Malestrom Becomes "Frozen Ever After"

[brooke789]

Opening June 20, 2016!

NNNOOOO! We leave 6/6/16

 

[cakebaker]

Disney didn't create the hype and hysteria surrounding Frozen- people did. They're simply satisfying the demand.

 

[Sargeant Tibbs]

My family will be boycotting this ride. I know it won't make a lick of difference that seven guests aren't on board with the machinations of the Mouse Overlord, but it will certainly make us feel better. That's more room in line for the Frozen fans. If Frozen truly has the longevity that Disney is hoping for, well, I guess that remains to be seen. It's certainly the most aggressive marketing campaign that Disney has ever accomplished. When that dies down I think people might start seeing Frozen for what it truly is. God, I hope so. However, it does just seem like a cheap ride to placate the masses. Considering how much money it will bring into the park in the short term, it probably doesn't matter if the Frozen mania peters out in a few years - they'll walk out of this ahead.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

I think the whole frozen this has been done to death. there has not been this much hype over a movie ever I think.

I literally laughed out loud at the pic! Awesome!

But really, outside of this board I can't remember the last time I hard any reference to Frozen or heard the music. Disney is riding this, but that is only because they can't ride their Marvels stuff outside of the theaters.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Norway had a chance to keep the pavilion about Norway. They chose not to do so.

Disney had a chance to incorporate Frozen into Norway without getting rid of Norway, like they did with Mexico. They chose not to.

 

[cakebaker]

Disney had a chance to incorporate Frozen into Norway without getting rid of Norway, like they did with Mexico. They chose not to.

And they should promote Norway why? When Norway chose not to pay for the upkeep of the area?

 

[BuckeyeBama]

Disney had a chance to incorporate Frozen into Norway without getting rid of Norway, like they did with Mexico. They chose not to.

It is only one aspect of the pavilion. There always has been a lot more to that pavilion that Maelstrom.

 

[Angel Ariel]

It is only one aspect of the pavilion. There always has been a lot more to that pavilion that Maelstrom.

I'm Norwegian. I'm well aware of what the Norway pavilion is. The Viking ship is gone, the stave church is frozen over, the ride and movie are now gone and replaced with frozen, the traditional Norwegian food that used to be offered at akershus is significantly watered down since adding the princesses.

The Kringla bakery is still amazing. The gjestost cheesecake...mm, just yum. The rest has been significantly watered down.

 

[Jennasis]

Having watched he TMC showing of Three Caballeros, I discovered it was made TO showcase Latin America culture. So it made sense to add to Mexico.

While Frozen is in a fictional place, I still think it fits. Just how Lilo and Stitch are seen at Ohana.

Lilo and Stitch took place in a REAL place (Hawaii...which is Polynesian).

 

[Angel Ariel]

And they should promote Norway why? When Norway chose not to pay for the upkeep of the area?

How many other pavilions are still sponsored by their countries? I was under the impression it wasn't many.

 

[JoshuaShaw]

And they should promote Norway why? When Norway chose not to pay for the upkeep of the area?

Because that was the original intent?

I mean, I hadn't heard that the genesis of the World Showcase was extortion, but maybe I'm just misinformed.

 

[BrianL]

Disney didn't create the hype and hysteria surrounding Frozen- people did. They're simply satisfying the demand.

This is true. Largely, Disney was surprised by the level of popularity that Frozen has attained. I'm sure they were expecting a success along the lines of Tangled, but over $1B box-office? That's why they had to scramble to get toys and dresses on the shelves. I don't blame them for supporting what sells.

 

[Angel Ariel]

And tbh, my irritation is less about Norway going away than what it is brig replaced by. It's world showcase. Replace it with another *real* country, if sponsorship if that's the issue. I wouldn't have a problem with that, truly. World showcase wasn't meant to be about fictional places.

 

[Jennasis]

And they should promote Norway why? When Norway chose not to pay for the upkeep of the area?

Oh please. Disney isn't some poor start-up that needs sponsors to be able to afford to build rides. I completely reject the old-timey notion that they need ride sponsors like it's 1955. They're a mega-corp. They can afford to build and maintain their own park.

