Frozen ride replacing Maelstrom?

[wm49rs]

Putting a Frozen attraction in Fantasyland would require an expansion and hundreds of millions. Expanding the park would be the most expensive part.

7DMT is a single attraction placed in a pre-existing expansion. To add Frozen, an entire area could have to be cleared and added to the park.

So, because an overlay of the Norway pavilion is the cheaper option, that makes it more palatable, even if the furor over Frozen subsides? Good to know....

 

[Mike S]

Putting a Frozen attraction in Fantasyland would require an expansion and hundreds of millions. Expanding the park would be the most expensive part.

7DMT is a single attraction placed in a pre-existing expansion. To add Frozen, an entire area would have to be cleared and added to the park.

Something that Disney used to have no problem with. Tower of Terror and Sunset Blvd. are a prime example.

 

[BrerJon]

But if you're concerned about the Frozen phenomenon coming to an end, don't convert an actual nation in the World Showcase into a fictional one. Build a new and sustainable ride (such as SDMT) that would survive a dropoff in the popularity of the film....

WDW has form for producing attractions based on theatrical flops that still do well years later... remember how Countdown To Extinction became DINOSAUR! That didn't exactly set the box-office alight.

So I'm sure a good Frozen ride will be popular for years to come even if the movie did prove to be a passing fad instead of a classic like Beast or Mermaid. The question is, will the Maelstrom replacement be that ride?

 

[PlutoHasFleas]

As in the one opposite of yours that you declared was rude?

I was repeatedly being told to read once I had already stated that I have done my fair share of reading, and I found that to be rude. I never called anyone rude for taking the opposing side.

 

[wm49rs]

WDW has form for producing attractions based on theatrical flops that still do well years later... remember how Countdown To Extinction became DINOSAUR! That didn't exactly set the box-office alight.

So I'm sure a good Frozen ride will be popular for years to come even if the movie did prove to be a passing fad instead of a classic like Beast or Mermaid. The question is, will the Maelstrom replacement be that ride?

Arendelle will be that pavilion, in addition to the ride within....

 

[wm49rs]

I was repeatedly being told to read once I had already stated that I have done my fair share of reading, and I found that to be rude. I never called anyone rude for taking the opposing side.

You were advised to read the earlier pages because you were making blanket assumptions about posters on this forum. Easier to do when simply talking to an audience, instead of one that replies, I suppose....

 

[PlutoHasFleas]

Something that Disney used to have no problem with. Tower of Terror and Sunset Blvd. are a prime example.

Tower of Terror was not the only thing involved with that expansion, and it wasn't like they added "Twilight Zone Land".

 

[PlutoHasFleas]

You were advised to read the earlier pages because you were making blanket assumptions about posters on this forum. Easier to do when simply talking to an audience, instead of one that replies, I suppose....

Again, I never once singled out the opinions of this forum alone. I have seen many different objections on many different sites and forums, and have taken all of them in to account when I made my statement. I do not see how that can be conceived as being rude. I am not saying anyone is wrong for their opinions.

 

[wm49rs]

Again, I never once singled out the opinions of this forum alone. I have seen many different objections on many different sites and forums, and have taken all of them in to account when I made my statement. I do not see how that can be conceived as being rude. I am not saying anyone is wrong for their opinions.

Ok....

 

[Mike S]

Tower of Terror was not the only thing involved with that expansion, and it wasn't like they added "Twilight Zone Land".

It was when it was built. Rockin' Rollercoaster didn't come till 1999. The land opened in '94. Yes they didn't build "Twilight Zone Land", they did something much better. They built a place that feels real with the Twilight Zone theming limited to the hotel itself. It wouldn't have been the same if it was "Twilight Zone Land".

One of the best themed areas in all of WDW.

 

[PlutoHasFleas]

Darn good questions for TDO. Or a podcast....

But that's discussion for the Imagineering forum, or a podcast....

Easier to do when simply talking to an audience, instead of one that replies, I suppose....

Are these serious attempts to insult me?

 

[PlutoHasFleas]

It was when it was built. Rockin' Rollercoaster didn't come till 1999. The land opened in '94. Yes they didn't build "Twilight Zone Land", they did something much better. They built a place that feels real with the Twilight Zone theming limited to the hotel itself. It wouldn't have been the same if it was "Twilight Zone Land".
View attachment 65019
One of the best themed areas in all of WDW.

