Frozen Ever After

[OrlandoGuy]

I think I get what @belloq87 means, in that the new rides, successful as they are, lack the effort of placemaking that would tie more into what differentiates Epcot from the other Disney parks…that I do agree with. Functionally, the story/setting for Guardians/Frozen/Ratatouille could just as easily fit into Magic Kingdom or Hollywood Studios in ways that even some of the park’s most bare bones just-for-fun rides (Soarin, Mission Space, Figment) don’t.

 

[UniversalRBLX]

I'd get crucified if I posted the following on a Disney-based forum...

I love the idea of Epcot (both the actual concept and the original park) but it was arguably flawed from the very start. Realistically, Disney was never going to update Epcot's future-based attractions as consistently as technology involved. It was ambitious, but impractical, from a business perspective. Technology, even at that time, was evolving every few years and the pavilions were designed to last 10 years before being rotated out.

I forgot which Imagineering (unofficial) book mentioned that Epcot's original pavilions should have followed closer to what the original Imagination pavilion did - a blend of "whimsy" with edutainment in the background. It was like cramming for an exam 10 minutes before it starts. Nothing will stick to guests.

The fan love (including myself) for Maelstrom comes from it being a decent dark ride located in Epcot that rarely had a long wait. As the park featured more "exciting" rides like Test Track, Soarin, and Mission Space, Maelstrom was still "traditional" and was always a relatively low wait. And a lot of those new attractions started to become screen heavy.

The only criticism that was loud for Maelstrom/Frozen was shoehorning such a big IP into that itty bitty space.

Frozen is similar to Universal's use of Minions at the Orlando parks, shoehorned and questionable. I'm sure they are regretting not building a Frozen Land at DHS.

I think I get what @belloq87 means, in that the new rides, successful as they are, lack the effort of placemaking that would tie more into what differentiates Epcot from the other Disney parks…that I do agree with. Functionally, the story/setting for Guardians/Frozen/Ratatouille could just as easily fit into Magic Kingdom or Hollywood Studios in ways that even some of the park’s most bare bones just-for-fun rides (Soarin, Mission Space, Figment) don’t.

While I agree that you can move Frozen over to DHS or MK... I think World Showcase should be seen as a celebration of each countries/region culture... including the films/stories it inspires. GOTG is harder to justify... but it works. It's popular and it loosely fits into Epcot.

 

[Brian G.]

Frozen is similar to Universal's use of Minions at the Orlando parks, shoehorned and questionable. I'm sure they are regretting not building a Frozen Land at DHS.

Sorta. I'd say the big difference is that DM was a modest hit that became a billion-dollar behemoth. Uni didn't know what they had until it was too late.

Frozen was a bona fide smash, and Disney didn't pivot despite knowing what they had.

 

[Mad Dog]

and then Disney basically panicked and hastened to throw together some real poor stuff at DHS to capitalize. Remember the popsicle stick cutouts show etc.

 

[Jerroddragon]

Epcot is my favorite park WDW, hands down.

But if we got a Westcot, do I think it would have more IPS then Epcot? Yes, but its worth the price to have it

Maybe Epcot would be fine with ZERO IPs but Disney has tried this and it hasn't worked in the modern day yet....DCA...Animal Kingdom everyone complained it didn't feel Disney enough for DCA you can argue ts because it got less money then it needed but....AK got buttloads of money and many believe along with Disneyland Paris this is why Westcot didn't come and we got DCA instead. They used money to build things and people didn't come like they should have

We fans are so hardcore compared to normal people making the parks money, people are coming to these parks for nice theming, leave the normal world and turn their brains off. Maelstrom was for me not a better ride then Frozen. If they stuck to a Viking Pirates then who knows maybe then we'd have a real argument but as a ride it self, it was just the best of Norway and it was not that great because of it. It was not the worst ride but from what I've seen of Frozen it looks like a nice ride and with these additions which they did not need to do, it feels like mostly a win for the park

I'm not saying bring GOTG or other IPs to Epcot but sometimes they have to bring things in to keep the crowds up because the sad fact is most people now of days like IPs. People online say they hate the live action remakes then many of them make a billion dollars, we want original rides then DCA turns into an IP park and gets more people

Also Disney if your listening, I will take the deal of IP rides if we got Westcot.....it would really round out the DLR and would be worth it to finally have such a beautiful park next door to Disneyland

 

[belloq87]

I think I get what @belloq87 means, in that the new rides, successful as they are, lack the effort of placemaking that would tie more into what differentiates Epcot from the other Disney parks…that I do agree with. Functionally, the story/setting for Guardians/Frozen/Ratatouille could just as easily fit into Magic Kingdom or Hollywood Studios in ways that even some of the park’s most bare bones just-for-fun rides (Soarin, Mission Space, Figment) don’t.

I think this is correct, and I contend (again) that using these properties in Epcot-appropriate stories would not have resulted in attractions that are less popular than the current versions, nor would it have been particularly difficult.

