Disney confirms 'Frozen' makeover coming to Epcot's Norway Pavilion

[spacemt354]

You want to post that it's Disney sole responsibility to update and maintain WS then your going to get Disney's perspective on how to do it. If Frozen (in all it's huge popularity) is not part of that perspective then Disney would be acting very foolish from a business perspective. How does that get a rise out of anyone who has thought this thru?

What?

You speak as if Norway is the only place Frozen can go in WDW in order to make sense...You're not seeing the big picture that the reason you "get a rise" out of people through you opinions is because Frozen has many other places to be included in WDW, and World Showcase is not the top choice thematically. Magic Kingdom or Hollywood Studios are much better from a thematic sense. If the ride had been put in either of those locations, you wouldn't be seeing the backlash that you are.


Frozen has nothing to do with what the pavilion of Norway stands for. If so, please provide the answer to how it does because I would actually like to know. The only reason Disney chose Norway was because its the cheapest option. All its costing is the thematic integrity of a nation....

 

[flynnibus]

Attractions in a theme park are not supposed to exist in a vacuum. The Pavilion is intended to work as a whole. If people do not recognize the content then maybe they will learn something. Theme parks do not work best when only repeating known references. That is the opposite of detail and what made the Disney experience famous. The obsession with only referencing is a big part of why Walt Disney World has been neglected, because the brand reference is more important than anything else.

Lazyboy... lets face it. That was the OLD Disney. Obviously fans today just want to walk into their mall and ride TSMM in the former Old Navy slot.

Maybe after a few decades they'll realize just what they are missing and why TSMM - Presented by Old Navy at your local Town Center is not the same as Tomorrowland.

Tourism doesn't mean anything. It's been trotted out endlessly. Lord of the Rings did not suddenly become about New Zealand and its culture because the film's were shot there and tourism increased as a result.

Great example.

 

[spacemt354]

Oh, sorry - I forgot about the audio once having to tell you what the ride was supposed to be about. And Vikings are not specific to Norway, they are Scandinavian and also have roots as far east as Britain and Scotland.

But actually, the ear plugs thing is interesting - if you wore ear plugs (or were deaf) - would you know what POTC was about? Or any other ride? That this one relies on it telling you it's supposed to be about Norway actually speaks volumes.

The Haunted Mansion tells you its "the Haunted Mansion" on the ride...
The Tower of Terror says you're in the "Tower of Terror" on the ride...

A lot of attractions do that. It's not exclusive to Maelstrom. I'm not even sure what your point is with that, but if you can't tell you're on a ride about pirates after riding past dozens of AA pirates in what looks like a Caribbean town, then you're just not paying attention.

 

[Mike S]

Oh, sorry - I forgot about the audio once having to tell you what the ride was supposed to be about. And Vikings are not specific to Norway, they are Scandinavian and also have roots as far east as Britain and Scotland.

But actually, the ear plugs thing is interesting - if you wore ear plugs (or were deaf) - would you know what POTC was about? Or any other ride? That this one relies on it telling you it's supposed to be about Norway actually speaks volumes.

The fact it's in the Norway pavilion is also a big clue.

 

[spacemt354]

The fact it's in the Norway pavilion is also a big clue.

That made me LOL

 

[wm49rs]

Well, if you get down to it - that's why most entities from the host countries are part of the equation to begin with. To increase tourism to their country. They didn't just hand Disney millions to create some cement monument to their country for Americans to get "deep" cultural experiences - it was promotion.

Folks are so married to this concept of WS being some culturally ethereal experience, and putting forth declarative statements about what it is and is not without any actual statement of intention on the matter from Disney (and direct evidence of the opposite being true, as characters have been in WS for 30 out of Epcot's 33 years in existence), that's why this is all such drama because I think folks are having to face the realities that WS is not what they have decided in their minds all these years it is, and never really was.

Again, increasing tourism does not make a fictional work more relevant to the pavilion in question....

 

[BigTxEars]

What?

You speak as if Norway is the only place Frozen can go in WDW in order to make sense...You're not seeing the big picture that the reason you "get a rise" out of people through you opinions is because Frozen has many other places to be included in WDW, and World Showcase is not the top choice thematically. Magic Kingdom or Hollywood Studios are much better from a thematic sense. If the ride had been put in either of those locations, you wouldn't be seeing the backlash that you are.


