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

[lazyboy97o]

One point raised earlier...I am not sure by who...
But it was stated "you forgot the word World before showcase....meaning in this world." Again, not an exact quote, my apologies if I misread. But where does it state any where that this means "in this world?" If it said Earth Showcase, I would see the absolute clarity. I think to assume world means only this world is a bit of a stretch.

Basic understanding of the English language and context would be how it is known to mean "in this world." There is also the whole history of the concept dating back to the 1950s with International Street at Disneyland, EPCOT's International Shopping Area (maybe Walt really meant international like between real and fake countries!), the early iterations of the World Showcase, everything that was written about World Showcase as it was designed and built, projects to expand World Showcase before the recent decision to include fictional countries, and even the plans for Four Corners of the World at WestCOT.

Okay I concede. Since there is a China pavilion, the point is moot. But yes the story is clearly Chinese based, and I could see the potential for issue.

That you still do not understand this is just astounding. There is no potential for an issue, it would huge international news with such a move having serious repercussions regarding Disney's business in Asia.

 

[Cesar R M]

This would make the change totally redeemable in my opinion.

george...u traitor!

 

[Sora_Keyblade]

I do like Frozen, but as I mentioned before I wish we were getting one (or even a few) quality Frozen offerings versus the random stuff we've gotten over the past year. It seems like Disney doesn't have any faith in their animated films and are surprised/caught of guard when they resonate with audiences.
I'm pretty sad over the loss of Maelstrom, but what bothers me is that we haven't seen (to my knowledge) any concept art or plans for the attraction. If something spectacular was planned, wouldn't there be some sort of PR push for it?
I still think Frozen deserves better.

 

[wdisney9000]

If you were to review my previous posts, then you would see that I was incredibly dismayed by the rumors and subsequent announcement of Frozen's presence in Norway. However, after my December 2014 trip to WDW, my perspective has significantly changed.

Epcot's World Showcase is far from Epcot Center's World Showcase. What once was a celebration of people, cultures and the arts is now a hodgepodge of what used to be and generic Disney. Sure, you can still visit Bijutsu-kan Gallery and Mitsukoshi, in the Japan Pavilion, and experience what Epcot Center was supposed to be. However, spaces, like this, have become more of an exception rather than a rule.

We will not get Epcot Center back. Moreover, we are now living in a time that is far different from that of the 1980s. Disney is a for-profit corporation. It is not the responsibility of the Walt Disney Company to nurture cultural awareness and understanding. If we truly want to inspire our children and future generations, we should take them to these countries and regions. Alternatively, if we cannot afford international travel, we should explore local museums. If you live in the Philadelphia area and truly want to experience Scandinavian culture, visit the American Swedish Historical Museum : http://www.americanswedish.org/ Curious about China and live in the NYC area? Visit the Museum of Chinese in America: http://www.mocanyc.org/

Museums educate. Theme parks entertain. Although Epcot's World Showcase has the potential to inspire, it should not be the sole basis of one's knowledge and understanding of world history and culture.

Im not sure who your post is aimed at. You seem to be appealing the those who have issue with Frozen going into Norway pavilion. You make the same assumptions that other people have, so allow me to clarify.

Most people against this are not on some campaign to "get Epcot Center back". Nobody has made any claim that Epcots ONLY purpose has, or will ever be to "inspire our children and future generations", and that its not a theme park. Nobody has even come close to saying anything along the lines of "World Showcase provides enough to be the sole basis of ones knowledge and understanding of world history and culture", or that it is the responsibility of TWDC to "nurture awareness and understanding". And for the life of me, I dont know why people continue to point the obvious fact the TWDC is a for-profit business.

Everything your post says has absolutely nothing to do with why people have an issue with this matter. You essentially created an issue that has no basis in the reality of why people are actually not in favor of whats happening to Norway pavilion. Put aside any of your preconceived notions for a moment and stop thinking people are just upset about loosing Maelstrom or that they hate Frozen or that Epcot is being destroyed. The main point is that this is just a flat out cheap move on Disneys behalf and it also comes at the cost diminishing part of what makes Epcot DIFFERENT from the Magic Kingdom. Thats all. Nobody is crying that their child will NEVER be able to learn about Norwegian culture or that its the end of Epcot as we know it. Nobody is against Epcot evolving and changing with the times if done in a proper way that allows the COHESIVE elements to remain in play. They are against a minimal amount of effort from a company that once set the very standard that they currently have no desire to reach for (in Orlando). When that lack of effort is defended with the most sophomoric generalizations it is just disturbing to see both the shift in consumer awareness and the enabling of further detriment to a much more grand theme of a (still) great theme park.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The main point is that this is just a flat out cheap move on Disneys behalf...

I'm sorry... what?

