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

[AEfx]

This attraction will have ridiculous wait times. It has nothing to do with location and everything to do with it being a Frozen ride with lousy capacity. The franchise deserved more and World Showcase deserved more. It is the biggest "creative" mistake in the history of Walt Disney World.

I agree with your first statement, but the second one...oh, Dinorama would like to have a word with you.

 

[AEfx]

We were discussing its viability to support multiple attrations (rides) at several parks globally and not the amazing financial success it has had. Marvel movies make a lot too but all will not become theme park rides. Same could be said of Pixar films.

When talking "globally" - make sure you keep in mind that the vast majority of guests to a Disney park will never experience a Disney park in another geographic location. The public actually expects the rides offered to be similar at any "MK-style" park and are often confused and unhappy when they find out that X-ride they heard about is only across the country - or world. To them, it's like being able to only get Big Macs on the West Coast and only serving Quarter Pounders on the East Coast. It doesn't make sense.

 

[lazyboy97o]

All that said - the basic point is - those of us who grew up with EPCOT Center had the perception that it was an altruistic venture, that all these corporations came together with Disney for the good of mankind as a vision of the future. In truth, it was really closer to Disney getting their park subsidized by the highest corporate bidders who either wanted direct access to consumers or the prestige and benefits of being associated with it (versus their competitors).

That whole notion of prestige in sponsorship is built on the idea of it being something bigger than just a theme park. The two conditions of something bigger and corporate sponsorships driving content are not the dichotomy that you keep presenting. The ideas went further than just the sponsors. It was the new studio-obsessed leadership (Roy, Michael and Frank) that killed those bigger aspirations and more firmly forced the corporate content model.

 

[bhg469]

True, it wasn't all consumer-directed. I think I actually listed a few earlier in this thread (like medical equipment manufacturers, etc.) that don't sell directly to consumers, but they still participated. It's because in the early 1980's, EPCOT was seen as this one-of-a-kind permanent World's Fair - and participating in it brought great press to the company, made them stand out from their competitors, and just general prestige back when Disney was still riding Walt's coat-tails ("We are a partner with Walt Disney World's revolutionary vision of the future, EPCOT Center"). Not to mention being able to impress clients and such with comp tickets and private lounges.

It's also not a knock on the original attractions - you are correct, they weren't all giant ads. Some of them did indeed transcend that. And there were some of probably the best dark rides the world has ever seen so far that sadly are gone. Just because it's corporate sponsored doesn't automatically mean there couldn't be quality - IASW was a corporate sponsored attraction.

All that said - the basic point is - those of us who grew up with EPCOT Center had the perception that it was an altruistic venture, that all these corporations came together with Disney for the good of mankind as a vision of the future. In truth, it was really closer to Disney getting their park subsidized by the highest corporate bidders who either wanted direct access to consumers or the prestige and benefits of being associated with it (versus their competitors).

I know these are difficult truths - but the longer we cling to them, the more traumatic the future is going to be as it continues to move away from this corporate sponsorship model.

I just don't think they're good at building without a sponsor demanding more out of them. Seems like the little effort they put in lately is all they will be giving us in the near future. If it happens with star wars it will be the a last straw and I just won't go there anymore. I don't go now but a special occasion would bring me back like going with a first timer or tanking our new niece.

 

[Pirate665]

When talking "globally" - make sure you keep in mind that the vast majority of guests to a Disney park will never experience a Disney park in another geographic location. The public actually expects the rides offered to be similar at any "MK-style" park and are often confused and unhappy when they find out that X-ride they heard about is only across the country - or world. To them, it's like being able to only get Big Macs on the West Coast and only serving Quarter Pounders on the East Coast. It doesn't make sense.

I loved when DLP guests visit WDW and get confused by Pirates and Mansion. I saw the vice versa at DLP...

 

[FigmentJedi]

All that said - the basic point is - those of us who grew up with EPCOT Center had the perception that it was an altruistic venture, that all these corporations came together with Disney for the good of mankind as a vision of the future. In truth, it was really closer to Disney getting their park subsidized by the highest corporate bidders who either wanted direct access to consumers or the prestige and benefits of being associated with it (versus their competitors).