Seems like blackmail....pay us or the pavilion DIES.

 

[Redcon1]

While The Three Caballeros add-ons are mostly terrible, it does at least get some semblance of credibility since the movie doesn't take place in a make-believe country, like Tacostan or Fiestaville.

Plus the original film was basically a travelogue of Latin America countries and culture. The loose story of finding Donald still enables the guests to see and experience Mexican locales and celebrations.
This new Frozen ride does not even mention the country which it is residing in.

 

[cakebaker]

This is true. Largely, Disney was surprised by the level of popularity that Frozen has attained. I'm sure they were expecting a success along the lines of Tangled, but over $1B box-office? That's why they had to scramble to get toys and dresses on the shelves. I don't blame them for supporting what sells.

I think Disney definitely was playing catch up with the popularity of Frozen. I know I had to hunt high and low for a character set (and paid 3 times the retail price when I found it) to put on a cake a year or so ago.

I'd blame them if they didn't cash in on the popularity- that would be crazy.

 

[AP1209]

Honestly, this ride is going to be dead within a few years (1-3?) time of opening. People complained because it was "just another dark ride." So they went and made it a dark ride but now with the story of Frozen!

If I wanted to watch Frozen again I'd...watch it again at home and I think many parks guests, including those with kids, will eventually feel that way too. Just like Snow White, Little Mermaid, etc.

The only dark ride that's just a retelling of the movie that consistently has a long line is Peter Pan and even the CMs think it's abnormal. Are the higher-ups really banking on the fact that there are so few rides in Epcot that this is going to be out the door daily?

I don't even care that it's Frozen. I wish it wasn't JUST a retelling of Frozen though. It's such an unimaginative, boring cashgrab. WDW needs to work a little harder to wow (but I know the money still pours in so what do they really care?).

I doubt that this ride is going to a have 1-3 year life span. Lets not forget the upcoming sequel plus I imagine they will be doing more specials as well. Look at how popular SDMT still is a year out without the hype of a recent blockbuster movie. This ride will be nuts for many years to come.

 

[cakebaker]

Oh please. Disney isn't some poor start-up that needs sponsors to be able to afford to build rides. I completely reject the old-timey notion that they need ride sponsors like it's 1955. They're a mega-corp. They can afford to build and maintain their own park.

Seems like blackmail....pay us or the pavilion DIES.

Oh please- blackmail? It's called a business deal. This is what every other country represented in Epcot does. It's a situation that benefits both of the countries and Disney. It isn't that Disney can't afford to build them, it's that they don't have to. If a country wants the advertising, they should pay for it just like all the rest of them do.

Btw- it's my understanding that Disney does pay maintenance, but the individual countries are responsible for updating. Norway didn't want to pay, they don't get a say in what Disney does. Makes sense to me.

I'm sure Disney was more than happy to take over Norway, but Norway could've kept their presence. They chose not to.

 

[Jennasis]

t



Oh please- blackmail? It's called a business deal. This is what every other country represented in Epcot does. It's a situation that benefits both of the countries and Disney. It isn't that Disney can't afford to build them, it's that they don't have to. If a country wants the advertising, they should pay for it just like all the rest of them do.

Btw- it's my understanding that Disney does pay maintenance, but the individual countries are responsible for updating. Norway didn't want to pay, they don't get a say in what Disney does. Makes sense to me.

I'm sure Disney was more than happy to take over Norway, but Norway could've kept their presence. They chose not to.

Again...Oh please.

(and apologies...my winky smiley didn't show up in the black mail part. It was tongue-in-cheek....here's another )

 

[Missyrose]

Norway had a chance to keep the pavilion about Norway. They chose not to do so.

Still, it was their choice. They opted to let Norway become Arendelle.

Norway stopped being affiliated with the pavilion in World Showcase long before Frozen was even a gleam in Disney's eye.

Disney had a chance to incorporate Frozen into Norway without getting rid of Norway, like they did with Mexico. They chose not to.

For whatever it's worth, Disney is keeping the restaurants in Norway the same as they were pre-Frozen mania.