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

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
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.

Your question was about Hollywood Boulevard and how it fit -- it fit perfectly in the original concept of the park. It doesn't really fit that well now since Disney has butchered the park, but it's still a wonderfully designed area that I hope they never change.

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).

None of those are nearly as bad as Frozen in Norway -- there's nothing anywhere else at Disney World that's even close to being as thematically inconsistent. You obviously have a different opinion, which is fine, but I don't understand why you started this thread. You asked a question, but when you get an answer you argue that the answer is wrong and there is no problem. The thread should have been more like: "There's nothing wrong with Frozen in Norway" instead of asking a question that you didn't actually want answered.
 

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
None of those are nearly as bad as Frozen in Norway -- there's nothing anywhere else at Disney World that's even close to being as thematically inconsistent. You obviously have a different opinion, which is fine, but I don't understand why you started this thread. You asked a question, but when you get an answer you argue that the answer is wrong and there is no problem. The thread should have been more like: "There's nothing wrong with Frozen in Norway" instead of asking a question that you didn't actually want answered.

I wanted to know why it was wrong to put it in Epcot versus why it was not wrong to put it in a studio park.

And who's to say the response wouldn't be the same if I did do a thread that there's nothing wrong with Frozen in Epcot?
 

piccolopat

New Member
If they had to use the Frozen characters at all, they could have had Anna, Elsa and the rest of them visit key areas of interest in Norway as tourists coming from the neighboring land of Arendelle.
 

Heppenheimer

Well-Known Member
If they had to use the Frozen characters at all, they could have had Anna, Elsa and the rest of them visit key areas of interest in Norway as tourists coming from the neighboring land of Arendelle.
"Oh Elsa, look, when it snows here in Norway, they don't react like us and think its some kind of natural disaster. They adapt and find fun things to do! It's almost like our reaction is how people from southern California think everyone regards snow."
 

aliceismad

Well-Known Member
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 don't disagree with you. I don't really care if Epcot evolves, but for those people who loved it dearly in its earlier incarnations, things like FEA and GotG are probably hard to swallow. Some people hold Epcot, and particularly World Showcase, with a certain regard.

As to Everest - the park needed a roller coaster. Everest is a really important and well-known part of the natural world that would translate easily to a thrill ride. Also, in at least small part, it's a search for the Yeti, which fits in with the inclusion of imaginary creatures. WDW needed its own "Matterhorn" and Epcot wasn't getting it.
 

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
You’ve started two threads on the subject now and had plenty of feedback. If you don’t understand by now you never will.

I just wanted to know if I was the only one who is willing to accept Epcot as an appropriate location for the Frozen ride.
 

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
By the way, I did post this question on a Disney Facebook page I'm following, and the response, albeit from only one person, has indeed been pretty much the same: "Frozen", it is argued, has no business in EPCOT, though he did grant that the setting was inspired by Norway. However, this same person also argues that it has no business being in the Studios either, ironically for the very reason you all think it SHOULD go in the Studios: every ride they make now is based on a movie. If anything, he said, it should have gone in Fantasyland. I told him that, sadly, there is no room for it in Fantasyland, and that they at least tried to tie it in (he gave that post a "like" response). Again, what does Fantasyland accomplish that World Showcase does not (or vice-versa)? Is it that a land with the word "fantasy" in it, by definition, will feature things that are clearly not nor are meant to be real, and thus it's easier to accept because of that?
 

Sharon&Susan

Well-Known Member
By the way, I did post this question on a Disney Facebook page I'm following, and the response, albeit from only one person, has indeed been pretty much the same: "Frozen", it is argued, has no business in EPCOT, though he did grant that the setting was inspired by Norway. However, this same person also argues that it has no business being in the Studios either, ironically for the very reason you all think it SHOULD go in the Studios: every ride they make now is based on a movie. If anything, he said, it should have gone in Fantasyland. I told him that, sadly, there is no room for it in Fantasyland, and that they at least tried to tie it in (he gave that post a "like" response). Again, what does Fantasyland accomplish that World Showcase does not (or vice-versa)? Is it that a land with the word "fantasy" in it, by definition, will feature things that are clearly not nor are meant to be real, and thus it's easier to accept because of that?
If EPCOT was like a real world's fair where the country's sponsor their own pavilion, would they want to fund a ride that takes place in a fictional Scandinavian country based off the works of a famous Danish author instead of something that showcases a specific aspect of Norway?
 

