Blizzard Beach Construction

[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.

 

[CntrlFlPete]

at least now they can sell an Olaf drink (glass of water w/ a carrot in it from when he melts just like the (once) frozen water park).

 

[FigmentFan82]

The context of Blizzard Beach is not just snow. Anna and Elsa are not made of snow. Why not give kids more joy by adding more characters?

but elsa can control snow

 

[FigmentFan82]

Now if they rethemed the entire Blizzard Beach to "Frozen The Waterpark", that could be something interesting.... A complete Arrendelle overlay throughout the park.... Or is this supposed to be Elsa goes to Florida and this is what happened? Still the young Anna doesn't make sense... I think it is just "Throw some fiberglass Frozen stuff around Blizzard Beach"...

the current alps-ish theming isn't too far off from norwegian

 

[DisDork2002]

A frozen water park would be awesome for kids.

 

[Goofy Ninja]

I can understand why people are mad about the Frozen stuff being added. But on my P'd off list it's pretty low and it goes with the theming enough to keep me happy.

 

[eddie104]

Lol Jesus, are people here really upset about kid princess characters in a splash pool? And the timelines of when tiny snowmen were introduced? I think some of yall are addicted to being upset

Imagine me coming back from a hiatus and seeing I’m 10 pages behind on this particular thread.

Mind you this wasn’t a complete retheme but some characters added to one area of the park.

 

[Rambozo]

As long as they don't change the whole park I'm cool.

Thankfully Disney would never do that though, because they are pretty cheap. Plus they know with their molasse-level speed they couldn't finish it for a very long time. There's grannies and turtles passing them by.

 

[Mikomike12]

I’ve seen it all, complaining about the lore and history of blizzard beach because of minor changes to a toddler area for 3 year olds

 

[_caleb]

Imagine me coming back from a hiatus and seeing I’m 10 pages behind on this particular thread.

Mind you this wasn’t a complete retheme but some characters added to one area of the park.

Because Frozen has its own story (that most guests will have seen), the effect of adding Olaf, Anna, Elsa, and the snow gremlins is more than just adding a few decorations.

I’ve seen it all, complaining about the lore and history of blizzard beach because of minor changes to a toddler area for 3 year olds

Discussing isn’t the same thing as “complaining.”

The “relax, this is no big deal” folks don’t seem to understand that the current state of the parks is due to a thousand little “no big deal” changes.

• Expensive, but “cheap” (see the thread on fiberglass character statues in the parks)
• Complicated story, but lazy application (A common complaint about S.E.A., Avengers campus, etc.)
• Subtle thematic inconsistencies that add up to an overall poor show

Some will disagree with this, and that’s fine! But if these little things don’t bug you, I don’t see how you can be bothered by the “big” things, like IP everywhere, the gutting of Epcot, or the All-Star-ification of the resorts.

 

[LittleBuford]

Because Frozen has its own story (that most guests will have seen), the effect of adding Olaf, Anna, Elsa, and the snow gremlins is more than just adding a few decorations.

Could you expand on this statement?

 

[_caleb]

Could you expand on this statement?

I can try…

Frozen is a story (or collection of stories) that has its own design, logic, lore, internal story, setting, tone, etc. Disney employs some of the best artists in the world to develop and maintain this, and even if audiences aren’t aware of all the work that goes into this, they recognize the end result (and lots of people value it enough that the franchise has made eleventy bajillion dollars).

The same could be said of Blizzard Beach: design, logic, lore, internal story, setting, tone, etc. And Disney used some of the best in the business to formulate, design, and build this.

So when Disney takes characters from one story and adds them to a different story, they’re not just “putting Anna, Elsa, and Olaf into the kiddie area.” From the guests’/audiences’ perspective, they’re mashing up two established and developed “worlds.”

Obviously Frozen and Blizzard Beach have some things in common. This is what the Imagineers (or Executives) responsible for adding Frozen characters to BB seem to be focusing on. But those characters bring with them a whole bunch of story “baggage” for audiences who are already familiar with them. The result is—whether it’s obvious, jarring, and off-putting to audiences, or subtle—a dilution of BB’s story and thematic integrity.

BTW, this thematic erosion, dilution, muddying of theme is what has bothered me most about the parks over the years (well, and price hikes). Consistency and integrity of theme have always been what made Disney different for me. But all the little concessions add up to a diminished overall experience.

I know lots of fans will just say, “Relax! This little change is no big deal.” But eventually, they add up to be a big deal. And by then, it’s too late to recapture what was lost.

 

[LittleBuford]

I can try…

Frozen is a story (or collection of stories) that has its own design, logic, lore, internal story, setting, tone, etc. Disney employs some of the best artists in the world to develop and maintain this, and even if audiences aren’t aware of all the work that goes into this, they recognize the end result (and lots of people value it enough that the franchise has made eleventy bajillion dollars).

The same could be said of Blizzard Beach: design, logic, lore, internal story, setting, tone, etc. And Disney used some of the best in the business to formulate, design, and build this.

So when Disney takes characters from one story and adds them to a different story, they’re not just “putting Anna, Elsa, and Olaf into the kiddie area.” From the guests’/audiences’ perspective, they’re mashing up two established and developed “worlds.”

