Frozen Ever After

[belloq87]

Maelstrom had the advantage of, you know... actually being relevant to Norway. A Frozen ride could and should have gone into the expansion plot between Mexico and Norway, instead. And I don't like the "Actually, classic Epcot (... or USF...) stuff wasn't very good when you really think about it without nostalgia glasses" historical revisionism that often creeps into these discussions.

Anyway, the animatronic updates here are a gigantic improvement.

the rose-tinted weirdos who think Universe of Energy was better than Guardians.

It had dinosaurs. 'Nuff said.

(I haven't been on Cosmic Rewind yet, I'm sure I'll think it's a fun coaster. But the chance I'm going to come away thinking it's a better Epcot attraction is less than zero.)

 

[Jake S]

And I don't like the "Actually, classic Epcot (... or USF...) stuff wasn't very good when you really think about it without nostalgia glasses" historical revisionism that often creeps into these discussions.

I mean, it isn't revisionism if you thought it stunk when it was open.

 

[DOOMBOT]

The dinosaur scene was the best (and only substantial) part of that attraction, but it was also incredibly campy and outdated for a park meant to edutain going into the late '90s, let alone 2017.

It was also entirely out of place in that attraction. For the entire time I knew it, Bill Nye started the scene by saying "Fossil Fuels are cool and don't actually have anything to do with dinosaurs really. Haha don't think too much about that. Let's look at some cool dinos for a looooooong time. : )"

Very silly and boring oil-propaganda attraction that thing was. I have a weirdly-shaped place in my heart for it, but ... Guardians is clearly the better attraction in almost every aspect.

 

[Skold]

Universe of Energy was better in one way, though. It was a great place to take a 30 minute nap in air conditioned comfort. Boring accentuates sleep too. Nothing important, or entertaining, happened to wake you up.

Now I know who the snoring guy was that ruined my last ride...

 

[Brian G.]

Yeah, both UoE and Maelstrom weren’t exactly darlings when they were open. They just represented a dying Epcot that fans wanted to hold onto (and that’s OK!) but c’mon now.

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

 

[DOOMBOT]

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

And I think we're basically all in agreement on that, to this day. Wildly silly choice born out of a blind rush to capitalize on a lightning-strike cultural moment that no one at Disney expected to happen at all. And even sillier choices to clone Maelstrom of all systems to a number of international parks as well haha.

I sometimes do wonder what would've happened had they known beforehand that Frozen was what it was. I expect we would have an incredibly different attraction today.

 

[Brian G.]

And I think we're basically all in agreement on that, to this day. Wildly silly choice born out of a blind rush to capitalize on a lightning-strike cultural moment that no one at Disney expected to happen at all. And even sillier choices to clone Maelstrom of all systems to a number of international parks as well haha.

I sometimes do wonder what would've happened had they known beforehand that Frozen was what it was. I expect we would have an incredibly different attraction today.

They didn’t care. They admitted they rushed it because of its success. They could’ve pivoted once they realized it was a billion dollar franchise.

 

[belloq87]

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

There was -- and remains -- plenty of criticism about the ride (as executed in terms of story) not belonging in Norway (certainly as a replacement for a ride about Norway).

it was also incredibly campy and outdated for a park meant to edutain going into the late '90s, let alone 2017.

If that's the standard, Cosmic Rewind is no better on that front.

I mean, it isn't revisionism if you thought it stunk when it was open.

 

[Jake S]

If that's the standard, Cosmic Rewind is no better on that front.

Right, but the ride is great (UoE was also bad!) nor is it promoting the thing causing the heat death of the planet?

 

[DOOMBOT]

If that's the standard, Cosmic Rewind is no better on that front.

At least when Guardians pretends to teach you about stuff in the preshows, it's about an alien planet they made up and not ... about how wind and solar energy aren't up to snuff and how coal is the future.

Guardians isn't educational, but it also isn't really trying to be. It's trying to be a fun spinny coaster that goes wheee (and it's stellar at that imo). Being educational was like ... UoE's whole identity though, and it was always really bad at it.

 

[belloq87]

Right, but the ride is great (UoE was also bad!) nor is it promoting the thing causing the heat death of the planet?

At least when Guardians pretends to teach you about stuff in the preshows, it's about an alien planet they made up and not ... about how wind and solar energy aren't up to snuff and how coal is the future.

Guardians isn't educational, but it also isn't really trying to be. It's trying to be a fun spinny coaster that goes wheee (and it's stellar at that imo). Being educational was like ... UoE's whole identity though, and it was always really bad at it.

