Ready to "Thaw Out"

[Lucky4me]

Why? Personal preference.

The plot was rushed and had holes in it big enough to drive a monorail through. Olaf was shoe-horned in along with the completely unnecessary trolls. The music was lousy (That song Anna sang to whatever the bad guy's name was during the party was like nails on a chalkboard along with Idina Menzel's voice. I just cannot tolerate her voice.). The ending was bizarre and predictable....but my favorite was how both Elsa and the ice-cutter guy both gave Anna grief about falling in love with a guy she had just met, and then at the end Anna thought the ice dude was gonna be the one to save her with an act of true love because she had fallen for him...the guy she just met!

Don't bother arguing with me because you won't change my view of the film. I'm glad TONS of people disagree with me and are getting what they want from Disney. No sweat off my back. Happy for ya! The movie just wasn't my cup o' tea.

I liked The Money Pit. That is my answer to that.

Arguing with you? That would be really funny. lol I just don't take animation film that seriously.

 

[surferdave]

I liked The Money Pit. That is my answer to that.

Do mean the old Tom Hanks film or MDE?

 

[Itinkso]

That's not what she was wearing last week. She had on a dark blue dress and one of those pointy princess hats with the veil thing.

The photo was taken yesterday.

 

[LBIJim]

It seems easy enough to ignore the whole Frozen phenomenon if it doesn't interest the general you. I don't feel that it's being shoved into my face.

 

[parkluvr]

Just a couple of thoughts.

1.) Numerous posts yesterday indicated that Maelstrom was a forgotten "has been" ride. The last 2 summers that I have been through Epcot, the standby line has been 30 to 75 minutes every time we've looked. I don't think a ride that continually has that kind of wait has been forgotten.

2.) I saw Frozen and enjoyed watching it and thought it was cute.

3.) While I agree that Disney is a for profit company and they need to capitalize on the Frozen frenzy, I believe that they should do it smartly and not just find quick ways to grab more money. In the case of Norway and Maelstrom, I think Frozen has no place there whatsoever. If you look at the history of Disney World and Walt Disney himself, the philosophy was always to keep up the "image". The Magic Kingdom itself was built over the utilidors just to keep the fantasy continuous. Walt Disney did not want CM's walking through other parts of the park, because it would disturb the image and ruin the show. The world showcase was meant to be exactly what the name implies, a showcase of the world. I believe that Walt Disney would hate the idea of throwing an imaginary world right into the middle of a showcase of real countries, because it just does not belong there. I believe that there are many smarter ways for Disney to capitalize on Frozen's success without being reckless.

 

[BigAlsGal]

Face it they have broken ground on Avatarland and really does anyone think that is a movie worth its own land?
For the massive success that Frozen is don't expect it to go anywhere soon.

Disney knows what it's doing. I thought the first movie was great and with the upcoming avatars 2 AND 3 it's still going to be super relevant for awhile.

 

[StitchesGr8Fan]

Every single ad in our Sunday paper had Frozen in it. Every. Single. Ad.

 

[Jennasis]

Arguing with you? That would be really funny. lol I just don't take animation film that seriously.

It isn't about taking anything seriously or not. You asked why some people hated it. I answered.

 

[mummabear]

That's not what she was wearing last week. She had on a dark blue dress and one of those pointy princess hats with the veil thing.

Maybe she had trouble tracking down an Elsa dress too

 

[Lucky4me]

It isn't about taking anything seriously or not. You asked why some people hated it. I answered.

I appreciate that answer! Thank you! Not liking a Disney animated film for not being believable is pretty darn funny.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Unfortunately, Norway stopped giving money to fund the pavilion at WDW years ago. So there's no way Disney was going to suddenly intensify the authenticity of the pavilion- they needed something to bring money to it, and Frozen has brought some serious BANK. Like I said some previous posts- people who usually glanced over the pavilion before were suddenly flocking to it once A&E started meeting. So unless Norway starts giving money to support the pavilion again, I unfortunately think it's going to be "Frozen" in it's current state for a while.

As others have pointed out, the majority of the WS pavilions are not sponsored by their home countries anymore, and haven't been for a while.

I have no problem with Frozen being represented in Norway as it is in the Stave Church. Nor do I have a problem with there being a meet and greet there. I do have a problem with taking Norway *out* in order to put Frozen in. They could have integrated Frozen without making it Arendelle. All you have to do is look at Mexico. They integrated characters into the ride there, but it is still fundamentally about Mexico, not a fictional country.

 

[Angel Ariel]

I appreciate that answer! Thank you! Not liking a Disney animated film for not being believable is pretty darn funny.

I'm pretty sure the pp was saying she thought it was poorly written, which is something entirely different than not being believable.

I may not agree with the pp, but I don't see the need to oversimplify what was said either.

 

[Jennasis]

I appreciate that answer! Thank you! Not liking a Disney animated film for not being believable is pretty darn funny.

Oh? Did someone say that they didn't like the film because it was unbelievable? Cause I didn't say that.

 

[MaxsDad]

Just a couple of thoughts.

