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

Does anyone not mind if Frozen Ever After is in EPCOT?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 44.0%
  • No

    Votes: 14 56.0%

  • Total voters
    25

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Just curious... if the pavilion was renamed "Scandinavia" and it incorporated the culture of those countries in the food, beverage, architecture, and gift shop areas... does that make the Frozen attraction any more palatable?
Why do you think that would make a difference to how people perceive it? It would still be criticised as a fantasy attraction in a pavilion dedicated to real places.
 

SteveAZee

Well-Known Member
Why do you think that would make a difference to how people perceive it? It would still be criticised as a fantasy attraction in a pavilion dedicated to real places.
Some have expressed that since Frozen doesn't take place in Norway that it's a bad fit. I was considering the idea that if the pavilion is decoupled from a specific country and instead a region (sort of like the UK pavilion) that that lessens the impact for some. For those (and I'm mostly in this camp as well) who feel like FEA is just inappropriate in EPCOT, there's really no winning that argument.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Some have expressed that since Frozen doesn't take place in Norway that it's a bad fit. I was considering the idea that if the pavilion is decoupled from a specific country and instead a region (sort of like the UK pavilion) that that lessens the impact for some. For those (and I'm mostly in this camp as well) who feel like FEA is just inappropriate in EPCOT, there's really no winning that argument.
I see what you're saying, but I feel the sticking point is Arendelle's fictionality, which would remain the same whether the pavilion is devoted to a country or a region. And, to be fair to Disney, the main reference points for Arendelle in the movies were specifically Norwegian.

Not to nitpick, but the UK is a country (sovereign state) and not a region.
 

SteveAZee

Well-Known Member
I see what you're saying, but I feel the sticking point is Arendelle's fictionality, which would remain the same whether the pavilion is devoted to a country or a region. And, to be fair to Disney, the main reference points for Arendelle in the movies were specifically Norwegian.

Not to nitpick, but the UK is a country (sovereign state) and not a region.
LOL, feel free to pick the nits. ;) I picked the UK as an example of a pavilion that can have a few different aspects to it.... non-monolithic.

On the flip side, if Frozen was said to take place in Norway (not fictional Arendelle) would that unruffle any feathers? Probably not.

I guess I'm just trying to hone in on exactly what is doing the feather ruffling, and it's not about Arendelle vs Norway, it's about A Disney IP being dropped into a pavilion that, along with its peers, is mean to be an ambassador for that country, and it clearly isn't.
 

BlakeW39

Well-Known Member
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.
 

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
People seem to object to Frozen being in Norway. And yet, where are the objections about the Little Mermaid ride at the California Adventure when it clearly has absolutely nothing to do with California? Oh, sure, the movie was made in California, but the movie itself is clearly not set in California.

Or where are the objections about lands themed to Toy Story and Star Wars being put in a studio park, even though the studio concept is long dead? The only way those would be thematically appropriate is if they had filming equipment around, like a real studio, such as lights and cameras, and that the Toy Story midway ride or Rise of the Resistance are not actually "rides", but watching something being "filmed". I'm going to direct you to this article (http://progresscityusa.com/2010/02/03/talkin-bout-studios/), with an emphasis on a few sections in particular (bear in mind, this was long before Galaxy's Edge or the Toy Story land):

Setting Star Tours on a soundstage, for instance, is an enormous cop-out. I thought so the first time I went as a kid – I didn’t know what they were going for, with C-3PO's coffee break area and bulletin board off to the side. Are we going to Endor, or are we watching people make a movie about people going to Endor? Introducing the “working set” idea creates a whole extra layer of stuff to get between the guest and the experience.

[...]

