Bob Chapek Confirms Disney Will Overhaul Epcot

[Tony the Tigger]

"Jimmy plays on the beach." The beach is not the subject.

"Jimmy plays on the glistening white sands of the beach amongst the roar of the waves crashing onto rocky outcrops." Despite the beach being given much more detail, it is still not the subject.

The Norwegian design and the intensity of research in Frozen has to do with the long tradition of realism at the Walt Disney Animation Studios, the detail demands of digital imagery versus the "traditional" means of the Animation medium and the suspension of disbelief.

If Jimmy playing on the beach is the subject of a Disney movie, then it's appropriate to use at the beach club.

 

[Phicinfan]

I have no skin in this game, as I have not rode nor intend to ride the new Frozen ride in Norway.

I see both sides, I get WS is to be a view of the real areas, to give some cultural experience for all of what those areas are and offer.
I also see @Tony the Tigger is saying that the movie is fictional, with fictional characters, that does have SOME tie in to the region that it was located in.

But let me add this. I agree that ratatouille celebrates french cuisine. But it also celebrates a rat for a chef, do you really think Rats are chef's in France?

Mary Poppins represent England to most, but I don't recall stories of real nanny's with those type of powers that really exist.

My point is, I think some are over sensitive to the tie in, and not looking with equal lenses.

 

[wdisney9000]

They went to kind of ridiculous lengths to be as authentic as an animated film might require

Ridiculous lengths? Aside from clothing, (some) architecture and a few landscapes, there is not much else that is authentic in terms of the real world. Did Disney do a good job representing those aspects? Yes. But ridiculous lengths, it is not. Simply claiming any other inaccuracy is due to it being an animated film only makes your point weak. You cant have it both ways. The fictional aspects of the story heavily outweigh the authentic ones. Heavily.

The Norway pavilion is now a mish-mash of reality and fantasy. There is no fluidity, just an extreme shift from one to the other.

ETA: I understand what your saying in terms of Frozen being based of Norwegian properties. I just (personally) feel that those few aspects alone are not justification to claim that the animated film is (or belongs in) a representation (i.e. WS) of Norway.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If Jimmy playing on the beach is the subject of a Disney movie, then it's appropriate to use at the beach club.

The Beach Club has a place, it is not just every beach. Should Jimmy be in Moana? You keep reducing theme to aesthetics and decoration, and not considering it as a story.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

The true question is, does it teach you anything about Norwegian culture, and the answer to that is a resounding NOOOOOO! Therefore, it does not belong in Epcot.

To me, if anything, the movies don't belong in Epcot. I don't think you are meant to be "educated" about the countries. I think you're meant to get an introduction, a taste - to pique your interest to possibly (only possibly) inspire further study, and specifically, the country wants your travel dollars when you go to the actual country. If you go the actual Norway to learn about the country, great. But the country doesn't care. They want your tourist dollars. To me, the film is a cross between a commercial and a show on PBS - both equally boring.

But obviously there is a market for that. I understand that, and you don't see me starting a thread railing against boring films in world showcase. I presume originally and/or now, the countries specifically want those films to promote themselves.

And as someone else suggested, you have country sponsors, you have corporate sponsors, and you have IP's.

Before a film director gets to go make artsy fartsy films without regard to profitability, or before a musician gets to make an "experimental" album, they typically have to prove themselves commercially, or do the whole thing in-house on a shoestring budget without the backing of the big companies.

Disney has no intention of being a starving artist.

Personally, I was as bored with those country films as I was with the exploration kiosks, whatever they were called, sponsored by whomever in future world. The former felt very public TV, the latter very school auditorium. I would never pay to see those things.

Maybe big thunder Mountain Railroad is impressive to some people who haven't been on many coasters, but I'm never buying a ticket to Disney to go on that. I went on it once recently and probably not for years before that. It's fine and I like it, but it's a coaster with some theming. Yes, "turning it into" an IP via TV show (i.e. giving it a more explicit backstory) or adding relevant IP characters to it would make it more enjoyable for me. Note "for me."

And if that's "dumbing things down" then we have a problem because I'm not dumb.

ETA: I understand what your saying in terms of Frozen being based of Norwegian properties. I just (personally) feel that those few aspects alone are not justification to claim that the animated film is (or belongs in) a representation (i.e. WS) of Norway.

