Frozen Ever After: Norway (Epcot) vs. Frozen lands (other parks)

[mharrington]

Many people have objected to Frozen Ever After having any business being in Epcot's Norway pavilion because it's a representation of a real place while Arendelle is a made-up place that only looks/feels like Norway. However, these same people seem silent on the same ride being added to other parks throughout the world as part of upcoming lands themed (either entirely or partially) to "Frozen", including at Hong Kong Disneyland, Walt Disney Studios Paris and Tokyo DisneySea (as part of Fantasy Springs). Why is that? What do these Frozen lands have that Norway does not? Or vice-versa?

 

[marni1971]

Many people have objected to Frozen Ever After having any business being in Epcot's Norway pavilion because it's a representation of a real place while Arendelle is a made-up place that only looks/feels like Norway. However, these same people seem silent on the same ride being added to other parks throughout the world as part of upcoming lands themed (either entirely or partially) to "Frozen", including at Hong Kong Disneyland, Walt Disney Studios Paris and Tokyo DisneySea (as part of Fantasy Springs). Why is that? What do these Frozen lands have that Norway does not? Or vice-versa?

Maybe these same people don’t care about other parks?

Although WDSP is a movie park.

 

[Ghost93]

I think Frozen Ever After is a great ride and I personally like it better than Maelstrom. That being said, Maelstrom thematically fits Epcot much better. I would have much rather Disney keep Maelstrom where it was and instead built an expansion of Fantasyland dedicated to Frozen (with the Frozen Ever After ride and Oaken Roller Coaster) than shoehorn Frozen into Epcot. Unlike others, I'm not upset about Frozen's inclusion in Epcot because I like Frozen. But thematically, the entire Frozen franchise feels much more fitting for Magic Kingdom.

 

[Inspired Figment]

Many people have objected to Frozen Ever After having any business being in Epcot's Norway pavilion because it's a representation of a real place while Arendelle is a made-up place that only looks/feels like Norway. However, these same people seem silent on the same ride being added to other parks throughout the world as part of upcoming lands themed (either entirely or partially) to "Frozen", including at Hong Kong Disneyland, Walt Disney Studios Paris and Tokyo DisneySea (as part of Fantasy Springs). Why is that? What do these Frozen lands have that Norway does not? Or vice-versa?

For one, the ride actually fits a Frozen land in the other parks you mentioned. On the other hand though, I find it absolutely lazy they’re cloning a ride with little to no unique differences or changes to the other park…
Now if they were to go ahead & revamp EPCOT’s to be more representative of real Norwegian culture & locations ‘with’ the Frozen characters.. and make the ride more thrilling in it’s scenes so they fit with the ride system. That would be great.. but yeah.. otherwise..

 

[UNCgolf]

Many people have objected to Frozen Ever After having any business being in Epcot's Norway pavilion because it's a representation of a real place while Arendelle is a made-up place that only looks/feels like Norway. However, these same people seem silent on the same ride being added to other parks throughout the world as part of upcoming lands themed (either entirely or partially) to "Frozen", including at Hong Kong Disneyland, Walt Disney Studios Paris and Tokyo DisneySea (as part of Fantasy Springs). Why is that? What do these Frozen lands have that Norway does not? Or vice-versa?

It honestly seems self explanatory to me. None of the other Frozen rides are going into an area that's supposed to represent a real place. It's the same reason people don't care about having Aladdin magic carpets in Adventureland but would be very unhappy if they were in Morocco.

It's a bad ride for such a popular IP (especially since they had the freedom to build something new and actually impressive instead of just cloning a handcuffed retrofit), but there isn't really any thematic issue with where it's going in any of the other parks.

 

[mharrington]

I think Frozen Ever After is a great ride and I personally like it better than Maelstrom. That being said, Maelstrom thematically fits Epcot much better. I would have much rather Disney keep Maelstrom where it was and instead built an expansion of Fantasyland dedicated to Frozen (with the Frozen Ever After ride and Oaken Roller Coaster) than shoehorn Frozen into Epcot. Unlike others, I'm not upset about Frozen's inclusion in Epcot because I like Frozen. But thematically, the entire Frozen franchise feels much more fitting for Magic Kingdom.

What does the Magic Kingdom have that Epcot does not?