Even if I agreed with these characterizations, these are still not reasons to not attempt to make the attraction relevant to Epcot.

I get very annoyed when Disney (or anybody) doesn't even make the attempt to have things make sense where they're placed, especially in cases (like Frozen and Guardians) where it would actually not be difficult at all to use those properties to tell stories that are more classically Epcot-y.

 

[DOOMBOT]

Even if I agreed with these characterizations, these are still not reasons to not attempt to make the attraction relevant to Epcot.

I get very annoyed when Disney (or anybody) doesn't even make the attempt to have things make sense where they're placed, especially in cases (like Frozen and Guardians) where it would actually not be difficult at all to use those properties to tell stories that are more classically Epcot-y.

Okay I do get that but Guardians isn't really the best example of it at all.

They made an MCU rollercoaster at Disney World, and because of its' location within EPCOT, the entire experience is bookended with a surprisingly earnest in-universe "Worlds Fair" pastiche. I think that is a remarkably strange thing to do that is taken for granted because that's just kinda how EPCOT is, but like ... that's a very weird concept! "Wonders of Xandar" is very weird!!

There is also legitimate educational material regarding the Big Bang in some of the preshows (at least as much as UoE), which ties directly in with the narrative of the coaster itself. I think they actually did alright here. Chris Pratt isn't teaching about thermodynamics or anything, but they put in a really strange amount of effort in trying to fit this IP into this really strange park.

Frozen is a significantly clearer case of "This is a Fantasyland ride in my World Showcase pavilion".

 

[OrlandoGuy]

Even if I agreed with these characterizations, these are still not reasons to not attempt to make the attraction relevant to Epcot.

I get very annoyed when Disney (or anybody) doesn't even make the attempt to have things make sense where they're placed, especially in cases (like Frozen and Guardians) where it would actually not be difficult at all to use those properties to tell stories that are more classically Epcot-y.

Judging an EPCOT ride in 2026 by its ability to be “edutaining” is akin to judging a ride at USF by its ability to teach people how movies are made. The identity of these parks has been forced to change in the Internet age. Forcing someone to wait in line for an hour to ride a ride that teaches them something they could’ve Googled while in said line would make a lot more people upset than the number of people still clinging onto Universe of Energy.

 

[DOOMBOT]

Judging an EPCOT ride in 2026 by its ability to be “edutaining” is akin to judging a ride at USF by its ability to teach people how movies are made. The identity of these parks has been forced to change in the Internet age. Forcing someone to wait in line for an hour to ride a ride that teaches them something they could’ve Googled while in said line would make a lot more people upset than the number of people still clinging onto Universe of Energy.

And I think it's actually kinda remarkable how much they still try to do it. Test Track 3.0, Moana Journey of Water, Cosmic Rewind, Mission Space Green Mission all have solid footing in edutainment. I'm always consistently surprised at each new one. It's most of the recent additions to Future World!

 

[belloq87]

Okay I do get that but Guardians isn't really the best example of it at all.

They made an MCU rollercoaster at Disney World, and because of its' location within EPCOT, the entire experience is bookended with a surprisingly earnest in-universe "Worlds Fair" pastiche. I think that is a remarkably strange thing to do that is taken for granted because that's just kinda how EPCOT is, but like ... that's a very weird concept! "Wonders of Xandar" is very weird!!

There is also legitimate educational material regarding the Big Bang in some of the preshows (at least as much as UoE), which ties directly in with the narrative of the coaster itself. I think they actually did alright here. Chris Pratt isn't teaching about thermodynamics or anything, but they put in a really strange amount of effort in trying to fit this IP into this really strange park.

In fairness, I give the queue credit.

But the story of the ride is still about a space giant who steals a made-up MacGuffin.

Frozen is a significantly clearer case of "This is a Fantasyland ride in my World Showcase pavilion".

And the fix was so easy, I have to believe somebody at Imagineering brought it up and was promptly ignored for reasons defying logic:

We invent a backstory for Arendelle as a small nation-state that splintered off from Norway some centuries ago. Elsa, Anna, and company travel to Norway on a State Visit and witness how Norway’s culture inspired Arendelle’s.

It can still be a charming, song-driven boat ride. Everybody is happy, and the park's integrity remains intact.

Forcing someone to wait in line for an hour to ride a ride that teaches them something they could’ve Googled while in said line would make a lot more people upset than the number of people still clinging onto Universe of Energy.

I don't think anyone's really asking for that, though. It only takes a few tweaks to resolve the (to me) thematic problems with Cosmic Rewind, still keeping it a wild coaster with classic songs, but making it more directly focused on the Big Bang and the birth of the universe instead of the plot nonsense they went with.

