Frozen complainers are finally making headlines.

[lazyboy97o]

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.

So? The entire project was a massive endeavor being undertaken by a vastly smaller company. Profit and assistance do not automatically corrupt and destroy an idea. Disney pants years pursuing sponsorships because there was an idea beyond fun rides and making a quick buck.

 

[Bairstow]

So? The entire project was a massive endeavor being undertaken by a vastly smaller company. Profit and assistance do not automatically corrupt and destroy an idea. Disney pants years pursuing sponsorships because there was an idea beyond fun rides and making a quick buck.

My point, which at this point is 5-6 posts back, was that the goal, no the stated goal, but the actual goal of EPCOT has always been to make money, not some sort of benevolent quest on the part of The Walt Disney Company to educate the American theme-park-going public about the history and cultural nuances of Norway.

 

[lazyboy97o]

My point, which at this point is 5-6 posts back, was that the goal, no the stated goal, but the actual goal of EPCOT has always been to make money, not some sort of benevolent quest on the part of The Walt Disney Company to educate the American theme-park-going public about the history and cultural nuances of Norway.

There are different means to making money and motivations are not zero-sum equations. Even in the late-1970s there were far easier means for Disney to make money than the EPCOT Center undertaking. That they desired a profitable enterprise is completely unrelated to the validity of the thesis of the park.

 

[Bairstow]

There are different means to making money and motivations are not zero-sum equations. Even in the late-1970s there were far easier means for Disney to make money than the EPCOT Center undertaking. That they desired a profitable enterprise is completely unrelated to the validity of the thesis of the park.

No one said it was.
We were discussing the actual intent of the theme park's owners, not the pretty words said when the ribbon was cut.

 

[wdisney9000]

No one said it was.

You kinda did. Your going in circles. You've spent several posts basically citing that EPCOT's sole purpose was about making money (which I think we all agree on) the only difference is that you claim the concept of the park on any educational/cultural level meant diddly squat to TWDC of that era.

@lazyboy97o made a solid point in response to that. There were much easier ways to go about profiting WITHOUT years of finding sponsors or designing and implementing something so radical as EPCOT. You responded with the default claim of EPCOT only being built for profit. As I said, going in circles.

Why are you so sure that they could not have possibly wanted to profit AND had good intentions at the same time? It's an awful lot to go through and spend when they could have just built another MK style park.

 

[englanddg]

You kinda did. Your going in circles. You've spent several posts basically citing that EPCOT's sole purpose was about making money (which I think we all agree on) the only difference is that you claim the concept of the park on any educational/cultural level meant diddly squat to TWDC of that era.

@lazyboy97o made a solid point in response to that. There were much easier ways to go about profiting WITHOUT years of finding sponsors or designing and implementing something so radical as EPCOT. You responded with the default claim of EPCOT only being built for profit. As I said, going in circles.

Why are you so sure that they could not have possibly wanted to profit AND had good intentions at the same time? It's an awful lot to go through and spend when they could have just built another MK style park.

Well, they did. In Tokyo. Around the same time. <grin>

 

[wdisney9000]

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.

Maybe Disney should build a ride to teach us about cars and safety, then they can change it to something more cartoon and laser beam-ish....oh wait

 

[Cesar R M]

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"?

fractal did, not me.

 

[Spike-in-Berlin]

A 7 year old girl that thinks about boycotting Disney because they are tearing out "Maelstrom", although she likes Frozen? Sounds like a really interesting little person indeed.

 

[Siren]

I was quoting non-geek regular guests who are friends. They don't like the fact Cinderella Castle is not being lit by Cinderella as in the past but by marketing. As suggested by a PowerPoint synergy fusion.

Sorry Marni, but only geeks care enough to get upset over something so trivial -- the regular people are the ones in the crowd, enjoying themselves and cheering on Elsa!

By way of full disclosure, if you guys ever see a man named "George ......." interviewed about Disney World I would make sure my statement is waaaay more over the top than this.



I've been yelling for someone besides Cindy to do the castle lighting my whole life. Since 96 I have been advocating for Claude Frollo since I want to see those foam blocks slowly melt as we are awash in pungent burning tire aromas and a blast of heat accentuated by the humid Florida air. Plus, I know some gypsies are hiding out in there.

LOL. You are too funny.

Anyone who has a strong opinion on something like "who should light Cinderella's castle?" qualifies as a geek.

LOL. I totally agree with you. Sorry, but it's the other way around, Marni.

I could have also quoted them as saying "not more Frozen stuff" but I'd be called a doom and gloomer. So I didnt.

Why would I ever call you something horrible like that? It's quite rare to meet a poster as kind and as nice as I am.

I don't ever favor banning things (this case included), but I really don't like the phrases "doom and gloomer" and "pixie duster". None of us should be shoe horned into an opinion box.

Very well said & I totally agree.

I still fail to see how Frozen is "everywhere" at WDW -- it looks like you have to go out of your way to see most of it, excluding the castle lighting.

 

[Mike S]

Why would I ever call you something horrible like that? It's quite rare to meet a poster as kind and as nice as I am.

You sure are

Sorry Marni, but only geeks care enough to get upset over something so trivial

 

[Tigger1988]

You sure are

Did you miss the part where Martin himself brought the whole geek thing into play?

 

[AMartin767]

If Disney continues to make these type changes it will hurt them in the long run and make the parks a less unique, less desirable vacation destination for all people. To get back to the main point, replacing a ride in Norway, a ride that was intended to entertain people while also educating them about the culture, with an unrelated attraction is simply moronic. There is no excuse, no reasoning that can argue that this plan is more logical than a full-form Frozen attraction in Fantasyland in the Magic Kingdom. No argument to the contrary stands up in the face of long-term planning, theme matching and pragmatism. Yes, Disney can make these short term changes based purely on monetary reasoning but in the long-term, it will make the overall institution of the parks a lesser place and will ultimately hurt them financially. Accept it or not.

 

[epcotWSC]

I saw Frozen once, thought it was good movie, but I don't get why people go so crazy for it. Then I went to WDW and it was EVERYWHERE. Not only there, but I'm seeing it everywhere else even stores that have nothing to do with Disney, it's there. I'm personally tired of it, but I can see how people and especially kids can't get enough of it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

No one said it was.
We were discussing the actual intent of the theme park's owners, not the pretty words said when the ribbon was cut.

You said it previously and just again repeated that same claim. Those "pretty words" and years of actions are part of the intent.

 

[AMartin767]

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.

This.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I really don't care for frozen. I don't care for it at all. But there are plenty of Disney things out there I generally don't care for either.Pocahontas is a prime example as it goes against everything I was taught in Virginia schools.

But I don't let my distaste for one particular character or film ruin my entire time…

 

[wdisney9000]

I'd rather have a cute Frozen movie than a random little boat ride

I wasnt aware that proper theming equated to "random" and FYI, even after the frozen overlay takes place, it will still be a "little boat ride".

 

[wdisney9000]

I really don't care for frozen. I don't care for it at all. But there are plenty of Disney things out there I generally don't care for either.Pocahontas is a prime example as it goes against everything I was taught in Virginia schools.

But I don't let my distaste for one particular character or film ruin my entire time…

What if you walked by a Pocahantas M&G and overheard her slipping a movie spoiler out? I'd gladly use a FP+ selection to watch the berating that she would receive.

 

[Cesar R M]

I wasnt aware that proper theming equated to "random" and FYI, even after the frozen overlay takes place, it will still be a "little boat ride".

didnt you get the memo? Frozen makes everything BIGGER and BETTER magically.