I’m thinking more of the fact that the attractions now get inserted to any thought or reason why they should be there. Of course, I’m mainly grousing about Midway Mania, because while it’s a fun attraction it has absolutely no connection to the theme of the park. It makes perfect sense in California Adventure, but no sense at the Studios. Why not, instead, a ride like Tokyo’s Monsters, Inc. ride where instead of flashlights you’re trying to film the monsters with movie cameras? That would at least make sense. If you’re going to theme an area to represent a movie studio, like Pixar Place attempts to, that needs to tie in with the attraction. It’s not good enough just to have random rides based on movies put into brick or stucco buildings. I’m not asking them to bend over backwards, just to think a little bit about what they’re doing before they do it.


A few people argued that the Frozen ride would fit better in the Studios, but how without the actual aspect of a studio? As I have said in the past, the studios park needs to stop being called "Disney's Hollywood Studios" and be changed to something else. What, though, I don't know.
 
Last edited:

BlakeW39

Well-Known Member
People seem to object to Frozen being in Norway. And yet, where are the objections about the Little Mermaid ride at the California Adventure when it clearly has absolutely nothing to do with California? Oh, sure, the movie was made in California, but the movie itself is clearly not set in California.

I think that's just because most people have lost hope for DCA, if they ever had it in the first place. Nevermind the problems with a California theme in the first place, DCA is so thematically incoherent that, at this point, who cares if they add another random attraction? Clearly there is no hope of their being any kind of thematic continuity for the park anyways.
 

Heppenheimer

Well-Known Member
I think that's just because most people have lost hope for DCA, if they ever had it in the first place. Nevermind the problems with a California theme in the first place, DCA is so thematically incoherent that, at this point, who cares if they add another random attraction? Clearly there is no hope of their being any kind of thematic continuity for the park anyways.
And World Showcase once had a consistent theme.
 

BlakeW39

Well-Known Member
And World Showcase once had a consistent theme.

And to this day it still has a vastly more consistent theme than DCA.

Another thing to note is that while EPCOT is beloved by Disney fans, DCA was never liked (at least by most). Therefore the reaction to something in EPCOT is going to always be much stronger than whatever is added to DCA. EPCOT's original theme wass also revered, and so deviation from it is seen as inherently bad, whereas DCA's original theme was revolted, and so deviation from it will not be reacted to as negatively.
 

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
And to this day it still has a vastly more consistent theme than DCA.

Another thing to note is that while EPCOT is beloved by Disney fans, DCA was never liked (at least by most). Therefore the reaction to something in EPCOT is going to always be much stronger than whatever is added to DCA. EPCOT's original theme wass also revered, and so deviation from it is seen as inherently bad, whereas DCA's original theme was revolted, and so deviation from it will not be reacted to as negatively.
And what about the Studios? Where are the objections about lands themed to Toy Story and Star Wars being put in a studio park, even though the studio concept is long dead? The only way those would be thematically appropriate is if they had filming equipment around, like a real studio, such as lights and cameras, and that the Toy Story midway ride or Rise of the Resistance are not actually "rides", but watching something being "filmed".
 

DisneyMusician2

Well-Known Member
Am I the only one who has no problem with Frozen Ever After being in Norway? It's not that bad a fit, is it? It's not a perfect fit, but it's not bad either.
No you're not. Its a beautifully designed ride and a favorite for my family much more so than the original was. In my opinion the IP belongs in the parks if its well executed and means my kids have a good time and I can enjoy Food and Wine while I wait in line.
 

DisneyMusician2

Well-Known Member
And to this day it still has a vastly more consistent theme than DCA.

Another thing to note is that while EPCOT is beloved by Disney fans, DCA was never liked (at least by most). Therefore the reaction to something in EPCOT is going to always be much stronger than whatever is added to DCA. EPCOT's original theme wass also revered, and so deviation from it is seen as inherently bad, whereas DCA's original theme was revolted, and so deviation from it will not be reacted to as negatively.
EPCOT's theme was only revered by a small few to be real, it did really poorly and got some horrible reviews when it opened. I remember it as being panned as boring, no characters, too preachy and cold.

Obviously from my avatar I loved me some classic EPCOT Center, but for the casual fan I don't believe it was seen that way at all.
 

crawale

Well-Known Member
Beofre COVID we went to the Frozen dessert party. It was pouring with rain to the party was moved to upstairs in the Norway pavilion. This is an amazing space and we were amazed that after going to Disney regularly since 1986 we had never known of it before. I wonder why this space is not utilized more - or even at all.
 

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
It’s a park of attractions based on movies.

Hence no objections you seem desperate to find.
But it's not a studio park. Disney's Hollywood Studios has long since abandoned any pretense of using its facilitates as a studio. Universal still uses its parks as real studios, even in Florida. How can it continue to be called "studios" if it's not actually used as a studio?

I just don't think it's fair to be so critical about Frozen being in Norway when it's not the worst offender theme-wise.
 

Inspired Figment

Well-Known Member
And what about the Studios? Where are the objections about lands themed to Toy Story and Star Wars being put in a studio park, even though the studio concept is long dead? The only way those would be thematically appropriate is if they had filming equipment around, like a real studio, such as lights and cameras, and that the Toy Story midway ride or Rise of the Resistance are not actually "rides", but watching something being "filmed".
So, you know Universal Studios and how they’re main tag line was to “ride the movies” in essence. That’s the exact type of park Disney’s Hollywood Studios is. Hence why the movie rides work there. See how Universal has added stuff like Harry Potter, Illumination, and Dreamworks rides & lands? There ya have it.
 
Last edited:

Inspired Figment

Well-Known Member
But it's not a studio park. Disney's Hollywood Studios has long since abandoned any pretense of using its facilitates as a studio. Universal still uses its parks as real studios, even in Florida. How can it continue to be called "studios" if it's not actually used as a studio?

I just don't think it's fair to be so critical about Frozen being in Norway when it's not the worst offender theme-wise.
Not nearly as much in Florida as far as I’m aware. Hence why there’s no tram studio tour in Florida… a movie or studio IP themed focus on rides fits a studios theme park WAAY more than a park focused on representing, recreating, or showcasing ‘real world’ concepts & places.
 

Inspired Figment

Well-Known Member
But it's not a studio park. Disney's Hollywood Studios has long since abandoned any pretense of using its facilitates as a studio. Universal still uses its parks as real studios, even in Florida. How can it continue to be called "studios" if it's not actually used as a studio?

I just don't think it's fair to be so critical about Frozen being in Norway when it's not the worst offender theme-wise.
Ask Disney that question as to why they don’t actually use it as a studio anymore.. but the fact remains.. the rides there have always been focused strictly on the film IPs developed, collaborated & owned (via by either contractual rights or outright ownership) by said studios (Disney in this case) thus, they’re easily more fit for a studios themed park than a real world concept & culture focused park…. It’s that simple
 
Last edited:

Inspired Figment

Well-Known Member
I just don't think it's fair to be so critical about Frozen being in Norway when it's not the worst offender theme-wise.
Fair enough.. it certainly isn’t the ‘only’ example of this issue (just look at Tomorrowland). But to be fair, it certainly sticks out like a sore thumb particuarly within EPCOT. ‘Especially’ when the ride makes little to no effort to tie it’s theme into real world Norway or showcase any of it’s concepts.
IMO, I also feel like Frozen Ever After lacks any real coherent flow to it’s “story” , songs, and action comparatively to other film IP based rides as a whole. It could certainly be improved/plussed in that department and perhaps even have more effort to tie it into real world Norwegian culture.
 
Last edited:

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
So, you know Universal Studios and how they’re main tag line was to “ride the movies” in essence. That’s the exact type of park Disney’s Hollywood Studios is. Hence why the movie rides work there. See how Universal has added stuff like Harry Potter, Illumination, and Dreamworks rides & lands? There ya have it.

But even Universal still uses its studio facilities for actual filming, even in Florida. DHS doesn't do that anymore.
 

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

Top Bottom