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

[englanddg]

No...it wasn't. And that is why our discussion is fruitless, because we simply don't see the same reality.

So. Mickey Mouse Club never filmed there? Not to mention quite a few other Disney Channel shows from the 90s?

Geez, guess my eyes deceived me.

And, the animation dept there never worked on films like Mulan and Lilo & Stitch? Who knew? What, did they pay actors to sit in the desks and pretend like they were professional artists (actually sketching out professional art before your eyes?).

Mind boggling.

Earnest Saves Christmas and Newsies...never filmed there. I'll have to tell IMDB.

Was it a successful studio setup? No. Was it NEVER a studio setup? Well, that's just false. It was.

 

[Matt_Black]

So. Mickey Mouse Club never filmed there? Not to mention quite a few other Disney Channel shows from the 90s?

Geez, guess my eyes deceived me.

And, the animation dept there never worked on films like Mulan and Lilo & Stitch? Who knew? What, did they pay actors to sit in the desks and pretend like they were professional artists (actually sketching out professional art before your eyes?).

Mind boggling.

Earnest Saves Christmas and Newsies...never filmed there. I'll have to tell IMDB.

Was it a successful studio setup? No. Was it NEVER a studio setup? Well, that's just false. It was.

Don't forget about Thunder in Paradise!

 

[aladdin2007]

I'm not going back there again..."Norway" isn't upset at all. The one news item people can find from Norway is an interview with a CM who returned home after working on the attraction.

Frozen has increased tourism incredibly to Norway - they love Frozen, it's bringing them buckets of money. And they are getting the last laugh - Norway tourism dropped out of supporting Epcot a decade and a half ago, and now they don't have to do anything and Disney is building a monument to the film that has given them record tourism profits. They are laughing their way to the bank. News flash: no one in Norway cares about a small set of buildings in the swamp in Florida. This is all Disney Internet Fan propaganda.

The truth is - WS is not some bastion of cultural elite experiences. It's a collection of themed shops and restaurants that bring the income into Epcot. It's actually anti-cultural, in some views, because it's a bastardization and Disney-fication of cultural stereotypes.

I know we were raised to think about it differently, but that was just Disney PR. Really.

sorry but that just isn't true. There were those involved in Norway (and not castmembers) who fought hard for a new deal, with talks well into the new year to have some form of Norwegian involvment. That is all I can discuss regarding that, but dont think for a minute Norway wanted the pavilion to lose the majority of its Norwegian identity.

 

[Mike S]

He also was stringently against making the place a museum.

It wouldn't be a "museum" if Disney went with planned updates instead of canning them, now would it?

 

[englanddg]

Don't forget about Thunder in Paradise!

Hahaha, YES! I didn't even realize that was filmed there. But, it makes sense from that trailer (proximity to other locals pictures for shooting). That was great to see, talk about a 90s cheese injection!

That said, I didn't say that what was produced there was GOOD, just that it was a functioning film studio.

 

[AEfx]

So. Mickey Mouse Club never filmed there? Not to mention quite a few other Disney Channel shows from the 90s?

Geez, guess my eyes deceived me.

And, the animation dept there never worked on films like Mulan and Lilo & Stitch? Who knew? What, did they pay actors to sit in the desks and pretend like they were professional artists (actually sketching out professional art before your eyes?).

Mind boggling.

Earnest Saves Christmas and Newsies...never filmed there. I'll have to tell IMDB.

Was it a successful studio setup? No. Was it NEVER a studio setup? Well, that's just false. It was.

I've already debunked this belief in previous postings, most recently a few days ago - you are free to search for it. You simply do not understand what a "working studio" is. Almost NOTHING shown to the public was ever real, it was all completely imaginary. They had some soundstages that were used here and there for filming, but that is not a working studio (and mostly closed to the public). Except for props/costumes moved there, almost not a single thing on that Backstage tour was authentic or real. It was a manufactured theme park enviornment, not a "working studio" - nor did they ever seriously intend it to be.

But here we go...someone carrying that PR line 25 years later and being cocky about it, to boot - again, you couldn't more accurately demonstrating the fan mentality about WDW.

 

[AEfx]

sorry but after being on the inside of this last fall, that just isn't true. There were those involved in Norway (and not castmembers) who fought hard for a new deal, with ongoing meetings between Disney well into the new year to have some form of Norwegian involvment. That is all I can discuss regarding that, but dont think for a minute Norway wanted the pavilion to lose the majority of its Norwegian identity.

