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

[Mawg]

I hope that they really did think this through and we are missing something. Maybe they really are changing the layout slightly to allow for two boats to be loaded and unloaded at the same time in parallel and can work out the timing of the drop. Wishful thinking but do we know for sure. All that we know is that they said they would use the same layout does this mean they absolutely cannot change the loading area. Have any insiders come forward and said they know exactly what is going on in there?

 

[Kman101]

Ah, perspective. See, a lot of things I have treasured from my past are "gone" in the way that they have evolved to be something different, yet, if I stand on one leg, squinting through a torn paper cup, sometimes I can see what it was I miss?

It's really not about *missing* Maelstrom, though, at least from what I can see with a lot of comments. It's more the IP that's replacing it. I'm sure if the ride was torn out and replaced with a different type of storyline set in Norway that represents the place, even if the name changed, I don't know that it would gather as much ire. JMO.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I hope that they really did think this through and we are missing something. Maybe they really are changing the layout slightly to allow for two boats to be loaded and unloaded at the same time in parallel and can work out the timing of the drop. Wishful thinking but do we know for sure. All that we know is that they said they would use the same layout does this mean they absolutely cannot change the loading area. Have any insiders come forward and said they know exactly what is going on in there?

That doesn't matter either. You can still only have X number boats go through the backwards section per hour. That won't change

 

[lazyboy97o]

An increase in capacity is a decrease in safety.

 

[G00fyDad]

An increase in capacity is a decrease in safety.

That depends. Did the increase in capacity also lead to an increase in the available space and staff coverage? If so then it may balance out. Although I don't see that as the case in this instance.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That depends. Did the increase in capacity also lead to an increase in the available space and staff coverage? If so then it may balance out. Although I don't see that as the case in this instance.

Staffing has nothing to do with it. Putting boats closer together at a drop is less safe.

 

[articos]

Operational issues happen plenty, both inside and outside of Disney, because the designers did not properly think through the issues.

That's not necessarily true. A lot of the time, the park execs/P&R/ops will send over requests before or during an attraction design process that WDI has to bend to. Other times, WDI will plan and build something with a specific flow and design and Ops will completely disregard this and change everything as soon as it's handed over. Or, sometimes a designer screws up. We always do look at capacity and flow and design to the needs of whatever is at hand. Whatever or whoever that may be. Design by committee, which is what Disney (and Universal, to a lesser extent) is not always the best way to get something done properly. But we do the best we can.

 

[G00fyDad]

Staffing has nothing to do with it. Putting boats closer together at a drop is less safe.

Hence my question about an increase in space. As I said, I doubt this is the case in this instance.

 

[articos]

They're putting a property that's insanely popular into a ride that can't handle anymore than 900 guests per hour. They either didn't think it through, or they don't give a crap.

They absolutely have thought it through and they do care. They're just looking at different factors and weighing things that may be more important to the company, but less apparent to the guest. Those factors may not be what the guest likes, but the company is definitely aware of everything. As to whether they care about the same factors you and I may care about, that's a different story.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That's not necessarily true. A lot of the time, the park execs/P&R/ops will send over requests before or during an attraction that WDI has to bend to. Other times, WDI will plan and build something with a specific flow and design and Ops will completely disregard this and change everything as soon as its handed over. Or, sometimes a designer screws up. We always do look at capacity and flow and design to the needs of whatever is at hand. Whatever or whoever that may be. Design by committee, which is what Disney (and Universal, to a lesser extent) is not always the best way to get something done properly. But we do the best we can.

I was not even speaking specifically to themed entertainment. Lots of big expensive projects perform poorly because of stupid ideas and convoluted designs.

 

[articos]

I was not even speaking specifically to themed entertainment. Lots of big expensive projects perform poorly because of stupid ideas and convoluted designs.

That's the truth.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Doesn't Disney have a track record of building quality attractions that are beloved for decades? This doesn't seem to be consistent with the standard they have set for 60 years. Could a company making over 7 billion in profit last year, not see this as folly in the long term?

*1023*

Their track record under Iger isn't great...