Obviously Frozen and Blizzard Beach have some things in common. This is what the Imagineers (or Executives) responsible for adding Frozen characters to BB seem to be focusing on. But those characters bring with them a whole bunch of story “baggage” for audiences who are already familiar with them. The result is—whether it’s obvious, jarring, and off-putting to audiences, or subtle—a dilution of BB’s story and thematic integrity.

BTW, this thematic erosion, dilution, muddying of theme is what has bothered me most about the parks over the years (well, and price hikes). Consistency and integrity of theme have always been what made Disney different for me. But all the little concessions add up to a diminished overall experience.

I know lots of fans will just say, “Relax! This little change is no big deal.” But eventually, they add up to be a big deal. And by then, it’s too late to recapture what was lost.

Thank you for explaining. I guess I don’t see the danger you’re pointing to in this particular instance. There is nothing about the statues that invites guests to flesh out the world of Frozen further; they are subsumed into the existing theme, much like the IP characters that now pepper Disneyland’s it’s a small world. That said, I realise you see things differently, and I’m sorry the experience has been diminished for you.

 

[_caleb]

@LittleBuford, the kindness you consistently display on these boards is why you’re one of my favorite members here.

There is nothing about the statues that invites guests to flesh out the world of Frozen further; they are subsumed into the existing theme, much like the IP characters that now pepper Disneyland’s it’s a small world.

Is there nothing at all? Isn’t the world of Frozen already fleshed out in the mind of the guest? The fact that we immediately recognize the characters means a lot of the heavy-lifting of storytelling has been done. And no effort (that I can see) has been made to un-do or counter-act this, like when they change the design of Woody to better fit in It’s A Small World.

 

[LittleBuford]

@LittleBuford, the kindness you consistently display on these boards is why you’re one of my favorite members here.

Thank you. This is very kind, and fully reciprocated.

Is there nothing at all? Isn’t the world of Frozen already fleshed out in the mind of the guest? The fact that we immediately recognize the characters means a lot of the heavy-lifting of storytelling has been done. And no effort (that I can see) has been made to un-do or counter-act this, like when they change the design of Woody to better fit in It’s A Small World.

View attachment 675478

"Nothing in my eyes" is what I should have written. Others are going to view things differently, and I acknowledge that. Case in point: I consider that Toy Story vignette in it's a small world much more in-your-face than the Frozen characters at Blizzard Beach, even if it is stylistically better integrated.

I think one thing we can agree on is that it would be a great shame if Blizzard Beach were to lose its current theme. I would very much oppose a Frozen takeover and don't believe one is in the cards.

 

[Beacon Joe]

Obviously Frozen and Blizzard Beach have some things in common. This is what the Imagineers (or Executives) responsible for adding Frozen characters to BB seem to be focusing on. But those characters bring with them a whole bunch of story “baggage” for audiences who are already familiar with them. The result is—whether it’s obvious, jarring, and off-putting to audiences, or subtle—a dilution of BB’s story and thematic integrity.

BTW, this thematic erosion, dilution, muddying of theme is what has bothered me most about the parks over the years (well, and price hikes). Consistency and integrity of theme have always been what made Disney different for me. But all the little concessions add up to a diminished overall experience.

Just when I think the Disney company and parks can't get any more laughably cheap or one up themselves with ham-handed IP forceful insertions, I see this Blizzard Beach story pop up.

A story from Denmark that was retold via 19th century-ish Norway-ish imagery... somehow is a fit for a place that developed and took its aesthetics from a backstory of 20th century central Florida.



All you can do is laugh anymore.

 

[_caleb]

Just when I think the Disney company and parks can't get any more laughably cheap or one up themselves with ham-handed IP forceful insertions, I see this Blizzard Beach story pop up.

A story from Denmark that was retold via 19th century-ish Norway-ish imagery... somehow is a fit for a place that developed and took its aesthetics from a backstory of 20th century central Florida.



All you can do is laugh anymore.

Instead of laughing, I come here and share my disapproval!

I agree that Frozen just doesn't fit. But I'm not upset by it. In fact, I've come to expect stuff like this from Disney. But I do see a clear pattern that, when all added together, is resulting in diminished theming in what are my favorite theme parks.

 

[LittleBuford]

A story from Denmark that was retold via 19th century-ish Norway-ish imagery...

For what it’s worth, the original story may be by a Danish author, but the Snow Queen resides on the island of Spitsbergen, which is in northern Norway. Norwegian imagery is more faithful to the tale than Danish would have been, not less.

 

[RobWDW1971]

Just when I think the Disney company and parks can't get any more laughably cheap or one up themselves with ham-handed IP forceful insertions, I see this Blizzard Beach story pop up.

A story from Denmark that was retold via 19th century-ish Norway-ish imagery... somehow is a fit for a place that developed and took its aesthetics from a backstory of 20th century central Florida.



All you can do is laugh anymore.

Every day they scream in our faces that they don't care and mock those that do. They do not care about theming, storytelling, or cohesive architecture any longer.

We all need to move on from these concepts that made the Disney parks special, they certainly have.

 

[Chi84]

Every day they scream in our faces that they don't care and mock those that do. They do not care about theming, storytelling, or cohesive architecture any longer.

We all need to move on from these concepts that made the Disney parks special, they certainly have.

I agree. People need to move on and decide if the current form of WDW Is somewhere they want to visit. It’s pretty great, but not for everyone, especially if you want to go back in time.