If you say so...they dropped out 15 years ago, so in any case - too bad, so sad - but again, Norway has seen an incredibly large boost in tourism because of Frozen, they are benfitting more than ever and will continue to because of the attraction.

 

[wdisney9000]

I guarantee you no normal person is going to walk into WS and go "OMG!!!!!! WHY IS FROZEN HERE??!! THEY RUINED THE THEME OF THE PARK!" Not a single one.

But thats it right there, the very same normal people had no idea how amazing Disneyland or WDW could be until they first experienced it. The fact that normal people/fans dont know the difference between proper theme and shoehorning doesnt excuse the company for disregarding it. In fact, it shows the lack of respect that the current administration has for not only the principles of what made the company great, but their guests who have come to trust them as well.

 

[englanddg]

I've already debunked this belief in previous postings, most recently a few days ago - you are free to search for it. You simply do not understand what a "working studio" is. Almost NOTHING shown to the public was ever real, it was all completely imaginary. They had some soundstages that were used here and there for filming, but that is not a working studio (and mostly closed to the public). Except for props/costumes moved there, almost not a single thing on that Backstage tour was authentic or real. It was a manufactured theme park enviornment, not a "working studio" - nor did they ever seriously intend it to be.

But here we go...someone carrying that PR line 25 years later and being cocky about it, to boot - again, you couldn't more accurately demonstrating the fan mentality about WDW.

Well, it would be nice if you had some facts to back yours up.

As I said, Mickey Mouse Club on Stage 3, iirc was filmed there all through the 90s. I highly doubt they flew out the talent to do a "mock show" for the "rubes" and then flew them to LA for the "real shooting". Was a lot of soundstage skit work done in LA? Heck yeah! But the primary show sequences were shot in Florida. It's pretty common knowledge.

And you know what that makes it? A film Studio. Movie production of even the 60s and 70s wasn't limited to one studio lot as it was in early silent pictures, in fact, films hadn't been done that way for a very long time. I don't see why you are making an exception of joint productions with MGM...oh, yes I do, because it your assertion. It's not a point, it's not backed up by facts. Your "facts" are that I've been fed a PR line and bought it hook line and sinker. Your statements, however, have no other support besides your own assertions.

Of course the backstage tour was largely NOT real backstage. It was a theme park attraction, without a doubt. I never said otherwise.

What YOU stated, that is blatantly false, is that it wasn't a functional film studio, which it was at one point.

Again, you keep arguing with your own personal Straw Man instead of with what is actually being stated.

 

[AEfx]

But thats it right there, the very same normal people had no idea how amazing Disneyland or WDW could be until they first experienced it. The fact that normal people/fans dont know the difference between proper theme and shoehorning doesnt excuse the company for disregarding it. In fact, it shows the lack of respect that the current administration has for not only the principles of what made the company great, but their guests who have come to trust them as well.

It would be so cool if folks could have this discussion and not always pin it on esoteric notions of the PR of days past.

You also can't act like everyone is an idiot - even if they can't articulate "theme" etc. I can tell you, most normal people are not going to think it's odd Frozen is in Norway. Norway's tourism is up 37% because of Frozen, there is copious amounts of information out there that show how Norway inspired much of it, in the general public mind -they are connected.

Now argue all you want about it, but those are the facts - they are not ancient PR notions and thirty-year-old nostalgia, they are simply the base truths here. Epcot isn't what you think it is, and it hasn't been for a very, very long time.

 

[englanddg]

Epcot isn't what it was, cohesive with firm themes and concepts, and it hasn't been for a very, very long time.

Fixed that for you.

And, on that, we agree.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The "mature fan"? You really think that the people who are middle-aged and still obsessed with WDW like us enough to write on the Internet about it are anything but a tiny sliver of a minority?


Regardless of who you think should "have a say" - the parks are not designed for us. They are designed for the general public guests. The general public is going to react far more positively to having Frozen than Maelstrom, which again, has consistently been one of the lowest rated WDW attractions of all time.


These parks were not designed for obsessive super-fans like us. Really, they aren't, and never really were.

Such a view of creative endeavors is not sustainable. Audiences respond to quality and heart far longer than they do attempts at giving them what they "want," a notion that denies the very notion of a creative. Frozen was not a hit because it was built around piles of market research.

