portrayal and mixing of characters.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Doesn't it make more sense to compare Disney's approach to these matters in the context of the theme parks (where characters from different IPs have always feely intermingled) rather than in the context of the films?

Storytelling is storytelling. The same concepts all apply. Theme parks from the very beginning have been described as built cinematic experiences. The characters were not always interjected into each others stories and experiences. Mary Poppins wasn’t added to the Alice in Wonderland ride to make it more popular. Concepts treated as just self-evident and a matter of fact in movies and television are derided as ridiculous when applied to themed entertainment because themed entertainment isn’t a real, legitimate form of storytelling. Themed entertainment is just a hodgepodge of stuff.

 

[LittleBuford]

Even Magic Kindgom’s centrepiece originally had King Stefan banqueting where he shouldn’t be (which is to say nothing of the fact that Cinderella Castle looks nothing like its supposed referent).

 

[LittleBuford]

Storytelling is storytelling. The same concepts all apply. Theme parks from the very beginning have been described as built cinematic experiences. The characters were not always interjected into each others stories and experiences. Mary Poppins wasn’t added to the Alice in Wonderland ride to make it more popular. Concepts treated as just self-evident and a matter of fact in movies and television are derided as ridiculous when applied to themed entertainment because themed entertainment isn’t a real, legitimate form of storytelling. Themed entertainment is just a hodgepodge of stuff.

I don’t fully understand your post, but I would say again that it needn’t be all or nothing. That I don’t see any issues with this particular addition doesn’t mean I would be OK with characters randomly showing up in rides that don’t pertain to them.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don’t fully understand your post, but I would say again that it needn’t be all or nothing. That I don’t see any issues with this particular addition doesn’t mean I would be OK with characters randomly showing up in rides that don’t pertain to them.

Why is this any different than just adding other characters to a ride? A ride has a distinct story. Blizzard Beach has a distinct and rather specific story.

 

[LittleBuford]

Why is this any different than just adding other characters to a ride? A ride has a distinct story. Blizzard Beach has a distinct and rather specific story.

Because it is a limited, self-contained addition meant for a specific audience that doesn’t affect the overall theming. I would compare it to the addition of characters to Disneyland’s it’s a small world (though I know some here don’t like that change either).

 

[Casper Gutman]

Why do we have to be so literal about it? The parades and nighttime shows routinely combine characters that have nothing to do with each other. No-one seems to mind that Sorcerer Mickey finds himself fighting Maleficent, or that a parade float features princesses from several distinct movies.

Why can’t we have Facilier and Ray in the Splash makeover? Why can’t we have Han flying the Falcon in Galaxy’s Edge?

 

[Animaniac93-98]

All-Star Movies is becoming more and more often the benchmark of modern Disney design.

Build a box, put some paint on it and figures out front and that's how you make a theme experience.

If something else besides a box already exists, it can only be improved with unrelated static figures and decals.

 

[LittleBuford]

Why can’t we have Facilier and Ray in the Splash makeover? Why can’t we have Han flying the Falcon in Galaxy’s Edge?

Excellent questions! I wish we could!

 

[mmascari]

Wait, was it themed after Where's My Water? before?

I guess I'll just need to let it go now.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Why do we have to be so literal about it? The parades and nighttime shows routinely combine characters that have nothing to do with each other. No-one seems to mind that Sorcerer Mickey finds himself fighting Maleficent, or that a parade float features princesses from several distinct movies.

Yeah they've always been loose with what characters appear together and where with their parades and night shows, but these are sort of "non-canonical" to the parks they are in, so to speak.

 

[Disney Analyst]

"Snowgies" did not exist until Frozen 2, but somehow here, with young Anna and Elsa, they do?

Anna and Elsa also aren’t frozen in time fibreglass statues… but here we are.

 

[SplashJacket]

 

[Club Cooloholic]

While I liked the kids area themeing before. I can't get too upset by this. Maybe we can just say that Anna and Elsa and Olaf are enjoying a day at the waterpark, the one created from a ski resort) as well. The story is still there and these guys are enjoying it.

 

[_caleb]

While I liked the kids area themeing before. I can't get too upset by this. Maybe we can just say that Anna and Elsa and Olaf are enjoying a day at the waterpark, the one created from a ski resort) as well. The story is still there and these guys are enjoying it.

I think part of the issue is that the Imagineers responsible for this were supposed to have developed a backstory that would explain things. Maybe they did. Typically, the backstory of a land/attraction/area can be sort of intuited by the guest. But it’s not clear to the guest what this backstory could possibly entail, so we’re left with, ”um, let’s just say younger Elsa and Anna went forward in time to play with baby snowmen in the snow park in Florida.”

 

[LittleBuford]

I think part of the issue is that the Imagineers responsible for this were supposed to have developed a backstory that would explain things. Maybe they did. Typically, the backstory of a land/attraction/area can be sort of intuited by the guest.

No guest would ever intuit the backstory of Blizzard Beach; it’s a deliberately silly conceit that needs to be explained.

To my mind, Disney works best when the attractions, lands, and parks can be enjoyed without the need for a laborious backstory justifying everything. That doesn’t mean a backstory can’t bring something extra—I love that of Blizzard Beach—but it shouldn’t be necessary.

 

[_caleb]

No guest would ever intuit the backstory of Blizzard Beach; it’s a deliberately silly conceit that needs to be explained.

To my mind, Disney works best when the attractions, lands, and parks can be enjoyed without the need for a laborious backstory justifying everything. That doesn’t mean a backstory can’t bring something extra—I love that of Blizzard Beach—but it shouldn’t be necessary.

I think I meant that the guest would experience thematic consistency that leads them to intuit that there is a backstory, if not necessarily what that backstory actually is.

Backstory isn’t usually something the guests are told. It’s the story behind the story that helps Imagineers design a space that makes some sort of thematic sense. It’s necessary for Imagineers, to guide their decisions and keep some sort of thematic integrity (especially if the theme doesn’t follow typical norms/rules).

Blizzard Beach has a backstory that they do tell guests (a freak snowstorm on January 11, 1977…). But even if you don’t know it, the park’s adherence to the story makes it all make it’s own sort of sense.

 

[LittleBuford]

I think I meant that the guest would experience thematic consistency that leads them to intuit that there is a backstory, if not necessarily what that backstory actually is.

Backstory isn’t usually something the guests are told. It’s the story behind the story that helps Imagineers design a space that makes some sort of thematic sense. It’s necessary for Imagineers, to guide their decisions and keep some sort of thematic integrity (especially if the theme doesn’t follow typical norms/rules).

Blizzard Beach has a backstory that they do tell guests (a freak snowstorm on January 11, 1977…). But even if you don’t know it, the park’s adherence to the story makes it all make it’s own sort of sense.

I largely agree with this, but I don't think the presence of a few Frozen characters in the children's play area is enough to undermine the overall theme of the park. Everyone knows they're there in a limited capacity to keep the children happy and are not supposed to be understood as part of the ski-resort conceit.

I mentioned King Stefan's Banquet Hall above as a much earlier (and arguably more extreme) example of Disney placing things where they work but don't strictly belong. Disney "corrected" the error in 1997 by renaming the restaurant, but I do think it's worth reflecting on the fact that Magic Kingdom's centrepiece opened with what today would be pilloried in this forum as an example of lazy imagineering.

Below is a description of the backstory from the menu (I'm not sure when the text dates from). It makes no attempt to explain the mixing of IPs.