Too many people cant see past their own desire for instant gratification that they continue to miss the point that more intelligent people make in regards to not having 2 Magic Kingdoms and that some people dont settle for, "its fun and its Disney"...unless your a 6 year old. Probly time to change your diaper.
I'd argue that the only reason they love it is because its becoming MK 2.0.
I'll say this again: decisions like this are
not making Epcot more similar to the Magic Kingdom. In fact, they are making it
less like the MK -- and that's the problem.
MK by and large does a great job of having well executed themed lands. Yes, there is the occasional attraction or design that is not ideal, but even the outliers have some tenuous relationship to where they are located. In fact, the most recent change at MK (the Fantasyland expansion) actually helped to strengthen the theming at that area of the park.
We all (I think) want the theme parks to have, well, solid theming. That's kinda the point. The problem with Epcot is not "they are using IP" -- though I know some folks don't like they using established IP at all -- but really that the said IP
doesn't fit the established themes. Ramming in an IP that doesn't make sense to the environment creates the discontinuity that is in issue.
It's okay for the parks to have a similar setup in concept as long as the theming is distinct between parks to given them each their own character. In a bit of irony, perhaps, the resort which has a second park
most like a MK-style castle park is highly praised Tokyo -- Tokyo DisneySea is has a layout and structure very similar to a castle park just with (1) an overall tie to "bodies of water" and (2) different land concepts than that used in its neighbor park. As a result, TDS
compliments TDL despite the similarities. Nonetheless, TDS is full of IP and that doesn't cause folks to dismiss it as "TDL 2.0". The issue is in execution, not the basic level of content.
What does that mean for Epcot? While there are those who are hardcore against any pre-established "toons" marring the park, I suspect the vast majority of fans would be okay with established IPs being used
when they fit the theming. If there was a robotics exhibit that featured Baymax but actually educated the guests about robotics, perhaps in their use with medicine, then that would make sense for Epcot. But how in the world does GotG fit the "mission statement" for Epcot? They don't in any way.
The thing is that what really makes Epcot distinct from MK is not the lack of characters but the premise of the park -- it being an examination of the real world (perhaps an idealized version, but real nonetheless) and being an inspiration for the future. Whereas MK is more based on fantasy. You can use IPs and still have a grounded, real, inspirational and educational Epcot. My point is that you can still have an Epcot that is distinct in character to MK even if more IPs are added. It's not the use of IPs that is the issue so much as how they are used -- using the proper IPs in the proper way could work. But you can't just force something into place because you want them to have a park presence.
As an aside, wouldn't it be interesting if Royal Sommerhus was set up as a home belonging to Queen Sonja or Princess Märtha Louise (y'know, the actual royalty of Norway) which is being used by Princesses Anna and Elsa as their guests? That would IMHO be a cool way to properly integrate the M&G into the pavilion.