 

[jensenrick]

If you actually READ the posts, instead of responding to your straw man, you'll see that is far from the actual course of the discussion.

Discussion? There's a joke. The "actual course" of this "discussion" seems to be- if you are a woman with the wrong opinion, you must work at Rachel's skank bar. When you aren't working at TWDC of course.

Not to mention the comment that someone sho says, " I was disappointed about losing Mickey's Toontown. I didn't feel like it needed to be torn down just for Story Book circus, but I didn't dwell on it. Now, I enjoy what's there, it's not the same but it's not a disaster, either. It's still fun but just different. " must have a "serious mental illness."

Yeah, that's some discussion. Typical to see this thread is as toxic as ever.

 

[englanddg]

Discussion? There's a joke. The "actual course" of this "discussion" seems to be- if you are a woman with the wrong opinion, you must work at Rachel's skank bar. When you aren't working at TWDC of course.

Not to mention the comment that someone sho says, " I was disappointed about losing Mickey's Toontown. I didn't feel like it needed to be torn down just for Story Book circus, but I didn't dwell on it. Now, I enjoy what's there, it's not the same but it's not a disaster, either. It's still fun but just different. " must have a "serious mental illness."

Yeah, that's some discussion. Typical to see this thread is as toxic as ever.

First, point any of those posts to me.

Second, ask the posters why they said that (and if you are aware of Siren, you'll know she loves to do this sort of thing, and kudos to her, she does rile people up well), don't attribute them to me or the myriad of other posters who said no such thing.

Third, the discussion was had well before the aftermath comments you made, and it had nothing to do with people pouncing on her with lowbrow implications.

Again, read the THREAD, not your nitpicks to build your own strawman.

 

[AEfx]

Well, it would be nice if you had some facts to back yours up.

As I said, Mickey Mouse Club on Stage 3, iirc was filmed there all through the 90s. I highly doubt they flew out the talent to do a "mock show" for the "rubes" and then flew them to LA for the "real shooting". Was a lot of soundstage skit work done in LA? Heck yeah! But the primary show sequences were shot in Florida. It's pretty common knowledge.

And you know what that makes it? A film Studio. Movie production of even the 60s and 70s wasn't limited to one studio lot as it was in early silent pictures, in fact, films hadn't been done that way for a very long time. I don't see why you are making an exception of joint productions with MGM...oh, yes I do, because it your assertion. It's not a point, it's not backed up by facts. Your "facts" are that I've been fed a PR line and bought it hook line and sinker. Your statements, however, have no other support besides your own assertions.

Of course the backstage tour was largely NOT real backstage. It was a theme park attraction, without a doubt. I never said otherwise.

What YOU stated, that is blatantly false, is that it wasn't a functional film studio, which it was at one point.

Again, you keep arguing with your own personal Straw Man instead of with what is actually being stated.

Hahaha, I just love how you like to keep arguing about nothing. It's cute.

You simply do not understand what a functioning studio is. It has infrastructure. It has craft services (cue someone saying "Disney sells food!" and not getting it LOL). It has a real wardrobe apartment (not the fakey one that was really for theme park use that they pretended existed in the backstage tour). It has house lighting, grip, and prop crews. Central Florida simply couldn't support such a thing even if they tried. It would be more expensive to film there than anywhere else.

What they did was use the MMC as a promotional tool for the park (it was mentioned constantly during the show where it was filming). That was the reason it was there. Disney never intended it to be more - that was simply PR to get folks to want to come to the park. A couple of notable productions used the large soundstage to film some pick-ups (which they regularly do by renting out old airport hangers as well - does that make old abandoned plane hangers "movie studios"?), but really - it never was a "working studio" - it was very briefly a glorified filming location.

Since you are so lazy, here you go - this is such an absurd topic and the facts so blatantly obvious that as fun as it is to listen to you keep moving the bar all over when you don't like what is said, I just don't have the time at the moment:

One of the reasons I really love this is because the studio's have always been so fake. Yes, LOL, it's supposed to be fake on so many levels - it's a theme park, a studio themed theme park, a fake constructed theme street created inside of a studio theme in a studio themed theme park...

(I think a long time ago we would have called this all very post-post-modern, but I think at this point we have given up on adding more "post-" prefixes and just call it "very meta".)

