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

[Heppenheimer]

When I visited Epcot in 1989, the wonderful representation of Norway in the pavilion, from the ride, to the delicious food at the Akershus (pre-princesses) to the folk dancing troupe that used to perform there, ignited a lifetime desire in my 12 year old self to visit the actual country and learn more about it. Unlike the UK, France or Germany (places I also wanted to visit), I knew very little about Norway beforehand, but Epcot provided the perfect introduction. This was exactly the intention of World Showcase, not to sell more princess dolls to little girls. It was supposed to expand children's horizons, not cater down to familiar tastes.

As an adult, I've visited Norway a few times and loved every minute of it. I could see some of the cultural stereotypes represented in the Epcot pavilion, but I also learned to appreciate some of the characteristics- social, political, environmental and economic- that make living there so rewarding for its own citizens. And I've wondered why some (not all) of those characteristics couldn't be adapted in the US to make life here a little better. Such was the power of old Epcot on impressionable minds. THIS is why Frozen belongs in Fantasyland and not Epcot. What does the Frozenized Epcot pavilion of now inspire in this generation of children? Brand loyalty? The desire to buy cheaply made Frozen-themed merchandise?

 

[Heppenheimer]

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

Fixed that for you.

 

[Inspired Figment]

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

Of course, but keep in mind, the idea behind Hollywood Studios is that it’s ‘supposed’ to be an idealized/romanticized version of Hollywood with each attraction representing a movie or world or story of that particular movie.. along with the process behind making said movies. That was the vision of the park since the beginning. (it’s Disney’s version of Universal Studios in essence).

EPCOT on the other hand was always supposed to be a representation of ‘real’ places & concepts. That’s why the Frozen ride doesn’t fit at EPCOT and why in comparison, Maelstrom fit so much better.
The Frozen Ever After ride’s content & the way it’s executed doesn’t neccesarily try to tie itself into real Norway other than the location the ride was placed in (that being it was shoehorned into the Norway pavilion) It’s far too loose & makes little to no attempt to actually tie itself into real life Norway. That’s the biggest problem with it. If it had made the attempt to actually tie its content into real Norwegian places & culture ‘with’ the Frozen characters in a unique & creative way that distinctly fits EPCOT. It’d work well.. but as it stands now.. not really.

 

[aliceismad]

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

Frozen does not take place in Norway. Even if Arendale was representative of a real place, Frozen is loosely based on The Snow Queen, which was written by a Danish author. Denmark is also not Norway, but Disney thought "Aw, well, they're close enough" and put Frozen into Norway anyway.

Further a lot of people hate that Disney gutted Maelstrom, which actually did look at the culture of Norway, and replaced it with a ride that, in their estimation, is a half-assed "retelling" ride that relies heavily on a few animatronics and has no depth.

I like FEA. We thought it was a fun diversion. But I can understand why purists were upset with not only its placement in Norway but also its execution.

 

[Heppenheimer]

Of course, but keep in mind, the idea behind Hollywood Studios is that it’s ‘supposed’ to be an idealized/romanticized version of Hollywood with each attraction representing a movie or world or story of that particular movie.. along with the process behind making said movies. That was the vision of the park since the beginning. (it’s Disney’s version of Universal Studios in essence).

EPCOT on the other hand was always supposed to be a representation of ‘real’ places & concepts. That’s why the Frozen ride doesn’t fit at EPCOT and why in comparison, Maelstrom fit so much better.
The Frozen Ever After ride’s content & the way it’s executed doesn’t neccesarily try to tie itself into real Norway other than the location the ride was placed in (that being it was shoehorned into the Norway pavilion) It’s far too loose & makes little to no attempt to actually tie itself into real life Norway. That’s the biggest problem with it. If it had made the attempt to actually tie its content into real Norwegian places & culture ‘with’ the Frozen characters in a unique & creative way that distinctly fits EPCOT. It’d fit well.. but as it stands now.. not really.

To use another example, take the Grand Fiesta Tour vs. El Rio del Tempo. Although neither ever was a particularly inspired ride, they at least try to represent Mexico in some fashion. The Three Caballeros are merely familiar faces to guide you through the country, the ride doesn't attempt to revisit the movie (which itself is a tour through Mexico and other parts of Latin America), or create some new whacky non-Mexican adventure for the characters. This is an example where the IP insertion adds something to the pavilion. We still have a fundamentally Mexican theme and identity for the Mexican pavilion.