Frozen has nothing to do with what the pavilion of Norway stands for. If so, please provide the answer to how it does because I would actually like to know. The only reason Disney chose Norway was because its the cheapest option. All its costing is the thematic integrity of a nation....

I pointed out the cost savings for Disney placing it in Norway pages and pages ago, it's good business sense. The current ride needs a refurb/upgrade, they need a larger Frozen presence in the parks based on customer demand. Norway is a logical as well as a smart business choice for Frozen to meet both the business need (cost) and the customer demand. Nothing shameful in Disney saving a buck or two when trying to meet customer demand, it's a common business practice. If they cut (save) too much and it hurts the product too much then the customers have the choice to not partake of that business anymore. Disney has to balance the two like all businesses. A real world example is that I just cancelled ADRs in Norway since they removed the free picture as part of the package.

I also posted pages ago I would love a Splash Mountain size Frozen ride in a perk, that's not going to happen so this is fine with me.

 

[flynnibus]

This thread is the poster child of why you don't let consumers develop your products.

I said it a few pages ago.. you can't fix'em.. so no point in trying to help them. Checking out...

 

[jt04]

Why does there even need to be a target audience? Can they not just build rides with the goal of entertaining the widest audience possible? I would really like to know who the "target audience" was for rides like Pirates of the Caribbean, Haunted Mansion and numerous other examples that I could list here.

People like thrill rides such as RnRC which has restrictions for safety reasons. You need a balance of attractions however Disney caters to young families while places like Uni and SF skews older. I think WDW does a pretty good job of providing a nice mix. Evidently so do the masses.

 

[misterID]

Well, if you get down to it - that's why most entities from the host countries are part of the equation to begin with. To increase tourism to their country. They didn't just hand Disney millions to create some cement monument to their country for Americans to get "deep" cultural experiences - it was promotion.

Folks are so married to this concept of WS being some culturally ethereal experience, and putting forth declarative statements about what it is and is not without any actual statement of intention on the matter from Disney (and direct evidence of the opposite being true, as characters have been in WS for 30 out of Epcot's 33 years in existence), that's why this is all such drama because I think folks are having to face the realities that WS is not what they have decided in their minds all these years it is, and never really was.

Not true at all. I have no problem with the characters in the parks. And, again, Disney has been living off those "ideals" of WS for over thirty years, and have made plenty of money with it.

This is not about changing WS for the better, no part of some grand scheme, it's not about changing an identity. It's about the using the quickest, easiest, cheapest way to put the Frozen IP into the parks.

WDW is supposed to have guests who expect a high standard.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Some people commenting on this thread have the intellectual depth of a kiddie pool.

 

[BigTxEars]

Again, increasing tourism does not make a fictional work more relevant to the pavilion in question....

The increase in tourism shows that a large percentage of the public link Forzen and Norway. Disney is capitalizing on that link. Nothing wrong with that IMO. The Norway pavilion is not a historical site or a museum it's part of a them park, it does not need to meet the same high standards when bringing in attractions or events. Norway based or not Frozen is linked to that country.

But at the end of the day if the public does not want or think that Frozen belongs in Norway then Disney will have made a huge blunder and will have to decided what to do then.The free market is awesome like that.

 

[BigTxEars]

People like thrill rides such as RnRC which has restrictions for safety reasons. You need a balance of attractions however Disney caters to young families while places like Uni and SF skews older. I think WDW does a pretty good job of providing a nice mix. Evidently so do the masses.

True, we love both sets of parks but WDW is more family friendly in that younger kids can ride all the rides in general compared to Uni.

 

[Mike S]

I also posted pages ago I would love a Splash Mountain size Frozen ride in a perk, that's not going to happen so this is fine with me.

Oh they will, just not here (and it won't be a water ride). That's what happens when people accept and justify every decision. They won't feel the need to do any better than "just fine".

 

[spacemt354]

The increase in tourism shows that a large percentage of the public link Forzen and Norway. Disney is capitalizing on that link. Nothing wrong with that IMO.

