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

[Travel Junkie]

Is having a real world culture translated by Disney Imagineering ok, but having a real world culture translated by Disney Animation bad? This is a response to the repetition of Frozen being and American film, seemingly ignoring the fact that Epcot is in America, built by Americans by an American company. Yes the countries had influence, but as none of their desires to be presented in their modern forms won out, it would seem Disney had the strongest say design wise.
* I've actually been on these forums since the mid nineties, though I had a different user name. At that time I was in fact an insider. While I didn't work for Disney, I worked with those who did and often had plans (resorts and downtown and infrastructure only) in my hands years before anything made it's way onto these forums. Like most actual insiders I never released the information I had access to as I didn't want to lose my job.
The only reason I've been posting recently is due Boston currently being tormented by Elsa's wrath.

There is very little if anything that a native Norwegian would say is representative of their country specifically. If Disney animation had translated the real world culture of Norway, then the argument may hold water, but they didn’t. While the movie was inspired by a Norwegian fairy tale, it bares little resemblance and frankly did not even try to stay true to the fairy tale. It is an original film, made by an American company. It is a purely American film.

The difference is WS celebrates the cultures of each country. Frozen is not attempting this. They are making a commercial film and used parts of Norway, Canada, and America as backdrops to tell their story. Same company but different aims in what was produced.

 

[sedati]

The problem is these facts...concrete facts...have been stated many times throughout the forum. Here are some:

Frozen is not based on Norway.
Frozen is inspired by a Danish fairy tale.
Frozen is an American film.
World Showcase's purpose is to "showcase" actual countries.
Arendelle is a fictional land.
Arendelle is not in Norway.
Anna and Elsa are not historical figures of Norway.

These are all facts. Anything after this is opinion. The problem is, most on the pro-Frozen side of the argument, ignore these facts and believe they are opinions. That's very frustrating to have an educated conversation with someone who is dismissing facts.

Fact: The Norway Pavilion is just that a "showcase." (Making this whole thread a showcase showdown.) Defined as: "A setting, occasion, or medium for exhibiting something or someone especially in an attractive or favorable aspect." That leaves a lot of wiggle room.
Fact: While the pavilion looks to be made of stone, it is in fact, cleverly themed to look so, and so the pavilion is not "set in stone."
Fact: Epcot is a Theme Park.
Fact: Epcot is a Disney owned and operated Theme Park.
Fact: Disney Theme Parks change- for example a park about how movies are made could change to be more about the fictional movie world's instead of how those world's were made. Thanks to DVD's most people became familiar with the movie making process and the answer to almost everything now is "they did it with a computer," so a widespread change in purpose came about.
Fact: Disney can do whatever it likes, to the disapproval, praise or "meh" of it's paying customers. Epcot is not what Walt had planned. His successors changed that plan. Those plans were then changed by the logistics of the project and those who partnered and shared funding for it. That project was changed over time to suit the reality of sustainability and public opinion.
Opinion: World Showcase would have been a financial disaster had it been built as originally planned on its own (no Future World.) especially if it had not been allowed to sell alcohol.
Opinion: As it stands today, World Showcase is just a wonderfully themed shopping/dining district and could have served better as a Disney Springs type experience over a gated park.
Fact: I loved everything about the original Epcot Center. Most of my family didn't care for it. We explored all of World Showcase but never ate there, never purchased a single thing. Getting in the gate was expensive enough and our trips were years apart. Some people don't enjoy paying to visit a place where the number one activity is spending money. If the model that area of the park was built on could only fund film-based shows and a slow boat ride past video screens, something needs to change. (I am not counting the still amazing "American Adventure" as it was funded by Disney and Coke.

 

[dreamscometrue]

At best they are tangentially interpreting Norwegian culture. I know this because I have taken the derivative of the movie with respect to World showcase.

Since I teach calculus, that's a great friggin' post!

 

[spacemt354]

Fact: The Norway Pavilion is just that a "showcase." (Making this whole thread a showcase showdown.) Defined as: "A setting, occasion, or medium for exhibiting something or someone especially in an attractive or favorable aspect." That leaves a lot of wiggle room.

Enough wiggle room to "showcase" a fictional land in the Norway Pavilion? A pavilion meant to showcase the cuisine, culture, history, and architecture of the host nation?

Fact: While the pavilion looks to be made of stone, it is in fact, cleverly themed to look so, and so the pavilion is not "set in stone."

What?

Fact: Epcot is a Theme Park.
Fact: Epcot is a Disney owned and operated Theme Park.

Absolutely.

Fact: Disney Theme Parks change- for example a park about how movies are made could change to be more about the fictional movie world's instead of how those world's were made. Thanks to DVD's most people became familiar with the movie making process and the answer to almost everything now is "they did it with a computer," so a widespread change in purpose came about.

So Frozen is the "widespread change in purpose" that will usurp the culture and history of a nation in favor of fictional characters. Seems like more opinion than fact.