1.) Numerous posts yesterday indicated that Maelstrom was a forgotten "has been" ride. The last 2 summers that I have been through Epcot, the standby line has been 30 to 75 minutes every time we've looked. I don't think a ride that continually has that kind of wait has been forgotten.

2.) I saw Frozen and enjoyed watching it and thought it was cute.

3.) While I agree that Disney is a for profit company and they need to capitalize on the Frozen frenzy, I believe that they should do it smartly and not just find quick ways to grab more money. In the case of Norway and Maelstrom, I think Frozen has no place there whatsoever. If you look at the history of Disney World and Walt Disney himself, the philosophy was always to keep up the "image". The Magic Kingdom itself was built over the utilidors just to keep the fantasy continuous. Walt Disney did not want CM's walking through other parts of the park, because it would disturb the image and ruin the show. The world showcase was meant to be exactly what the name implies, a showcase of the world. I believe that Walt Disney would hate the idea of throwing an imaginary world right into the middle of a showcase of real countries, because it just does not belong there. I believe that there are many smarter ways for Disney to capitalize on Frozen's success without being reckless.

As much as I loved Malestrom, and agree with your post overall, the only reason waits were so long was because it was only 1 of 2 rides in world showcase, not to mention the sad overall state of epcot in general these days.

 

[Newsies]

As others have pointed out, the majority of the WS pavilions are not sponsored by their home countries anymore, and haven't been for a while.

I have no problem with Frozen being represented in Norway as it is in the Stave Church. Nor do I have a problem with there being a meet and greet there. I do have a problem with taking Norway *out* in order to put Frozen in. They could have integrated Frozen without making it Arendelle. All you have to do is look at Mexico. They integrated characters into the ride there, but it is still fundamentally about Mexico, not a fictional country.

I'm on your side for the most part. I'm just letting you know why I think Disney is reacting the way they are. Never said I agreed with them. Don't shoot the messenger

 

[OasterP]

That's not what I said. I'm saying that people are getting really emotional over a ride most people ignored prior to the Frozen takeover. Honestly, I had been glancing at TRs for at least two years before officially joining the dis and nobody mentioned Maelstrom for the most part. Just an observation, not a fact. Sorry I came across to you as rude. Have a good day

Yeah I don't think you were the one being rude. And I think you're right. I hadn't been to Disney but have been reading reports for quite a while and pretty much never did I read about Maelstrom being a favorite, or crying over not getting a fast pass (if it was even a fp ride at the time), or waiting two hours in line. So I think you are right - it's a bigger deal now that it's gone for Frozen - not necessarily that it was a favorite for most. Of course that's just my opinion and it in no way is supposed to mean that is how the majority of the people feel

That said I personally don't get the Frozen love, but I do like the movie overall. And really - Disney is doing the smart business thing. I'm fairly certain that even Disney is shocked at how popular that movie became. It obviously touched on something that little girls/people love. They wouldn't be doing so much of it if the movie was a flop. This too shall pass.

 

[Angel Ariel]

I'm on your side for the most part. I'm just letting you know why I think Disney is reacting the way they are. Never said I agreed with them. Don't shoot the messenger

Not trying to shoot the messenger I just disagree that whether or not the country is still sponsoring the pavilion has anything to do with it.

If the fact that a country was no longer supporting its pavilion were a reason to "disney-fy" the pavilion, I think you'd see a LOT more of Ratatouille in France, Mulan in China, etc etc. But you don't. They have meet and greets (or in Ratatouille's case, Remy in Chefs de France before they took it away), but their stories have not overtaken the pavilion the way that Frozen is taking over Norway.

 

[Disneylover99]

Yeah I don't think you were the one being rude.

Newsie said she had never heard of Maelstrom until it was announced that the ride was closing, and because she had never heard of it, she didn't understand the outrage. It seemed to me that she was only able to see this from her own perspective.

 

[Newsies]

Newsie said she had never heard of Maelstrom until it was announced that the ride was closing, and because she had never heard of it, she didn't understand the outrage. It seemed to me that she was only able to see this from her own perspective.

No. This is all being taken out of context. I didn't say I didn't get why people were upset- I said I didn't personally believe Maelstrom was a CLASSIC attraction, per se. Read my post and please don't put words into my mouth. Have a nice day

 

[Newsies]

Not trying to shoot the messenger I just disagree that whether or not the country is still sponsoring the pavilion has anything to do with it. If the fact that a country was no longer supporting its pavilion were a reason to "disney-fy" the pavilion, I think you'd see a LOT more of Ratatouille in France, Mulan in China, etc etc. But you don't. They have meet and greets (or in Ratatouille's case, Remy in Chefs de France before they took it away), but their stories have not overtaken the pavilion the way that Frozen is taking over Norway.

Understood. But still- I think Frozen being such a frenzy is the reason why it seems like it's overtaking Norway. No matter what, if you have a meet and greet with Anna and Elsa, it's going to become the top attraction in Norway. It all boils down to the success of Frozen. Disney could put a small statue of Olaf in Norway and people would be visiting the pavilion just to take a picture.