Frozen in Norway: Am I the only one who doesn't mind?

[mharrington]

That’s completely fair that you think Frozen fits fine in EPCOT and that you didn’t care much for Maelstrom. Everyone has different tastes after all and that’s okay. But if you’re not a fan of Frozen or the Maelstrom. I honestly can’t understand why you’re being ‘this’ defensive about this decision being a good one then.

Btw, about “people automatically hating IPs”… Not every IP addition to EPCOT has been received poorly.. just look at Circle of Life at The Land pavilion & Goofy About Health at Wonders of Life. Those were both done tastefully and in a way that didn’t compromise the original focus, integrity, & spirit of the pavilions/areas they were put into.
I think the key problem here is, we know full well Disney was once capable of better quality attractions & additions, both IP & unique/park original concepts, and in intentionally being creative with the concepts in order for them to fit the spirit & purpose of the park. The problem is that the newer additions are striving less & less to truly tie them in properly to the actual park’s purpose, real world & the areas they’re being placed in. (This ‘especially’ applies to EPCOT)
That and there was seemingly a much better balance between the amount of film IP & unique/park exclusive attractions you could find in all the parks before … the problem now is we have WAY too many Film IP based attractions going & replacing or outnumbering unique/park exclusive content & stuff that actually fits in with the original themes, missions, & areas they were intended to represent. to the point they’re nearly completely gone.. which isn’t a good thing.

So in essence, it’s not IP that people hate exactly. It’s Disney’s overreliance on them, the fact they’re coming at the expense of park original/unique content to the point they’re nearly gone, the overall quality & execution isn’t as good as the stuff that replaced them (though granted, that’s subjective) and that they’re not tieing into the areas they’re being put into properly.

But what about the Studios? I don't believe you answered me that...

Just as the theme and direction of EPCOT may or may not be changing, the identity of the Studios had a decidedly different identity as well. It was originally not supposed to be just about "riding the movies". You did that in several Magic Kingdom attractions as well, or at least encountered movie characters in their rides.

Anyway, once upon a time, the Studios was not meant to be about just "riding the movies", as you called it. It was supposed to be a working studio (as in, making real movies, TV shows, etc.), which just happened to have a few rides here and there, all tied in some way, shape or form to the moviemaking process. So yes, it was supposed to be a representation of the real Hollywood, even though it didn't turn out that way. And yes, it was built to compete with Universal, but as far as I know, even Universal Orlando still uses its studio buildings as real filming studios, albeit not for anything really worthwhile, such as for wrestling or the Powerball. Disney's Hollywood Studios doesn't do that anymore.

And by the way, the definition for "studio" in the dictionary is as follows:
1.a) the working place of a painter, sculptor, or photographer
1.b) a place for the study of an art (such as dancing, singing, or acting)
2.a) a place where motion pictures are made
2.b) a company that produces motion pictures
3) a place maintained and equipped for the transmission of radio or television programs
4) a place where audio recordings are made.

Not one definition of the word "studio" mentions "riding the movies". A studio is a place where movies are made, not where you go to "ride the movies".

Again, I think the name of that park should be changed (and that applies to the Paris park, too). I don't know, though. Maybe it could be either Disney (no apostrophe-S) Hollywood CineMagic Adventure (a bit of a mouthful, I know) or something? Or maybe it could just be Disney Hollywoodland.

 

[aladdin2007]

I think Frozen could have fit in Norway. If the ride focused on the IP's roots to Norse mythology/folklore, and/or Scandinavia.

That's not to say I think it'd be the best fit, or even a really good fit for the pavilion, but that I think it would be thematically appropriate. The fact that Arendelle is fictional I don't think is the problem, if there was a ride exploring Norse mythology that was set in, say, Valhalla or Asgard (not Marvel Comics), I think no one would have a problem. Rather, I think if you gave it the Pandora treatment, it could be at least appropriate, or servicable.

As it stands though, it's just a Fantasyland, storybook dark ride. Focuses on Frozen, not Norwegian anything. In Fantasyland it'd be solid, in WS it is not.

This...that pretty much sums it up.

