Frozen ride replacing Maelstrom?

[Weather_Lady]

I don't even like Maelstrom, but I'd hate to see it with a Frozen overlay/replacement. Overlays and "replacements" are nothing more than a cheap cop-out -- a half-baked substitute for manning up and building a new attraction.

Maelstrom is fine as it is (and appropriately focused on Norway and not on cartoon characters), and Frozen deserves a terrific, innovative, brand-new standalone attraction venued in Adventureland (we have tropical adventures covered -- why not an Arctic one, when the movie screams for a bobsled ride?) or Fantasyland or even Hollywood Studios.

 

[aladdin2007]

I don't even like Maelstrom, but I'd hate to see it with a Frozen overlay/replacement. Overlays and "replacements" are nothing more than a cheap cop-out -- a half-baked substitute for manning up and building a new attraction.

Maelstrom is fine as it is (and appropriately focused on Norway and not on cartoon characters), and Frozen deserves a terrific, innovative, brand-new standalone attraction venued in Adventureland (we have tropical adventures covered -- why not an Arctic one, when the movie screams for a bobsled ride?) or Fantasyland or even Hollywood Studios.

This

 

[SirLink]

I don't even like Maelstrom, but I'd hate to see it with a Frozen overlay/replacement. Overlays and "replacements" are nothing more than a cheap cop-out -- a half-baked substitute for manning up and building a new attraction.

Maelstrom is fine as it is (and appropriately focused on Norway and not on cartoon characters), and Frozen deserves a terrific, innovative, brand-new standalone attraction venued in Adventureland (we have tropical adventures covered -- why not an Arctic one, when the movie screams for a bobsled ride?) or Fantasyland or even Hollywood Studios.

The only places where a Frozen ride should be ... would be nice to give the heave ho and get the Magic Carpets out of Adventureland.

 

[docandsix]

How odd, but our family is clearly in the minority here. Not one of us had any use for Frozen. We didn't find the songs memorable, the story persuasive, the jokes funny or the characters likable. In particular, we felt the songs were forced into the narrative, almost disruptive in their style and length. It was definitely our least favorite Disney animated film since Meet the Robinsons. "Best Disney film since the Lion King," a bit of praise so often applied to this movie, is appropriate, since they're both extremely overrated, in our view. It's always a bad sign when I start looking at my watch at the halfway point in a movie theater.

So no, we're not interested in seeing Maelstrom ruined by adding Frozen characters.

We did enjoy Get a Horse, however.

 

[Cody5242]

How odd, but our family is clearly in the minority here. Not one of us had any use for Frozen. We didn't find the songs memorable, the story persuasive, the jokes funny or the characters likable. In particular, we felt the songs were forced into the narrative, almost disruptive in their style and length. It was definitely our least favorite Disney animated film since Meet the Robinsons. "Best Disney film since the Lion King," a bit of praise so often applied to this movie, is appropriate, since they're both extremely overrated, in our view. It's always a bad sign when I start looking at my watch at the halfway point in a movie theater.

So no, we're not interested in seeing Maelstrom ruined by adding Frozen characters.

We did enjoy Get a Horse, however.

I was going to say everyone has their own opinion and respect your comment until you said The Lion King was overrated...

 

[cheezbat]

So if they're going to replace Maelstrom with a Frozen attraction, what is Frozen going to replace in Disneyland? The Matterhorn?

If Frozen needs to be an attraction, why can't it be something completely new?

 

[PREMiERdrum]

So if they're going to replace Maelstrom with a Frozen attraction, what is Frozen going to replace in Disneyland? The Matterhorn?

If Frozen needs to be an attraction, why can't it be something completely new?

It seems to me that, if they are really trying to do this, their intention would be to get it into the parks ASAP to capitalize on this hot franchise.

 

[tissandtully]

How odd, but our family is clearly in the minority here. Not one of us had any use for Frozen. We didn't find the songs memorable, the story persuasive, the jokes funny or the characters likable. In particular, we felt the songs were forced into the narrative, almost disruptive in their style and length. It was definitely our least favorite Disney animated film since Meet the Robinsons. "Best Disney film since the Lion King," a bit of praise so often applied to this movie, is appropriate, since they're both extremely overrated, in our view. It's always a bad sign when I start looking at my watch at the halfway point in a movie theater.

So no, we're not interested in seeing Maelstrom ruined by adding Frozen characters.

We did enjoy Get a Horse, however.

Indulge me, what do you consider a good movie?

 

[aladdin2007]

So if they're going to replace Maelstrom with a Frozen attraction, what is Frozen going to replace in Disneyland? The Matterhorn?

If Frozen needs to be an attraction, why can't it be something completely new?

Cause they dont want to spend the money.

 

[docandsix]

Indulge me, what do you consider a good movie?

Well, I consider The Princess and the Frog one of the best Disney films ever. When discussing films of a similar nature, I would watch Tangled a dozen times before subjecting myself to Frozen again. Anything Pixar has made, with the obvious and unfortunate exception of Cars 2, makes Frozen look like amateur hour, in my opinion.

In our house, we rate movies according to the value of the money and time spent seeing them. Almost nothing is deemed worthy of seeing it in a first-run theater in 3-D. Gravity was. Most Disney and Pixar films earn the designation of seeing them for full price in traditional format. Some stuff (lots from Dreamworks) is worth the price of a ticket at a second-run theater, and some things are worthy of nothing more than a DVD rental. We usually scrutinize our choices well enough that very few films get the "not worth seeing at all" stamp, but it happens occasionally.