Versus, what now is the Norway pavilion? Does it teach us anything about Norway? Does it attempt to demonstrate how fictional Arendelle was inspired by the real Norway at all? Do young kids even know that Norway is a real country after visiting this pavilion?

 

[Inspired Figment]

So ultimately, to answer the OP’s original question. The way Frozen Ever After was executed & presented is not in line with what an EPCOT attraction is supposed to be. EPCOT attractions are supposed to be awe-inspiring, creative, and captivating representations of ‘real life’ concepts, real countries, along with it’s traditions, customs and cultures.

On the other hand, Frozen Ever After’s content & execution fits what a Hollywood Studios, Fantasyland attraction, or a Frozen specific land should be. That being it’s taking you specifically into the ‘fictional’ world of Arendelle and immersing you into the movie with it’s characters & songs, which fits with those sections’ purposes. A park or land celebrating the movies & worlds & stories of ‘fantasy’. There ya go.

To use another example, take the Grand Fiesta Tour vs. El Rio del Tempo. Although neither ever was a particularly inspired ride, they at least try to represent Mexico in some fashion. The Three Caballeros are merely familiar faces to guide you through the country, the ride doesn't attempt to revisit the movie (which itself is a tour through Mexico and other parts of Latin America), or create some new whacky non-Mexican adventure for the characters. This is an example where the IP insertion adds something to the pavilion. We still have a fundamentally Mexican theme and identity for the Mexican pavilion.

Versus, what now is the Norway pavilion? Does it teach us anything about Norway? Does it attempt to demonstrate how fictional Arendelle was inspired by the real Norway at all? Do young kids even know that Norway is a real country after visiting this pavilion?

Exactly!

 

[Cadbury]

Norway isn't Frozen and Frozen isn't Norway.

 

[mharrington]

So ultimately, to answer the OP’s original question. The way Frozen Ever After was executed & presented is not in line with what an EPCOT attraction is supposed to be. EPCOT attractions are supposed to be awe-inspiring, creative, and captivating representations of ‘real life’ concepts, real countries, along with it’s traditions, customs and cultures.

On the other hand, Frozen Ever After’s content & execution fits what a Hollywood Studios, Fantasyland attraction, or a Frozen specific land should be. That being it’s taking you specifically into the ‘fictional’ world of Arendelle and immersing you into the movie with it’s characters & songs, which fits with those sections’ purposes. A park or land celebrating the movies & worlds & stories of ‘fantasy’. There ya go.

Actually, I would like to say that Arendelle is a real place. Or at least it's based on a real place:https://www.visitnorway.com/places-to-go/southern-norway/arendal/about/.

And furthermore...

"Per Disney, Arendelle gets its name from Arendal, a 16th-century shipping town about a three-hour drive southwest of Oslo"
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/trav...outhern-fjords-180956427/#btdCgAs5lKEvxDhT.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

In closing, Frozen in Norway may not be as far-fetched as you think.

 

[Cadbury]

Versus, what now is the Norway pavilion?

Just another victim of an IP takeover.

Does it teach us anything about Norway?

No

Does it attempt to demonstrate how fictional Arendelle was inspired by the real Norway at all?

No

Do young kids even know that Norway is a real country after visiting this pavilion?

hahahahaha no

 

[mharrington]

Here's something to ponder: when it comes right down to it, there are MANY attractions that don't really fit thematically where they are. The Frozen ride in Norway is by no means the only example. And it's not just at WDW, either, but also at the Disneyland Resort. For instance...

What does a bear of very little brain and British origin have to do with the American South?
What does a land themed to "Cars" have to do with California (outside of car culture)? As far as I know, Radiator Springs isn't set in California.
What does "The Little Mermaid" have to do with California?
What does Marvel have to do with California?
What does a flight across the world have to do with California or with agriculture?
What does a flying carpet ride have to do with a tropical landscape?
What does a log ride set in the Old South have to do with the Old West?
What does a log ride themed to "The Princess and the Frog" have to do with the Old West?
What do a blue alien and Buzz Lightyear have to do with the future?
What do Star Wars and Toy Story have to do with a movie studio?
What does a ride through Everest have to do with animals?
What does Pandora have to with animals?

Anyway, I think you get my point. Frankly, a Frozen ride in Norway fits in as well as the other examples do. There are worse thematic placements than that. The Frozen ride will likely fit in relatively well after Epcot is finished with its overhaul, I think.

