I first want to give a full overview of what is going to happen over the next year and a half. Disney is planning on closing the over 20 year old Norway attraction called Maelstrom and replacing it with a Frozen themed attraction, set to open in early 2016. The main consensus for this decision is that Frozen takes place in Norway and will add a fresh vibe to Norway's under-touched section of the World Showcase.
My thoughts on Frozen are never consistent. I am constantly torn between enjoying Frozen and despising Frozen. To try and summarize my feelings, I would say the movie is good but wayyyyy overrated. The original source material was not used nearly enough, the animation and sets are gorgeous, the music starts out epically but turns into a modern candy coated ritual, and compared to other Disney films it simply carries no weight. That only scratches the surface of my opinions about the movie. As for the Maelstrom attraction, I recently road it when I was last at Disney World in November 2013. It wasn't a stand out ride to me. I've been to Disney three other times and I had never heard of this attraction until the fourth. While the experience of riding it was kind of cool, the overall ride was rather dull and underwhelming. Although the ride carries a lot of history, it felt out of place to me. As I said, I didn't even remember it after visiting Disney three times.
But how do I feel about it being replaced by a Frozen themed ride? Well, my feelings are mixed. There are tons of different angles you can take when discussing this debate. For this blog, I am going to refer to two different articles along with the comments from those articles. All links to the source material can be found at the end of this blog. I want to build off the points I read in the comments and the articles because I feel my voice isn't the only voice that should be heard. I want to incorporate a variety of opinions. So without further ado, let us begin.
Point number one: Frozen takes place in Norway and will fit perfectly in World Showcase, right?
Frozen takes place in the fictional land of Arendelle which is said to be located in Norway. The filmmakers drew a lot of inspiration and material from Norway and much of the culture is incorporated in the sets and minimally used throughout the soundtrack. But "what does [Arendelle] have to do with Norway?", commenter Bill asks on Inside the Magic. I would have to ask the same question. Frozen, while taking place in Norway, does not pay homage to Norway or Norwegian culture. It is simply a backdrop. The movie infrequently uses ethereal music to strengthen the cultural influence but it is not used nearly enough. If the Norwegian culture were at the heart of this movie I'd say this is a great change. But let's be honest here; when people think of Frozen they think of Let It Go. When people think of something like Ratatouille, they think France and food.
Which brings me to the next side of this issue. Point number two: Other countries have incorporated Disney movies. Why do people take such a big issue with Frozen?
This is a really good point. Disney incorporates characters in their designated countries and has already incorporated one of their films, the Three Caballeros, into Mexico. I actually think this is something very important to World Showcase, specifically for the kids. It shows them where their favorite characters are from and gives them an incentive to go to an area of Disney that may be considered boring otherwise. Giving Norway a little dose of Frozen is not a bad thing. As John Frost on the Disney Blog points out in his article, "The world didn't end when Donald and pals appeared in Mexico and having Belle & Aurora walk-arounds hasn't destroyed France. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if this announcement was for a Ratatouille attraction...the fans would be 90% in favor of it." Frost presents excellent points but they don't hold up entirely. As I said in my first point, Frozen has virtually nothing to do with Norwegian culture. The influence is only apparent in the sets and some places of the soundtrack. The Three Caballeros is all about Mexican culture (I assume, I have truthfully never seen the movie but only small clips) so it makes sense to be present in Mexico. It also helps people recall a forgotten film. As for characters like Belle and Aurora walking around France, that does not carry the same weight as a film attraction. If Anna, Elsa, and Kristoff walked around Norway, I think that would be great! But these are just characters, not a full blown ride. Finally, Ratatouille (like Caballeros) centers around France and food. It totally makes sense to have a ride or attraction there for the film. My point is, Frozen in Norway is not bad at all. "That being said, the addition of characters in small doses could be a good thing for EPCOT, since it seems to be struggling to maintain or renew it's identity," says Dan Cruz on the Disney Blog comments. Overall, why is Disney moving forward with this when other movies should be taken advantage of because they just make more sense?
Which brings me to my next two points. Point number three: Why EPCOT? And point number four: Is this because Frozen went viral?
