ChrisFL
Premium Member
Get a whole new country that uses the same buildings as Norway as a solution to a dated video?
Sure, they could make it Finland!
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Maelstrom's crappy new exit
- Thread starter captainkidd
- Start date
Sure, they could make it Finland!
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
You're entirely right, my memory was a little hazy!
But, yes, the government did stop funding which I think is a big part of the reason Disney feels they can pretty much do what they want with the pavillion. If someone would pick up the tab and a new film was shot, I'm sure Disney would start forcing people to watch the film again!
aladdin2007
Well-Known Member
True, thats one reason why (among others) Akershus became a character zoo because Disney could do what they wanted.
A Norwegian film company was wanting to do a new film for the pavilion a few years back around the time the government dropped funding, they were willing to pay for it etc etc, not sure what happened but it all fell through. Disneys terms must be awfully difficult, I think its time they rework how they do it, and then we might start seeing new sponsorships etc. The Norwegian Embassy still gives vocal support for the pavilion but nothing more.
mickey2008.1
Well-Known Member
i've always loved the village inside and think it would be cool to take the maie out and make it like mexico inside with a restaurant.
I always wonder why people believe that the World Showcase (or even everything else) at Epcot depends on outside sponsorship: Disney runs a theme park and shouldn't be those attractions in the theme park be the investment by the company who gets the profits?
I understand that in the past Disney was able to get a lot of investment costs covered through sponsorship, but not because there is some law that they have to, but because they were able to and wanted to go this route. And as far as I know there are a few pavillions in the WS that were built without (or very little) sponsorship because those were countries that Disney felt they had to include?
T-1MILLION
New Member
Yes it should be the way but they love the cheaper way too much to do many things.
Thanks! So it is a choice to only refurbish with an outside sponsor, not a necessity...
Bonemachine
New Member
I've only ridden Maelstrom once when I was a little kid and I remember being baffled that they forced us to watch a movie after the ride was already over. Pre ride - in the queue, sure. That makes sense but post ride? Where's the logic in that? They should take out all the seats/benches and make it a little walk-through exhibit with Viking artifacts or anything else about Norway.
unkadug
Follower of "Saget"The Cult
I agree...the whole "movie after the attraction" is very anti-climatic.
You would think that Disney, being in the story telling business, would have realized this by now. :shrug:
They already have that in the Stave Church. Pretty nifty, too.
WorldKey
Member
Again - you are assuming and making judgements on your own opinion (as do a lot of people on these forums - 'I don't like it so I can't possibly see why anyone else would'). I'm not saying to MAKE people watch a movie that, yes, a lot of us enjoy. I just think they need to create a solution that doesn't ruin it for those who want to watch the movie. Again, open your mind and think about noisy people walking in front of you while you are watching your favorite show at WDW. If this has been the design since 1986, then I doubt that 6 months more of people waiting for Disney to construct a cheap solution to divert the crowd is asking too much.
Mansion Butler
Active Member
I would very much be unhappy if people were walking through my favorite show. But if fewer people were inconvenienced by my show getting interrupted than by not allowing them to walk through, the right thing is to inconvenience the minority (me).
Again, open your mind and think about what pleases the highest number.
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
I think this is kind of the flaw in the Epcot model and the reason it's devolved into a bit of a mess in recent years. It should be able to run like any other theme park with sponsorship just one of many sources of revenue. Instead, Disney seems to run it according to the principle that sponsorship is the starting point for building new attractions or refreshing old ones. Perhaps it's because so much of the park is already so heavily sponsored that, for example, if Disney started paying out of its own pocket to refresh one country's pavillions then groups sponsoring other pavillions would fail to see why they were throwing their own money at Disney.
Well stated.
T-1MILLION
New Member
The point of an attraction throughout is to attract people to it and ideally entertain them. Can't blame the people for being honest and either not caring to see a film after a ride(which we have beaten like a dead horse it is a poor design choice) or giving up partway through and taking the exit option(which shows you that it is not really an engaging film to begin with)
A five min film from 1989 that people don't care to watch...
the customer/guest is always right.
A five min film from 1989 that people don't care to watch...
the customer/guest is always right.
It is very sad, but I think your explanation makes quite a lot of sense. However, one could also try to sell it that way: If Disney were to update some (unsponsored) parts of Epcot it is in order to provide a higher quality experience to the park visitors and this would reflect positively on those sponsored pavillions. Who wants to sponsor something in a stale environment? I guess that approach is more risky and needs more persuading, so it is easier to just not do anything. Very sad...
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
Perhaps if there were some Makol beer available during performances