Fact: Disney can do whatever it likes, to the disapproval, praise or "meh" of it's paying customers. Epcot is not what Walt had planned. His successors changed that plan. Those plans were then changed by the logistics of the project and those who partnered and shared funding for it. That project was changed over time to suit the reality of sustainability and public opinion.

The public wanted Frozen in Norway? Come back to me when you find that fact.
The actual fact is: Disney wanted Frozen in Norway because it's the cheapest and least creative option.

Opinion: World Showcase would have been a financial disaster had it been built as originally planned on its own (no Future World.) especially if it had not been allowed to sell alcohol.

What does this have to do with anything?

Opinion: As it stands today, World Showcase is just a wonderfully themed shopping/dining district and could have served better as a Disney Springs type experience over a gated park.

Again, what?

Fact: I loved everything about the original Epcot Center. Most of my family didn't care for it. We explored all of World Showcase but never ate there, never purchased a single thing. Getting in the gate was expensive enough and our trips were years apart. Some people don't enjoy paying to visit a place where the number one activity is spending money. If the model that area of the park was built on could only fund film-based shows and a slow boat ride past video screens, something needs to change. (I am not counting the still amazing "American Adventure" as it was funded by Disney and Coke.

Actually that's opinion: Just like this question...which would you rather have?

Or

Or

Or

Which is better?
Also edit: 5 minute wait time for Frozen? - definitely not going to happen.

 

[RandomPrincess]

Is there a construction thread for this yet? I would love to see any updates on what is going on without having to wade through the fighting about if this ride should exist or not.

 

[spacemt354]

Is there a construction thread for this yet? I would love to see any updates on what is going on without having to wade through the fighting about if this ride should exist or not.

There's not much to see. Here's all I could find.
Inside of Maelstrom via John Corigliano Twitter in December

Current outline of M&G location. www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/on-the-town/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/1/14/frozen_epcot_plans.html

Till then?

 

[RandomPrincess]

There's not much to see. Here's all I could find.
Inside of Maelstrom via John Corigliano Twitter in December
View attachment 82427
Current outline of M&G location. www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/on-the-town/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/1/14/frozen_epcot_plans.html
View attachment 82428

Till then?

Thanks for the update!

 

[lazyboy97o]

Thank you, great points.

World showcase was and still is...about showcasing other parts of the world. As stated I get that.
Love the last point as well, but i think you will get some push back on that.

Again, i don't want Arendelle world. Not even sure I want Frozen in WS, but I am not dead set against it. What I want is change, and the opportunity to expand WS to also have some draw for younger kids to get exposed to those areas to me is a positive, as is the Perry the Platypus game, and the Three Amigos.

You already agreed that Japan and China can be mixed and matched. You've killed any chance of being believed that you understand World Showcase or an appreciation of different cultures and peoples.

Mathemagic Land doesn't exist either, but it still works as a tool for teaching about real mathematics. Nor is Donald Duck a mathematician. Disney often uses its artificial creations to guide us through reality.
World Showcase is not the actual countries. It is a hyper-condensed, sanitized and compromised vision forged between the conflicting views of Disney artists, Disney financing, Foreign national propaganda, and Foreign corporate financing.

*I am actually on the fence about this project, and will wait and see how it actually comes together.

What math class is claiming to be about a particular culture?

I see this as an enhancement, a way to expand the Disney universe, into a park with desperate need for help.

And right there again is the double speak. This isn;t expanding the stories of Norway, it is adding a franchise because DisneyParks, in the eyes of even their supposed fans, have been reduced to a series of known images, established in more legitimate mediums, repeated over and over again. There is no belief in the creative ability of themed entertainment, it can only copy and repeat.

 

[Wikkler]

While the movie was inspired by a Norwegian fairy tale

Not even that.
It's Danish.

 

[Wikkler]

On a side note, does The Little Mermaid belong in Norway? Same author.

 

[jdmdisney99]

NEVER FORGET
http://www./wp-content/uploads/2014/09/MEP433LARGE.jpg

 

[ToTBellHop]

NEVER FORGET
http://www./wp-content/uploads/2014/09/MEP433LARGE.jpg

Never forget? I apparently already have as I don't remember a ride that looked anything like that.

 

[wdisney9000]

Fact: The Norway Pavilion is just that a "showcase." (Making this whole thread a showcase showdown.) Defined as: "A setting, occasion, or medium for exhibiting something or someone especially in an attractive or favorable aspect."

You conveniently left out the fact that the word "world" precedes "showcase", which is what the pavilions are within. It kinda makes a difference, (a big one) which renders your 'fact' and whatever point you were attempting to make, irrelevant.

 

[wdisney9000]

Can I just throw out a "Why can't we all just get along!" -King

Who is not getting along? Posts like that only to serve to possibly make an individual feel like there is some type of argument going on. Id have to say that today in particular has seen a big improvement in the communication between both sides. Still far from everybody seeing eye to eye, but I dont see the need to even mention any type of tension happening when there is none.