 

[DOOMBOT]

I think there is a genuine issue in that most park guests wanna see Elsa sing Let It Go in the ice castle and not touring the real-life Norwegian fjords. Even if the designers had gone in with a good faith attempt, I genuinely believe that would've been a tough sell.

IMO Guardians did enough place-making to justify itself within EPCOT (maybe too much based on everyone's negativity here towards the length of those preshows, myself included). People just wanna see the Guardians fly in their ship around space and fight weird alien guys listening to '70s and '80s music. They're irreverent comedy-heavy superheroes. Especially for a relatively short rollercoaster, I'm of the mind that you really don't need to overthink it. Most people just aren't there for that.

I think there is a middle-ground between "This is indistinguishable from a Fantasyland ride" and "Princess Tiana operates a salt mine" that I sit comfortably in for most things.

 

[belloq87]

If it's too tough a sell (I don't think it is), that should be telling you (the royal you/the Disney executive you) it fundamentally doesn't belong in Epcot. These parks are supposed to be distinct entities.

There's no great reason for Elsa to sing "Let It Go" in the current ride, either. We can handwave that away just as easily if she's in Norway, too.

 

[Brian G.]

If it's too tough a sell (I don't think it is), that should be telling you (the royal you/the Disney executive you) it fundamentally doesn't belong in Epcot. These parks are supposed to be distinct entities.

There's no great reason for Elsa to sing "Let It Go" in the current ride, either. We can handwave that away just as easily if she's in Norway, too.

We’ve moved well beyond the nostalgia angle of the discussion. Even if the replacements aren’t your ideal fit, they’ve generally been better received than what they replaced by a pretty large margin.

Epcot needed to move away from the strict edutainment attractions because guest demand has changed over time. They’ll hug the line, but it was clear it was no longer sustainable as the primary focus.

 

[belloq87]

Even if the replacements aren’t your ideal fit, they’ve generally been better received than what they replaced by a pretty large margin.

I don't think anyone here has said otherwise.

Yes, a GOTG coaster was always going to be more popular than Universe of Energy. It would have been just as popular with a few story tweaks (or in Tomorrowland...).

Epcot needed to move away from the strict edutainment attractions because guest demand has changed over time. They’ll hug the line, but it was clear it was no longer sustainable as the primary focus.

I don't think anyone is really arguing for "strict" edutainment. I am arguing that if you put a Frozen ride in Norway, its story should be relevant to Norway, or else it belongs in Magic Kingdom or Hollywood Studios.

Is the newest Test Track iteration strict edutainment? I feel like it's the most Epcot-y thing to happen in the park in decades, and it seems to be just as in-demand as the previous versions. The needle can be threaded.

I guess what I'm really trying to determine is where any of the rest of you draw the line in terms of what's appropriate for Epcot. Because I still think there should be a line.

 

[Brian G.]

I don't think anyone here has said otherwise.

Yes, a GOTG coaster was always going to be more popular than Universe of Energy. It would have been just as popular with a few story tweaks (or in Tomorrowland...).

Forgive me for making a broad general statement about the original point. I was pushing back on the notion of:

And I don't like the "Actually, classic Epcot (... or USF...) stuff wasn't very good when you really think about it without nostalgia glasses" historical revisionism that often creeps into these discussions.

And then we started to bounce around instead of hitting the crux of that specific argument.

“Being relevant” isn’t the only benchmark.

Acknowledging that some classic Epcot attractions weren’t especially strong by the end of their runs is just recognizing reality. Much of the affection for those attractions is tied to clinging to “old Epcot” more than to the standalone experience itself. They became symbols of a bygone era.

Maelstrom was obviously relevant to Norway, but it was a disjointed experience that bounced from mythic trolls to a depressing oil rig finale. Cultural alignment didn’t translate into sustained guest enthusiasm. The same goes for Universe of Energy. It absolutely embodied Epcot’s original mantra, and by the end of its run, it was widely joked about as a nap pavilion and was low in demand.

As for “the line,” I agree it should exist, but I think the line you want is for an Epcot that no longer exists. If the only metric is literal geographic or educational relevance, that’s a narrow definition, and one the park itself clearly needed to move beyond, as evidenced by how it was performing in later years, with a heavy focus on festivals just to keep it relevant in the public eye.

I think any Epcot attraction needs to at least hit on its broader themes - culture, innovation, & exploration. Cosmic Rewind is about space and discovery. That’s always been part of the park’s DNA; it’s just packaged as an E-Ticket thrill ride instead of a slow-moving lecture.

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.

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.