But really, Walt's conception of EPCOT was the same thing: Getting corporations to subsidize the cost of building the world's most elaborate and over the top form of on-site employee housing/company town in exchange for having the prestige in being part of an actual great "City of the Future" of the type that was being hyped up in genre fiction since the 30s. But nobody else had the charisma or drive to see it get done after he passed, corporate interests shifted towards the short-term and those sort of backers were more easily enticed by a smaller scale project and that's how we got our park.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But really, Walt's conception of EPCOT was the same thing: Getting corporations to subsidize the cost of building the world's most elaborate and over the top form of on-site employee housing/company town in exchange for having the prestige in being part of an actual great "City of the Future" of the type that was being hyped up in genre fiction since the 30s. But nobody else had the charisma or drive to see it get done after he passed, corporate interests shifted towards the short-term and those sort of backers were more easily enticed by a smaller scale project and that's how we got our park.

Disney once again committing itself to such a vision of civic minded corporate leadership is something that would have benefits that even those not overly interested in the parks should recognize. Disney likes to have good image, but it is one that has been cracking for years in regards to how it views its employees and neighbors, especially in Central Florida.

 

[WondersOfLife]

The theater is gone and will be replaced by new load/unload and queue.

Thanks! Thought that's what would happen.

 

[ToTBellHop]

This attraction will have ridiculous wait times. It has nothing to do with location and everything to do with it being a Frozen ride with lousy capacity. The franchise deserved more and World Showcase deserved more. It is the biggest "creative" mistake in the history of Walt Disney World.

Disney knows how popular Frozen is, otherwise they wouldn't have "rushed" to get a ride into the parks. But the same reason they're rushing to put it into Norway (high demand) is one of the reasons why Norway is a horrible location (low capacity).

I don't know about that. This tumor could be removed quickly in 10 years if necessary. It's just a cheap overlay. See Stitch's Great Escape. Or our current Figment ride.

Building Splash Mountain in its current location was a far larger creative mistake as both its setting and time are inappropriate for its placement and it's not going anywhere. But, we largely forgive it because it's a great ride.

Unfortunately, FEA is poorly placed and doesn't appear to be anything to write home about from what we've heard.

 

[AEfx]

That whole notion of prestige in sponsorship is built on the idea of it being something bigger than just a theme park. The two conditions of something bigger and corporate sponsorships driving content are not the dichotomy that you keep presenting. The ideas went further than just the sponsors. It was the new studio-obsessed leadership (Roy, Michael and Frank) that killed those bigger aspirations and more firmly forced the corporate content model.

But it wasn't real...it never happened. It was PR - thinly based, and nebulous, at that.

I love ya, but when stuff like this is said it's like, "What are you talking about?" LOL.

These broad, esoteric, nebulous ideas of something...more. That folks can't quantify because it was a feeling they got, basing this feeling from a promotional video that Walt Disney made two decades earlier that had absolutely nothing to do with the theme park that was built in 1982 aside from a name.

There was not some grand plan of cultural philanthropy, or altruistic reason it was built - it was a theme park built to get more guests to come to WDW by adding another gate. Do you really think that in 1982 the WDC was just dumping money into a theme park for the good of mankind or "celebration of cultural achievement"? Or that they brought in all these corporate sponsors for anything but the financial benefit? Walt Disney himself wasn't ashamed of getting corporate sponsors to help finance projects - so why do we ascribe this lofty ideal of there was suddenly more to it after he was long dead?

EPCOT Center was a product of the WDC going..."Well, we are ready to add a second gate to WDW. What are we going to theme it as?" They looked at what Walt Disney left - and took the nebulous idea of a futuristic city, and as we know, literally took two different proposal models (one of that, and one of a WS-like park) and placed them together on a table and said "You know, that would work!"

It's like battling about religion - it comes down to "faith" - "belief" that there is no true, empirical evidence of. And over the past 35 years people have built it up into exactly that - because no one can talk about it without making broad, unprovable strokes of something that is almost entirely based on a "feeling" or extremely broad, pithy statements of purpose that never really were more than PR copy to begin with.