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
If EPCOT was like a real world's fair where the country's sponsor their own pavilion, would they want to fund a ride that takes place in a fictional Scandinavian country based off the works of a famous Danish author instead of something that showcases a specific aspect of Norway?

The fact is, Norway or even Norwegian companies stopped funding the pavilion, and Maelstrom's ridership was declining.

And you didn't answer my question: what does Fantasyland have that World Showcase doesn't? Or vice-versa? Is it because of the word "fantasy", which basically means "not real"? Frankly, I also think the whole Storybook Circus subsection seems a bit out of place in Fantasyland, too, which is why I think it should be its own land rather than part of Fantasyland.

None of those are nearly as bad as Frozen in Norway -- there's nothing anywhere else at Disney World that's even close to being as thematically inconsistent. You obviously have a different opinion, which is fine, but I don't understand why you started this thread. You asked a question, but when you get an answer you argue that the answer is wrong and there is no problem. The thread should have been more like: "There's nothing wrong with Frozen in Norway" instead of asking a question that you didn't actually want answered.

That's just it, there is nothing wrong with Frozen in Norway. Frankly, I think the Little Mermaid ride in the CA Adventure thematically makes even less sense than a Frozen ride in the Norway Pavilion. Granted, the movie may have been made in California, but the movie itself obviously has nothing at all to do with California.

And then there's Splash Mountain. The issue of thematic inconsistency there can be traced back to a blog post from Passport 2 Dreams, which talks about the top ten design blunders at the Magic Kingdom, with Splash Mountain's placement in Frontierland being #4:

This one's tough to talk about, because Splash Mountain is a Magic Kingdom classic and deserves a place in that park, as do Br'er Rabbit, Br'er Fox, and Br'er Bear. It's wildly popular, well designed, and is still - still - a major headliner attraction at the park.

But it just doesn't fit there.

Consider for a moment the disjunction between the homespun aesthetic of Splash Mt and the rustic river town of Frontierland. Frontierland is frontier men and fur trappers; Splash Mountain is a homespun quilt. There's a few attempts to blend it into the environment - many of the tunnels are now mine shafts and the music has a "bluegrass" twang to it - but the more you notice it the more and more apparent it is that the design team on this ride was just destined to get clobbered trying to fix the problem.

Splash Mountain gets in through a side door, I think, thanks to the fact that Country Bear Jamboree already existed in the area, and being descended from Marc Davis designs for America Sings and Song of the South, Splash Mountain fits in just enough to not seem like a gross contradiction. Until you realize that the red Georgia clay of the mountain is down south, not old west, and the romantic South isn't "Frontierland" no matter how you try to define it.

What elevates a poor thematic placement into the top five is that it makes mince of the careful architectural and conceptual progression of Magic Kingdom's river district, the true heart and most accomplished area of the park.

Liberty Square sweeps from upper New England (The Haunted Mansion) down through Philadelphia and Virginia (The Hall of Presidents) before heading west and transitioning to Frontierland at St. Louis (The Diamond Horseshoe). It then proceeds through the frontier territories, perhaps Kansas and Colorado, before arriving at cowboy vernacular architecture (Pecos Bill Cafe), then heading direct for the great Southwest pueblo architecture and monument valley (Big Thunder Mountain). This means that Splash Mountain's "deep south" is inserted directly into the section of the progression which once had a unified southwest and desert rock look. Lots of trees and an orange-red color help ease the intrusion, but an intrusion it indeed is.

The progression, of course, was intended from the start and would have ended with Thunder Mesa instead of Big Thunder Mountain, but of course Big Thunder was designed to replicate the sort of rock work we would have had surrounding Western River Expedition, so the careful progression was retained into the early '90s.