They could have at least used the frozen characters to give you a tour of Norway for the ride in the same vein of the caballeros in Mexico, but no they went the princess storybook preschool route only..even the ride title says fantasyland with no effort at all to even make it sound Norwegian in tone....(I think Staggs got the wind knocked out of him when the pitchforks came out in full force after that announcement) (and had an agreement been reached between Disney and Norway things may have turned out a little different God knows many tried hard)... there were also other plans that thankfully they did not go with but it just wouldn't have been the Norway pavilion at all if they had. Not that its very Norwegian anymore anyway (at least the new addition area was well done and nice looking, but a rotten shame to use a piece of a big expansion pad for it (that can always be changed one day if they wanted but probably not in any of our lifetimes)......... also maybe one day when the intl program can come back and work the pavilion will get some heart back, because it sure does lack even worse without them (all the pavilions do)... The ride plan martin mentioned really would have been the best one to go with.

and..blocking up that waterfall? was the stupidest thing Imagineering ever did. The pavilion use to be so cool inside and out, now its nothing unique or original. The stave church viking exhibit is about all that's left. The shop has been downgraded to frozen merch and disneys own made stuff nothing authentic, and half the time art work sales that dont belong in there at all,,(maybe they quit doing that now not sure) they even quit carrying trolls, or had back in June wasn't one to be found , except the big one to take your picture with.

 

[Inspired Figment]

But what about the Studios? I don't believe you answered me that...

Just as the theme and direction of EPCOT may or may not be changing, the identity of the Studios had a decidedly different identity as well. It was originally not supposed to be just about "riding the movies". You did that in several Magic Kingdom attractions as well, or at least encountered movie characters in their rides.

Anyway, once upon a time, the Studios was not meant to be about just "riding the movies", as you called it. It was supposed to be a working studio (as in, making real movies, TV shows, etc.), which just happened to have a few rides here and there, all tied in some way, shape or form to the moviemaking process. So yes, it was supposed to be a representation of the real Hollywood, even though it didn't turn out that way. And yes, it was built to compete with Universal, but as far as I know, even Universal Orlando still uses its studio buildings as real filming studios, albeit not for anything really worthwhile, such as for wrestling or the Powerball. Disney's Hollywood Studios doesn't do that anymore.

And by the way, the definition for "studio" in the dictionary is as follows:
1.a) the working place of a painter, sculptor, or photographer
1.b) a place for the study of an art (such as dancing, singing, or acting)
2.a) a place where motion pictures are made
2.b) a company that produces motion pictures
3) a place maintained and equipped for the transmission of radio or television programs
4) a place where audio recordings are made.

Not one definition of the word "studio" mentions "riding the movies". A studio is a place where movies are made, not where you go to "ride the movies".

Again, I think the name of that park should be changed (and that applies to the Paris park, too). I don't know, though. Maybe it could be either Disney (no apostrophe-S) Hollywood CineMagic Adventure (a bit of a mouthful, I know) or something? Or maybe it could just be Disney Hollywoodland.

In all honestly, I think the best course of action for Disney would be to simply have a working animation & film studio back there. Their ‘own’ studio.. or if they want, have a working part of one of the other studios they own like 21st Century Fox or something if they’d like. Would actually work in that scenario.
And in regards to the Studio name… it’s a ‘theme park’ ‘themed’ around the studios & its works (its movies) so I say keep the name. But it could definitley be plussed up in a way that stays more true to it’s original roots & mission.

 

[mharrington]

In all honestly, I think the best course of action for Disney would be to simply have a working animation & film studio back there. Their ‘own’ studio.. or if they want, have a working part of one of the other studios they own like 21st Century Fox or something if they’d like. Would actually work in that scenario.

Unfortunately, the working animation studio has long since been abandoned, since they don't even do 2D animation anymore. That shipped has sailed, just as everything else about the "studio" aspect has sailed.

And in regards to the Studio name… it’s a ‘theme park’ ‘themed’ around the studios & its works (its movies) so I say keep the name. But it could definitley be plussed up in a way that stays more true to it’s original roots & mission.