That's the only "proof" anyone has of anything - things like a dedication plaque (a few dozen words crafted by marketers to evoke a feeling), an ancient video from Walt Disney about an entirely different project, that the company capitalized upon to lengthen the appearance of his influence at a time when it was still finding it's identity after his death, and...that's really it.

PR wasn't invented post-1982. It already existed. We were just young enough to not to see it for what it was and were wow'd by some great attractions. At the same time, the WDC has spent far less in developing it's parks since about a decade into EPCOT Center (when it turned into Epcot) - and people have put these two together in their minds as inexorably linked together into this utopia of theme parks.

Honestly - if they had continued to spend lavishly on the parks - I think we'd be having these same discussions because no matter if they were building or not, the nebulous theme simply wasn't sustainable because EPCOT was never some research center devoted to the human condition - it always was a theme park, there to get guests to come and spend money.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But it wasn't real...it never happened. It was PR - thinly based, and nebulous, at that.

I love ya, but when stuff like this is said it's like, "What are you talking about?" LOL.

These broad, esoteric, nebulous ideas of something...more. That folks can't quantify because it was a feeling they got, basing this feeling from a promotional video that Walt Disney made two decades earlier that had absolutely nothing to do with the theme park that was built in 1982 aside from a name.

There was not some grand plan of cultural philanthropy, or altruistic reason it was built - it was a theme park built to get more guests to come to WDW by adding another gate. Do you really think that in 1982 the WDC was just dumping money into a theme park for the good of mankind or "celebration of cultural achievement"? Or that they brought in all these corporate sponsors for anything but the financial benefit? Walt Disney himself wasn't ashamed of getting corporate sponsors to help finance projects - so why do we ascribe this lofty ideal of there was suddenly more to it after he was long dead?

EPCOT Center was a product of the WDC going..."Well, we are ready to add a second gate to WDW. What are we going to theme it as?" They looked at what Walt Disney left - and took the nebulous idea of a futuristic city, and as we know, literally took two different proposal models (one of that, and one of a WS-like park) and placed them together on a table and said "You know, that would work!"

It's like battling about religion - it comes down to "faith" - "belief" that there is no true, empirical evidence of. And over the past 35 years people have built it up into exactly that - because no one can talk about it without making broad, unprovable strokes of something that is almost entirely based on a "feeling" or extremely broad, pithy statements of purpose that never really were more than PR copy to begin with.

That's the only "proof" anyone has of anything - things like a dedication plaque (a few dozen words crafted by marketers to evoke a feeling), an ancient video from Walt Disney about an entirely different project, that the company capitalized upon to lengthen the appearance of his influence at a time when it was still finding it's identity after his death, and...that's really it.

PR wasn't invented post-1982. It already existed. We were just young enough to not to see it for what it was and were wow'd by some great attractions. At the same time, the WDC has spent far less in developing it's parks since about a decade into EPCOT Center (when it turned into Epcot) - and people have put these two together in their minds as inexorably linked together into this utopia of theme parks.

Honestly - if they had continued to spend lavishly on the parks - I think we'd be having these same discussions because no matter if they were building or not, the nebulous theme simply wasn't sustainable because EPCOT was never some research center devoted to the human condition - it always was a theme park, there to get guests to come and spend money.

You keep pushing EPCOT as totally unrelated because it wasn't a city, but the city wasn't that big of an idea. It was actually a really old idea. EPCOT was a Garden City as laid out by Ebenezer Howard at the end of the 19th century. Victor Gruin was familiar with the concept and reiterated its basic concepts in The Heart of Our Cities (a book Walt owned). The excitement was the promise of cooperation at a time that remains noted for its turbulence and distrust of institutions.

You're history has some serious gaps. The EPCOT idea continued to be developed and explored throughout the 1970s. The "two models" being pushed together was actually the EPCOT Theme Centers (Walt Disney World's was to be the first of multiple) and World Showcase endeavors being shrunk down. The two parks were not competing ideas, but simultaneous endeavors. It was that work throughout the 1970s that got people excited, as the EPCOT film was not being widely shown. It was that pushing the company to the edge of ruin to get it built that excited people. That is optimism. The opening of EPCOT Center was big news.

