Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I thoroughly enjoyed Frozen, but I couldn't give a rat's patootie about a Frozen attraction for some reason. Maybe I could if I were a girl. And 5.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Had no idea that Jim Hill was writing for Huffington Post now.<< I would guess this is probably just a one-off thing, since he's been credited as the first source to bring up the Maelstrom rumors, dating back to last winter >>Also, his detail about the "blonde" Ariel doll was weird.<< I've read that story before (probably in another Hill article) and wondered about it then. Disney has always been pretty good about character integrity in merchandise. Granted, Disney in 1989 wasn't the powerhouse that they are today, but I still think that they would have insisted that the doll have red hair, since they made it such an iconic part of the character design As for not including the live shows in his list, I get that to a certain extent. But it is misleading to make it sound like there was absolutely no Mermaid stuff in the US until a couple years ago; at the very least, she got a permanent meet & greet in DL and MK in the 90's. Also, the show at the Studios does use live performers, but it operates like an attraction with shows beginning every ~20 minutes, just like a 3D movie; it certainly should have been included
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>I thoroughly enjoyed Frozen, but I couldn't give a rat's patootie about a Frozen attraction for some reason.<< I think that's because great attractions don't really focus on characters, but on taking you to another time and place. Frozen is a character-driven story that could have taken place anywhere; arguably it would have been much more dramatic in a tropical setting where snow was unheard of. People love the characters and songs from the movie; the setting is just sort of lingering in the background. It's the same reason that WDI said they'd given up on doing a Robin Hood dark ride after many attempts: the location just isn't very exciting. It's outside the stone castle wall, inside the stone castle wall, and out in a generic forest; that's hardly as exciting as a Caribbean port or the skies above London. The characters are the focus of that film, and there's just no easy way to condense that into a 3-minute ride (as we've seen with recent attempts like the Monsters ride in DCA or Pooh in DL and MK). Plus, after a few decades and several actual successful movies, people have finally started to realize that Robin Hood just wasn't all that good of a film...
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: Well, I've been collecting Disney dolls for many years and consider myself to be an expert on them. The only blonde mermaid dolls I came across back in 1989 were the generic 'knock off' types that didn't even claim to be Ariel. Tyco made the first Ariel dolls and I still have them. They all had red hair. Later on Mattel got the license to do Ariel and I bought all those, too. They all had red hair. So I think Jim needs a henna rinse, himself!!!
Originally Posted By oc_dean Ferrot ... any chance you'd be willing to share your letter with us? I'd love to see how you worded it. If not, perhaps via email with me?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I think that's because great attractions don't really focus on characters, but on taking you to another time and place. I kinda sorta agree. In my opinion a truly great Disney park anything always has a unique and compelling story. As a stand alone film Frozen is great, but I don't see what the Frozen narrative is going to bring to the WDW experience that I can't already do right now.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Yes, Norway needs to remain Norwegian--no matter how the snow melts--at the end of winter, Norway is still Norway and NOT Arendale...
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Yes, Norway needs to remain Norwegian--no matter how the snow melts--at the end of winter, Norway is still Norway and NOT Arendale... Arrendale is a fictional kingdom set in Norway. "After traveling to several Nordic locations, the art direction team settled on Norway as the perfect backdrop for the fictional ice kingdom of Arendelle." <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://campaign.visitnorway.com/us/Disney-Frozen/Disneys-Frozen--inspired-by-Norway/">http://campaign.visitnorway.co...-Norway/</a>
Originally Posted By utahjosh 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. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Arendelle">http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Arendelle</a>
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: But why bother with fictional imitations when you can have the real thing. My sisters and I have argued--for years--about how much we support the idea of movie tie-in's for attractions at the Disney parks. But Epcot is the exception because that's one park that was supposed to be based--primarily--on the real world. World Showcase, in particular, is supposed to be based on the real world. So movie tie-in's aren't quite so welcome there. The closest thing we give a pass on are the character meetings and greetings which take place in the various countries--like seeing Princess Aurora in France or Snow White in Germany. Beyond that movie tie-in's just don't fit inside World Showcase.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Ferrot ... any chance you'd be willing to share your letter with us? I'd love to see how you worded it. If not, perhaps via email with me?<< It's saved to my work computer, so I'll have to wait until Monday before I can send it to you
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Now see, Ferret, dear; if you had crystal balls like my sisters and I do you wouldn't have to wait until Monday to send anything. You really should go out and get a pair for yourself right away. Everyone should have crystal balls...
