ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
It's also a cesspool.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Whoopimecalit Forever? Thankfully no...
- Thread starter LiterallyNobody
- Start date
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
In fairness, The Maelstrom was always more Presentational than Immersive - Odin's Narration set up the ride as an exploration of the Spirit of Norway rather than a more literal approximation of voyage through it.
The Narration even sets up pretty clearly that the myths of Trolls aren't necessarily true, but that the mythology is a real and a storied part of the country's history and culture:
"There are those who see Norway’s spirit veiled in a land of forests and mystery—where trolls still prowl the water’s edge" . . .
Compare that to Frozen Ever After, where the experience is presented as a genuine trip through Arendelle (not even Norway), where Talking Snowmen are not only possible, but the one in front of you is meant to be taken as the real and genuine article.
The Maelstrom was essentially a Travelogue in Ride Form. Frozen Ever After is meant to be an excursion into a Fantasy Realm that doesn't really have a basis in Norwegian culture beyond the aesthetic being inspired by it. That's quite a conceptual turn for World Showcase.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Not saying Disney should pander to the Twitter mob, but that 2% of the population probably has disproportionately significant influence.
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, I think you're right.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
I do wish they’d remove all that Norway stuff from the Arendelle pavilion.
[EDIT: KIDDING!!]
_caleb
Well-Known Member
This is what I think most people don’t understand when they say they don’t mind the IP-ification of World Showcase. Some obviously fit better than others, but in general, add IP means removing the “a tour of an idealized representation of a real place” angle, which was about culture as well as setting.
Brer Oswald
Well-Known Member
It’s 100% about controlling the narrative. If you don’t own it and aren’t vocal about it, someone else will be. Twitter is a convenient platform for many to do exactly that.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
WDWMagic is quite a convenient platform for this as well.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
Admittedly, I haven't rewatched Three Caballeros, but aside from them playing mariachi music in the end, what do they add to the proceedings that is culturally relevant?
The future of EPCOT will continue to involve IP, I just hope that it's the right IP. "Three Caballeros doesn't belong in EPCOT" is not a hill I'm going to die on. There are much bigger problems in that park and my greater point is that if they can legally do it, Wakanda is very befitting. The movie is about so many things and is important to so many people. If you just take the speech at the UN and the concept of the Wakanda outreach center it would be a very solid fit to Future World or Showcase Plaza.
EPCOT used to be aspirational and inspirational as both a look towards the future and the unity of all nations. The sentiments expressed in that speech would be befitting of a dedication plaque for the park.
Add in the fact that the movie is of tremendous cultural importance and EPCOT would be the park best suited to showcase that importance and I truly think it belongs. Having said that, if they were looking to give it the full Galaxy's Edge treatment as opposed to a single attraction / pavilion, than I would be more in favor of it being in DHS.
Brer Oswald
Well-Known Member
Not as big of a reach. And I feel like more people on here think for themselves.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
I just like that we can disagree here and still (mostly) be civil. Not so on Twitter!
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
I feel that the cultural argument falls apart pretty quickly when you think about it. For example, people seem OK with the idea of a Mary Poppins attraction, even though it wouldn't provide any real insight into the UK. The Mount Fuji coaster, which I believe was planned for the Japan Pavilion from the outset, would likewise be of zero educational value. As far as I can tell, the main issue people have with Frozen as an IP is that it's set in a fictionalised version of Norway rather than in Norway proper. But the film has a closer relationship to that country than, say, Snow White does to Germany, or Aladdin does to Morocco.
Brer Oswald
Well-Known Member
Three Cabs show’s traditional dancing, music (not Mariachi), holiday celebrations, landmarks, geography, etc. The settings of the film are real countries. The characters are just cultural representatives, or hosts.
I think that fits World Showcase more than any of the other IPs they’ve chosen for the other countries. You can criticize the ride all you want, but it was a good choice of IP, and any revision of said attraction would be best represented by that IP as opposed to any other current property. I do think there should be more of an emphasis on the country’s geography, landmarks, and architecture more than anything else, and that goes for all “rides” in World Showcase. You can add a “Disney Spin” on them and still emulate the country’s real beauty.
As for Wakanda, I don’t have anything to argue against. I was only speaking about Frozen and company.
Brer Oswald
Well-Known Member
I agree completely. That’s why I deleted my Twitter account and moved back here.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
I think I was trying to say the same thing you’re saying here. Originally (pre-IP-ification), World Showcase pavilions did try to include some culture in the mix. (Maybe I’m missing something). Adding IP doesn’t generally help with the “culture” element—and often distracts from it.
World Showcase has always been one of my favorite things about WDW because I’m a huge proponent of world travel. So many people don’t (or can’t) travel around the world, and the slight cultural flavor (however generalized) brought by the mix of cultural representative CMs, the food, the music, and the scenery was like a tiny taste of visiting those countries for many WDW guests. Hopefully, those experiences encouraged people to actually travel to the real places.
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
For me the one of the biggest problems with Frozen in Norway is that the attraction, while pretty, is really nothing much at all...it's not even really a book report of the film. The only 2 scenes that had any real detail in them (aside from animatronics) were the one with the trolls, and the one super-quick and far-away (and mostly blocked) glimpse you get of Arendelle castle and the town. All the other scenes were mostly empty...which makes sense for Elsa's song in her ice castle, but for all the other scenes, I really feel like there was a lot of missed opportunity to build some really beautiful physical sets (or painted flats for the area with close walls) with wow-factors similar to flying over London in Peter Pan's Flight. The lack of physical set-making and reliance on blue lights and white snow makes it feel entirely too cartoonish to belong in the Norway pavilion, IMO. I really feel like had they not limited themselves to so many scenes involving snow and focused on a larger variety of locations, that they'd have had a much more well-rounded (and liked) attraction when they were done.
Then there's the space lost to the Anna and Elsa M&G (I really, REALLY wish Disney would stop categorizing M&Gs as attractions).
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
I think we're saying somewhat different things, though I agree with much of your post. My main point was that some of the criteria that people invoke when approving of or objecting to a particular IP's inclusion aren't all that convincing or consistent to me.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
These are fair criticisms!
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
I think including more locations would have allowed them to highlight some of the textiles and architecture inspired by Norway as well, which would have helped connect the attraction to the pavilion more.