Frozen complainers are finally making headlines.

[Cesar R M]

People complain when Disney buys another "franchise" instead of using their own - then they complain when Disney creates one and uses it.

which disney franchise was "created" recently?

almost all the movies seem to be related either to Marvel or to books/games. (pixar movies dont count)

 

[wdisney9000]

They never actually cared. You're buying into the company mythos way too hard.
The only reason the Norway pavilion existed in the first place was because Disney was able to convince Statoil to bankroll it in the hopes it would boost US tourism to Norway. Once that trend tied down, and Statoil stopped paying "rent" as it were, there was no reason for the pavilion to stand as it is.
Disney's wanting their paying theme park guests "to walk away with a better view of the world" was never part of the actual equation, regardless of what the Walt Disney Company would wanted you to think.

Giving guests at World Showcase a better view of the world was NEVER in the equation? How do you figure? If Disney didn't care, why didnt they just build another theme park with rides instead of building EPCOT? The fact they sought sponsorship is far from proof that they didn't care. It was economical, Not a lack of concern for the final product.

Is it all about the dollars in the end? Sure, but EPCOT was built in a different era. Businesses (including Disney) respected their customers more back then than they do today. Perhaps it was more that businesses had not yet realized that once they were established they could cheapen everything as long as the logo was the same. Look at almost any company that has survived over the years and compare their products from then and now. Mcdonalds actually served real beef at some point in time. My 1985 VW golf gets better gas mileage than my 1995 golf, which gets better gas mileage than a newer one. lol. Houses were built better, furniture was made with real wood, and yes, Disney theme parks were ran by people that knew how to run a theme park, not marauders tugging on a guests wallet like a raccoon on a trash bag.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Giving guests at World Showcase a better view of the world was NEVER in the equation? How do you figure? If Disney didn't care, why didnt they just build another theme park with rides instead of building EPCOT? The fact they sought sponsorship is far from proof that they didn't care. It was economical, Not a lack of concern for the final product.

Is it all about the dollars in the end? Sure, but EPCOT was built in a different era. Businesses (including Disney) respected their customers more back then than they do today. Perhaps it was more that businesses had not yet realized that once they were established they could cheapen everything as long as the logo was the same. Look at almost any company that has survived over the years and compare their products from then and now. Mcdonalds actually served real beef at some point in time. My 1985 VW golf gets better gas mileage than my 1995 golf, which gets better gas mileage than a newer one. lol. Houses were built better, furniture was made with real wood, and yes, Disney theme parks were ran by people that knew how to run a theme park, not marauders tugging on a guests wallet like a raccoon on a trash bag.

That, sir, is one of the most brilliant posts here I have ever read.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

I feel like this has all been said already in the Frozen replacing Maelstrom thread, but here goes. EPCOT does need upgrades badly. But they don't need to do it by adding more toons in world showcase. There are so many other ways they could go to improve EPCOT without going the Frozen Maelstrom route. Imagination/Universe of Energy/Wonders of Life pavilions could all be refurbed or completely gutted and redone. There were also several proposed new pavilions for world showcase (the concept art for Brazil was posted on another thread) or new rides added to Japan or Germany. Cramming Frozen into a small space in Norway isn't the only way to attempt to improve EPCOT. It's a bit lazy and could actually add to capacity issues in the park. Maelstrom is a low capacity ride and we all know how popular Frozen is. The lines could be huge for a very short ride. That's not going to make a lot of people happy.

The other reason it's a bad idea is Frozen deserves more. It's a smash hit that will eventually be considered a classic. They should be building a true E-ticket ride/mini land in MK where it would fit better. Give the people what they want, not a 4 minute boat ride. It's gonna be real hard to tell a good story with that short of a ride. They could have used some of the land behind Fantasyland to build an ice castle, a true e-ticket ride, a meet and greet area and maybe even a restaurant. Something on par with the rumored Frozen area for Japan.