I appreciate your opinion, but at the same time, I feel they are. I also feel both of our opinions are equally valid.

I have a problem when other people with no credentials or imaginary credentials are sitting here telling me my opinion is wrong.

They aren't just arguing a point theoretically, they're telling me I'm wrong as if that can be proven, with no authority to back it up.

My opinion and guess is that Walt never could have conceived of self-styled super fans chatting on the Internet, analyzing every detail of the parks as they evolved, while promoting their own Disney projects.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

The Beach Club has a place, it is not just every beach

Fair point.

Actually a lot of your posts start with a fair point and then you lose me LOL.

 

[Horizons '83]

Let's be honest, World Showcase rides have never really been a true depiction of their respective countries. Mexico, do all all Mexican's play trumpet and a member of a mariachi band? There are more stereotypes on that ride than I can count. Maelstrom had fictitious Trolls. While Frozen is a stretch to say it represents Norway as a country, its really not a stretch for World Showcase.

 

[disney4life2008]

First, I'm saying IMO you're overthinking it.

Next: don't twist my words.

WS, to oversimplify, is a representation of the highlights from different countries as they were many years ago. You can pick apart plenty of inconsistencies of scale, Americanized menus, etc. but why? They're not specifically represented as London and Paris, but the U.K. And France. Norway is next to Mexico.

"

I agree. I think through the mid 2000s, World Showcase was amazing and gnarled oos and aahs. I am not sure of world showcase is the significant draw for most: granted, people go to eat and drink, but if you remove the countries people would do that anyway. I remember in the 90s, visiting WS was almost like going to another theme park. You could fully immerse yourself in the sights, sounds, smells, food of each country (this is true from 80s and 90s planning videos). Today, I think of WS as a place to go get drunk. I observe the visitors in WS and they are more concerned about drinking then anything else. I guess Dan Conner clearly illustrated that in the 90s but still, WS had true value.Entertainment cuts have decreased my time in WS. I now only go get my fish and chips and go.

 

[disney4life2008]

Let's be honest, World Showcase rides have never really been a true depiction of their respective countries. Mexico, do all all Mexican's play trumpet and a member of a mariachi band? There are more stereotypes on that ride than I can count. Maelstrom had fictitious Trolls. While Frozen is a stretch to say it represents Norway as a country, its really not a stretch for World Showcase.

The mexico ride is full of stereotypes but I am not sure any other ride could work. It is to show the beauty of mexico alas with lots of stereotypes. I stand firm that Frozen was added to Norway to give the kids (in this case young girls) something to do. Even for boys, TT (if they could ride) is a thrill. There was really nothing for the princeeses. I remember when the new fantasyland was initially announced, it was so much female influence it was horrible.

 

[RobidaFlats]

...the country wants your travel dollars when you go to the actual country...

...I presume originally and/or now, the countries specifically want those films to promote themselves...

...you have country sponsors...

The "countries" (with the sole exception of Morocco) have never been sponsors of the pavilions. In fact, if I remember correctly, Canada and China didn't even have corporate sponsors when they opened.

Just wanted to put that out there.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

It's always easier to justify something after its said and done. I would however be very interested in knowing how someone would justify putting Frozen in Epcot as opposed to say, the Magic Kingdom, in the first place. This is probably what happened.