Publicity does not have to be a lie nor has anyone ever expected EPCOT Center to be a grand research center. Being a theme park does not automatically debase a concept. It's a medium that can be used in a variety of ways. There are schlocky books and those that make people think, even fictional works that generate a profit. That same thoughtful book would not suddenly become meaningless if the author had an advance from the publisher, as that would be a corporation paying to enable the author. The same is true of films or plays and even themed entertainment. That EPCOT Center evoked an emotional response in its audience is what good story telling does and why the medium of story is so effective.

 

[AEfx]

I agree with a lot of that - I have said the exact same things in the past several posts. I even brought up examples like IASW, which may never have seen the light of day if not for corporate sponsorship.

But what on earth does that have to do with the theme of Epcot? The optimism of "pushing the company to the edge of ruin" to build a second gate at WDW? I just don't see the nobility there.

What was a fabrication was this nebulous feeling of "optimism" sold as a "theme" when it was a theme park created to draw more guests to the developing WDW resort.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But what on earth does that have to do with the theme of Epcot? The optimism of "pushing the company to the edge of ruin" to build a second gate at WDW? I just don't see the nobility there.

Pushing the company to the edge of ruin is the sentiment that you keep denying. It counters the notion that it was just another theme park thrown together to increase visitation. There was no need for the decade of effort and high costs if the goals was just a simple turn key operation. Plus, you're still getting your history backwards. The projects were in development first, but building them specifically as a second gate came later.

What was a fabrication was this nebulous feeling of "optimism" when it was a theme park created to draw more guests to the developing WDW resort.

You keep failing to explain why there must be a separation between the two. Optimism was the draw. It would not have been a successful draw if their was no heart in the production.

 

[Mike S]

Let's just all agree that EPCOT Center, no matter the true intentions behind it, was a much better park than Epcot. Btw the theme of the park, or what it's supposed to be anyway, is clear on the Wikipedia page (I know, I know): Technological innovation and international culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epcot

 

[AEfx]

Pushing the company to the edge of ruin is the sentiment that you keep denying. It counters the notion that it was just another theme park thrown together to increase visitation. There was no need for the decade of effort and high costs if the goals was just a simple turn key operation. Plus, you're still getting your history backwards. The projects were in development first, but building them specifically as a second gate came later.

I haven't denied any such thing. So what you are saying is that they got themselves so deeply in the hole over EPCOT they had to get corporate sponsorships. OK, how does that change any of what I am talking about? What does that have to do with the park that opened on 10/1/82? I just don't see the nobility in that.

Basically, what it seems like you are saying is exactly what I was saying - the park that opened in 1982 had little to do with any of these esoteric ideals that are now ascribed. If the Internet had existed in 1982 people would have been screaming just as much about the place not being "Walt's Vision" - the theme park that folks are so attached to never got built to begin with, yet 35 years later people are still clinging to a park that was never built and inexplicably criticize the company for still not building it.

You keep failing to explain why there must be a separation between the two. Optimism was the draw. It would not have been a successful draw if their was no heart in the production.

"Heart?" Are we really going there?

No, I just disagree with your premise because there is no empirical evidence of it. What people were drawn to in 1982 was the lavish attractions. In the past 35 years, these two things have become inexorably intertwined in the minds of certain fans. People didn't go to EPCOT because of "optimism" and especially not "heart" - it's very difficult to even use that word when discussing EPCOT as it's always been rather sterile. It never was a "warm hug" park to begin with. The things that led you to believe in that "optimism" were PR and marketing of the park.

What it seems you are talking about over these posts is a combination of naive 1960's "optimism" (The Jetsons) with the "corporate responsibility" theme created around the same time by corporations to stave off government oversight/regulations, somehow all added up to a theme park based on what used to be the biggest trade show of all time (like EPCOT, we romanticize World's Fairs but they were just giant trade shows before mass media).