I was thinking about the land behind Fantasyland to build an ice castle too, but I think they can't because thats the firework zone.

 

[wdisney9000]

I was thinking about the land behind Fantasyland to build an ice castle too, but I think they can't because thats the firework zone.

Any areas of the parks that are safe from your armchair imagineering and its limited scope of 'Frozen and Princesses'?

 

[GoofGoof]

I was thinking about the land behind Fantasyland to build an ice castle too, but I think they can't because thats the firework zone.

Ice and fire probably not a good mix. LM and Mine train have both had minor fires from fireworks. It's definitely a concern. They could instead replace Speedway or use the expansion pad near Space Mountain or relocate Small World to EPCOT and use that space. There are a number of options that could work. It's not happening now anyway so it's all just a philosophical discussion.

 

[fractal]

which disney franchise was "created" recently?

almost all the movies seem to be related either to Marvel or to books/games. (pixar movies dont count)

Frozen - you know, the topic of this thread.

 

[englanddg]

I think it lies with the fact that this is the first time in what, 20 or so years that Disney have had a new princess. I suppose Pocahontas was the last, prior to her, Belle, Ariel etc (except maybe Mulan? Not sure how well Mulan did). They're new, they're not the same old boring Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty. Obviously I'm not saying Anna and Elsa are better than the old princesses, but that's what they are, old.
Anna and Elsa are the first princesses for this generation, so everyone is going to want to be dressing up as them.

We went to the UK version of Disney on Ice a few weeks ago. I think we are a bit behind you guys, ours is 'Celebrating 100 years of Magic' (which I can't understand why it's 100 years... nothing happened in 1914 from what I can tell?!). Anyway, every single little girl, bar probably one who I saw dressed as Snow White and one as Jessie, was either Anna or Elsa. But no Anna or Elsa appeared in the show! I was quite surprised, but I can't imagine how many kids went home disappointed that they didn't see them.

As the first princesses to come out of Disney in 20 or so years, I can see why they are milking it so much. Until they have another new princess, I've got a feeling this is how it will stay. They think the public want Anna and Elsa and I think they're probably right.

Well, apart from Tangled...

Um...Merida and Tiana?

 

[Tigger1988]

Um...Merida and Tiana?

And Rapunzel. There's been no shortages of princesses, just something about Frozen that connected.

 

[englanddg]

And Rapunzel. There's been no shortages of princesses, just something about Frozen that connected.

I left her off cause he mentioned (and discounted) Tangled. But, yep!

 

[Tigger1988]

I left her off cause he mentioned (and discounted) Tangled. But, yep!

Whoops. I honestly stopped reading after '20 years since the last princess...'

 

[misterID]

Ice and fire probably not a good mix. LM and Mine train have both had minor fires from fireworks. It's definitely a concern. They could instead replace Speedway or use the expansion pad near Space Mountain or relocate Small World to EPCOT and use that space. There are a number of options that could work. It's not happening now anyway so it's all just a philosophical discussion.

You had me right before the relocation of Small World to EPCOT.

And my answer to the title of this thread: good.

 

[imagineer boy]

There are many, many dumb things Disney could do to their parks that would make them a buttload of money. Build a DVC over the site of Cinderella Castle. Sell off all of the WDW land not currently developed. Close down several rides in every park while continuing to charge full ticket price (arguably in DHS they've already done this).

There are a LOT of adult guests that care about the more sophisticated and cultural theme of World Showcase, and enjoy being able to go somewhere on property that doesn't feel like an over-toonified Fantasyland. At some point, by intruding on treasured parts of WDW in search of a quick buck, Disney's going to shoot themselves in the foot with their core audience.

Just because it makes them money doesn't mean that it's smart, or that we have to like it.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU and oh yes, THANK YOU. Not to mention a lot of that stuff may not be financially successful in the long run.