Boss: Jenkins! I need you!
Jenkins: What is it sir?
Boss: Frozen is a huge hit for us. We need it in the parks ASAP to capitalize on it.
Jenkins: OK....we could do Anna and Elsa meet and greets...
Boss: OK good start...but I'm thinking BIGGER! It's own attraction!
Jenkins: Oh nice, sir! We could build it a really neat place in Magic King--
Boss: Jenkins don't be stupid. We don't have time for that...Something else.
Jenkins: ....Well, we could try and retrofit it somewhere inside Magic King--
Boss: Jenkins! Enough with the Magic Kingdom talk...we have three other languishing parks to worry about.
Jenkins: Well, Animal Kingdom is out...what about Hollywood Studios?
Boss: No...we're already destroying half of that park...It must be Epcot! World Showcase! Norway!
Jenkins: But sir, the movie doesn't exactly take place in Norw--
Boss: JENKINS! I've had enough of your sass. Its close enough. No one will know the difference.
Jenkins: OK....so what does the ride need?
Boss: Anna, Elsa, Olaf, and Kristoff....Oh, and that song "Let It Go"...what else?
Jenkins: ....what else is there?
Boss: What about that big snowman?
Jenkins: OK, him too.
Boss: Brilliant! Jenkins you're a genius! I can't wait to see this! Don't let me down. You have six months.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I agree. I think through the mid 2000s, World Showcase was amazing and gnarled oos and aahs. I am not sure of world showcase is the significant draw for most: granted, people go to eat and drink, but if you remove the countries people would do that anyway. I remember in the 90s, visiting WS was almost like going to another theme park. You could fully immerse yourself in the sights, sounds, smells, food of each country (this is true from 80s and 90s planning videos). Today, I think of WS as a place to go get drunk. I observe the visitors in WS and they are more concerned about drinking then anything else. I guess Dan Conner clearly illustrated that in the 90s but still, WS had true value.Entertainment cuts have decreased my time in WS. I now only go get my fish and chips and go.

I agree. I think through the mid 2000s, World Showcase was amazing and gnarled oos and aahs. I am not sure of world showcase is the significant draw for most: granted, people go to eat and drink, but if you remove the countries people would do that anyway. I remember in the 90s, visiting WS was almost like going to another theme park. You could fully immerse yourself in the sights, sounds, smells, food of each country (this is true from 80s and 90s planning videos). Today, I think of WS as a place to go get drunk. I observe the visitors in WS and they are more concerned about drinking then anything else. I guess Dan Conner clearly illustrated that in the 90s but still, WS had true value.Entertainment cuts have decreased my time in WS. I now only go get my fish and chips and go.

It is what you make of it.

I don't see a significant difference between now and then, except the trees seem bigger so it's harder to get a clear viewing spot for illuminations. At least that's my perception.

And I guess you have more and longer festival type things, if that's what you're talking about. I enjoy those.

 

[RSoxNo1]

No, it's just your opinion.

Already provided Norwegian references.

Ratatouille celebrates a fake French chef.

You sound so silly splitting hairs between which cartoon is more real.

World showcase isn't real. It's not a replication. It's a representation - with plenty of artistic license taken.

Frozen is as realistic as Maelstrom was. Trolls here, trolls there. Trolls don't exist except on message boards.

Any other side projects you'd like to promote?

YankeesNo1. 4ever.

Maelstrom called to Norwegian culture far more than Frozen Ever After does. You know it, it's not opinion, it's fact.

As for my splitting hairs, you're right. I don't want cartoons in World Showcase at all, but I've accepted that it's happening. When it does, I'd like to see better fits than Frozen and I cited two that are.

As for side projects, nah I'm good for now, but thanks for asking. Actually check that, I did have a podcast "drop" this morning.

Good luck with that starting rotation.

Love,
Tim

 

[RSoxNo1]

Bad point, not well made.

Clearly their primary focus was Norway.

You do a lot of haphazard criticizing of other people's points without much extrapolation or ideas of your own.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

It's always easier to justify something after its said and done. I would however be very interested in knowing how someone would justify putting Frozen in Epcot as opposed to say, the Magic Kingdom, in the first place. This is probably what happened.

Boss: Jenkins! I need you!
Jenkins: What is it sir?
Boss: Frozen is a huge hit for us. We need it in the parks ASAP to capitalize on it.
Jenkins: OK....we could do Anna and Elsa meet and greets...
Boss: OK good start...but I'm thinking BIGGER! It's own attraction!
Jenkins: Oh nice, sir! We could build it a really neat place in Magic King--
Boss: Jenkins don't be stupid. We don't have time for that...Something else.
Jenkins: ....Well, we could try and retrofit it somewhere inside Magic King--
Boss: Jenkins! Enough with the Magic Kingdom talk...we have three other languishing parks to worry about.
Jenkins: Well, Animal Kingdom is out...what about Hollywood Studios?
Boss: No...we're already destroying half of that park...It must be Epcot! World Showcase! Norway!
Jenkins: But sir, the movie doesn't exactly take place in Norw--
Boss: JENKINS! I've had enough of your sass. Its close enough. No one will know the difference.
Jenkins: OK....so what does the ride need?
Boss: Anna, Elsa, Olaf, and Kristoff....Oh, and that song "Let It Go"...what else?
Jenkins: ....what else is there?
Boss: What about that big snowman?
Jenkins: OK, him too.
Boss: Brilliant! Jenkins you're a genius! I can't wait to see this! Don't let me down. You have six months.