It honestly seems self explanatory to me. None of the other Frozen rides are going into an area that's supposed to represent a real place. It's the same reason people don't care about having Aladdin magic carpets in Adventureland but would be very unhappy if they were in Morocco.

Really? I heard some people say that the magic carpet ride should be removed from Adventureland, both because of the physical space it takes up in the middle of Adventureland and because it disrupts the careful theme of the land (i.e., a Middle Eastern marketplace in the middle of what looks like a tropical jungle).

It's a bad ride for such a popular IP (especially since they had the freedom to build something new and actually impressive instead of just cloning a handcuffed retrofit), but there isn't really any thematic issue with where it's going in any of the other parks.

Whether or not it's a clone is beside the point. The point stems from what advantages non-Norway areas have over Norway.

 

[UNCgolf]

Really? I heard some people say that the magic carpet ride should be removed from Adventureland, both because of the physical space it takes up in the middle of Adventureland and because it disrupts the careful theme of the land (i.e., a Middle Eastern marketplace in the middle of what looks like a tropical jungle).

Well yeah, the magic carpets shouldn't be there from an operational standpoint because they screw up the pathway, and I suppose there's a thematic argument, but Adventureland was never supposed to be themed to an actual real life place. The carpets fit in better there than anywhere else at WDW except potentially Hollywood Studios. It's not really comparable to something at the World Showcase.

Whether or not it's a clone is beside the point. The point stems from what advantages non-Norway areas have over Norway.

I don't understand what you're not getting. Disagreeing (i.e. thinking Frozen fits in Norway) is one thing, and totally fine, but it sounds like you just don't see any difference between putting a ride in the World Showcase and putting a ride in an area themed to it in a different park, which is baffling. The parks are different and have different fits.

Non-Norway areas aren't Norway. That's all there is to it and that's why it's not really an issue elsewhere -- of course it makes sense to put a Frozen ride in an area themed to Arendelle/Frozen (this also wouldn't work at EPCOT, but it's fine in the other parks where it's going). But Arendelle isn't Norway. It's the same reason the Little Mermaid ride shouldn't be in China and Big Thunder Mountain shouldn't be in Germany.

The clone thing was an aside -- I'm just saying it's not going to suddenly become e a good ride no matter where they put it, which is unfortunate. It didn't have anything to do with the Norway/non-Norway stuff.

 

[mharrington]

I don't understand what you're not getting. Disagreeing (i.e. thinking Frozen fits in Norway) is one thing, and totally fine, but it sounds like you just don't see any difference between putting a ride in the World Showcase and putting a ride in an area themed to it in a different park, which is baffling. The parks are different and have different fits.

Non-Norway areas aren't Norway. That's all there is to it and that's why it's not really an issue elsewhere -- of course it makes sense to put a Frozen ride in an area themed to Arendelle/Frozen (this also wouldn't work at EPCOT, but it's fine in the other parks where it's going). But Arendelle isn't Norway. It's the same reason the Little Mermaid ride shouldn't be in China and Big Thunder Mountain shouldn't be in Germany.

Well, in defense of Arendelle in Norway, it at least has plenty of thematic elements that make it fit in close enough. But how would it fit in better in a studios park or a castle park?

 

[marni1971]

What does the Magic Kingdom have that Epcot does not?.

That used to be obvious. This IP being put into Epcot can be seen as the start of the death knell for Epcot and the start of the MK 2.0.

 

[Inspired Figment]

Well, in defense of Arendelle in Norway, it at least has plenty of thematic elements that make it fit in close enough. But how would it fit in better in a studios park or a castle park?