 

[Victor Kelly]

Halloween we had about 180 kids, over half were Elsa, 1 mom dressed like Anna. After the third or fourth Elsa it was just.......meh. The movie was ok. Disney is just milking the cash cow and it will be gone in another year.

 

[imagineer boy]

Giving guests at World Showcase a better view of the world was NEVER in the equation? How do you figure? If Disney didn't care, why didnt they just build another theme park with rides instead of building EPCOT? The fact they sought sponsorship is far from proof that they didn't care. It was economical, Not a lack of concern for the final product.

Is it all about the dollars in the end? Sure, but EPCOT was built in a different era. Businesses (including Disney) respected their customers more back then than they do today. Perhaps it was more that businesses had not yet realized that once they were established they could cheapen everything as long as the logo was the same. Look at almost any company that has survived over the years and compare their products from then and now. Mcdonalds actually served real beef at some point in time. My 1985 VW golf gets better gas mileage than my 1995 golf, which gets better gas mileage than a newer one. lol. Houses were built better, furniture was made with real wood, and yes, Disney theme parks were ran by people that knew how to run a theme park, not marauders tugging on a guests wallet like a raccoon on a trash bag.

Oh yes, and a big THANK YOU to this as well. So nice to see so many actually smart arguments in this thread.

 

[Cesar R M]

Frozen - you know, the topic of this thread.

Frozen is an adaptation of a book. hardly "original".
good try anyway..

 

[stevehousse]

Frozen is an adaptation of a book. hardly "original".
good try anyway..

Frozen is extremely loosely based on the snow queen. Honestly the only similarity between the 2 is that a princess/Queen has snow/ice powers. I would go to say that it is more of an original story than an adaptation by far!

 

[The Duck]

Errrrr.... People in the crowd?

You do know it's scripted, right?

I wonder what would happen if the crowd started booing?

 

[fractal]

Frozen is an adaptation of a book. hardly "original".
good try anyway..

Unlike Snow White, Cinderella, Pinochio, Mary Poppins, Fox and Hound, Little Mermaid,Tangled, ect. ect. Bottom line - it's a Disney movie; and who said "original"?

 

[Bairstow]

Giving guests at World Showcase a better view of the world was NEVER in the equation? How do you figure? If Disney didn't care, why didnt they just build another theme park with rides instead of building EPCOT? The fact they sought sponsorship is far from proof that they didn't care. It was economical, Not a lack of concern for the final product.

ECPOT as we know it today only exists as a result of corporate and national sponsorship.
Were it not for the elaborate arrangements of sponsorship and funding the park would never have been built the way it was, certainly not as soon as it was, and likely would not have been built at all.

Is it all about the dollars in the end? Sure, but EPCOT was built in a different era. Businesses (including Disney) respected their customers more back then than they do today. Perhaps it was more that businesses had not yet realized that once they were established they could cheapen everything as long as the logo was the same. Look at almost any company that has survived over the years and compare their products from then and now. Mcdonalds actually served real beef at some point in time. My 1985 VW golf gets better gas mileage than my 1995 golf, which gets better gas mileage than a newer one. lol. Houses were built better, furniture was made with real wood, and yes, Disney theme parks were ran by people that knew how to run a theme park, not marauders tugging on a guests wallet like a raccoon on a trash bag.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of engineering, physics, and corporate propaganda.
Your 1985 Golf gets better mileage than your 1995 Golf because increasingly stringent German and US collision standards required that cars be built with increasingly rigid frames, which necessitated larger, more complicated brakes, which in turn necessitated heavier suspension, etc. etc. It's the overall heavier curb weights of newer cars that resulted in lower gas efficiency, not some sort of cash-grabbing corporate malfeasance on the part of Volkswagen.

As for Disney, the objective is, has always been, and always will be the guests' wallets.
The only difference is that now with the internet people like you and me are able to discuss what Disney does and why they do it, rather than just accept the nice-sounding ad copy they put on the dedication plaques.