Frozen ride replacing Maelstrom?

[MotherOfBirds]

I'm sure they would rather go the Nemo route than build something new. I must say though, I'm glad that they have learned from the Nemo/Stitch mania a decade back. They were both great movies but TDO drove me to hate the properties after they started beating park guests over the head with them. Part of me hopes that (what I perceive as) the comparatively cautious route they've taken thus far is intentional. Or perhaps the Frozen mania is so infectious that they didn't feel the need to drill it in more. Either way, they seem to be learning.

 

[marni1971]

But it's perfectly fine that the rumors area of the forum runs virtually completely on a fickle minority jearing at every single decision that the company makes.

To be fair, TDO have made a few good calls in the last few years.

A few.

 

[willtravel]

I'm sure they would rather go the Nemo route than build something new. I must say though, I'm glad that they have learned from the Nemo/Stitch mania a decade back. They were both great movies but TDO drove me to hate the properties after they started beating park guests over the head with them. Part of me hopes that (what I perceive as) the comparatively cautious route they've taken thus far is intentional. Or perhaps the Frozen mania is so infectious that they didn't feel the need to drill it in more. Either way, they seem to be learning.

You could add POTC in there too........

 

[lazyboy97o]

what is a "true disney fan" anyway?

Sadly I can't blame the general public for thinking this is a good idea, after all what has tdo done to change their perspective on what should belong in epcot and what shouldn't? I wouldn't call them lesser disney fans, maybe less informed, but still fans nonetheless. Had epcot kept it's original charm and intent and continued it perhaps the general public today would have seen this as a poor move.

There is a significant contingent of Disney fans that are not theme park fans. Like Disney themselves they do not consider theme parks legitimate creative mediums, only go to Disney theme parks and only go to those parks because they are Disney branded. They only want to see what they already know as Disney, not something new or different. They entirely deny the strong, vibrant history of Disney going beyond what they know, especially in regards to theme parks which they happily accept as being heartless marketing shills.

 

[Kman101]

There is a significant contingent of Disney fans that are not theme park fans. Like Disney themselves they do not consider theme parks legitimate creative mediums, only go to Disney theme parks and only go to those parks because they are Disney branded. They only want to see what they already know as Disney, not something new or different. They entirely deny the strong, vibrant history of Disney going beyond what they know, especially in regards to theme parks which they happily accept as being heartless marketing shills.

This.

I cringe when I hear someone or read an article that states the park wasn't "Disney enough". Like Animal Kingdom. What's "Disney enough" for you? LOL I mean, I don't get it.

 

[dadddio]

I could make it more linear or cite specific examples if thats easier for you.

It amounts to the same. A minority decide that virtually every decision is a bad one, so they rail about them. You support that by taking the position that if the decision was poor, it's not a jeer. That is the very definition of circular logic.

 

[Cesar R M]

This.

I cringe when I hear someone or read an article that states the park wasn't "Disney enough". Like Animal Kingdom. What's "Disney enough" for you? LOL I mean, I don't get it.

So, you need to haemorrhage, vomit and crap pixie dust for it to be "Disney enough"? lol

 

[Kman101]

Apparently it needs to be cartoonified to feel like Disney. I guess they'd have to call it Mickey's Kilimanjaro Safaris, or Tigger's River Rapids.

 

[Daannzzz]

This.

I cringe when I hear someone or read an article that states the park wasn't "Disney enough". Like Animal Kingdom. What's "Disney enough" for you? LOL I mean, I don't get it.

Or will only stay at the All Stars or PoP because Port Orleans, the Wilderness Lodge and Grand Floridian etc. are "Not Disney Enough"

 

[Kman101]

Or will only stay at the All Stars or PoP because Port Orleans, the Wilderness Lodge and Grand Floridian etc. are "Not Disney Enough"

Yep!

I mean, to each their own, but it's sad so many don't seem to appreciate the great theming DISNEY does.

 

[wdisney9000]

It amounts to the same. A minority decide that virtually every decision is a bad one, so they rail about them. You support that by taking the position that if the decision was poor, it's not a jeer. That is the very definition of circular logic.

So by that logic, any position I take is circular logic if I dont agree with you. Your logical fallacy would be tu quoque. You always answer criticism with criticism.

 

[COrunner]

I cringe when I hear someone or read an article that states the park wasn't "Disney enough". Like Animal Kingdom. What's "Disney enough" for you? LOL I mean, I don't get it.

Me neither,

I don't understand when fandom became a polarizing you have to love it or hate it with no middle. I get that sometimes creating debate is interesting and healthy.

Here is their dilemma as I see it. Disney has a 3 front war that they are fighting

1. Disney loyalists, to them Disney should be Walt's time capsule and be a non-changing slice of yesteryear, any changes that were not made by Walt are sacrilege and a greedy corporate cash grab.

2. Disney 2.0 people, grew up with Disney emphasizing more and more tween culture, the emphasis wasn't the park but the movies/music/clothing.