Cost to integrate Frozen into the Norway Pavilion: Millions of dollars
Cost to leave Maelstrom the way it was: Zero dollars
Distorting reality to make a point: Priceless

There are plenty of arguments to be made against Frozen in Norway (that it didn't actually take place in Norway chief among them); but it's disingenuous to blame it on Disney being "cheap" when the alternative (leaving Maelstrom alone) would have been the much "cheaper" option.

 

[spacemt354]

I'm sorry... what?

Cost to integrate Frozen into the Norway Pavilion: Millions of dollars
Cost to leave Maelstrom the way it was: Zero dollars
Distorting reality to make a point: Priceless

There are plenty of arguments to be made against Frozen in Norway (that it didn't actually take place in Norway chief among them); but it's disingenuous to blame it on Disney being "cheap" when the alternative (leaving Maelstrom alone) would have been the much "cheaper" option.

You're assuming that leaving Maelstrom alone would mean that Disney wouldn't put Frozen elsewhere and spend money there.

Just do yourself a favor and look at what is happening with Frozen in Tokyo. Then compare that to Norway.

If you keep an open mind, I think you'll have a different viewpoint because comparatively, it's pretty cheap.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Just do yourself a favor and look at what is happening with Frozen in Tokyo. Then compare that to Norway.

Do we even KNOW what's happening in Norway? The way people talk you would think they're just going to glue Olaf's face on one of the trolls and call it a day.

 

[FigmentJedi]

Do we even KNOW what's happening in Norway? The way people talk you would think they're just going to glue Olaf's face on one of the trolls and call it a day.

I do know that the 60 million or so budget on this Frozen project is for all the pavilion work including the new building and that probably translates into a ride on the quality scale of the Imagination overhaul or Mike and Sulley to the Rescue.

 

[wdisney9000]

I'm sorry... what?

Cost to integrate Frozen into the Norway Pavilion: Millions of dollars
Cost to leave Maelstrom the way it was: Zero dollars
Distorting reality to make a point: Priceless

There are plenty of arguments to be made against Frozen in Norway (that it didn't actually take place in Norway chief among them); but it's disingenuous to blame it on Disney being "cheap" when the alternative (leaving Maelstrom alone) would have been the much "cheaper" option.

Your saying this budget is on par with what other attractions cost? Lol. And it's the highest grossing animated movie not to mention what @Tahu pointed out in terms of everything the budget will cover. Ya, they are really showing it some love.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Your saying this budget is on pat with what other attractions cost? Lol. And it's the highest grossing animated movie not to mention what @Tahu pointed out in terms of everything the budget will cover. Ya, they are really showing it some love.

Then that's a different argument. You seem to be saying "do Frozen, but do it big." Most of what I've read in this thread is more along the lines of "don't do Frozen at all because we're sick of it."

 

[Travel Junkie]

I'm sorry... what?

Cost to integrate Frozen into the Norway Pavilion: Millions of dollars
Cost to leave Maelstrom the way it was: Zero dollars
Distorting reality to make a point: Priceless

There are plenty of arguments to be made against Frozen in Norway (that it didn't actually take place in Norway chief among them); but it's disingenuous to blame it on Disney being "cheap" when the alternative (leaving Maelstrom alone) would have been the much "cheaper" option.

We are talking about the highest grossing animated movie of all time and the only ride WDW is installing is an overlay of an existing attraction and a meet and greet. Estimated total is roughly $75 million and with WDI accounting practices that isn’t very much. Frozen deserves much more than that. They went cheap.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Frozen deserves much more than that.

"Frozen deserves..." Really? It's an animated film not a human child. It doesn't "deserve" anything.

Also, what the heck does box office success have to do with what a film "deserves" in terms of theme park presence? Kilimanjaro Safaris is the most expensive ride to operate in the world and there's never been a penny made at the box office from Kilimanjaro Safaris: The Musical. Do you own the Collector's Edition Blu-ray of Song of the South? I'm guessing not (since it doesn't exist) but I imagine you're still able to enjoy Splash Mountain.

Big headliner attractions are based on storytelling and theme building, not box office success. From a "world" perspective, Arendelle is a pretty generic snowy fantasy kingdom. People want to meet Anna and Elsa a lot more than they want to visit Arendelle. Contrast that with Avatar, which has a story that people couldn't care less about but they still want to visit Pandora.

 

[lebeau]

"Frozen deserves..." Really? It's an animated film not a human child. It doesn't "deserve" anything.

Also, what the heck does box office success have to do with what a film "deserves" in terms of theme park presence? Kilimanjaro Safaris is the most expensive ride to operate in the world and there's never been a penny made at the box office from Kilimanjaro Safaris: The Musical. Do you own the Collector's Edition Blu-ray of Song of the South? I'm guessing not (since it doesn't exist) but I imagine you're still able to enjoy Splash Mountain.