 

[FigmentJedi]

It's really not about *missing* Maelstrom, though, at least from what I can see with a lot of comments. It's more the IP that's replacing it. I'm sure if the ride was torn out and replaced with a different type of storyline set in Norway that represents the place, even if the name changed, I don't know that it would gather as much ire. JMO.

And they even designed stuff for an upgraded Maelstrom with even more trolls. But those got put to the side when Norwegian sponsors wouldn't bite.

 

[Mike S]

And they even designed stuff for an upgraded Maelstrom with even more trolls. But those got put to the side when Norwegian sponsors wouldn't bite.

And yet they have no problem paying for Frozen themselves.......

 

[Matt_Black]

And yet they have no problem paying for Frozen themselves.......

Because, I think we can all agree, Frozen is a definite draw in terms of attractions. That's something that absolutely WILL be promoted in advertising as much as possible once the ride opens. More to the point, people on social media who don't even care about park stuff are much more likely to pick up and run with talking about a Frozen attraction, thereby generating free publicity, than they are Maelstrom 2.0.

 

[wdisney9000]

They absolutely have thought it through and they do care. They're just looking at different factors and weighing things that may be more important to the company, but less apparent to the guest. Those factors may not be what the guest likes, but the company is definitely aware of everything. As to whether they care about the same factors you and I may care about, that's a different story.

Is it simply motivated by attendance figures? Are they willing to create a bit of an operational nightmare in an effort for higher gate clicks that would equate to a bump in sales? I only ask because when I think "why would they do this?", merchandise sales come to mind and also with having a larger draw to Epcot there will be a boost in food and beverage sales as well. Aside from those two, the only other benefit I can see (from a company perspective) would be attendance numbers that could be waived around in a boardroom.

 

[matt9112]

Is it simply motivated by attendance figures? Are they willing to create a bit of an operational nightmare in an effort for higher gate clicks that would equate to a bump in sales? I only ask because when I think "why would they do this?", merchandise sales come to mind and also with having a larger draw to Epcot there will be a boost in food and beverage sales as well. Aside from those two, the only other benefit I can see (from a company perspective) would be attendance numbers that could be waived around in a boardroom.

You bet ya....because of food and drink I would guess a gate click at epcot is often some extra cash this attractions name alone will draw millions more (guess) but it adds zero capacity ahahahaha.....park will be little bit more like MK but subpar.

Sad....spaceship earth is one of my favorite rides in all of WDW.

 

[Matt_Black]

You bet ya....because of food and drink I would guess a gate click at epcot is often some extra cash this attractions name alone will draw millions more (guess) but it adds zero capacity ahahahaha.....park will be little bit more like MK but subpar.

Sad....spaceship earth is one of my favorite rides in all of WDW.

Ah, but they ARE adding capacity. Remember, the meet & greet pavilion next door. That's going to eat up people as well.

 

[wdisney9000]

You bet ya....because of food and drink I would guess a gate click at epcot is often some extra cash this attractions name alone will draw millions more (guess) but it adds zero capacity ahahahaha

While its most likely true that each gate click does equate to some type of cash value in terms of food and bev, but isnt it ultimately just shifting numbers around? Say a family of 4 that previously found Epcot dull now decides to visit for the Frozen attraction and they make and ADR for lunch. Theres a bump right there for food and bev at Epcot, but, if that same family had gone to MK instead, they would have made an ADR there too.

The family would have spent money for food regardless of what park they went to. So where is the actual (additional) profit in that scenario? To me, thats not the Frozen attraction creating any additional revenue, its just allowing that family to spend their lunch money at Epcot instead of MK. Zero actual increase. Perhaps the parents will have a drink or two at WS, thats additional revenue, but I also think that any families who specifically visit Epcot for Frozen or the families that previously found Epcot dull arent the demographic that blows money on alcohol in good ol' Drunkeytown.

 

[wdisney9000]

Ah, but they ARE adding capacity. Remember, the meet & greet pavilion next door. That's going to eat up people as well.

But how many people will that small expansion actually fit (comfortably)? 500 -1000? If their projected increase of 20,000 per day comes to fruition, how does a small expansion help? Again, it seems like poor planning. And while Epcot itself can allow for more guests, that only makes it become more like MK 2.0 in terms of crowds which will only yield another hub redesign, ughh.