 

[J4546]

imagine if instead of GE at Disneyland we got an entire Frozen themed area??? or BatB area

 

[aliceismad]

"Per Disney, Arendelle gets its name from Arendal, a 16th-century shipping town about a three-hour drive southwest of Oslo"
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/trav...outhern-fjords-180956427/#btdCgAs5lKEvxDhT.99

That's great, and I'm glad they had a source for their inspiration that's based in real places, as Disney and Pixar often do, but even if it was actually placed in a real place in Norway, I don't think that it matters to the people who hate it. Rat is clearly placed in Paris, but people hate it in France. If there was a Venezuela pavilion, people would hate an Up ride being placed there, even though the Pixar team visited Angel Falls, etc., to get the setting correct. Let me preface by saying I have no problem with Frozen in Norway or Rat in France, but Epcot is not supposed to be like the other parks. Epcot, to many, is a special park for its original intention and has more-or-less been marred by everything that Disney has done in the past few decades, especially the insertion of IP at the detriment to the original Epcot theming - human achievement, human possibility, and a world's fair celebrating world cultures (in coordination with the countries themselves).

I think Disney has made many thematic choices over the years in their parks that many would find questionable, including most of the ones on your following list. Hence why there are dozens of threads about how to "fix" tomorrowland, etc. (Although not all parks or lands are supposed to be tied to a literal specific geography - Animal Kingdom is not just about animals but also the natural world and conservation - its original intent was to include imaginary creatures as well as existing.)

 

[mharrington]

That's great, and I'm glad they had a source for their inspiration that's based in real places, as Disney and Pixar often do, but even if it was actually placed in a real place in Norway, I don't think that it matters to the people who hate it. Rat is clearly placed in Paris, but people hate it in France. If there was a Venezuela pavilion, people would hate an Up ride being placed there, even though the Pixar team visited Angel Falls, etc., to get the setting correct. Let me preface by saying I have no problem with Frozen in Norway or Rat in France, but Epcot is not supposed to be like the other parks. Epcot, to many, is a special park for its original intention and has more-or-less been marred by everything that Disney has done in the past few decades, especially the insertion of IP at the detriment to the original Epcot theming - human achievement, human possibility, and a world's fair celebrating world cultures (in coordination with the countries themselves).

Unfortunately, the Epcot of 1982 is long gone, and it's time to move on. Also, don't forget, Epcot is getting a drastic overhaul that will break up Future World into several smaller areas, and I highly doubt it will be to how it was 40 years ago.

I think Disney has made many thematic choices over the years in their parks that many would find questionable, including most of the ones on your following list. Hence why there are dozens of threads about how to "fix" tomorrowland, etc. (Although not all parks or lands are supposed to be tied to a literal specific geography - Animal Kingdom is not just about animals but also the natural world and conservation - its original intent was to include imaginary creatures as well as existing.)

Again, I ask, what does a roller coaster ride through Everest have to do with conservation? Also, what do Star Wars, Toy Story or even the Muppets have to do with a studio? I honestly think that the Studios park needs to change its name to better reflect on the fact that it's no longer a functioning studio and hasn't been one for about 30 years now.

 

[J4546]

Unfortunately, the Epcot of 1982 is long gone, and it's time to move on. Also, don't forget, Epcot is getting a drastic overhaul that will break up Future World into several smaller areas, and I highly doubt it will be to how it was 40 years ago.



Again, I ask, what does a roller coaster ride through Everest have to do with conservation? Also, what do Star Wars, Toy Story or even the Muppets have to do with a studio? I honestly think that the Studios park needs to change its name to better reflect on the fact that it's no longer a functioning studio and hasn't been one for about 30 years now.

well, for me muppets, star wars, toy story, etc belong in a studios park because they are products of disneys studios

 

[mharrington]

well, for me muppets, star wars, toy story, etc belong in a studios park because they are products of disneys studios

Yes, but when was the last time the Studios itself functioned as a real studio? Not for a long, long time, I believe. The only way it would work is if you saw a bunch of lighting and camera scattered around the lands, showing that it is indeed a studio, if only for looks. For instance, every time you take off on Slinky Dog Dash or do Rise of the Resistance, maybe you would hear the director say something, "And... action!" I think it would also be rather distracting for the guests actually.

Anyway, we still don't know all the details on it, but I think that the rides in World Showcase (Frozen, Ratatouille, etc.) should fit in somewhat better after Epcot's overhaul.

