It is not about what I think. Being inspired by Norway and being set in Norway are two totally different things. The movie takes place in a fictional land and so even on that front it still does not make sense to be in a land that is meant to showcase the real country of Norway. I made a point earlier and I think it something that get glossed over, we can all be upset by the changes but think what visitors from Norway must feel when they see countries like France and China have cool lands with movies celebrating their culture, and Norway has the latest princess movie slightly inspired by Norway.
I think folks from Norway are just fine - economically at least, as there reportedly was no measurable uptick or reason to believe that the Norway pavillion ever had an impact on tourism, yet Frozen has led to massive increases in tourism to Norway. Given that the
country's tourist sites want to tell you all about how connected they are with the film, you can bet that at least they are OK with it representing them in that aspect. (Let's not forget, these were initially "sold" to the participating companies from the participating countries as essentially travel booths to encourage tourism to begin with, not little museums.)
As to general Norwegians who aren't Disney fans at sites like this? They probably aren't that disturbed either - particularly since the ride itself was so esoteric to begin with. There are more actual connections with Norway-specific history (from the author of the original work to the research and design done for the film) with this new ride than the last one, if you really are honest about it. Maelstrom was more about general Scandinavian history with it's Vikings and Trolls.
We have this view of WS as Disney Parks fans of being some bastion of cultural awareness - but in fact, these days, in general, it's teetering on cultural stereotypes. The world is changing (for better or worse) and I think you are going to see more of this happening at WS, for the opposite reasons as you think - because we are entering an age where, no matter how reverent we see it to be, it's going to be considered much less offensive to have a character/film inspired by to represent your country, than building quaint caricatures of what we perceive their culture to be and presenting it as authentic replicas.
To put the shoe on the other foot - imagine that France (the real country) was building a "USA pavilion". If they represented us in a ride the way that we represented Norway in Maelstrom (Vikings, Trolls, Oil Rig), you would have a ride showing the people on the Mayflower, the Salem Witch trials, and a 1970's style factory production line.
How attached would you be to that? How much connection would you have? You might find it amusing, or you might actually find it offensive if they were selling that as what it was like to be an American. I'm not sure it would encourage visitors, either...
Again, don't get me wrong - I loved that dank creepy little dark ride. I'll miss it. But it was not what some are making it out to be - and one can disagree with Frozen without elevating Maelstrom to such lofty heights it really didn't achieve.
Also what a shame for such a good movie to get such a limited space. There literally is room at Magic Kingdom or even Hollywood Studios to build a new land or single ride. Yet they decide to place it in a small corner in a ride with terrible capacity to begin with. So you can throw the thematic portion of the argument out the window and still be left with no way to defend the other half of the problem...Disney was to cheap to build a quality attraction.
See, this is where again - those arguments are not mutually exclusive. We are so damn political on these boards it's honestly starting to frighten me. Because no one wants to have any nuance anymore. No one seems to want to admit that you don't have to be totally on one side or the other of something, that "if you are a real Disney/Parks/Theme Park fan then you must think this way!" thing that is so prevalent at the moment.
I completely agree. I wish Frozen had been given some $400M spectacular ride.
Funny thing is - if they had done that, a
good portion of the folks who are using that argument right now - perhaps not you, but a good amount, who would then be mad if Frozen got that much budget/attention. Just like folks complained about not enough Frozen before there was too much Frozen...Frozen is very polarizing to begin with. But since it sounds good, even though they'd really be "Why can't that money go to a CLASSIC Disney film??!!", they are saying it now.
In any case - like I said. I agree. I wish Disney was doing all kinds of stuff and building all kinds of big, immersive rides. But the butthurt over this is just wayyyy overstated - at least SOMETHING new in WS, and to be honest - it sounds like a pretty cool little ride. It's going to have enormous operational issues, no doubt - it's a far from perfect project - but the things folks keep harping on aren't the real problems, because those discussions about how this is going to work would be a lot more interesting than the endlessly repetitive and futile argument that it shouldn't have happened at all.
