I think once Frozen-mania is over, we'll look back and not really be bothered by Frozen at Norway. It took a quarter century for the little mermaid to make its way into Magic Kingdom. I think i'd be equally offended if Frozen joined the elite ranks of making it into fantasyland a year after it's debut. As for Norway, The church is still there, the bakery is still there. To me, that alone would be sufficient for a Norway pavilion. If we compare it to Maelstrom, it's a travesty because Maelstrom felt authentic and it had the greatest voiceover in the history of ride voiceovers. If we step back and say "Of all the countries with a pavilion, which country makes the least sense" and then add on top of that "Of all the pavilions with rides, which country makes the least sense", I stop feeling so bad that they crammed Frozen into Maelstrom's spot. If Frozen is really all it's cracked up to be, in 25 years it can move into a shiny new home in fantasyland and they'll find something else to put into Norway.
It's all blown out of proportion because they removed maelstrom to do it. If Maelstrom had never existed and they built a home for Frozen in Norway's pavilion, I think this thread is only a quarter as long.
But before everyone throws stones and says I don't understand world showcase, etc etc, I was probably in line with some of you on Maelstrom's last weekend. I don't agree with the commercialization of the parks any more than you do. But if you were going to stick a Frozen ride somewhere, it hasn't earned fantasyland, i've got way bigger plans for DHS than frozen, and AKL doesn't make any sense. Stick it in norway and let it die.