 

[J4546]

i look at it differently. Disney studios parks are a place to showcase disneys studios IPs. I dont care about the actual studio facilities of production. I like they way DHS is layed out with a little studios backlot look at the entrance area, but then it transforms into different themed areas so you can walk around in a world built off a studio IP.

 

[mharrington]

i look at it differently. Disney studios parks are a place to showcase disneys studios IPs. I dont care about the actual studio facilities of production. I like they way DHS is layed out with a little studios backlot look at the entrance area, but then it transforms into different themed areas so you can walk around in a world built off a studio IP.

But it has nothing to do with an actual studio anymore, which is why I think it needs a new name. What, though, I don't know. Furthermore, the entrance is Hollywood Boulevard, which is absolutely nothing like a studio and never was.

 

[UNCgolf]

But it has nothing to do with an actual studio anymore, which is why I think it needs a new name. What, though, I don't know. Furthermore, the entrance is Hollywood Boulevard, which is absolutely nothing like a studio and never was.

The front of the park was always themed like Los Angeles. There was essentially a transition between LA at the front and then the actual studio at the back with the soundstage buildings etc. as though you were leaving the city and entering a studio lot.

Almost every building (if not every single one) on Hollywood Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard is either an LA landmark (Chinese Theater, the Crossroads of the World, the Hollywood Brown Derby) or inspired by a real building in LA. I think every single one of the storefront facades was clearly inspired by one or two actual buildings in Los Angeles (there may be a couple based on Art Deco buildings from other cities; but the vast majority are LA locations), plus you've also got the QS area inspired by the Original Farmers Market over near Tower of Terror. Even the DHS entrance is a facsimile of the old Pan-Pacific Auditorium.

It's basically a love letter to golden age Hollywood/Los Angeles and Art Deco/Streamline Moderne architecture (along with some other modernist stuff). It's marvelous.

 

[Sharon&Susan]

Anyway, we still don't know all the details on it, but I think that the rides in World Showcase (Frozen, Ratatouille, etc.) should fit in somewhat better after Epcot's overhaul.

How do any of those rides fit the original theme of EPCOT to: "inform and inspire and, above all, may it instill a new sense of belief and pride in man’s ability to shape a world that offers hope to people everywhere" rather than Hollywood Studios which has stuck to a "Ride the Movies" approach throughout its entire history?

 

[mharrington]

The front of the park was always themed like Los Angeles. There was essentially a transition between LA at the front and then the actual studio at the back with the soundstage buildings etc. as though you were leaving the city and entering a studio lot.

Almost every building (if not every single one) on Hollywood Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard is either an LA landmark (Chinese Theater, the Crossroads of the World, the Hollywood Brown Derby) or inspired by a real building in LA. I think every single one of the storefront facades was clearly inspired by one or two actual buildings in Los Angeles (there may be a couple based on Art Deco buildings from other cities; but the vast majority are LA locations), plus you've also got the QS area inspired by the Original Farmers Market over near Tower of Terror. Even the DHS entrance is a facsimile of the old Pan-Pacific Auditorium.

It's basically a love letter to golden age Hollywood/Los Angeles and Art Deco/Streamline Moderne architecture (along with some other modernist stuff). It's marvelous.

But none of the attractions now have anything to do with making movies. They are about the movies themselves. What does a yard full of toys have to do with a studio? What does Galaxy's Edge have to do with a studio? Again, they need to rename the park to something not so "studios"-like. Even Universal still does filming at both of their parks.

How do any of those rides fit the original theme of EPCOT to: "inform and inspire and, above all, may it instill a new sense of belief and pride in man’s ability to shape a world that offers hope to people everywhere" rather than Hollywood Studios which has stuck to a "Ride the Movies" approach throughout its entire history?

A new slogan has been released: "On the brink of a new era...". What's more, Epcot's Future World is being broken into three new sections: World Celebration (Spaceship Earth and Imagination), World Discovery (Mission: Space, Test Track, Guardians: Cosmic Rewind, the Play pavilion), and World Nature (The Land, The Seas with Nemo). World Showcase is the fourth section.

Incidentally, how does the Play pavilion fit the original theme to "inform and inspire and, above all, may it instill a new sense of belief and pride in man’s ability to shape a world that offers hope to people everywhere"?

And anyway, there are worse theme offenders than Frozen in Epcot, such as a flying carpet ride in the middle of a tropical landscape, a log flume ride themed to the Old South in the carefully-structured Old West, and a ride themed to "The Little Mermaid" in a park about California (even though the story itself is decidedly non-Californian).