In retrospect, if I had my choice, I would've seen Get a Horse on a big screen in 3-D and waited for Frozen to hit the cheap theaters. All of my kids and my wife agree. (We're big on unanimity. )

As for the Lion King, with the exception of the brilliant opening sequence, it struck me as oddly clichéd and shallow from my first viewing. This review reflects my feelings pretty well: http://decentfilms.com/reviews/lionking

 

[Matt_Black]

It was definitely our least favorite Disney animated film since Meet the Robinsons.

... The startling thing about this is the implication that you apparently believe that Meet The Robinsons is worse than Home on the Range.

 

[JerseyDad]

....the 'cartoonification" of Epcot ....is sickening ...depressing ...and an insult to anyone that possess a modicum of intelligence. Because it's Disney's way of implying that "you can't really understand or appreciate Norway ...without an animated Princess, a Prince, and some inane 'marketable mascot' character ...like a snowman.

 

[rnese]

... The startling thing about this is the implication that you apparently believe that Meet The Robinsons is worse than Home on the Range.

I haven't liked a Disney movie since The Apple Dumpling Gang Rides Again!

 

[MikeTaylorSound]

If there was a new Frozen ride, it would have to be indoors. It'd be hilarious if they just made a Frozen skating rink (with meet-and-greet location) in place of the Voyage of the Little Mermaid show in HS.

Hollywood Studios needs the most overhauling and since BatB stage show is closing, it'd be easy to just move the Little Mermaid show over there and make that building a Frozen skating rink. Instead of the bubbles, they can use the snow machines every 15 minutes.

 

[boydabus]

First, Don't shoot me for this! I did not read through all 22 pages to see if someone mentioned what I'm about to post!

I'm definitely not game for changing Norway's ride. I think they should build new, and near Norway. Now Epcot has extra land room, so why don't they build between Mexico and Norway.

here's a fun read and great visuals:
http://www.yesterland.com/worldshowcase.html

Let's face it, if they want to keep that land open because they think they are going to be getting more countries to join in the world showcase......they're dreaming! They can't even update the out of date Pavilions they currently have. I sound like I'm bashing, and I don't mean to. I'm just upset at the potential these pavilions have, yet nothing is ever done. I'm sorry but the Canadian pavilion is the biggest joke I've seen in a while. Thank god they have an amazing restaurant!

 

[Voxel]

....the 'cartoonification" of Epcot ....is sickening ...depressing ...and an insult to anyone that possess a modicum of intelligence. Because it's Disney's way of implying that "you can't really understand or appreciate Norway ...without an animated Princess, a Prince, and some inane 'marketable mascot' character ...like a snowman.

If this done right this wouldn't be a cartoonification of Epcot. You can have cartoon elements and still be Educational. Early Disney did a great job with the World of Color (and other television shows) with the use of Von Drake. IF done right it could end up better for all.

 

[aladdin2007]

If this done right this wouldn't be a cartoonification of Epcot. You can have cartoon elements and still be Educational. Early Disney did a great job with the World of Color (and other television shows) with the use of Von Drake. IF done right it could end up better for all.

True but that was early Disney whom I agree were masters at it. Today however were dealing with a Disney that left SE in hideous disarray in its second half and is fine with it, and shoehorned in three birds into Mexico in the cheapest way possible. Just to name a couple. When it comes to Epcot they havent been winning.

 

[JenniferS]

First, Don't shoot me for this! I did not read through all 22 pages to see if someone mentioned what I'm about to post!

I'm definitely not game for changing Norway's ride. I think they should build new, and near Norway. Now Epcot has extra land room, so why don't they build between Mexico and Norway.

here's a fun read and great visuals:
http://www.yesterland.com/worldshowcase.html

Let's face it, if they want to keep that land open because they think they are going to be getting more countries to join in the world showcase......they're dreaming! They can't even update the out of date Pavilions they currently have. I sound like I'm bashing, and I don't mean to. I'm just upset at the potential these pavilions have, yet nothing is ever done. I'm sorry but the Canadian pavilion is the biggest joke I've seen in a while. Thank god they have an amazing restaurant!

Thanks for the link. Great read.

As a Canadian, I too find the pavilion to be undewhelming.
Despite the beautiful waterfall and entertaining Off Kilter, the majestic Hotel du Canada is grossly under-utilized, the beaver tails are extinct, and the Circle Vision film would be better received if it were only 180 degrees and offered seats. I mean, you spend so much time standing and walking at EC, that a cool, padded seat would be lovely.

 

[Sped2424]

Lets not let this thread turn into an opinion on the film thread as there is already one out there for that http://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/your-review-of-frozen.877368/ . Now should Disney do this ride in Maelstroms space? No, there are way better area's as many have stated for them to put in a frozen land, even using the land next to mexico is a better idea than gutting maelstrom although less preferable as fake countries don't belong in the world showcase. Could this make a great attraction? I definitely think so if the visuals are anything to go by. But TDO is going to be cheap and overlay maelstrom rather than actually put time and effort into giving this film an E ticket attraction which they very well could do.

 

[docandsix]

... The startling thing about this is the implication that you apparently believe that Meet The Robinsons is worse than Home on the Range.

Ummm... Home on the Range was released in April 2004, almost three years earlier than Meet the Robinsons, so your inference is incorrect.