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

[Inspired Figment]

Aside from voting with our wallets and never going to the parks again, there's really not much we can do about it. It's a pity, I know, but we don't really have much control over it. Are you saying that management should just ignore the needs of shareholders in favor of the wants of fans?



Sadly, only Walt could pull off a City of Tomorrow, but when he passed away and his brother and business partner Roy took the helm, Roy quietly erased EPCOT from all plans for Florida. So really, if anyone is to blame, it's Roy, who is always looking for ways to finance his brother's dreams, which often led to stormy disagreements between the brothers. In this case, Roy insisted that they build the amusement park first, to establish a money flow, while Walt wanted to jump in on the city. And then Roy passed away shortly after the Magic Kingdom's opening in 1971. And it's not fair to just blame current management for all of Disney's problems. In the '70s, Disney management then didn't have a clue how to go about building a City of Tomorrow.

And to your claim about how all of WDW was EPCOT in a way, to quote David Koenig's book on WDW called "Realityland":

[E]xcept for the monorail, all of the experimental elements were behind the scenes, invisible to the public. Consequently, there began to rise a growing suspicion of the Reedy Creek Improvement District. As expansion continued at a frenetic pace across Disney property, critics saw a company-owned government that appeared to be rubber-stamping whatever the company wanted. Disney, of course, would argue that its relationship with Reedy Creek wasn't underhanded, merely more efficient. By eliminating burdensome red tape, everyone could focus on what was truly important - creating safe, sound structures - instead of rote fulfilling of obligations and completing of checklists. Building codes demanding the use of time-honored materials and techniques by definition outlawed innovation.

Later in the same book, there's this blurb:

[Walt] hoped companies would fill his [City of Tomorrow] with factories and research laboratories where visitors could learn about emerging technologies and inventions, and employ them in their own home, business or country.

But big business doesn't work that way. And Disney, of all companies, with its doors always locked and shades always drawn, should have known better. There are few competitive advantages more valuable to a company than proprietary products and systems, and little financial incentive to letting the world in on every stage of development and advertising it not as something to buy, but to borrow and profit from on your own.

Finally, the book concludes this way:

In the end, Disney came to terms with the fact that, at least without Walt, it was an entertainment company - granted, a highly proficient and successful one, but one beholden to millions of shareholders. It could no longer take the risks necessary to change the world by building a futuristic city. Maybe one day another innovator will come along who can pull off a real, live Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow. Sadly, this world doesn't produce a whole lot of Walt Disneys.


Part of it was that Hollywood didn't want to move all the way out to Florida, which was impractical. So no, it seems as though a working studio would never have been truly sustainable in the long run. The Animation thing at the Studios shut down in 2004 after the last (or second-to-last after several years) 2D animated film, "Home On the Range", flopped. Ever since then, with the exception of "The Princess and the Frog", all animated films were CG-rendered. And then there's the rise of DVD bonus features, which also do the job of letting people in on the production of movies, effectively making the Studios' purpose kind of redundant.

As for Universal, while it does use its facilities for production, it's not really for actual movies anymore, mostly things that are of little significance in the grand scheme of things.

No, I’m ‘not’ saying they shouldn’t honor their shareholders. But in order for the company to keep making an investment for it’s shareholders. It needs to keep the creativity & values of what makes it’s company successful while innovating with the times. If those values & the creativity dies further & further, then the company seizes to be as profitable, successful, or as creative as it should be. The ‘fans’ & consumers are the ones who love & are extremely passionate about those qualities & those successful works. Again, I’m not saying they need to listen to every demand there is from fans. ‘But’, they should atleast be sticking to the standards/values that made them successful to begin with rather then the opposite, all to make a quick quarterly earning.

And again, I’ve already made it clear that Walt’s original idea for EPCOT, ‘the city’ wasn’t the most sustainable. You keep bringing up explanations for why the original city idea wasn’t sustainable. But not the theme park…

EPCOT ‘Center’, the theme park (not Walt’s original city idea.. but the theme park), ‘was’ though, with the exception of the ‘overreliance’ on corporate sponsors & Disney basically controlling them too much. Disney changed the way they handled those sponsorships only to benefit themselves and not the sponsor. Thus why things also started falling downwards besides certain sponsors not making it on their own. The subjects they chose for the attractions were fine along with the goal/mission of the park. They simply didn’t update/enhance them properly when need be or provide good enough replacements when genuinely necessary. They just outright replaced & drastically altered at times when they could’ve just tried to keep the things that worked about it, and fix the things that didn’t.
The Walt Disney World Resort as a whole (the 4 theme parks, dining, recreation, and hotels combined) is what became EPCOT, the city, in essence.

EPCOT Center, the theme park, simply was the park that presented the core concepts & subjects (that being real world topics & industries fundamental to improving our lives) that were sustainable/able to be presented in a way that was entertaining & inspired, informed, and captivated people in taking part in shaping a better future on whatever path ‘they’ decided to go. And depending on the way you present those topics & cultures. It’s very much indeed positively profitable & impactful to the public long term.