And it's been tough to get a fast pass ever since.

 

[RSoxNo1]

https://filmdice.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/norwegian-connections-in-frozen/
I'm kind of scratching my head on that comment. I usually agree with many things you say, but this one is kind of obvious. I do not agree with Frozen being in Norway/Epcot, but it seems like the backdrop for the film is heavily based on Norwegian culture. The true question is, does it teach you anything about Norwegian culture, and the answer to that is a resounding NOOOOOO! Therefore, it does not belong in Epcot.

There are some elements in the movie that call to Norwegian culture, but what of the attraction does? The story is that you're visiting Elsa's ice castle. The Norwegian setting of the ride is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[RSoxNo1]

"Jimmy plays on the beach." The beach is not the subject.

"Jimmy plays on the glistening white sands of the beach amongst the roar of the waves crashing onto rocky outcrops." Despite the beach being given much more detail, it is still not the subject.

The Norwegian design and the intensity of research in Frozen has to do with the long tradition of realism at the Walt Disney Animation Studios, the detail demands of digital imagery versus the "traditional" means of the Animation medium and the suspension of disbelief.

Can you switch the name to something othen than Jimmy. I assumed this was another Jimmy Thicke post.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

You do a lot of haphazard criticizing of other people's points without much extrapolation or ideas of your own.

A post gets the level of response it merits.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Ridiculous lengths? Aside from clothing, (some) architecture and a few landscapes, there is not much else that is authentic in terms of the real world. Did Disney do a good job representing those aspects? Yes. But ridiculous lengths, it is not. Simply claiming any other inaccuracy is due to it being an animated film only makes your point weak. You cant have it both ways. The fictional aspects of the story heavily outweigh the authentic ones. Heavily.

The Norway pavilion is now a mish-mash of reality and fantasy. There is no fluidity, just an extreme shift from one to the other.

ETA: I understand what your saying in terms of Frozen being based of Norwegian properties. I just (personally) feel that those few aspects alone are not justification to claim that the animated film is (or belongs in) a representation (i.e. WS) of Norway.

This goes back to the non linear story telling that has historically separated Disney from other companies. Since @Tony the Tigger complained that I promoted my content on here, I'll do it again if for no other reason than to upset him.

Here are two quotes from a recent article:

Disney excels at non-linear storytelling. This concept is at the root of their best themed attractions, lands and parks. This is more than just a backstory of a land, but a genuine understanding of why anything and everything is done the way it is.

Disney’s Imagineers will conceptualize an area in its entirety and then years later be asked to put something else in that area. It’s a difficult task to handle, and Disney’s Imagineers do it better than any other group on the planet. However, this retrofitting is a very inexact science and one where there have been both recent and historical missteps. So often the source of this problem is that the retrofitting is suggested by executives, not creatives. When non creative people drive creative decisions it’s increasingly more difficult to avoid diluting the original theme. The resulting problems of this dilution may go consciously unrecognized by many guests, but it is a very real issue.

From the exterior, Frozen Ever After in Epcot’s Norway Pavilion blends into the surrounding area beautifully. However, the attraction itself does little service to the Norwegian culture and ultimately dilutes the pavilion. Alternatively, the nearby Royal Sommerhus meet and greet offers a story that explains why Anna and Elsa are visiting the Norway Pavilion in a logical way.

When a new attraction is added to an existing area, several components contribute to its quality. The appropriateness of the attraction’s theme has to be a significant factor. If it isn’t, the concept of a “theme park” ceases to exist. So often, Disney is conceptualizing the attraction first and the placement second. This dilutes the theme and weakens the guest experience.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

And it's been tough to get a fast pass ever since.

Simply because its Frozen. Can you honestly say it wouldn't have been smarter to wait and build a brand new mini-Arendelle (like the one proposed for DL) at MK instead of FEA?