I think Ratatouille is different for a number of reasons, though:

- It didn't replace anything, it was a pure expansion to the park's attraction line-up.
- Its addition also generated a significant amount of new guest-accessible space and dining (with little connection to Ratatouille as an IP) in the France pavilion.
- The story of the ride is centered around a French restaurant and French cooking, which tend to be major sources of cultural prominence and pride. It's a loose thematic tie, but it's far stronger than anything attempted in Frozen Ever After or Cosmic Rewind.

Frozen isn’t a documentary about Norway, but it still reflects that culture in a modern way that people actually engage with. Yes, I can still think the ride could've been done better and not shoe-horned, while still thinking it fits Norway.

If that's the framing (a story inspired by Norwegian culture), then at least use the queue to strongly communicate that. Make it the framing device for the experience. That's how I would also tackle Mary Poppins if that ever came back from the dead for the U.K. pavilion.

Do something more than what they did to tie it into an actual cultural context.

New Epcot isn't perfect, and I definitely have issues with it, but the park needed to pivot badly. The delivery may be more entertainment-forward today, but that doesn’t mean the identity is gone.

I think it still has a major identity crisis. Hopefully the people who worked on Test Track win out, because those folks get it.

 

[Brian G.]

If that's the framing (a story inspired by Norwegian culture), then at least use the queue to strong communicate that. Make it the framing device for the experience. That's how I would also tackle Mary Poppins if that ever came back from the dead for the U.K. pavilion.

Do something more than what they did to tie it into an actual cultural context.


I think it still has a major identity crisis. Hopefully the people who worked on Test Track win out, because those folks get it.

At some point, not every ride needs to spell out its message.

I think Ratatouille is different for a number of reasons, though:

If Ratatouille counts because it’s tied to French culture through food, then Frozen counts because it’s tied to Nordic culture through its setting and folklore.

Both are stylized IP stories layered onto cultural backdrops. The standard can’t shift just because it wasn't a replacement/expansion.

 

[belloq87]

One of them actually takes place in France, the other takes place in a fictional country.

Would we want a Wakanda pavilion in World Showcase to represent Africa, for example? I wouldn't!

The standard can’t shift just because it wasn't a replacement/expansion.

I think it certainly can. There is individual and specific context to all of these moves. If the attraction is replacing something that is actually directly relevant to the home country, then I'm holding it to the standard of relevance of what it replaced.

If Ratatouille had replaced Impressions de France, I would find that totally unacceptable. But it didn't. It's around the back, the story takes place in France, and it netted new French street sets and new French dining options.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

Bring back Tapestry of Nations and I’ll excuse it.

 

[Jake S]

I think it certainly can. There is individual and specific context to all of these moves. If the attraction is replacing something that is actually directly relevant to the home country, then I'm holding it to the standard of relevance of what it replaced.

If Ratatouille had replaced Impressions de France, I would find that totally unacceptable. But it didn't. It's around the back, the story takes place in France, and it netted new French street sets and new French dining options.

This is a truly bonkers standard.

 

[Brian G.]

One of them actually takes place in France, the other takes place in a fictional country.

Would we want a Wakanda pavilion in World Showcase to represent Africa, for example? I wouldn't!

I think it certainly can. There is individual and specific context to all of these moves. If the attraction is replacing something that is actually directly relevant to the home country, then I'm holding it to the standard of relevance of what it replaced.

If Ratatouille had replaced Impressions de France, I would find that totally unacceptable. But it didn't. It's around the back, the story takes place in France, and it netted new French street sets and new French dining options.

That's, quite frankly, an insane amount of goalpost moving to fit a standard.

Arendelle is fictional, yes, but it’s clearly inspired by Norway. The architecture, landscapes, and folklore are all Scandinavian in origin. Epcot has never presented literal realism; it’s always been a stylized interpretation. Ratatouille isn’t a documentary about France either. I can't believe we're excusing the locations, given that it's all a fictional story - especially about a talking rat who can cook.

The Wakanda comparison also isn't apt. Wakanda would represent an entire fictionalized continent/country. FEA is a Scandinavian-inspired story set in Norway. That’s a much narrower and more direct cultural link. Like, if they added a Greece pavilion and a Hercules ride, it wouldn't stand out because stories, real or not, are still part of the culture. Frozen, based on The Snow Queen, is a part of Scandinavian culture.

If every new attraction has to mimic the old one, the park would be stuck in the past. The real issue is whether the culture is still represented, not whether the format is identical.

Epcot was never meant to be an anthropology class.

 

[belloq87]

This is a truly bonkers standard.

Thank you!

ETA: I recognize that what Epcot means to me (or what I think it's supposed to be "about") is out of step around here, so I won't push the debate further.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I assure you what may come across to you all as weird standards make effortless sense to me in the context of this park.

 

[Freak]

“Refurb is nice but I personally preferred Maelstrom”

*Unintentionally derails the thread for three whole pages*

 

[Mad Dog]

“Refurb is nice but I personally preferred Maelstrom”

*Unintentionally derails the thread for three whole pages*

Heh, it's been dead days on the forum. It's good that you inadvertently gave us some theme park oriented stuff to discuss. I thank you.