3. Pixar Disney, I would say these are the folks that see John L as Walt reincarnated and that there should be more and more devoted to his vision and movies/characters and don't like that Disney is 'pushing princesses'.

I think the majority of people here are purists and encompass parts of all three of those, but my outside looking in experience points that the groups above are the ones that constantly in fight over what is 'Disney enough' and hate why certain changes are made and others aren't.

 

[Mike S]

Me neither,

I don't understand when fandom became a polarizing you have to love it or hate it with no middle. I get that sometimes creating debate is interesting and healthy.

Here is their dilemma as I see it. Disney has a 3 front war that they are fighting

1. Disney loyalists, to them Disney should be Walt's time capsule and be a non-changing slice of yesteryear, any changes that were not made by Walt are sacrilege and a greedy corporate cash grab.

2. Disney 2.0 people, grew up with Disney emphasizing more and more tween culture, the emphasis wasn't the park but the movies/music/clothing.

3. Pixar Disney, I would say these are the folks that see John L as Walt reincarnated and that there should be more and more devoted to his vision and movies/characters and don't like that Disney is 'pushing princesses'.

I think the majority of people here are purists and encompass parts of all three of those, but my outside looking in experience points that the groups above are the ones that constantly in fight over what is 'Disney enough' and hate why certain changes are made and others aren't.

I think your system is a little flawed. I, and a good number of other people here, don't fit into ANY of those groups. Where's the group of Disney fans who remember the old standard of quality and criticize Disney for not keeping to it?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Me neither,

I don't understand when fandom became a polarizing you have to love it or hate it with no middle. I get that sometimes creating debate is interesting and healthy.

Here is their dilemma as I see it. Disney has a 3 front war that they are fighting

1. Disney loyalists, to them Disney should be Walt's time capsule and be a non-changing slice of yesteryear, any changes that were not made by Walt are sacrilege and a greedy corporate cash grab.

2. Disney 2.0 people, grew up with Disney emphasizing more and more tween culture, the emphasis wasn't the park but the movies/music/clothing.

3. Pixar Disney, I would say these are the folks that see John L as Walt reincarnated and that there should be more and more devoted to his vision and movies/characters and don't like that Disney is 'pushing princesses'.

I think the majority of people here are purists and encompass parts of all three of those, but my outside looking in experience points that the groups above are the ones that constantly in fight over what is 'Disney enough' and hate why certain changes are made and others aren't.

Those are some really poorly definite groupings with huge chunks missing. Groups 1 and 3 do not actually exist and Group 2 would only be a very recent occurrence.

 

[aladdin2007]

I think your system is a little flawed. I, and a good number of other people here, don't fit into ANY of those groups. Where's the group of Disney fans who remember the old standard of quality and criticize Disney for not keeping to it?

ooo ooo raising hand, yes thats the group I fall into.

 

[Matt_Black]

The problem with the "old standard" is that it's old. Epcot, for example. Back then, we weren't as plugged in, and technology wasn't moving along quite as fast as it is now. It's very hard to do the futurist part of Future World when advancements happen much faster, making certain aspects of attractions obsolete.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Are there plans for the expansion pad between Mexico and Norway? They could give Frozen its own attraction by expanding into that spot if they wanted to. It's not like they're running low on expansion pads in WS

That's not even a bad idea. Build the Kingom of Arendelle in its own WS plot, sell it as a real place. Half of the crowd rooting for Frozen to replace Norway would never even know Arendelle is not an actual country. Nor will half the WS drunks. Meanwhile the EPCOT lovers at least don't have to watch their park get defiled further.

 

[Mike S]

The problem with the "old standard" is that it's old. Epcot, for example. Back then, we weren't as plugged in, and technology wasn't moving along quite as fast as it is now. It's very hard to do the futurist part of Future World when advancements happen much faster, making certain aspects of attractions obsolete.

I wasn't talking about the original ideas of EPCOT Center. I'm talking about the standard of quality that Disney used to push resort wide. Keeping everything working and fresh, adding new attractions in a reasonable timeframe and not just trying to squeeze every last penny out of their guests. I wasn't able to visit Disney World in the 80's but I still have noticed a drop in quality from the trips I remember in the mid to late 90's and the early 2000's.

 

[Matt_Black]

I wasn't able to visit Disney World in the 80's but I still have noticed a drop in quality from the trips I remember in the mid to late 90's and the early 2000's.

While there are issues, I'm sure part of the perceived drop in quality is simply due to human nature. "The Golden Age was never the current age", to quote Ben Franklin in The American Adventure Experience.

 

[Mike S]

While there are issues, I'm sure part of the perceived drop in quality is simply due to human nature. "The Golden Age was never the current age", to quote Ben Franklin in The American Adventure Experience.

I don't think the still broken Yeti can be attributed to my own human nature. Same goes for many other drops in quality that are too numerous to list.