If people just admitted they didn't like the Frozen attraction for personal reasons, that would be one thing. But the excuses some of you come up with to try and justify your dislike just make your whole argument look silly.
The world showcase is "supposed to be educational?" First, no. It is supposed to give people a glance at other cultures. There is a difference between giving a glance at other cultures and being educational. I would be extremely skeptical about "learning" much from the world showcase. You'll learn more about any of these particular countries on an episode of sesame street then you will going to the country's pavilion. Which brings me to my second point, the version of these countries presented is dated, sanitized, cherry picked, and in no way representational of the actual host country. Anyone here that thinks Japan can be summed up as one giant shop selling pop culture toys, clocks, and pearls is really missing out on what Japan really is. The Norway pavilion is/was one of the silliest of them all.
People have the audacity to talk about educational / real representations of countries when that entire pavilion was based around vikings, long houses, and trolls? Then Maelstrom itself was a fantasy boat ride through a Nordic style fairy tale. If ya liked it, then yay for you. But don't pretend for a second it was realistic and/or educational. Might as well have a Greek pavilion all about Mount Olympus and togas. Fun? Sure. Realistic representation of actual Greece? Pshhhhh.
I saw one post last month where the OP actually lamented that they take their kids to the world showcase because it is so much cheaper than actually traveling.... I mean. Wow. Their kids are going to grow up thinking Norway still has vikings, France is about 2 city blocks large and is primarily a pastry shop, and Mexico is all indoors.
The World Showcase is fun for what it is. A dated view of the world based on mid 20th century views condensed into easily digestible gift shops, movies, and slow boat rides. it is *not* a realistic representation of anything.
Now, am I saying that this automatically justifies pumping fantasy into every corner? No. I am simply saying that all these claims of the frozen ride attacking the "realism" or "educational" value of the world showcase are simply ludicrous.
Those of you acting as though Arendelle has absolutely nothing to do with Norway... well, your so intent on disliking it that you are ignoring basic google research.
- The name 'Arendelle' is based on the Norwegian town of Arendal, located in the county of Aust-Agder, to the southwest of the Norwegian capital, Oslo. However, the scenery of Arendelle is based primarily on Nærøyfjord in western Norway, as well as various buildings in Oslo, Bergen, and other Norwegian cities.
So the city is based on a real one, the scenery is based on on western norway, and the buildings, costumes, and mythology are all based on Norway as well.
Lets see, what did the Norway pavilion have before? A tree monster thing, trolls, Odin... What is it going to be now? A snow monster thing, trolls, an ice queen. Your telling me one subset of fantasy bull is markedly better than the second set of fantasy bull? Both are based on the countries mythology. Both are based on the country's past. But one is better because why? Because it was there first? Because it wasn't based on a movie that broke box office records? Because it didn't have a princess before and now it does? This is DISNEY FOLKS. D-I-S-N-E-Y. It's bloody bread and butter is princesses, and your *****ing because they finally got a princess for that part of the world and they are making use of her?
There are the folks who claim that this would upset Walt. Guess what. Epcot as it stands would likely upset him. I think he would love what it eventually became, but it obviously isn't the "prototype community of tomorrow" that he originally envisioned. It was never supposed to be a theme park kiddos (you guys are all fans, you know this). Hell, it wasn't even supposed to be a world showcase. So once you divorce your expectations of what Epcot was "supposed" to be, you have to look at what it is. It is an entertainment complex. Frozen entertains.
There are those who complain about the characters being in the pavilions. That is just downright silly. Disney is defined by it's characters, so to keep them out is to ignore what Disney is. Besides, a whole host of princesses were already camping out in Norway for breakfast and dinner every day. This argument holds no water.
And finally, the one everyone falls back in - it should have been built somewhere else. Are you an investor? If you had to choose between using existing infrastructure and saving well over a hundred million dollars while simultaneously having an opening date of just over a year versus spending an extra hundred million, building an entirely new show building, and extending the opening date another 2 years.. well, which one would you choose if it was YOUR money on the line. It makes business sense to do what they did. If it had cost extra to build a frozen ride there, if they had ended up shoehorning a new building into the pavilion, if it would have still taken 3-4 year to build it out - then sure, there would be a very strong argument for just taking all that construction and doing it somewhere else. But there is nowhere else on property that offered up an existing track, existing building, AND happened to be in an area ALREADY THEMED TO THE COUNTRY THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS BASED ON. There is simply no valid argument to spending an extra 1-2 hundred million bucks and an extra 2 years building this ride somewhere else.
Ultimately, and this is important, I'm not saying that people don't have a right to be upset. I totally get having nostalgia for the old ride and being upset it is being removed. I get that change in a place that so many people have gone to for so many years can be difficult. I even understand the frustration over the fact that Epcot needs attention in so many other areas, so closing a ride to open a new one seems less productive than making use out of all that empty space currently in the park. Those, and many other stances, are all extremely valid responses.
But this attempted delineation of acting like Frozen Ever After doesn't fit because of "realism", or "meaning of epcot", or "what walt would have wanted", or "isn't even a real country" are just shallow excuses at worst and pissing in the wind at best.
It's happening. It's happened. It's done.
I can't tell someone not to be upset, nor is it my place to tell anyone not to be upset. But, can I suggest in a friendly manner that it's time to move on? If you don't like it, then be sure to sneer every time you pass it. But pulling a chicken little and acting as though the sky is falling "Disney is destroying the world showcase" is just dramatic ridiculousness. Reading some of these posts one would assume that Britain is being changed to Enchantia (Sofia the first), Mexico is turning into Tortuga (Pirates), and every other pavilion is slated to be converted as well. All because one ride got added to Norway.
A ride that is full of the same mythologies that the previous ride already had.
A ride that will serve to make thousands of little kids interested and excited about Norway (especially when they realize that Elsa is from a "real" country").
A ride that little kids will love, that will drive traffic to the park, and no babies will raped in the process - no matter how apocalyptic some of you may thing this is.
