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

[BigTxEars]

Tell me who it's good for.

Not for you or me to decide what is good for everybody. Give your opinion by all means but that is all it is, your opinion and nothing more.

 

[devoy1701]

You're repeating old information, even for this thread. The Walt Disney Company is far larger than Walt Disney Products and does not need sponsorship. Norway is also not an intellectual property owned by the government.

What point are you making? Because the point that I made was that if a country (or company from within the host country) is not willing to fund updated for a World Showcase pavilion, Disney will do whatever it wants with it...and in this case it's to add a ride based on a movie that is set in the host country. Why would Disney spend money to promote Norway if Norway isn't willing to spend the money? Instead Disney will promote it's own property while sticking with the pavilion's theme. It may stink from an "Epcot Purist" point of view, but it makes pretty good business sense. The parks are supposed to be used as co-marketing opportunities after all.

 

[lazyboy97o]

What point are you making? Because the point that I made was that if a country (or company from within the host country) is not willing to fund updated for a World Showcase pavilion, Disney will do whatever it wants with it...and in this case it's to add a ride based on a movie that is set in the host country. Why would Disney spend money to promote Norway if Norway isn't willing to spend the money? Instead Disney will promote it's own property while sticking with the pavilion's theme. It may stink from an "Epcot Purist" point of view, but it makes pretty good business sense. The parks are supposed to be used as co-marketing opportunities after all.

That sounds far more like extortion, Disney used to want to do something with their theme parks, they were not supposed to be marketing platforms.

 

[BigTxEars]

What point are you making? Because the point that I made was that if a country (or company from within the host country) is not willing to fund updated for a World Showcase pavilion, Disney will do whatever it wants with it...and in this case it's to add a ride based on a movie that is set in the host country. Why would Disney spend money to promote Norway if Norway isn't willing to spend the money? Instead Disney will promote it's own property while sticking with the pavilion's theme. It may stink from an "Epcot Purist" point of view, but it makes pretty good business sense. The parks are supposed to be used as co-marketing opportunities after all.

True, I certainly would not promote Norway if Norway itself refused to pay part of the cost.

As posted by someone earlier WS is nothing but a well themed shopping complex as it stands now. The education aspects is maybe 20% of the overall presentation. The rest is food and retail space. This whole "losing the educational aspect" of WS argument is pretty weak IMO.

 

[erasure fan1]

So you basically just told three tween girls about the plan to put a Frozen attraction in Norway and they immediately complained that Frozen doesn't belong in Norway? Did they also go on and on about Epcot's purpose?

Methinks that children give a reaction that is based on what the adults fed them.

Yes, they didn't like the idea of it and they all LOVED frozen. They didn't go on about epcots purpose but they are smart enough to know that Frozen takes place in a fictitious place. When I told my daughter I actually thought she would like the idea as she was never really a big fan of Maelstrom anyway. But she said a funny thing, "wouldn't it make more sense in the studios?" I really don't think you are giving kids enough credit. They are more observant than you might think.

 

[xdan0920]

Not for you or me to decide what is good for everybody. Give your opinion by all means but that is all it is, your opinion and nothing more.

Who though? What group is this good for?

 

[devoy1701]

That sounds far more like extortion, Disney used to want to do something with their theme parks, they were not supposed to be marketing platforms.

Absolutely they were! That was one of the original premises!

 

[lebeau]

Tell me who it's good for.

People who think they like Disney but don't really like it enough to understand what Epcot is.

 

[lebeau]

What point are you making? Because the point that I made was that if a country (or company from within the host country) is not willing to fund updated for a World Showcase pavilion, Disney will do whatever it wants with it...and in this case it's to add a ride based on a movie that is set in the host country. Why would Disney spend money to promote Norway if Norway isn't willing to spend the money? Instead Disney will promote it's own property while sticking with the pavilion's theme. It may stink from an "Epcot Purist" point of view, but it makes pretty good business sense. The parks are supposed to be used as co-marketing opportunities after all.

I bolded the part where we differ.

If Disney was actually sticking to the pavilion's theme, almost no one would be upset by this move. Instead, they are throwing away not just the theme of the pavilion, but the concept of the World Showcase.

 

[Betty Draper]

Just joined the forums after lurking on here for a few years, so hello!

I'm honestly excited for something new to come to Epcot. These past few years, the biggest thing we've seen come is the Liberty Toilets and entertainment cuts.

While, I agree that Frozen has no business in Norway, let alone Epcot, I think if done correctly (in which it most likely it'll shoehorned inside the current attraction), it'll be a hit and it'll also separate crowds a lot better.

Let's face it, average tourists only come to Epcot to either:

1.) Ride Test Track
2.) Ride Soarin'
3.) Get Stoned at Drunkytown

This will be a good distraction, and it won't only benefit Epcot crowd wise, but the other parks as well.