Let's start with number three. As I said in the beginning of this blog, no Disney fan was particularly surprised by this news. It has been rumored for quite some time. I have thought about this point a lot and have always felt EPCOT was not the way to go. Why? Well, as I already stated, Frozen in concept has a lot to do with Norway but the film itself hardly has anything to do with it. However, Frozen does blatantly emphasize two things - the element of fantasy and the oxymoron of a snowman wanting it to be summer. There are two parts in Disney World that these themes can play off of - Fantasyland in Magic Kingdom and Blizzard Beach. To me, Blizzard Beach always made perfect sense. Olaf would be a perfect face and the whole concept of the park is already established. Frozen could just move in. A snowman who loves summer only makes sense, right? Jeff Lynch on the Inside the Magic comments shares my opinion saying, "I really wanted them to re-theme Blizzard Beach as a Frozen-themed water park. It would have been perfect." Another commenter, Robert, responded, "You just described re-themeing an entire park versus one attraction." He goes on but I think his point is clear enough. He is right. While the idea works, it would take a lot of reconstructing and a lot of time and money and be way more of a Frozen takeover (though they could have just put a Frozen area but I digress). What is left is Fantasyland. I quote Frost again who says of the attraction, "I think it would fit better in Magic Kingdom with the other animated princesses." I couldn't agree more here as well. Frozen has heavy emphasis on their royal characters and it would only make sense to add them to Magic Kingdom. To play devils advocate, I can see why the Maelstrom works. It is space that is old and forgotten and won't require nearly the amount of money to refurbish than establish an entirely new Frozen section of the park. Or here is an idea, why don't we just "let it go" and not Frozen-ize at all?
Now to attack my fourth point. It is obvious that Frozen has become a viral sensation.
My fifth points exists in three parts - Part one: Cartoons vs. reality; Part two: EPCOT/Norway's falling reputation; Part three: the authenticity of EPCOT.
I love fairy-tales and fiction. My whole lift practically revolves around these two things. It is what Disney does, "they use fantasy to shine a light on reality," as John Frost beautifully puts it. But does this work with EPCOT? Well...no. The answer is no. EPCOT is a mix of many themes but fantasy is not one of them. Tom Staggs writes on the Disney Parks Blog, "I'm pleased to say that we're starting construction at Walt Disney World Resort on a brand new 'Frozen' attraction at the Norway Pavilion in EPCOT. The new attraction, which replaces Maelstrom, will take our guests to Arendelle and immerse them in many of their favorite moments and music from the film." Here is my problem. Staggs says, take our guests to Arendelle and that isn't Norway. It is a fantasy world! It may be based on Norway but it's heart is fantasy. The ride will not be embracing Norwegian culture if we are trusting Staggs who goes on to say how we will be immersed in film moments that virtually having nothing to do with Norway or the culture.
What sets EPCOT apart from the other parks is its lack of fantasy. As I said before, I love fantasy and fiction! But EPCOT has a worldly quality to it that brings a sense of sophistication to Walt Disney World. This, I feel, will be diverging from EPCOT's purpose.
That being said, it is no secret that EPCOT has a low reputation among theme park goers. It is my family's least favorite park (not mine, I have no least favorite). Norway has little to offer these days. As I said in the beginning, Maelstrom was forgettable. John Frost writes, "the country of Norway has not been paying for pavilion maintenance or upgrades for some time...'Frozen' will bring life back to the pavilion.' This is a really great point. Norway needs something to bring life back into it and Frozen can sure bring that. One commenter named Brandi Boyd writes, "I love Maelstrom and am sorry to see it go. However, everything changes and I completely understand Disney wanting to capitalize on Frozen's phenomenal success." This is a wonderful point. Everything changes. Frost finishes his post with, "EPCOT hasn't been living up to it's potential," and I would have to agree.
