Originally Posted By RoadTrip While I'm on the topic... GE declined to renew their sponsorship of Carousel of Progress when the contract expired in 1985, which explains the sad condition it is presently in. I'm sure it is only Walt Disney's personal involvement and love for the attraction that keeps it from being closed... for now.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Why does the elimination of a sponsor give Disney a pass to allow an attraction's show quality to deteriorate? Plenty of Disney attractions around the globe lack sponsorships and yet most of them are in or close to top condition.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA The whole notion of 'things for kids to do' is sort of baffling. When we first visited Disneyland, my little sister was 3 years old and all she really wanted to do was go on 'it's a small world.' Most of the other 'rides' were just too scary for the little nipper. Sure, the Disneyland Railroad, Storybook Canal Boats, PeopleMover and some other rides, but it was 'it's a small world' that she went on over and over again. And yet, my parents never left Disneyland saying 'wish there was more things for kids to do .'
Originally Posted By Mr X ***there's really no reason that it belongs in Norway*** Duh! It belongs in Norway because cold. Isn't that pretty much the Disnified (read 'Americanized') version of geography anyway?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Why does the elimination of a sponsor give Disney a pass to allow an attraction's show quality to deteriorate? Plenty of Disney attractions around the globe lack sponsorships and yet most of them are in or close to top condition.>> Because for the most part the neglected attractions are not iconic Disney Attractions and were often intended primarly to be an advertisement for the sponsor. Would they ever close the Matterhorn, Space Mountain or Indy Jones, with or without sponsors? Of course not. But lesser attractions appear to be fair game when the sponsor is gone. Look at all the original Disneyland Torommowland sponsored attractions that no longer exist.
Originally Posted By TMICHAEL Only thing I'll miss from Maelstrom are the polar bears. Maybe, with a little luck, those guys can be repurposed. BRING ON FROZEN. Hopefully, the budget is huge and they don't bastardize it like they usually do. The quality of the recent openings in the Fantasyland expansion, give me hope.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Oh well ... farewell Maelstrom. I went on it a total of 2 visits in '92 and '95. So much for a third visit. Now World Showcase gets to be "tooned" up. I liked Frozen. I wouldn't mind a "Frozen" attraction in a park/land suited for "fantasy" themes. But in a park meant to exude reality ... this just sucks. As times goes on .... the people who don't like Disney parks because they claim are "kiddy" parks ... Well ... I kept telling those people - Disney parks are more than kiddy parks ... Well guess what? They are devolving more into just "kiddy" fare. Pass on anything that hits on any adult level ... just make it all just one Light Superficial World. As long as the kiddies smile, that's all that matters anymore right??! Bye Maelstrom! I'll miss you.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Oh, and since when does "Frozen" represent Norway? I thought it was an amalgamation of various Scandinavian countries, sugar coated with many hints of 'fantasy'.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<The setting was principally based on Norway, and the cultural influences in the film come from Scandinavian culture.[88] Several landmarks in Norway appear in the film, including the Akershus Fortress in Oslo, the Nidaros Cathedral in Trondheim, and Bryggen in Bergen.>> Source: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen</a>_(2013_film) It was every bit as Norwegian as Maelstrom is. Trolls are Scandinavian folklore, not strictly Norwegian. The other major component of Maelstrom, offshore oil drilling platforms, are also found in Sweden. There are of course some differences, but much Scandinavian culture is very similar. This spoken as someone of Swedish descent who spent most of his life in Minnesota.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>GE declined to renew their sponsorship of Carousel of Progress when the contract expired in 1985, which explains the sad condition it is presently in.<< I'm not positive on the details of the arrangement, but I believe their sponsorship of COP ended in 1983 when they began sponsoring Horizons in Epcot. That contract ran up (and was not renewed) in the early 90's, leading to the decline and eventual removal of Horizons, to be replaced by Mission:Space. COP got a pretty thorough redo around 1994 that restored the original song, focused more heavily on Walt's involvement, and updated the ending with the talking oven and virtual reality grandma >>Would they ever close the Matterhorn, Space Mountain or Indy Jones, with or without sponsors? Of course not. But lesser attractions appear to be fair game when the sponsor is gone<< Although it's not quite on the level of those iconic attractions, I would argue that Maelstrom is in that same untouchable category for most people. It was the only ride of any substance in that half of the park, and I think it became a must-do for a lot of people. Nobody will argue that the ride was perfect (or well maintained), but it was a fun adventure that the whole family could enjoy. Similar to TSMM, it filled a void in the park's attraction roster, which may have artificially inflated its value over what it realistically should be. On the flipside, making it a character-driven attraction will most likely lower its value to the general public, but exponentially increase it for little girls >>Trolls are Scandinavian folklore, not strictly Norwegian.<< Really? When I visited Scandinavia I only remember seeing troll-related stuff in Norway. Granted, it was about 15 years ago so my memory could have faded, but I was under the impression that they were pretty much a Norwegian thing As for oil, although other countries produce oil, Norway is really known for it (or at least was known for it in the late 80's before everybody else latched on to off-shore rigs). Now that it's more commonplace and there's no longer a sponsor, the ending probably should reflect some other aspect of uniquely-Norwegian culture; Anna and Elsa don't fit that bill in any way
