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

Seabasealpha1

Seabasealpha1

Well-Known Member
raymusiccity said:
I don't see any harm. I don't understand all the naysayers. I remember back in the day when you'd bump into characters, just roaming free. What's the harm hearing the little ones get all excited when this goes by!

View attachment 142240
Click to expand...
THIS is GREAT! I'm cool with this. In fact I'd have some more of it with an ice cold Budweiser...
giphy.gif


It's the flavor of the day... IP milking-craptacular that is clearly about marketing an over-abused, overplayed, mediocre film taking over classic attractions and the blatant disregard for the point of World-Showcase and Futureworld that gets my knickers in a bunch...

And it's an uncomfortable bunch.

It's like an ice cream sundae of some kind...the point is to eat ice cream. But instead of giving us ice cream, they've just handed us a BUNCH of sprinkles with about a tablespoon of actual ice-cream because they've come out with some new sprinkles and they're so popular and successful now, that they "are more important" than ice cream...ice cream (apparently) is outdated...and pointless and it "doesn't sell to little kids like sprinkles do..."

...I hate sprinkles... :cautious:

I want some ice-cream.
 
Last edited:
marni1971

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member
BrianV said:
Soarin is better than most rides, though technically it didn't replace a ride. Finding Nemo is short, but certainly better than the previous transport ride. And test track is better than "its fun to be free" (can't remember the name, but I do remember the song!) .
Click to expand...
That's opinion. I could say you're dead wrong but that would be opinion too.

Though I admit reading and listening to the Perrin script of SSE is not for those of lesser knowledge of the English language.
 
Matt_Black

Matt_Black

Well-Known Member
marni1971 said:
No, by people with a passion for the park. From all over the web. And off the web too.

Not just a group here.
Click to expand...

And that's fine. But suggesting that other people are objectively wrong when it comes to preferences over a theme park doesn't strike you as at all obsessive?
 
BrianV

BrianV

Well-Known Member
marni1971 said:
That's opinion. I could say you're dead wrong but that would be opinion too.

Though I admit reading and listening to the Perrin script of SSE is not for those of lesser knowledge of the English language.
Click to expand...

I don't tend to read attraction scripts. Ill check it out. That is if my knowledge of the English language is up to snuff. :)
 
FigmentJedi

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
Matt_Black said:
It's only "dumbing down" if you think the medium of animation as an expression of art or storytelling is dumb.
Click to expand...
No, it's dumbing down when you throw attractions based on American animated films that focus inward on said films into an area meant to celebrate different world cultures or folktales. Frozen Ever After is focused around the film's characters and Madeupistan country of Arendelle, not Norway. Gran Fiesta Tour at least has the courtesy to have the Caballeros running through actual Mexico and thus still serve as a Mexican travelogue.
 
Brer Panther

Brer Panther

Well-Known Member
We probably won't be getting a Ratatouille ride in EPCOT, anyway. The only reason Anna and Elsa were shoehorned in is because the movie is popular.
 
LouP

LouP

Member
Brer Panther said:
We probably won't be getting a Ratatouille ride in EPCOT, anyway. The only reason Anna and Elsa were shoehorned in is because the movie is popular.
Click to expand...

But do we *really* know the reason Maelstrom has been replaced by Frozen Ever After? Do we know the actual NEED that led to this project? A fairly common assumption seems to be that it was simply to insert Frozen into the parks somewhere because the movie was popular, but I have to wonder if there was more to it than that, especially since there are other less expensive and less permanent ways to do that (for example the various Frozen-themed events etc. at DHS).

For instance, was there an operational need of some sort, such as a need to increase capacity? Even with Maelstrom's (relatively) low hourly capacity, if it was only pulling 500-600 people per hour, perhaps park operations was looking for a way to increase the numbers. (of course, they have created a capacity challenge in its place - time will tell)

Another possibility: there have been rumors that the mold build up in the building had become a potentially serious issue. Was the mold so bad that they had to rehabit the building anyway? If they needed to tear out the existing attraction (or much/most of it) putting in something new makes sense.

I understand the concerns many have about whether or not a Frozen attraction is appropriate for the Norway pavillion, but I think the answer to the question "Why are they doing this?" is a bigger one than "Frozen is popular - just shove Anna and Elsa into Norway." I think stepping back and considering the larger question and bigger picture might help gain us some perspective.

Take Care,

Lou Prosperi
 
Mike S

Mike S

Well-Known Member
Tahu said:
No, it's dumbing down when you throw attractions based on American animated films that focus inward on said films into an area meant to celebrate different world cultures or folktales. Frozen Ever After is focused around the film's characters and Madeupistan country of Arendelle, not Norway. Gran Fiesta Tour at least has the courtesy to have the Caballeros running through actual Mexico and thus still serve as a Mexican travelogue.
Click to expand...
The dumbing down of Epcot isn't even restricted to cartoons. WoM, Horizons, the new narration and ending of SSE, etc.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom