Frozen ride replacing Maelstrom?

[FrankLapidus]

I have read a fair amount about Walt Disney. Not as much as some people here, I'm sure. But a fair amount.

One of the things that I have read about him consistently is that nobody could ever predict what Walt would want. You did your best and hoped like hell Walt liked it.

I figure if people who worked with Walt Disney didn't know what he would want, those of us who never knew the man shouldn't speculate about "what Walt would want". Anyone who pretends to know what Walt Disney would have wanted hasn't read very much about Walt Disney.

Exactly. The company was mismanaged for two decades after his death by people who worked for him and adopted the mantra of "what would Walt do?" Suggesting he would want It's A Small World in Epcot today is utterly pointless because Epcot today is a complete departure from how Walt envisaged it when he died. Playing the "Walt would want it" card is just desperate, anyone who plays it is just undermining their own argument.

The argument in question is completely pointless in my view anyway because there's no reason to move It's A Small World to Epcot and its highly unlikely to happen. There's room in Fantasyland for a Frozen presence now so if Disney really wanted to put it in MK they could do so without taking anything away.

 

[lebeau]

Exactly. The company was mismanaged for two decades after his death by people who worked for him and adopted the mantra of "what would Walt do?" Suggesting he would want It's A Small World in Epcot today is utterly pointless because Epcot today is a complete departure from how Walt envisaged it when he died. Playing the "Walt would want it" card is just desperate, anyone who plays it is just undermining their own argument.

The argument in question is completely pointless in my view anyway because there's no reason to move It's A Small World to Epcot and its highly unlikely to happen. There's room in Fantasyland for a Frozen presence now so if Disney really wanted to put it in MK they could do so without taking anything away.

I mean, you know, it's jt. So of course it's pointless.

 

[cw1982]

Exactly. The company was mismanaged for two decades after his death by people who worked for him and adopted the mantra of "what would Walt do?" Suggesting he would want It's A Small World in Epcot today is utterly pointless because Epcot today is a complete departure from how Walt envisaged it when he died. Playing the "Walt would want it" card is just desperate, anyone who plays it is just undermining their own argument.

The argument in question is completely pointless in my view anyway because there's no reason to move It's A Small World to Epcot and its highly unlikely to happen. There's room in Fantasyland for a Frozen presence now so if Disney really wanted to put it in MK they could do so without taking anything away.

Not only this, but furthermore I don't see them spending the money it would cost to completely uproot IaSW just to move it to another park. Doesn't seem like they would be likely to do that when they have other areas that they could expand and still keep the ride intact as it is.

 

[FrankLapidus]

Is @jt04 really Dennis Speigel? He has been spouting this same nonsense for a few days/weeks now... LOL

Why do a placeholder? Just do it right the first time!!!!

Exactly. The problem with WDW is placeholders usually end up being quite permanent; Chester & Hester's monstrosity and Captain EO spring to mind. My worry is that they do the Frozen overlay of Maelstrom, it becomes as popular as you would expect given the film is such a phenomenon and the higher-ups at TDO decide "why do anything else when this inexpensive little overlay is doing the business?"

If they're going to do it then they should strike now when the iron is absolutely white hot and do it properly, give this phenomenon the presence in the parks that it deserves.

 

[michael.fumc]

Not only this, but furthermore I don't see them spending the money it would cost to completely uproot IaSW just to move it to another park. Doesn't seem like they would be likely to do that when they have other areas that they could expand and still keep the ride intact as it is.

How do the advertise this, "same old ride, just in another park?" It just seems like a waste of money to give Epcot an old attraction, and then they have taken an attraction out of MK, of coarse they would get something new but when?

 

[cw1982]

How do the advertise this, "same old ride, just in another park?" It just seems like a waste of money to give Epcot an old attraction, and then they have taken an attraction out of MK, of coarse they would get something new but when?

Exactly. Too many things about that idea just don't make sense.

 

[WildcatDen]

Ah, yes, a fickle minority. Perfect back up for a well conceived argument.

Sometimes it is better to just remove the shoe from the mouth and move on. You accuse him of making something up, then he provides 'proof' that backs his statement. That deserves a golf clap and a head nod.

 

[COrunner]

My favorite is when people post to an article that ultimately cites the very people from message boards that supposedly are just making stuff up.

But you can't post things on the internet that aren't true!

I think it was the state farm with the girl dating the french model that I thought of when you wrote that.

 

[Mike S]

They can deny it all they want (of course they'd deny it ... typical of just about anything), but it seems to me that once again they're getting cold feet and not wanting to pull the plug and actually go through with something. But we'll see what happens. I don't really consider that "official" either way.

This would probably be the one instance in Disney history that would make me extremely happy if that's what happened. I really hope they do get cold feet about Frozen in Norway

 

[jt04]

Is @jt04 really Dennis Speigel? He has been spouting this same nonsense for a few days/weeks now... LOL

Why do a placeholder? Just do it right the first time!!!!