In any case, while it's a long argument if you really want to get down to semantics, the "Studios" part was never real to begin with. At least anything the guest ever regularly saw. Yes, a few select shows had sound stages on the lots (notably "Mickey Mouse Club" - which is why so much of the late 90's pop generation was HQ from Orlando), a big movie or two used an empty soundstage, etc. - but by and large, it's a short list and it was only for a short time and was more by happenstance than design.

Almost nothing - aside from classic props and such that were moved to the site (but not even all of those) - that the guest ever saw on the "backstage tour" was real. There is a reason they didn't used to let you walk around out there on the city streets - because if you did, you'd realize they weren't really film quality to begin with, but theme park fabrications. They looked more believable because you were riding past them. (Yet notice you could walk around Universal's New York set and spend 1/2 hour just looking at all the details - they knew what they were doing, even if they never really pretended they did it, LOL.)

Obviously Catastrophy Canyon wasn't built for "an exciting new movie"...when you used to drive past a "hit music video filming now" - complete with clapboard, director, camera crew and performers - as soon as you drove past the actors they all took five and then went back to their places for the next tram. "This courtroom set may be coming in a new TV show to you this fall..." That's why they could never quite tell you what productions were going on - because there were no productions in those spaces, LOL.

 

[englanddg]

Hahaha, I just love how you like to keep arguing about nothing. It's cute.

You simply do not understand what a functioning studio is. It has infrastructure. It has craft services (cue someone saying "Disney sells food!" and not getting it LOL). It has a real wardrobe apartment (not the fakey one that was really for theme park use that they pretended existed in the backstage tour). It has house lighting, grip, and prop crews. Central Florida simply couldn't support such a thing even if they tried. It would be more expensive to film there than anywhere else.

What they did was use the MMC as a promotional tool for the park (it was mentioned constantly during the show where it was filming). That was the reason it was there. Disney never intended it to be more - that was simply PR to get folks to want to come to the park. A couple of notable productions used the large soundstage to film some pick-ups (which they regularly do by renting out old airport hangers as well - does that make old abandoned plane hangers "movie studios"?), but really - it never was a "working studio" - it was very briefly a glorified filming location.

Since you are so lazy, here you go - this is such an absurd topic and the facts so blatantly obvious that as fun as it is to listen to you keep moving the bar all over when you don't like what is said, I just don't have the time at the moment:

I quite understand.

And, nothing in your own post that you quoted do I disagree with. It was largely for show, to "give" you the experience of a working studio tour, while also maintaining the consistency of a theme park atmosphere. And, I never disputed that.

You, in two different posts, contradict yourself, your last one, and then where you quoted yourself.

You say it was never a working movie studio, then concede that "notably "Mickey Mouse Club" - which is why so much of the late 90's pop generation was HQ from Orlando" Why would they be HQ in Orlando, if they didn't have a fucntional studio to work within?

You are pulling hairs. Post Production isn't often on studio lots anymore, and hasn't been for decades. Costuming is often done off scene and off set and delivered.

No, it wasn't the classic "Universal style" studio of the 40s, but movie studios, even when this opened in the late 80s, weren't operated that way, and hadn't been for a long time.

It WAS a functional studio. TV shows were shot there regularly, movies were shot there, and animated films (portions of them) were created there. There was IATSE labor on staff (not just Disney Cast Members pretending to be journeyman gaffers and the like).

Was it short lived? Without a doubt. Did it fail miserably for the reasons you mentioned when you quoted yourself? Absolutely.

But, you have in no way proven that it was not, at one point, a functional studio.

 

[Wikkler]

You are right. DHS never was a real working tv and movie studio. MGM was.

Did it take off? Nope. Was it short lived? A few years. Mickey Mouse Club filmed regularly there, for example, and the Animation Division operated a bit longer even after other production had ceased. It wasn't a huge success, by a long shot, but it was as accurate (at the time) as Universal's offering (which was what it was meant to compete with). Now, though, Universal actually has the upper hand as it still films on it's Florida Property (a few TV shows, iirc), Disney has abandoned the concept completely.

I think you are building a straw man of an "uber purist" who can't see the business and marketing decisions over their fanaticism for the parks.

If you actually READ the posts, instead of responding to your straw man, you'll see that is far from the actual course of the discussion.

Don't forget Lilo and Stitch, Mulan, and Brother Bear were animated there.

 

[AEfx]

Fixed that for you.

And, on that, we agree.

Oh, misquoting me - how adorable.

And proving the point - you really bought in to the Epcot PR of the 80's.