So to @lazyboy97o 's point, if World Showcase had a New Zealand pavilion, then it would be okay in your eyes to include Lord of the Rings in the pavilion about New Zealand since the nation increased in tourism because of the films?

 

[jt04]

True, we love both sets of parks but WDW is more family friendly in that younger kids can ride all the rides in general compared to Uni.

Unfortunately a lot of people expect every new addition to be a mega coaster themed like the Haunted Mansion.

 

[Bolna]

For those who keep on talking about how countries paid for the world showcase, may I suggest reading this great article on Yesterland: http://www.yesterland.com/worldshowcase.html

The most relevant excerpt:

World Showcase was not entirely without financial participants—although some pavilions were. Instead of national governments, the participants were businesses—ones that hoped to sell merchandise, meals, beer, or wine to guests. Here’s the list from 1982:

The American Adventure: American Express, Coca Cola
Canada: (no participant)
United Kingdom: Bass Export Ltd., Pringle of Scotland, Royal Doulton
France: Barton & Guestier (B&G), Guye Larouche, Lanson Champagne, The France Chefs (Paul Bocuse, Gaston Lenôtre, Roger Vergé, and Associate Didier Fouret)
Japan: Mitsukoshi, Inc.
Italy: Alfredo, The Original of Rome, Brolio/Ricasoli & Bersano Wines of Italy
Germany: Bahlsen, Brauerei Back and Co., Goebel, Hutschenreuther, Schmitt Söhne
China: (no participant)
Mexico: Moctezuma Brewery, San Angel Inn

 

[wm49rs]

The increase in tourism shows that a large percentage of the public link Forzen and Norway. Disney is capitalizing on that link. Nothing wrong with that IMO. The Norway pavilion is not a historical site or a museum it's part of a them park, it does not need to meet the same high standards when bringing in attractions or events. Norway based or not Frozen is linked to that country.

But at the end of the day if the public does not want or think that Frozen belongs in Norway then Disney will have made a huge blunder and will have to decided what to do then.The free market is awesome like that.

Linking something for the sake of profit doesn't make a connection more factually accurate or relevant....

Not does trying to link the "free market" to this decision. Not when a park like EP (or the WS) has been bereft of "new" attractions for so long.

 

[BigTxEars]

So to @lazyboy97o 's point, if World Showcase had a New Zealand pavilion, then it would be okay in your eyes to include Lord of the Rings since New Zealand increased in tourism because of the films?

No. LOTR was written as English mythology so it would be based in the UK areas of WS IMO.

People are going to see the areas/sets where the films were shot in New Zealand. It's a live action movie so that makes sense, going to be hard to go see where Frozen was shot at

But if New Zealand want to build a pavilion and feature LOTR I would be fine with it, since the WS was designed to promote countires and the films clearly show the incredible beauty of New Zealand I could see the fit. Seeing the movies made me want to go to New Zealand for sure.

 

[misterID]

I pointed out the cost savings for Disney placing it in Norway pages and pages ago, it's good business sense. The current ride needs a refurb/upgrade, they need a larger Frozen presence in the parks based on customer demand. Norway is a logical as well as a smart business choice for Frozen to meet both the business need (cost) and the customer demand. Nothing shameful in Disney saving a buck or two when trying to meet customer demand, it's a common business practice. If they cut (save) too much and it hurts the product too much then the customers have the choice to not partake of that business anymore. Disney has to balance the two like all businesses. A real world example is that I just cancelled ADRs in Norway since they removed the free picture as part of the package.

I also posted pages ago I would love a Splash Mountain size Frozen ride in a perk, that's not going to happen so this is fine with me.

No one is debating the financial cheapo reasons Disney is placing it in Norway, you're late to the party with those revelations, and it's a big part of the problem. They're actually undermining the impact they could have with the Frozen IP with cheaping out. A Frozen land would be much more successful, way more so that having a tiny presence in world showcase where the plot and surrounding area is not equipped with handling the crowds and what they would otherwise be able to do with a ground up build.

And you're not saying anything new about Maelstrom needing a refurb. It was talked about way before you entered this thread and before this thread existed. The difference is you're justifying the worst possible solution for a problem that wasn't that grave or important.

Settling for crap choices and defending them... you shouldn't be surprised by riled up responses.