Everyone is going to be flocking to the Frozen Ride, thus causing the crowds to disperse deeper into the park, leaving FW more abandoned that what is already.

And can I be honest here and say that Maelstrom wasn't a good ride to begin with? I mean it had promise, but come on, it was really underwhelming.

I guess most of the love for it comes from the corniness and the nostalgia.

Anyway, that's what I had to say about this whole fiasco.

Sincerely,

- B.

 

[lebeau]

True, I certainly would not promote Norway if Norway itself refused to pay part of the cost.

As posted by someone earlier WS is nothing but a well themed shopping complex as it stands now. The education aspects is maybe 20% of the overall presentation. The rest is food and retail space. This whole "losing the educational aspect" of WS argument is pretty weak IMO.

I know right! It's like how foreign countries are basically just shopping malls with food courts that don't sell burgers and fries. Disney rulz yall!

 

[lazyboy97o]

True, I certainly would not promote Norway if Norway itself refused to pay part of the cost.

By that reasoning the rest of World Showcase should be away with.

Absolutely they were! That was one of the original premises!

About a quarter of Disneyland's original attractions had to do with existing properties, and most of those were financial duds. EPCOT Center deliberately avoided existing properties.

 

[BigTxEars]

People who think they like Disney but don't really like it enough to understand what Epcot is.

That is based on your opinion on what Epcot is.

The park was never what it was intended to be, and it has changed from what it was when it opened. I think Epcot was pretty wide open to debate as to what type of park it "is" well before this Frozen issue.

 

[lebeau]

Just joined the forums after lurking on here for a few years, so hello!

I'm honestly excited for something new to come to Epcot. These past few years, the biggest thing we've seen come is the Liberty Toilets and entertainment cuts.

While, I agree that Frozen has no business in Norway, let alone Epcot, I think if done correctly (in which it most likely it'll shoehorned inside the current attraction), it'll be a hit and it'll also separate crowds a lot better.

Let's face it, average tourists only come to Epcot to either:

1.) Ride Test Track
2.) Ride Soarin'
3.) Get Stoned at Drunkytown

This will be a good distraction, and it won't only benefit Epcot crowd wise, but the other parks as well.

Everyone is going to be flocking to the Frozen Ride, thus causing the crowds to disperse deeper into the park, leaving FW more abandoned that what is already.

And can I be honest here and say that Maelstrom wasn't a good ride to begin with? I mean it had promise, but come on, it was really underwhelming.

I guess most of the love for it comes from the corniness and the nostalgia.

Anyway, that's what I had to say about this whole fiasco.

Sincerely,

- B.

Eyeing new poster suspiciously.

Nothing personal.

 

[Mr. Peabody]

True, I certainly would not promote Norway if Norway itself refused to pay part of the cost.

None of the opening day World Showcase pavilions were funded by the governments of the countries represented. Most of them were sponsored by corporations from the represented countries; however, the Canada and China pavilions had no sponsors had no sponsors and the original CircleVision films in these pavilions promote their respective countries.

 

[lebeau]

That is based on your opinion on what Epcot is.

The park was never what it was intended to be, and it has changed from what it was when it opened. I think Epcot was pretty wide open to debate as to what type of park it "is" well before this Frozen issue.

I agree in that Disney has been slowly stripping away what Epcot is. Future World is pretty much a lost cause. But inertia has mostly kept the purpose of the World Showcase in tact.

I really don't think the purpose of the WS is a matter of opinion. It's there in its name. It is showcasing the cultures of the world. Frozen is in no way reflective of the culture of Norway despite the fact animators used the country as inspiration for the fictional world they created.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That is based on your opinion on what Epcot is.

The park was never what it was intended to be, and it has changed from what it was when it opened. I think Epcot was pretty wide open to debate as to what type of park it "is" well before this Frozen issue.

How was the park never what it intended? The whole reason the EPCOT Center remains so well known as an idea is because of the aspirations the park reflected.

 

[ABQ]

Dont forget that many Disney execs had ZERO faith in Frozen and did not see it becoming a popular movie. Now that its a hit, they are just throwing it everywhere they can. The same group of people that had no faith in it are the same ones that think this layover is a good idea. Goes to show the extreme lack of vision in its inception and the follow through into the parks. My cat could make better decisions for the parks than these clowns.

Are you calling Mr Staggs a liar?
"From the moment we screened the film several months before its release, we were inspired by the possibility of bringing this great story to life for our guests. Frozen Summer Fun LIVE! has been extremely popular, and now we’re looking forward to doing even more to allow our guests to experience the “Frozen” phenomenon."

 

[Betty Draper]

Eyeing new poster suspiciously.

Nothing personal.

I'm just a housewife, why are you doing this to me?

 

[lebeau]

I'm just a housewife, why are you doing this to me?

Especially after all your ex-husband put you through. I am ashamed.

Kidding aside, welcome to the boards.