Yes, there were some really great rides that I miss - the rides were better.

But it never truly was anything more than a bunch of 80's corporate sponsorship deals behind it. Everything you were sold from the bastardization of the original EPCOT concept was completely gone. It was spin. It was just that you were younger and bought into it.

I was one of those kids - I so get it. I really do. It felt like everything was forward thinking, that it was the future - when it really was more about pushing corporate product and agenda.

I mean, have you seen Jurassic World? They took the out of Epcot - they even have a "Communicore" equivalent. Every attraction needs a sponsor at this site taking in millions of dollars a day. They were making fun of Epcot, LOL. They even have a line about how "authentic the original JP" was vs. JW - and in one of the next scenes, have a section that explains that no - the original dinos (as they tell you right in the first film) were just as artificial as the new ones.

But I know, you'll completely disagree - we hold no beliefs more deeply than we do those of our youth. They are the hardest to see clearly, because you formed your opinions about them before you knew what the world was really about.

 

[englanddg]

Oh, misquoting me - how adorable.

And proving the point - you really bought in to the Epcot PR of the 80's.

Yes, there were some really great rides that I miss - the rides were better.

But it never truly was anything more than a bunch of 80's corporate sponsorship deals behind it. Everything you were sold from the bastardization of the original EPCOT concept was completely gone. It was spin. It was just that you were younger and bought into it.

I was one of those kids - I so get it. I really do. It felt like everything was forward thinking, that it was the future - when it really was more about pushing corporate product and agenda.

I mean, have you seen Jurassic World? They took the **** out of Epcot - they even have a "Communicore" equivalent. Every attraction needs a sponsor at this site taking in millions of dollars a day. They were making fun of Epcot, LOL. They even have a line about how "authentic the original JP" was vs. JW - and in one of the next scenes, have a section that explains that no - the original dinos (as they tell you right in the first film) were just as artificial as the new ones.

But I know, you'll completely disagree - we hold no beliefs more deeply than we do those of our youth. They are the hardest to see clearly, because you formed your opinions about them before you knew what the world was really about.

Again, you are arguing against a straw man you have constructed, rather than making an actual point.

That said, with respect to your straw man, you imply those not thrilled about Frozen replacing Maelstrom are cynics? Look at your view on the parks. There IS no purpose for theme or environment, outside of making money.

And, that is the correct and proper view of one who views WDW through the lens of spreadsheets, and certainly how they are managing the creative directions of the parks today. Disneyland is the domestic "baby" of the company, and it shows. WDW is the walmart "Disney Experience Lite" and Tokyo, well, they won't put up with the hijinks and demand it be done right.

But, that doesn't mean that a fan's view, that it ISN'T right that they treat wdw that way is invalid, misplaced or ignorant in some way of the world at large. And implying such, is not only offensive, but false.

That said, you'd prefer to debate against your straw man concept of a "disney fan" than have a discussion. I get it.

 

[AEfx]

I quite understand.

And, nothing in your own post that you quoted do I disagree with. It was largely for show, to "give" you the experience of a working studio tour, while also maintaining the consistency of a theme park atmosphere. And, I never disputed that.

You, in two different posts, contradict yourself, your last one, and then where you quoted yourself.

You say it was never a working movie studio, then concede that "notably "Mickey Mouse Club" - which is why so much of the late 90's pop generation was HQ from Orlando" Why would they be HQ in Orlando, if they didn't have a fucntional studio to work within?

You are pulling hairs.

I'm pulling hairs? LOL. No, my friend, it is you. I know this is your style so I shouldn't have bothered to reply to begin with. My bad.

The MMC was a promotional tool for the parks shown on Disney's (then pay-channel) network. I watched it every day. They mention at least 3 times that was filmed at MGM. There is no contradiction.

The THEME PARK was NEVER a working studio. Some external, non-public facilities were used for a couple of years of scatteredness, but no, you simply do not understand what a working studio is - particularly what one was like nearly 30 years ago. Any filming the public was privy to was faked for the tour.

By your measure, my hometown is a working movie studio because several films have used it as a shooting location for certain scenes, and once a national talk show did a week of shows from here.

In any case, believe what you will - like I said, I know reality has no place in discussions where folks cling to childhood fantasy - though in this case, it's just incredibly ironic that folks don't realize Disney has always been a PR machine - it didn't start being that way when you got old enough to tell the difference.