 

[NearTheEars]

Others have photos of links to Canada and a US state too.
Does it make Frozen also linked to Canada and US?

honestly, the only thing that I see that sort of links Frozen with Norway, is the stave church style buildings, the "castle" and the clothing.

Story wise..and set wise.. nothing..pure fantasy. hence it should have been at MK. So we agree on that part.

As I said in my last response to that same point, The filmmakers publicized that they specifically went to Norway, not the US. Not Canada. To develop the look of the film.

They also created an exhibit in the Stave church showing the Norweigian influence in the film.

This was all before the Frozen replacing Maelstrom rumors began, so it wasn't done in reaction to that decision as a means of justifying this.

My only point here is to try and show that their decision to place the ride in Norway isn't some crazy, left field idea. It has a basis.

And again, do I agree with the decision:
Absolutely not.

 

[DisDan]

Who is not getting along? Posts like that only to serve to possibly make an individual feel like there is some type of argument going on. Id have to say that today in particular has seen a big improvement in the communication between both sides. Still far from everybody seeing eye to eye, but I dont see the need to even mention any type of tension happening when there is none.

That was said in jest. I was not serious.

 

[Cesar R M]

There's not much to see. Here's all I could find.
Inside of Maelstrom via John Corigliano Twitter in December
View attachment 82427
Current outline of M&G location. www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/on-the-town/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/1/14/frozen_epcot_plans.html
View attachment 82428

Till then?

You have my bow..

 

[Skippy]

As I said in my last response to that same point, The filmmakers publicized that they specifically went to Norway, not the US. Not Canada. To develop the look of the film.

They also created an exhibit in the Stave church showing the Norweigian influence in the film.

I saw the exhibit in Norway last time I visited but I cynically assumed it opened after the film garnered the immense popularity it did. In fact it opened just before the film's wide release. That improves my personal opinion of the exhibit a bit.

Looking back at the related thread on wdwmagic, it looks like that small change got the same criticism repeated in this thread. Personally, I am in the camp that is okay with the exhibit - it still tries to enlighten guests on some Norwegian history/culture. Much like The Gran Fiesta Tour still attempts to promote Mexico (The reimagining, however, was unimaginative, boring, and forgettable - as proven by the lines which are no longer than the previous version (apparently a wait of 0 was hard to beat)). Often in order to get an audience interested in learning new things, you have to find a way to relate using something they find enjoyable.

So if the Frozen attraction that is replacing Maelstrom makes an effort to focus on spreading the culture and history of the country it has been (tenuously) placed in, fantastic! At that point I imagine you will see fewer complaints about it's 'right' to be there. Grumbles about the true spirit of the park dying will always remain and have merit, but more tolerance than there is in this thread.

The reason there isn't that kind of wait and see attitude at the present is because it's hard to fathom an attraction featuring Frozen could possibly focus on anything other than the movie, Arendelle, and the characters in it.

 

[NearTheEars]

I saw the exhibit in Norway last time I visited but I cynically assumed it opened after the film garnered the immense popularity it did. In fact it opened just before the film's wide release. That improves my personal opinion of the exhibit a bit.

Looking back at the related thread on wdwmagic, it looks like that small change got the same criticism repeated in this thread. Personally, I am in the camp that is okay with the exhibit - it still tries to enlighten guests on some Norwegian history/culture. Much like The Gran Fiesta Tour still attempts to promote Mexico (The reimagining, however, was unimaginative, boring, and forgettable - as proven by the lines which are no longer than the previous version (apparently a wait of 0 was hard to beat)). Often in order to get an audience interested in learning new things, you have to find a way to relate using something they find enjoyable.

So if the Frozen attraction that is replacing Maelstrom makes an effort to focus on spreading the culture and history of the country it has been (tenuously) placed in, fantastic! At that point I imagine you will see fewer complaints about it's 'right' to be there. Grumbles about the true spirit of the park dying will always remain and have merit, but more tolerance than there is in this thread.

The reason there isn't that kind of wait and see attitude at the present is because it's hard to fathom an attraction featuring Frozen could possibly focus on anything other than the movie, Arendelle, and the characters in it.

Unfortunately, I highly doubt the ride will teach anyone anything about Norway. It will be Frozen all the way.

Though, from all I learned from Maelstrom came mostly from the mural.

And even though I have been trumpeting that there is indeed a clear Norway connection, the fact (most likely a fact) that the ride will likely just retell the Frozen story is the main reason why IMO it does not belong in the pavilion.

 

[FigmentJedi]

On a side note, does The Little Mermaid belong in Norway? Same author.

No. Because the author is Danish. Frozen just went with the Norse setting because "lol Snow", same as how the Russian adaptations of the Snow Queen lean more towards Russian influences in the setting.