Just as unfortunate, Splash Mountain is out of scale for Frontierland. This part of the park was designed to sit on a lower elevation than Adventureland and by the time the facades ramble out towards Pecos Bill, they were originally quite short. The need to have the pedestrian path cross over the main drop of Splash Mountain means that a large hill was added at the end of the street, spoiling the forced perspective of the Pecos Bill facades until they were rebuilt at double height a few years later. More significantly, the elevated view of Big Thunder Mountain from the top of the Splash Mountain hill steps on the forced perspective of Big Thunder Mountain, which originally rose gracefully at the end of the otherwise flat Frontierland area like a beacon and looked absolutely colossal.

Really the only upside of Splash Mountain's placement is the absolutely terrific views of Liberty Square and Cinderella Castle from the top of the main lift hill and pedestrian bridge. That's the reason why it's there, and it's understandable and obvious. Of course, we can ask if the view of the castle is really all that important - Disneyland's faces some trees and, far away, the Matterhorn, and Tokyo has a general view of Westernland, and nobody thinks that there's something seriously missing when they ride those versions of the ride.

In many ways this is a tough call because the spot it was built is really the only place in Magic Kingdom it could have realistically went without building a self-contained Critter Country, which of course could not be directly on the big river, an important feature. Still, if I could move that mountain to an equally appropriate place in the park, I would.

The gorgeous stretch of land between Country Bear Jamboree and Thunder Mountain, with spreading trees, flowers, and split-rail fence, was one of the few areas in that Frontierland to feel genuinely rustic. And it seems to be a shame to lose that beautiful original train station, and that sense of a town way out on the edge of nothing, in the bargain.


And obviously, the inconsistency will become even more glaring when the ride is rethemed to "The Princess and the Frog".

So you see, those are just two examples of worse thematic inconsistencies than a Frozen ride in EPCOT.
 
Last edited:

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Maybe you should take a page out of Frozen and "let it go". I think you've gotten your answer by now.
I have two new ones, based on it: what does the Little Mermaid ride have to do with California? And what does a log flume ride themed to the Old South have to do with the Old West? Just look at post #54. It goes into a great deal of detail as to why Splash Mountain does not fit in Frontierland.
 

1HAPPYGHOSTHOST

Well-Known Member
I have two new ones, based on it: what does the Little Mermaid ride have to do with California? And what does a log flume ride themed to the Old South have to do with the Old West? Just look at post #54. It goes into a great deal of detail as to why Splash Mountain does not fit in Frontierland.
Give it up man
 

Inspired Figment

Well-Known Member
I have two new ones, based on it: what does the Little Mermaid ride have to do with California? And what does a log flume ride themed to the Old South have to do with the Old West? Just look at post #54. It goes into a great deal of detail as to why Splash Mountain does not fit in Frontierland.
Everyone’s given you those answers already, clearly. The fact is, Little Mermaid ‘doesn’t’ have anything to do with California and to be fair, hardly anyone here thinks it’s Particularly a good fit nor do they find the execution of the ride itself all that great. However it can also be argued that compared to EPCOT, California Adventure in it’s original form was never popular. But a lack of characters was not the main reason for that. What people Particularly had an issue with was the lack of quality & attention to detail overall in most of its attractions & areas compared to the other American parks. Soarin’ Over California & Grizzly River Run, people loved because they were quality attractions, not to mention fit the California theme perfectly. Had DCA had more quality additions like that and not a bunch of Carnival/Pier rides throughout most of the park, or instantly dated on arrival attractions like Superstar Limo which relied ‘far’ too heavily on the latest Hollywood Talent rather than being a timeless, high quality experience. It probably wouldn’t have failed as massively as it did.

Not to mention, another part of the disappointment was how much more low budget & bland the concept seemed compared to the originally proposed WestCOT. I think ‘California Adventure’ would’ve been a neat pavilion perhaps to have in WestCOT. Featuring Grizzly River Run & Soarin’ Over California there. But just California as the entire theme of the whole park I feel was already weak on principle since the park is ‘already’ in California. Though that’s just my personal opinion on the California theme. This problem never applied to EPCOT as it showcased countries that we couldn’t actually visit in the vicinity of Florida irl. Still, you can’t argue that the execution was definitley a lot less well received when it comes to the quality & memorability compared to EPCOT’s early attractions.
 