Originally Posted By u k fan I'm not against character attractions in World Showcase as long as they are native to the country in question. Alice, Peter Pan, Robin Hood, SitS in the UK pavillion? No problem. Brother Bear in Canada? No. It's not actually Canadian, just set there. If the attraction represents the culture of that country (even a Disney version of it) then I'm OK with it, otherwise I'd rather they steer clear!!!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip << World Showcase, in particular, is supposed to be based on the real world. So movie tie-in's aren't quite so welcome there. >> That was probably at least partially based on the assumption that the country featured would continue to provide some financial support for operating the attraction. Norway stopped doing that 12 years ago. If Disney picked up the FULL operating cost for any country's attraction and leave it basically just an ad for travel there, what incentive would ANY country have to renew their contract with Disney? That sponsorship is what gives any country the right to have some say in what is presented and what isn't. If Disney can now attract more people with a Norway attraction with a Frozen tie-in, why not? They get to sell Frozen stuff in the gift shop at the end instead of trolls, expensive perfume and sweaters. I like to think Disney will do a good job and still retain the feel of Norway. We will see.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>ORDDU: Now see, Ferret, dear; if you had crystal balls like my sisters and I do you wouldn't have to wait until Monday to send anything. You really should go out and get a pair for yourself right away. Everyone should have crystal balls...<< I'm surprised you ladies can fly around on your broomsticks with crystal balls. It seems like they'd get in the way, and would be in danger of breaking >>If Disney picked up the FULL operating cost for any country's attraction and leave it basically just an ad for travel there, what incentive would ANY country have to renew their contract with Disney?<< But realistically, how many guests visit any of the WS pavilions and then think to themselves "Gosh, that was fun. Now I want to plan a trip to ________!"? At best, they raise general awareness that lurks in the back of your mind for a while. They're certainly lovely, but outside of potential food and merchandise revenue (like Mistukoshi in Japan), I don't think that any of the sponsors have a chance of seeing a direct increase in business. How many guests bought Norwegian oil when the pavilion first opened? Not too many In a way, WS should be a loss leader for Disney; they shouldn't need a sponsor for everything. We've long since passed the days where corporate sponsorships of attractions are common in any of the US parks, so why is Epcot being held to a different standard? Disney does a pretty good job of maintaining the thematic integrity of the realism-based lands at DAK without a sponsor; why can't they also do that at Epcot?
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Just so you know, Ferret, dear, your cauldron girls NEVER fly with our balls. That would just be too unlady like. (Can't you just imagine how tacky it would look for us to be flying around on broomsticks with our crystal balls dangling all about?) No, we leave our crystal balls at home where they belong. Balls like that are very delicate, you know. So we have to protect them from harm. We occasionally rub them clean and show them off to the neighbors--but NEVER fly around the world with them...
Originally Posted By leemac <<Almost every Epcot attraction and pavilion had a Sponsor when Epcot originally opened. >> Future World, yes. World Showcase, no. I wanted to address this discussion around Corporate Alliances for WS. EPCOT Center opened with 9 country pavilions - not a single one of them was "sponsored" by the country in question. There was some assistance in terms of finding corporate sponsorship within the pavilion but national governments or even quasi-government agencies like tourism bureaus did not invest. Flash forward to opening and the decision on the expansion countries was that the vast majority of the iconic countries were already represented (bar arguably Spain and Russia). Therefore it made sense to drop to the next tier and attempt to get some federal sponsorship. That led to development work on the likes of UAE, Israel, Venezuela, Switzerland etc. That is when both Morocco and Norway were approved based in part for the federal support but primarily as they filled out the architectural palette of WS - classic Moorish architecture with a minaret for Morocco and Bergen/Oslo-style architecture for Norway (styles that are usually confused with being generic to Scandinavia). Norway's on-going support to the pavilion was minimal - it barely covered the running costs for the theatre show. Epcot management opted to let Malestrom become run down. When an attraction is planned and approved it typically doesn't have a corporate alliance attached. That is usually the gravy during construction - the sole exception is Tokyo Disney Resort were the vast majority of sponsors are already in place prior to approval (OLC operate an unusual policy that allows sponsors to shift attractions when new ones open - Panasonic recently switched from Star Tours to Monsters Inc, Ride and Go Seek and JCB from the Magic Eye Theater to Star Tours). The days of massive corporate alliances are long gone. People often point to the Compaq deal for Mission: SPACE as the exception but Compaq strong-armed the company into becoming its exclusive IT partner at the same time. Compaq's sponsorship was more valuable in the company's decision to use M:S in advertising than actually providing cash to build the attraction.
Originally Posted By leemac <<If Disney picked up the FULL operating cost for any country's attraction and leave it basically just an ad for travel there, what incentive would ANY country have to renew their contract with Disney?>> The WS pavilions only exist to be a travel ad for the country? The true age of commercial international travel didn't exist when WDW was building Epcot - the purpose of WS was simply to mimick the Expo format without needing to pander to government's sanitized views of their own countries for marketing purposes. As I said - with the exception of Morocco - Epcot received almost nada for marketing to a specific pavilion.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I'm not against character attractions in World Showcase as long as they are native to the country in question.>> I don't get my panties in a twist over it but I do think it adds a fantasy element that is unnecessary. The UK pavilion is a beautiful example - it just doesn't need to be overrun with Disney interpretations of classic British stories. I'd have no issue if the sketches of E.H. Shepard had a life in the UK pavilion - but the Disney version of the bear just isn't necessary - especially when he has a home in Fantasyland.