If I am correct, the Beauty & The Beast live show was included in the expansion you speak of, and was a huge draw for MGM upon opening and has nothing to do with ToT.

 

[minsmk]

Thank you. I was stuck in WS. I hardly think WoL was something to complain about being shut down. The 80's mall simulator and expensive science fair were chewing up money just keeping them open. I miss the giant DNA sculpture, but good riddance.

Err, sometimes you need to be a bit more careful about what you say. As a child I really enjoyed this "80's mall" because I had an interest in heath and CC was one of the funniest (And dated..) shows ever. Heck, after I went to WOL the first time I started talking to my grandmother (Who was a nurse) about all sorts of things. And now I have an interest in going in that field one day.

Yeah maybe WOL didn't teach me anything, but it got me interested in a subject.. Heck TLS got me interested in marine biology when I was 6 lol. I think Epcot gave kids the idea that they could go into anything they wanted. They could learn the fun way. And that's what I really miss, coming from a creative person I like the new test track. But it doesn't get down in the nitty gritty of car testing like the first did.

Basically putting Frozen in Maelstrom just defeats the purpose of what Epcot meant.. Learning and getting kids (Both girls and boys.) interested in all sorts of subjects. What's Frozen going to teach people about norway? That they took "Inspiration" from the country to make Arendelle.. I guess that's interesting to an artist (like me) but to kids? Ehh nah. Probably not.

 

[wm49rs]

Are these serious attempts to insult me?

Simply stating my opines. Take them as you will....

 

[Mike S]

If I am correct, the Beauty & The Beast live show was included in the expansion you speak of, and was a huge draw for MGM upon opening and has nothing to do with ToT.

Ok so Beauty and the Beast opened as well, doesn't disprove my point at all that Disney used to be perfectly willing to drastically expand in the parks.

 

[PlutoHasFleas]

Ok so Beauty and the Beast opened as well, doesn't disprove my point at all that Disney used to be perfectly willing to drastically expand in the parks.

Used to? What about the enormous expansion that was just completed in MK. Another expansion specifically for one film doesn't make sense and would be impractical.

 

[PlutoHasFleas]

Simply stating my opines. Take them as you will....

How clever of you.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Oh please. The majority of the objections I have seen have strictly been about how Frozen doesn't belong in the World Showcase. TBH, anyone who would object to an update of a 30 year old attraction has something to do with nostalgia and wanting things at WDW to stay the same.

Two seperate issues. The attraction can be updated without Frozen.

Why does the majority believe that Frozen will raze the Norway pavilion? TDO can keep the entire attraction set in Norway with a simple character overlay. Take a look at my Armchair Imagineering. The only location that is fictional IP is Elsa's Ice Palace, which by canon, was built instantly using magic and can absolutely be moved to Norway (Maybe Elsa bequeaths the throne of Arendale to Anna and Kristoff, leaving her free to move her icy abode anywhere she wants.).

This way, Norway and Maelstrom (to an extant) can remain intact, maintaining the general nature of the pavilion.

When you have to make so many leaps of explanation you've failed at place making.

o, we do have an idea as to what direction Disney will not be going in. It will not be the destruction of Norway and the rise of Arendale in it's wake. That is far to drastic of a change, and again, completely compromises the integrity of WS.

A snack counter does not a NorwayPavilion make.

I have worked with Disney for the last 21 years Finally, we have started to update and change "stale" features and the majority doesn't want change. What a sad day when change can depress the general public.

Disney has earned its own reputation and the subsequent distrust of fans.

Where, might I ask, would a Frozen attraction be better suited?

How about nowhere? The film's setting was not overly critical to the narrative of two sisters.

 

[wm49rs]

How clever of you.

Agreed....

 

[PlutoHasFleas]

Two seperate issues. The attraction can be updated without Frozen.

But Disney doesn't want to pay for it. The money either comes from Norway or Frozen, and Norway said 'Let it Go'.

When you have to make so many leaps of explanation you've failed at place making.

Explanations are not necessary, Elsa is magic and her castle isn't stationary. There goes the idea of fictional Arendale, leaving the setting strictly in Norway.

A snack counter does not a NorwayPavilion make.

A popular character overlay is hardly equivalent to a snack counter.

How about nowhere? The film's setting was not overly critical to the narrative of two sisters.

Umm, so keep the parks the way they are? I was lambasted for thinking those kind of opinions are out there...