 

[ThemeParkJunkee]

I think Epcot Center had a cohesive vision, well two cohesive visions. When I brought my two youngest children, they were most fascinated with Epcot. We, relative WDW newbies, only bought standard "one day one park tickets" for the three parks open at the time. We stayed three nights. We drove down from Wisconsin in a mini-van. We stayed at Caribbean Beach, then drove home. Well, with one sideline...they handed us tickets to AK at the front desk when we checked in. It was February. AK didn't open until April. We went the morning of checkout for the morning.

Anyway, I digress. The children, boy 9 and girl 11 spent so much time at Innoventions, I was concerned we wouldn't have time for rides. There was a replica Mars rover on display with NASA peeps doing a demonstration. The kids loved the countries...not the lame "Kid-Cot" craft stuff, the countries. It instilled in them a love of travel and desire to see the real world. The cartoonification of Epcot WS is a wasted opportunity to instill in children, a desire to explore. It is, after all, the desire to make sense of and manipulate our environment that makes us human beings in the first place.

That was Epcot to me in a nutshell. Inspiration. Period.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I haven't denied any such thing. So what you are saying is that they got themselves so deeply in the hole over EPCOT they had to get corporate sponsorships. OK, how does that change any of what I am talking about? What does that have to do with the park that opened on 10/1/82? I just don't see the nobility in that.

Basically, what it seems like you are saying is exactly what I was saying - the park that opened in 1982 had little to do with any of these esoteric ideals that are now ascribed. If the Internet had existed in 1982 people would have been screaming just as much about the place not being "Walt's Vision" - the theme park that folks are so attached to never got built to begin with, yet 35 years later people are still clinging to a park that was never built and inexplicably criticize the company for still not building it.



"Heart?" Are we really going there?

No, I just disagree with your premise because there is no empirical evidence of it. What people were drawn to in 1982 was the lavish attractions. In the past 35 years, these two things have become inexorably intertwined in the minds of certain fans. People didn't go to EPCOT because of "optimism" and especially not "heart" - it's very difficult to even use that word when discussing EPCOT as it's always been rather sterile. It never was a "warm hug" park to begin with. The things that led you to believe in that "optimism" were PR and marketing of the park.

What it seems you are talking about over these posts is a combination of naive 1960's "optimism" (The Jetsons) with the "corporate responsibility" theme created around the same time by corporations to stave off government oversight/regulations, somehow all added up to a theme park based on what used to be the biggest trade show of all time (like EPCOT, we romanticize World's Fairs but they were just giant trade shows before mass media).

Lavish attractions that connect with people years after their demolition are the result of heart and ideas. If there is nothing beyond the rides then you're not questioning the validity of the romance around EPCOT Center but the entire construct of themed entertainment as a distinct medium. Because it seems as far as you are concerned attractions and experiences cannot evoke a genuine response, that those responses are only the product of duplicitous marketing. Yeah, there is no way to objectively prove otherwise, but it seems relying on the marketing would be a lot easier and cheaper. It also seems the experience museums should be falling on their faces since they lack the marketing might of a Disney.

Also, there is a World's Fair going on right now.

 

[Cesar R M]

i just am counting the days till F &W begins.. i will be sipping a frozen margarita and watching the madness unfold

Can you imagine if someone created a youtube channel just for videos of these "events" ?

like 30 year old Elsa cosplayer goes Postal on a Kristoff 50 year old wannabe.

 

[Cesar R M]

unis response to Pandora seems to be Kong. Nice but not quite the same.

Pandora was responded twice with heavy hitters (Harry Potter lands) .. and Disney still hasnt opened Pandora.. go figure!

Universal didn't respond to Pandora; Pandora was Disney's response to Potter.

That was the extent of the "conversation" - as Universal just continued to plow ahead and between the time Disney announced Pandora and when guests can actually walk in, Universal will have announced and opened more new, big scale rides for it's two parks than WDW has in the past 20 years for it's four parks.

Agree with you... but heey pixie dust!

Anyway... I now remember why I had that guy on ignore.. ohh well, to ignore he goes again lol.

 

[Cesar R M]

I prefer this one too. I Made it myself...spared no expense

View attachment 97885

I remember there are companies that can print whatever you want into a toilet paper roll.

I wonder if they allow the Disney Park logos. XD