That's really interesting. Thanks for sharing the link. That's probably the most interesting thing I've ever read about Avatar, LOL.
That's still LOTR territory, though - backgrounds. Unless there is more? If not, it's really obscure territory as it points out in the article itself, unlike Frozen which has cultural ties aside from background images.
Look, this back and forth is doing nothing but punting jabs at this point - I mean, we've gone on for three posts right here alone debating an absurd concept that doesn't exist. That's because the level of discourse here is happening on two different planes - one where some folks are all amped up to all heck in a furor that I really hate to use such loaded language but the only thing I can compare it to is religious belief, and the other where folks are "eh, it's not ideal, but..." who are being made out to be some Frozen-fanboys when it's certainly not the case (again, there is a lot to this thread but I can't recall one person who has said "YIPEEEE!!!!" over this).
Nowhere have I, or anyone else that I have read, said that this was the BEST option, or the one I would have picked.
Some folks can't comprehend the fact that one can hold that thought, that they could have done better, even MUCH better, yet not believe the theme of Frozen is so "way off base" to associate with Norway, and somehow "ruinous" to Epcot's integrity.
You folks have said it repeatedly yourself (there have been plenty of "End of story." and "Period!" declarations in this thread, as well as "Well,
anyone that thinks this isn't a travesty is not a TRUE FAN!" nonsense), there is no middle ground, and everyone who doesn't think this is the end of the World as we know it can't possibly have any good reason for not being totally outraged.
I'm not "Pro-" Frozen in Norway, and again, I don't see many folks who are. I'd much rather they build a 300M attraction somewhere else. But I don't think that the obvious connection the public has embraced about Norway and Frozen (which, in any case no matter what your opinion on how it got there, or even if it's valid, one cannot deny that it now exists) is some "way out crazy" concept, either. I bet if you did some searching, you'd find folks (pejorative or not) suggesting this possibility since the film came out - it may not be what folks
like but it wasn't some far-out, from-left-field, blindisde thing, either.
As a side effect, Disney gets a "new" ride experience in 18 months and not five years, and while I will miss Maelstrom - I look forward to seeing what they do. And I cannot deny that it's going to be incredibly popular to park guests, which is why like many of you I share the capacity concerns, and I hope that is addressed in the process. Do I wish instead this was going to be a "journey in a ride over the sights and sounds of Norway" and would that be most appropriate? Yes, but anyone who is not a complete idiot knows that Disney is never going to build rides like that again (the most would be a half-butt Soarin' mini-clone screen-based job).
It's called being reasonable, folks. If you review this thread, you'll see the bar has kept moving and moving - from "this is wrong because characters in Epcot!" to "this is wrong because characters in Epcot
attractions" to "this is wrong because characters in Epcot attractions based on
fantasy"; from "Frozen has ZERO NONE connection to Norway" to "Frozen has
little to do with Norway" to "Frozen doesn't have
enough to do with Norway"...
We get it. I get it. I just don't think it's a crazy idea, it's certainly not ideal, and I wish folks could just have the Mickey's to say "I just hate the idea of Frozen in Norway!" instead of winding up the crazy dial with hyperbolic justifications and accusations of "TRAITOR!" should one have a more middle-of-the-road view of this situation in particular.