Last edited:

Sharon&Susan

Well-Known Member
The fact is, Norway or even Norwegian companies stopped funding the pavilion, and Maelstrom's ridership was declining.

And you didn't answer my question: what does Fantasyland have that World Showcase doesn't? Or vice-versa? Is it because of the word "fantasy", which basically means "not real"? Frankly, I also think the whole Storybook Circus subsection seems a bit out of place in Fantasyland, too, which is why I think it should be its own land rather than part of Fantasyland.



That's just it, there is nothing wrong with Frozen in Norway. Frankly, I think the Little Mermaid ride in the CA Adventure thematically makes even less sense than a Frozen ride in the Norway Pavilion. Granted, the movie may have been made in California, but the movie itself obviously has nothing at all to do with California.

And then there's Splash Mountain. The issue of thematic inconsistency there can be traced back to a blog post from Passport 2 Dreams, which talks about the top ten design blunders at the Magic Kingdom, with Splash Mountain's placement in Frontierland being #4:

This one's tough to talk about, because Splash Mountain is a Magic Kingdom classic and deserves a place in that park, as do Br'er Rabbit, Br'er Fox, and Br'er Bear. It's wildly popular, well designed, and is still - still - a major headliner attraction at the park.

But it just doesn't fit there.

Consider for a moment the disjunction between the homespun aesthetic of Splash Mt and the rustic river town of Frontierland. Frontierland is frontier men and fur trappers; Splash Mountain is a homespun quilt. There's a few attempts to blend it into the environment - many of the tunnels are now mine shafts and the music has a "bluegrass" twang to it - but the more you notice it the more and more apparent it is that the design team on this ride was just destined to get clobbered trying to fix the problem.

Splash Mountain gets in through a side door, I think, thanks to the fact that Country Bear Jamboree already existed in the area, and being descended from Marc Davis designs for America Sings and Song of the South, Splash Mountain fits in just enough to not seem like a gross contradiction. Until you realize that the red Georgia clay of the mountain is down south, not old west, and the romantic South isn't "Frontierland" no matter how you try to define it.

What elevates a poor thematic placement into the top five is that it makes mince of the careful architectural and conceptual progression of Magic Kingdom's river district, the true heart and most accomplished area of the park.

Liberty Square sweeps from upper New England (The Haunted Mansion) down through Philadelphia and Virginia (The Hall of Presidents) before heading west and transitioning to Frontierland at St. Louis (The Diamond Horseshoe). It then proceeds through the frontier territories, perhaps Kansas and Colorado, before arriving at cowboy vernacular architecture (Pecos Bill Cafe), then heading direct for the great Southwest pueblo architecture and monument valley (Big Thunder Mountain). This means that Splash Mountain's "deep south" is inserted directly into the section of the progression which once had a unified southwest and desert rock look. Lots of trees and an orange-red color help ease the intrusion, but an intrusion it indeed is.

The progression, of course, was intended from the start and would have ended with Thunder Mesa instead of Big Thunder Mountain, but of course Big Thunder was designed to replicate the sort of rock work we would have had surrounding Western River Expedition, so the careful progression was retained into the early '90s.

Just as unfortunate, Splash Mountain is out of scale for Frontierland. This part of the park was designed to sit on a lower elevation than Adventureland and by the time the facades ramble out towards Pecos Bill, they were originally quite short. The need to have the pedestrian path cross over the main drop of Splash Mountain means that a large hill was added at the end of the street, spoiling the forced perspective of the Pecos Bill facades until they were rebuilt at double height a few years later. More significantly, the elevated view of Big Thunder Mountain from the top of the Splash Mountain hill steps on the forced perspective of Big Thunder Mountain, which originally rose gracefully at the end of the otherwise flat Frontierland area like a beacon and looked absolutely colossal.