But it's not an actual, literal studio anymore. I have already provided several definitions of the word "studio", and not one of them mentions it as just being the name of a company. They are the names of places where movies are made. Otherwise, it might just as well be something like Magic Kingdom II or something.

Are there any parks whose original roots/mission has not been compromised? I guess not.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Unfortunately, the working animation studio has long since been abandoned, since they don't even do 2D animation anymore. That shipped has sailed, just as everything else about the "studio" aspect has sailed.



But it's not an actual, literal studio anymore. I have already provided several definitions of the word "studio", and not one of them mentions it as just being the name of a company. They are the names of places where movies are made. Otherwise, it might just as well be something like Magic Kingdom II or something.

Are there any parks whose original roots/mission has not been compromised? I guess not.

Uh, you might want to re-read your own post:

"2.b) a company that produces motion pictures" would fit the "name of a company" criteria.

 

[mharrington]

Uh, you might want to re-read your own post:

"2.b) a company that produces motion pictures" would fit the "name of a company" criteria.

But they don't call them "studio theaters", do they? Do you go to a theater to see a studio? Or do you go to see a movie?

 

[Inspired Figment]

But they don't call them "studio theaters", do they? Do you go to a theater to see a studio? Or do you go to see a movie?

You go to see the movie made from the
‘Studio’. It’s the ‘studio’’s works & functions you’re paying to see.

Would you go to Warner Bros. Studios just to see movies in general or the ‘Warner Bros’ produced movies specifically? (You could substitute Disney or Universal into that and the answer would remain the same. You’re going there to see that studio’s ‘works’ and/or functions)

 

[Chip Chipperson]

But they don't call them "studio theaters", do they? Do you go to a theater to see a studio? Or do you go to see a movie?

Theaters have nothing to do with the name of a company and theaters don't produce movies/TV shows. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make here.

And you previously argued for changing the name to Cinemagic but the park includes things that you wouldn't go to a cinema to see such as Disney Junior and Aerosmith. I don't see how that would be an improvement over Studios.

 

[mharrington]

Theaters have nothing to do with the name of a company and theaters don't produce movies/TV shows. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make here.

And you previously argued for changing the name to Cinemagic but the park includes things that you wouldn't go to a cinema to see such as Disney Junior and Aerosmith. I don't see how that would be an improvement over Studios.

My point is that I see the usage of "studios" in a literal sense, meaning a physical property where movies/TV/whatever are made, not in the sense of the movies/TV/whatever themselves. I see things literally, not figuratively. I also proposed, as an alternative idea for a park name, Disney Hollywoodland, which is shorter, catchier and is a little more honest about not being a functioning studio anymore.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

My point is that I see the usage of "studios" in a literal sense, meaning a physical property where movies/TV/whatever are made, not in the sense of the movies/TV/whatever themselves. I see things literally, not figuratively. I also proposed, as an alternative idea for a park name, Disney Hollywoodland, which is shorter, catchier and is a little more honest about not being a functioning studio anymore.

OK, but who says it HAS to be meant literally as a place where movies and TV shows are recorded? Disney hasn't meant the name in that sense for a while now, but that doesn't mean the Studios name isn't relevant to the park's current attractions and theme. The park has evolved, but the name still fits based on one of the definitions of "studio" - just not the definition you want it to be.

 

[SteveAZee]

My point is that I see the usage of "studios" in a literal sense, meaning a physical property where movies/TV/whatever are made, not in the sense of the movies/TV/whatever themselves. I see things literally, not figuratively. I also proposed, as an alternative idea for a park name, Disney Hollywoodland, which is shorter, catchier and is a little more honest about not being a functioning studio anymore.

Studio, literally:​

​

stu·dio | \ ˈstü-dē-(ˌ)ō , ˈstyü- \
plural studios

Definition of studio​

1a: the working place of a painter, sculptor, or photographer
b: a place for the study of an art (such as dancing, singing, or acting)
2a: a place where motion pictures are made
b: a company that produces motion pictures
3: a place maintained and equipped for the transmission of radio or television programs
4: a place where audio recordings are made

 

[donnylambb]

I think its the perfect fit. I actually think they did a great job with the ride.