Perhaps the ideas in how Disney presented & created Arendelle itself for the film.. but the content of the actual ride…. I’m afraid not so much… you pass by scenes of the characters singing songs from the film (out of proper context I might add.. so the songs make no sense within the setup of the attraction) with little to no real narrative, story, locations, or message that truly connect it to the legitimate culture of Norway or make it a true ‘World Showcase’ experience. A World Showcase experience & attraction should represent the real life place.. not something that has light ties to it that doesn’t or hardly even make the attempt to reference or showcase those ties. That’s why it clashes so terribly at EPCOT. Now had that been put someplace like Fantasyland in the Magic Kingdom or Disney’s Hollywood Studios. Sections that legitimately push into the whole “ride your favorite fairy tales & fictional movies” idea of immersing yourself in those fictional worlds & stories . Or, like previously mentioned, a land literally themed entirely to the world of Frozen (Arendelle) itself. That’d work just fine.. otherwise though, it’s ‘way’ too loose of a fit. Particuarly when you consider what EPCOT was like from ‘82-‘93

 

[Inspired Figment]

You could make the same argument for Ratatouille in the France pavilion infact. Though admittedly, the fact it’s a fictional story that takes place in real-life France fits a lot better. *However*, it falters in it’s ride content.. as it has little to do with exploring or showcasing any real culture or landscapes of France.. and spends way too much time running around the inside of a fictional kitchen and on it’s own fictional story & locations rather than the real life France. Had it been a ride where you explore real-life France from a rat’s perspective with Remy being our guide… possibly even having an alternating show (with Impressions de France as the other show) in the theater where Linguini and Remy take us on a culinary tour of possibly historically famous restaurants or talk about the creations of some of France’s most famous or popular culinary dishes… ‘that’ could’ve been something. But yeah.. they sadly didn’t do that.

 

[Inspired Figment]

That used to be obvious. This IP being put into Epcot can be seen as the start of the death knell for Epcot and the start of the MK 2.0.

I’d argue it actually began with the ‘Honey, I Shrunk the Audience’ film at the Imagination Pavilion… and how that ultimately destroyed the entire ride nearby.. but I agree with your sentiments.

 

[mharrington]

Perhaps the ideas in how Disney presented & created Arendelle itself for the film.. but the content of the actual ride…. I’m afraid not so much… you pass by scenes of the characters singing songs from the film (out of proper context I might add.. so the songs make no sense within the setup of the attraction) with little to no real narrative, story, locations, or message that truly connect it to the legitimate culture of Norway or make it a true ‘World Showcase’ experience. A World Showcase experience & attraction should represent the real life place.. not something that has light ties to it that doesn’t or hardly even make the attempt to reference or showcase those ties. That’s why it clashes so terribly at EPCOT. Now had that been put someplace like Fantasyland in the Magic Kingdom or Disney’s Hollywood Studios. Sections that legitimately push into the whole “ride your favorite fairy tales & fictional movies” idea of immersing yourself in those fictional worlds & stories . Or, like previously mentioned, a land literally themed entirely to the world of Frozen (Arendelle) itself. That’d work just fine.. otherwise though, it’s ‘way’ too loose of a fit. Particuarly when you consider what EPCOT was like from ‘82-‘93

First, I think it fits in well enough. I'm not sure if a lot of people go to be educated anyway. That's what school is for. I also think that things may settle down for Epcot once the overhauls to the place are finished. That park is pretty much no longer the park we are used to from 1982, and we might as well accept that, as its ties to the real world are no longer as literal as they once. And besides, even if it was put in someplace else, chances are, people would still object, as it would be criticized for being a so-called "book report", which a lot of people hate for some reason.

 

[Inspired Figment]

First, I think it fits in well enough. I'm not sure if a lot of people go to be educated anyway. That's what school is for. I also think that things may settle down for Epcot once the overhauls to the place are finished. That park is pretty much no longer the park we are used to from 1982, and we might as well accept that, as its ties to the real world are no longer as literal as they once. And besides, even if it was put in someplace else, chances are, people would still object, as it would be criticized for being a so-called "book report", which a lot of people hate for some reason.

A “book report” ride means it’s basically a literal retelling or just a showcase of the scenes by veratim of the film. Meaning it lacks any real originality, creativity, or attention to detail in it’s execution. That’s what makes Frozen Ever After a “book report” ride.
IMO, Frozen ‘could’ve’ been implemented well in the Norway pavilion if need be. But it should’ve taken more inspiration from Frozen 2 as ‘that’ showcased more culture in it and the scenes should’ve been executed in a way that fit the ride system, thrilling but not insanely thrilling (think more along the lines of Splash Mountain or the Maelstrom) but presented with a unique way exclusive to EPCOT.. but also made more of an effort to reference real life Norwegian culture.