But at what cost shall we diverge from what EPCOT was, is, and will be? Will a Frozen take over damage EPCOT's authenticity. Well, Staggs version sure makes it look that way. A Disney Blog commentor named Brian Greer writes, "Disney established what the park was supposed to be. They sold us those ideals. Then they largely abandoned them. I know Disney is only interested in cash. I get that I was a chump who believed it was about more than that." The latter I will get to in my next point, but sticking to his first sentence, Greer is right. Disney established EPCOT and is not breaking that establishment. Monu writes on the Inside the Magic comments, "The reason this park was built was for worldly experiences. For lovers of travel and culture. Learning. Almost a museum if you will but with a ton more flare." My point exactly. Fantasy was never meant to be a strong force in EPCOT. Yes it will bring life to the park but there are many other routes to doing something similar. Commenter Jeff writes, "I disagree that Disney is for kids. Disney is for families. Disney is for everyone. EPCOT appeals to adults and knowledge seekers, those of us who relish museums, and traveling to non-English speaking countries...The challenge of continually finding ways to keep that spirit fresh is a one that nobody at [Walt Disney World] has had the ability or desire to take on since the late 80's. So it has become a repository for popular clownfish, and California based attractions that kind of work, and Ellen. It's really just a shame that arguably the most unique park ever built is slowly losing its identity, being homogenized into a generic theme park." I had to include Jeff's comment because of how well written it is but how true it is can be debated. Another commenter, Woolf on Inside the Magic writes in response to Monu's comment, "Maybe the original idea behind this EPCOT park was to be educational and 'almost a museum,' but the REASON the park was built was to make money."
Which brings me to my final point. Point number six: Disney is a business.
Yep. I hate to say it but despite all of these issues I have laid out in great detail, they don't matter when it comes to money and business. One commenter on Inside the Magic named David writes, "I would rather see Disney suffer a hostile takeover and be broken up and sold off in pieces like they almost were in 1984, than see a Frozen attraction replace Maelstrom." I strongly disagree with this comment on so many levels. First of all, I don't want Disney to go bankrupt and be sold off in pieces. If Disney had had this fate in 1984 we would have never had the Disney Renaissance and everything offered at the parks today! I believe Disney had a lot more to offer and if this ride helps their business, so be it. Frozen is a cash cow and Disney knows that bringing Frozen to a dying area will manipulate kids to beg their tired parents to go to EPCOT and ride the Frozen ride and buy Frozen merchandise which is sure to come at the rides end.
As a creator myself, I have come to realize that planning and mapping ideas for certain reasons doesn't always come across to audiences. Disney had a hit and whether it was good or not, they most likely began to brainstorm realistic ways to bring Frozen to the theme parks. Bringing a Frozen makeover to Maelstrom allows them to save money because they aren't building new construction on new land but just reconstructing an attraction. They will bring more people to Norway and to do that people must walk through the other countries.
Commenter Reed writes on Inside the Magic, "After reading some of these comments, I am truly conflicted. Both sides have excellent points." Indeed he is right. There are lots of pros and cons to this news. Another commenter named DisneySon1 summarizes my feelings perfectly. He writes, "I'm cautiously optimistic that the marriage of Norway and Frozen will be tasteful, respectful, and ten times more dazzling than the current attraction at the pavilion, while preserving what is truly important about Norwegian culture in the pavilion. But until we can actually ride this thing in a few years (or even see concept art), I'll withhold final judgement and wait until we can actually judge this 'transformation' ourselves."
From a fan perspective, I feel like a better choice could have been made. Disney could take advantage of putting more fitting movies in other attractions and put Frozen in a more fitting environment. This also threatens the purpose of EPCOT. From a business perspective, this is a move that will save money and draw in the masses. It is a good move.
While this blog must come off as I don't like this decision, I actually think that overall it will be a good one. I think we are all threatened by change and it is a bit nerve wrecking to know that Frozen is taking over Disney in such a large way but once we see concept art and actually ride the attraction, I think we will all be pleasantly surprised. While Disney isn't as "great" as it could be, I still think they have great ideas and that they are dedicated to quality. Whether or not we like the idea, Disney will sure as hell make it amazing!
What are your thoughts on the new Frozen attraction? Do you love it or hate it? Or are you somewhere in between? Let me know in the comments! Thanks for reading!
Inside the Magic: http://www.insidethemagic.net/2014/09/frozen-ride-officially-announced-for-walt-disney-world-to-replace-maelstrom-in-norway-at-epcot/
The Disney Blog: http://thedisneyblog.com/2014/09/12/frozen-attraction-officially-coming-to-epcots-norway-pavilion/
No comments:
Post a Comment