And about the studios moving from California to Florida argument.. look at what the company is doing atm. They’re moving much of their production (Particuarly WDI at the moment, mostly to FL it would seem..) . so how is that exactly completely unfathomable to happen with the film studios?.. especially with so many other studios moving their facilities to other states.
You also keep making the argument about the traditional animation studio closing. Fair enough. But what about the animation studio as it is ‘now’. Making CGI (and ‘some’ traditional animation for the streaming service & shorts). In theory, shouldn’t they be able to update & expand production facilities out there? Clearly they did back in the day.. but poor management decisions and unsuccessful projects are what led to it’s initial closure. Had they been making successful films though, like Pixar at the time? They’d be fine. Just as they are now.

Also, in comparison, take a look at Universal Studios Hollywood. They most certainly use their facilities to produce new content. So who’s to say Disney couldn’t also at their Studios park? Build & use new facilities, etc.?

 

[Inspired Figment]

I should also mention.. I’m not fully in support of Disney doing what they’re doing with WDI atm. While I think adding new facilities in Florida is smart. I don’t think moving ‘all’ their production to Florida is a good one. Simply ‘expanding’, meaning, Keeping the production facilities in California running while Open/operating the additional facilities in Florida, hiring more staff, would’ve been the best option for Disney I think

 

[Inspired Figment]

Also, something I forgot to mention was folks ‘indeed’ should be voting with their wallets when it comes to things they don’t like. At the very least, make the effort not to visit as often or pay for tickets when the cons far out way the pros. We can all certainly still enjoy disney & their parks in our own way, a lot of those ways not visiting the park in it’s current state. But we don’t have to continue supporting upper management’s poor decision making.

 

[FettFan]

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?

1. They're not representing Norway.

2 Those Frozen-themed mini-lands are all being built into the “Magic Kingdom” parks.

 

[mharrington]

1. They're not representing Norway.

2 Those Frozen-themed mini-lands are all being built into the “Magic Kingdom” parks.

Only Hong Kong's version will be in a castle park. Tokyo DisneySea and Disney Studios Paris are not castle parks.

 

[mharrington]

Also, something I forgot to mention was folks ‘indeed’ should be voting with their wallets when it comes to things they don’t like. At the very least, make the effort not to visit as often or pay for tickets when the cons far out way the pros. We can all certainly still enjoy disney & their parks in our own way, a lot of those ways not visiting the park in it’s current state. But we don’t have to continue supporting upper management’s poor decision making.

When you visit the parks and spend your money there (indeed, when you spend money on anything Disney), you kind of are supporting management's "poor decision making".

 

[mharrington]

That’s clearly not what I’m saying. They ‘should’ be in places appropriate if either there is no other park they can be placed in that fits better or nothing can be done to fix the pre-existing attraction or concept and the execution & focus should be done in a way that stays true to the theme of the park & area they’re placed in. (See Wonders of Life’s Goofy About Health show & Sensory Funhouse exhibit and The Land’s Circle of Life film, and Three Caballeros Grand Fiesta Tour & Coco exhbit in Mexico for the best examples of Cartoon and/or Film IP based attractions done correctly at EPCOT). Also, all the other Fantasyland attractions in regards to them fitting properly with the area’s general theme/purpose (with the exception of It’s a Small World.)

Like I said, if Small World was placed where you said it should be, then it would be in Future World as much as it would be World Showcase, and it would stick out pretty weird there.

Speaking of which, how do you feel about Small World in Disneyland (or any other castle park)? Do you think it doesn't fit there at all?

And in terms of characters in the ride, the Tokyo version of the ride has also added in characters as well, including several from after 2009 (characters were added in 2018), including, you guessed it, "Frozen" characters. They are found in the Scandinavian section, one of the first parts of the ride:

And yet Arendelle apparently has no place in the depictions of the real world because it's not a real place. Well, Agrabah is not real either, and yet Aladdin and Jasmine are seen on a flying carpet in the Asia section (in all versions, including California). Finally, Ariel is seen in the Oceania section (also all versions), even though I don't believe Atlantica (also not a real place) is in the Pacific, but clearly in the Atlantic.

 

[rreading]

fwiw, I’m not a fan of putting the movie characters in Small World.

I understand that Frozen set in Arendelle was not initially represented as Norway but it’s geography and architecture and wardrobe in the movie was representative of Norwegian culture and was represented as such. While one can argue that the Stave Church wasn’t the best location to show the culture which inspired Frozen, I appreciated it.

I asked my 12yo who has always loved Epcot: “It doesn’t fit, but it works”

It was certainly stated that tourism to Norway increased significantly following Frozen (I don’t know numbers but suspect it was true).

To me, the point I would make is that there is a real place in this world that is as amazing as the place in the movie and that we should visit it.