And while it may be true that people may not always go to the park to be educated. The ‘difference’ with EPCOT was it presented all those places & concepts in a way that was captivating, unique, and fun.. in a way that awed & inspired you. Not being entirely in your face, hit on the head, and monotonous/lecture based. If the way it’s presented feels ‘too’ much like you’re in school .. then perhaps the way those concept are showcased should be overhauled.. ‘but’ that’s no excuse for completely disbanding the real world/real life concepts, places, and cultures altogether.

 

[marni1971]

And besides, even if it was put in someplace else, chances are, people would still object, as it would be criticized for being a so-called "book report", which a lot of people hate for some reason.

That’s why you build something appropriate from scratch in an appropriate location as opposed to shoe horning something that doesn’t fit in a location it doesn’t belong.

 

[mharrington]

A “book report” ride means it’s basically a literal retelling or just a showcase of the scenes by veratim of the film. Meaning it lacks any real originality, creativity, or attention to detail in it’s execution. That’s what makes Frozen Ever After a “book report” ride.
IMO, Frozen ‘could’ve’ been implemented well in the Norway pavilion if need be. But it should’ve taken more inspiration from Frozen 2 as ‘that’ showcased more culture in it and the scenes should’ve been executed in a way that fit the ride system, thrilling but not insanely thrilling (think more along the lines of Splash Mountain or the Maelstrom) but presented with a unique way exclusive to EPCOT.. but also made more of an effort to reference real life Norwegian culture.

And while it may be true that people may not always go to the park to be educated. The ‘difference’ with EPCOT was it presented all those places & concepts in a way that was captivating, unique, and fun.. without being entirely in your face and monotonous/lecture based. If the way it’s presented feels ‘too’ school like.. then perhaps the way those concept are showcased would have to be overhauled.. ‘but’ that’s no excuse for completely disbanding the real world/real life concepts, places, and cultures altogether.

Like I said, maybe things will be somewhat better, or at least different, after Epcot is finished with its overhaul. Look at the Ratatouille ride for instance. And had the Mary Poppins ride been put in (which may or may not be the case now), I doubt it would have been too beholden to the culture of England.

 

[Inspired Figment]

Like I said, maybe things will be somewhat better, or at least different, after Epcot is finished with its overhaul. Look at the Ratatouille ride for instance. And had the Mary Poppins ride been put in (which may or may not be the case now), I doubt it would have been too beholden to the culture of England.

We’ll simply agree to disagree on EPCOT being better with those attractions being added. I respect your opinion but I’m personally not happy with either of the two attractions as they don’t, IMO, showcase those places & culture in a way that’s authentic & inspiring enough. They feel ‘way’ too much like something I’d find at Hollywood Studios or Fantasyland.. and less something that’s awe-inspiring regarding the real life concept it represents yet still fun like say the ‘Original’ 83-98 Journey Into Imagination, Horizons, Cranium Command, and World of Motion were. There’s still room for humor, charm, and characters. They just have to be implemented in a way that doesn’t feel like I could experience that thing in literally any other park. It should feel like something unique to that park.

 

[mharrington]

We’ll simply agree to disagree on EPCOT being better with those attractions being added. I respect your opinion but I’m personally not happy with either of the two attractions as they don’t, IMO, showcase those places & culture in a way that’s authentic & inspiring enough. They feel ‘way’ too much like something I’d find at Hollywood Studios or Fantasyland..

Again, I ask, how would it have fit in at a place called Hollywood Studios?

 

[Inspired Figment]

Again, I ask, how would it have fit in at a place called Hollywood Studios?

Because the Hollywood Studios park’s based entirely on ‘riding the movies’ or being immersed in/experiencing the world or stories of the movies. Hence why it fits there and not at EPCOT. If the attraction makes little to no effort to truly tie it into a real world concept or place by showcasing those very things. Then it belongs there

 

[mharrington]

Because the Hollywood Studios park’s based entirely on ‘riding the movies’ or being immersed in/experiencing the world or stories of the movies. Hence why it fits there and not at EPCOT. If the attraction makes little to no effort to truly tie it into a real world concept or place by showcasing those very things. Then it belongs there

But Hollywood Studios is not a real depiction of the real Hollywood. The Norway Pavilion at least tries to tie the ride to Norway.