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>As times goes on .... the people who don't like Disney parks because they claim are "kiddy" parks ... Well ... I kept telling those people - Disney parks are more than kiddy parks ... Well guess what? They are devolving more into just "kiddy" fare.<< I agree and have been in a similar situation myself many times. The problem has gotten worse under Iger and his mandate that everything must have a character tie-in. It seems that there's a strong family audience for the parks, but I can't help but think that they're leaving a ton of potential money on the table by not trying to woo groups without children (who typically have more disposable income), or families with kids who don't particularly care about the characters. The charts keep showing that the profit is up, but the more I visit the parks, the more it seems like that's just due to price increases, service cuts, and rearranging the deck chairs to hide expenses
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA "You're dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway." - Walt Disney
Originally Posted By darcy-becker Now let's remember kids aren't the only ones who like Frozen. It wouldn't be the smash sensation it is if that were true.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Although it's not quite on the level of those iconic attractions, I would argue that Maelstrom is in that same untouchable category for most people." Sorry, I think I'm going to have to scoff at this. *scoff* Untouchable? Most? Can't say I buy that for a second.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I always thought of 'Maelstrom' as being a bit of a bust. That said, I also think trying to shove 'Frozen' in there is a lousy choice.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I really like the move. Since Frozen got started, Norway has been a big influence. A major, driving influence. Not just one little part. Adventures by Disney is taking people to Norway with a Frozen theme. Toursim to Norway is up because of Frozen. Norway's dept of tourism is using Frozen: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://campaign.visitnorway.com/us/Disney-Frozen/Disneys-Frozen--inspired-by-Norway/">http://campaign.visitnorway.co...-Norway/</a> Anyone who can't see that Frozen was basically set in a fantasy version of Norway is reaching. And for Maelstrom - it was never only about a factual trip through Norway. The trolls added fantasy. I sure hope the new ride uses the Trolls from Frozen a lot! I loved those guys.
Originally Posted By magic0214 Okay, here's a question for everyone: If the new Frozen attraction received received the "Gran Fiesta Tour" treatment, so placing the characters in landmarks and prominent scenarios in Norway, would everyone be alright with it? (Don't mean this in a rude way, serious question)
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Untouchable? Most? Can't say I buy that for a second.<< I've been to Epcot with many different groups of people of varying ages, from toddlers to my 60-something parents, and each group regarded Maelstrom as a must-do. Maybe my experience is different from the general public, but I think that Maelstrom's value has been inflated because of the lack of other rides in World Showcase. >>And for Maelstrom - it was never only about a factual trip through Norway. The trolls added fantasy.<< But it was Norway's fantasy. Although fictional, trolls are a part of Norwegian folk lore, similar to Paul Bunyan in the US. While they definitely add a level of fantasy to the attraction, it fits within the parameters of Norway. Trying to say that Frozen represents any culture other than America's is simply disingenuous to the people of Norway >>If the new Frozen attraction received received the "Gran Fiesta Tour" treatment, so placing the characters in landmarks and prominent scenarios in Norway, would everyone be alright with it?<< For me, no. It would be the worst of both worlds. It wouldn't be doing enough justice to Norway because it would be covered with cartoons, and it wouldn't be doing enough justice to Frozen by trying to make it something its not (a travelogue through Norway). If they're going to do the Frozen makeover, I want them to go all the way and do it right; I don't want cutesy nods to what was there before and end up with a hodgepodge of an attraction. Hopefully this will end up like the Dreamflight/Take Flight conversion to Buzz Lightyear, where the end result was all but unrecognizable from what they started with. The Mexico ride kind of works because The Three Caballeros is basically a travelogue film; Frozen is a linear story and should be treated as such, otherwise we'll end up with another version of the eye spy Nemo ride (That said, I'd much rather them give Maelstrom a full refurbishment and serious tech upgrade while remaining true to Norwegian culture, but I realize that's simply out of the question at this point)
Originally Posted By leemac Epcot stopped being my first love a long time ago. The Toonization of the park is heart-breaking to me as I always felt there was a way to keep Epcot's unique brand of entertainment and education. We just don't even try any more. Maelstrom was an imperfect attraction that effectively had one neat effect that at the time was groundbreaking. It just wasn't executed well. There were plenty of options over the years to update it and give it some TLC. The attraction has never had a ground-up refurb in its 26 year history. Not once. Now it only gets it because the executive committee can sign off on a character-based refresh.
Originally Posted By leemac <<The Mexico ride kind of works because The Three Caballeros is basically a travelogue film;>> It wasn't a great attraction to start with and the team were given no money to add show scenes either. It was originally pitched as an AA attraction and the budget just got cut and cut. The problem is that WDI now has to find ways to get unloved attractions some capex budget money to keep them alive. The only way to do that is to add characters. Very little is getting approved unless there is a sponsor attached. I've lost count how many executives have pushed Remy into France. It is almost the last bastion in World Showcase as no-one wants to be the executive who pulls the plug on American Adventure.