Big headliner attractions are based on storytelling and theme building, not box office success. From a "world" perspective, Arendelle is a pretty generic snowy fantasy kingdom. People want to meet Anna and Elsa a lot more than they want to visit Arendelle. Contrast that with Avatar, which has a story that people couldn't care less about but they still want to visit Pandora.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

It makes perfect sense. The PP argued that Frozen's box office success is a reason why it should get the grandest of theme park treatments. I disagree and gave examples of excellent theme park attractions that have nothing to do with whether they're associated with successful movie franchises. Frozen isn't getting a giant headline attraction or land because the "world of Frozen" is boring.

 

[lebeau]

It makes perfect sense. The PP argued that Frozen's box office success is a reason why it should get the grandest of theme park treatments. I disagree and gave examples of excellent theme park attractions that have nothing to do with whether they're associated with successful movie franchises. Frozen isn't getting a giant headline attraction or land because the "world of Frozen" is boring.

Frozen is a pop culture phenomenon. Over a year after its release, it is still the biggest thing Disney has going on. Box office is only a piece of that picture. Compare Frozen-mania to how quickly Avatar faded from memory.

At the end of the day, these things are hard to argue because they largely come down to personal preference. I hear people argue that Robin Hood or Hercules or <insert your favorite Disney movie here> "deserve" to have more of a presence in the parks. Um okay. Sure if you say so.

Obviously there is a demand for Frozen in the parks. Disney would be crazy not to capitalize on it in some way. The question is "how". A lot of people here - myself included - feel like putting it in the World Showcase is a bad call. It doesn't fit. But also, as an incredibly popular animated feature, it could easily support its own attraction.

 

[Travel Junkie]

"Frozen deserves..." Really? It's an animated film not a human child. It doesn't "deserve" anything.

Also, what the heck does box office success have to do with what a film "deserves" in terms of theme park presence? Kilimanjaro Safaris is the most expensive ride to operate in the world and there's never been a penny made at the box office from Kilimanjaro Safaris: The Musical. Do you own the Collector's Edition Blu-ray of Song of the South? I'm guessing not (since it doesn't exist) but I imagine you're still able to enjoy Splash Mountain.

Big headliner attractions are based on storytelling and theme building, not box office success. From a "world" perspective, Arendelle is a pretty generic snowy fantasy kingdom. People want to meet Anna and Elsa a lot more than they want to visit Arendelle. Contrast that with Avatar, which has a story that people couldn't care less about but they still want to visit Pandora.

So you took one word and completely distorted my entire point. Let me clarify and hopefully not use any words that will offend you. Frozen is the biggest animated movie of all time and one of their biggest franchises in terms of merchandise of all time. In order to maximize LONG TERM profit’s it would be best in my view to build out a large scale project to capitalize on it. Tokyo is taking this approach. WDW is thinking short term, by overlaying an existing ride and therefore not spending the money that would enable them to make the most amount of profit long term.

For the record Disney should be building more non IP attractions. I am in complete agreement on that. I'm not sure how my statement had anything to do IP vs non IP unless you are simply being obtuse.

 

[lebeau]

So you took one word and completely distorted my entire point. Let me clarify and hopefully not use any words that will offend you. Frozen is the biggest animated movie of all time and one of their biggest franchises in terms of merchandise of all time. In order to maximize LONG TERM profit’s it would be best in my view to build out a large scale project to capitalize on it. Tokyo is taking this approach. WDW is thinking short term, by overlaying an existing ride and therefore not spending the money that would enable them to make the most amount of profit long term.

For the record Disney should be building more non IP attractions. I am in complete agreement on that. I'm not sure how my statement had anything to do IP vs non IP unless you are simply being obtuse.

It's funny you used the word "obtuse". I wrote that same word in my response and deleted it. But it applies.

So now, on to why you are obviously completely wrong!

Frozen is the "biggest" animated movie? What makes it so BIG? Do I need a bigger BluRay player to watch it? Haven't you ever heard that size doesn't matter?

Sheesh!

 

[spacemt354]

Do we even KNOW what's happening in Norway? The way people talk you would think they're just going to glue Olaf's face on one of the trolls and call it a day.

We know a 3-4 minute boat ride is being redone with Frozen. We also know the budget is $75 million and we know that a Meet and greet facility is being built to the left of the norway pavilion.

We also know that Tokyo is investing hundreds of millions of dollars to build a fully fleshed out frozen experience In one of their parks
http://www.themeparkinsider.com/flume/201410/4278/

Hmm ...shoehorn frozen into a country it doesn't belong vs. an entire themed land

Which do you prefer? Which do you think is "cheaper?"

 

[PREMiERdrum]

glue Olaf's face on one of the trolls and call it a day.

Please stop giving them ideas.

 

[MichWolv]

Estimated total is roughly $75 million and with WDI accounting practices that isn’t very much.

How do the accounting practices affect whether $75 million is "very much" or not? It's the same amount no matter how you account for it.