I had a change of heart after thinking about this yesterday. Which I explained elsewhere. I now support making Frozen a permanent part of Norway. Also saw an article yesterday that the franchise is helping tourism to Norway so I would think they might be on board for a permanent attraction. It would work.

PS- I am just jt04. Resident operating system. AKA HAL 9000.

 

[aladdin2007]

I had a change of heart after thinking about this yesterday. Which I explained elsewhere. I now support making Frozen a permanent part of Norway. Also saw an article yesterday that the franchise is helping tourism to Norway so I would think they might be on board for a permanent attraction. It would work.

PS- I am just jt04. Resident operating system. AKA HAL 9000.

It would be nice if they were on board as sponsors somehow, but whatever happens to the Norway pavilion from here on out is in Disney's hands. Those were their exact words to me,,,, due to their lets say 'frozen' relationship with Disney World. To make a long unfortunate story short.

 

[jt04]

It would be nice if they were on board as sponsors somehow, but whatever happens to the Norway pavilion from here on out is in Disney's hands. Those were their exact words to me,,,, due to their lets say 'frozen' relationship with Disney World. To make a long unfortunate story short.

Still, it could mend some bridges. And it would get rid of the post show which always created problems for some.

I think Disney really should do this attraction well. They really can't lose even with a substantial budget. And it would be a quick way to relieve overcrowding in the MK.

 

[aladdin2007]

Still, it could mend some bridges. And it would get rid of the post show which always created problems for some.

I think Disney really should do this attraction well. They really can't lose even with a substantial budget. And it would be a quick way to relieve overcrowding in the MK.

while turning tooncot into MK 2.0 which is not good. Who said its getting a substantial budget? From the sound of things its being value engineered if anything.

 

[jt04]

while turning tooncot into MK 2.0 which is not good. Who said its getting a substantial budget? From the sound of things its being value engineered if anything.

Yes. And I am advocating they make it a permanent add with budget to match. I explained earlier in detail why "tooning" World Showcase until early evening would work. IMO.

 

[Admiral01]

Yes. And I am advocating they make it a permanent add with budget to match. I explained earlier in detail why "tooning" World Showcase until early evening would work. IMO.

I understand the point of "tooning" World Showcase until the early evening...except it would give me one more reason to NOT spend my whole day at EPCOT.

And, because I am a spiteful person, I'm not going to trade that EPCOT time for time at another WDW park. I'm just not going all together.

There are so many neat and creative things they COULD do at EPCOT...turning it into another MK just isn't one of them. It is a lazy solution.

 

[rle4lunch]

The people defending Malestrom as some sort of remotely quality ride are funny.. Personally, I like the World Showcase the way it is, so if they were to add the Frozen layover to it, I wouldn't be upset, but I would shake my head at the laziness aspect of it. As of right now though, that ride needs anything to help it out. By far, the dumbest thing at WDW proper, well, right behind Captain EO.

 

[Kman101]

I don't think many of us are defending Maelstrom as some "quality ride", at least that I have seen.

Most just don't want A) toons in World Showcase, and B) the Frozen IP deserves a bit more than just going into Maelstrom. Really has nothing to do with Maelstrom being an amazing ride.

 

[Mike S]

I don't think many of us are defending Maelstrom as some "quality ride", at least that I have seen.

Most just don't want A) toons in World Showcase, and B) the Frozen IP deserves a bit more than just going into Maelstrom. Really has nothing to do with Maelstrom being an amazing ride.

Yeah, even I don't think it's an amazing ride. I just have really fond memories and would hate to see it go.

 

[jt04]

I understand the point of "tooning" World Showcase until the early evening...except it would give me one more reason to NOT spend my whole day at EPCOT.

And, because I am a spiteful person, I'm not going to trade that EPCOT time for time at another WDW park. I'm just not going all together.

There are so many neat and creative things they COULD do at EPCOT...turning it into another MK just isn't one of them. It is a lazy solution.

I think they are on the right track with Frozen. And the neat things they could do with WS after Illuminations still exist. And I have not even mentioned anything about FW. That has a lot of potential as the part of Epcot that has more thrills. Even the most spiteful person would return.

 

[RSoxNo1]

The people defending Malestrom as some sort of remotely quality ride are funny.. Personally, I like the World Showcase the way it is, so if they were to add the Frozen layover to it, I wouldn't be upset, but I would shake my head at the laziness aspect of it. As of right now though, that ride needs anything to help it out. By far, the dumbest thing at WDW proper, well, right behind Captain EO.

Again, the issue IS NOT with replacing Maelstrom. We know what Maelstrom is. It's a mediocre C-ticket boat ride. Yes, people like it but it's by no means an irreplaceable attraction. The issue is that Frozen, and characters in general do not belong in World Showcase. I think the vast majority of people on here want to see Frozen get a major attraction. They just don't want that to be in Epcot.