Really the only upside of Splash Mountain's placement is the absolutely terrific views of Liberty Square and Cinderella Castle from the top of the main lift hill and pedestrian bridge. That's the reason why it's there, and it's understandable and obvious. Of course, we can ask if the view of the castle is really all that important - Disneyland's faces some trees and, far away, the Matterhorn, and Tokyo has a general view of Westernland, and nobody thinks that there's something seriously missing when they ride those versions of the ride.

In many ways this is a tough call because the spot it was built is really the only place in Magic Kingdom it could have realistically went without building a self-contained Critter Country, which of course could not be directly on the big river, an important feature. Still, if I could move that mountain to an equally appropriate place in the park, I would.

The gorgeous stretch of land between Country Bear Jamboree and Thunder Mountain, with spreading trees, flowers, and split-rail fence, was one of the few areas in that Frontierland to feel genuinely rustic. And it seems to be a shame to lose that beautiful original train station, and that sense of a town way out on the edge of nothing, in the bargain.


And obviously, the inconsistency will become even more glaring when the ride is rethemed to "The Princess and the Frog".

So you see, those are just two examples of worse thematic inconsistencies than a Frozen ride in EPCOT.
Fantasyland is the home of Disney's Storybook and animated tales. It's been that way since Disneyland has opened and it still is to this day with six Disney resorts and counting. I can't say I see any reason why Dumbo and Mickey and Friends don't belong there especially since they've been represented there since Disneyland's Opening Day and in at every park since then (except Shanghai)

Before the Fantasyland-ification of World Showcase, each pavilion (yes, even the ones where Disney spent the majority of money on its construction) was meant to showcase each country's culture and encourage guests to someday travel to those countries for themselves.

Frozen doesn't take place in Norway. It takes place in the fictional kingdom of Arendelle. Arendelle and the city named Arendal in Norway aren't the same thing either (for one thing one's a city and one's a country). And as I mentioned earlier it's not even based off a Norwegian story. To quote Foxxy as you did:
"But really, the problem is that no matter how you try to define the question, Arendelle in Frozen is not Norway. The attraction and the meaning of the area that supports it are at ludicrous cross-purposes."

And just because A thing is bad, doesn't make less offensive B suddenly good. I can say the special effects look terrible in a recent movie and pointing to some terrible special effects obscure B movie made on a shoestring budget doesn't suddenly make the bad special effects good.
 

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Fantasyland is the home of Disney's Storybook and animated tales. It's been that way since Disneyland has opened and it still is to this day with six Disney resorts and counting. I can't say I see any reason why Dumbo and Mickey and Friends don't belong there especially since they've been represented there since Disneyland's Opening Day and in at every park since then (except Shanghai)

Except that Dumbo is not in Fantasyland proper, it's off to the side. And technically, Mickey is on Main Street.

Before the Fantasyland-ification of World Showcase, each pavilion (yes, even the ones where Disney spent the majority of money on its construction) was meant to showcase each country's culture and encourage guests to someday travel to those countries for themselves.

Frozen doesn't take place in Norway. It takes place in the fictional kingdom of Arendelle. Arendelle and the city named Arendal in Norway aren't the same thing either (for one thing one's a city and one's a country). And as I mentioned earlier it's not even based off a Norwegian story. To quote Foxxy as you did:
"But really, the problem is that no matter how you try to define the question, Arendelle in Frozen is not Norway. The attraction and the meaning of the area that supports it are at ludicrous cross-purposes."

And just because A thing is bad, doesn't make less offensive B suddenly good. I can say the special effects look terrible in a recent movie and pointing to some terrible special effects obscure B movie made on a shoestring budget doesn't suddenly make the bad special effects good.

They tried to incorporate it in, it's based on the culture, and that's all that matters. Is it perfect? Probably not. But you can't say they didn't try. I accept it as being where it is. I think they did a decent job with it. Maybe not perfect, but still decent.

In my opinion, a log flume ride themed to "The Princess and the Frog" will stick out even more. To that end, what does a log flume ride themed to the Old South have to do with the Old West, particularly since it ruins the careful design of Frontierland and Liberty Square.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom