There has been much debate in the Disney fan community over the closing of this classic attraction and the inclusion of a Frozen ride. Virtually any time Disney closes a ride or attraction, there will be those who are against it, but this particular closing has seemed to generate a fair amount of controversy. Some have felt that having a Disney movie attraction in an Epcot/World Showcase country goes against the original purpose of that area, and does not promote Norwegian culture. There are also others who are "Frozened-out" and aren't excited about an attraction featuring Anna, Elsa and Olaf.
But some people are excited with the addition of an attraction to answer the world-wide phenomenon that is Frozen. If you have kids who sing "Let It Go" 100 times a day (and we know you hum along with it, too), you were probably excited about this addition.
I would say I am in the camp in the middle of the two opinions - how's that for taking a stand? :) I am not a Maelstrom "fan" per se, although I always liked it; and I am not necessarily a "pro-Frozen" person, either. However, I am going to outline what I think are the reasons for ditching Maelstrom and adding Frozen to the mix. (I say I think, because as of this writing, Disney has not expressly asked me for my two cents and opinions. We can only hope that day will come!)
Unless you've been hiding under a rock the last year, you know that Frozen is Disney's latest juggernaut, runaway hit, making over $1.2 billion dollars at the box office. It's been said that Disney did not anticipate that this film would get SO huge, and so was not prepared as they could have been with the theme parks and with merchandise. Just ask those who paid upwards of $300 on eBay for an Elsa dress. The Disney Parks need to answer this guest demand for Frozen experiences, characters, etc, and building this attraction is one way to do that.
* The country of Norway does not own or have a say in the running of that pavilion.
I heard over and over again statements to the effect of, "How can Disney do this? Doesn't Norway have to give their permission, as it's their pavilion?" There were quite a few news reports about how some in Norway were not in favor of this decision. So I looked into it. Come to find out, Norway no longer has a say in what is included in their area of the World Showcase. Back in the late 1980s, when the pavilion was first built, there was a group of Norwegian investors who raised the $30 million need to start the area; Disney ponied up the other 1/3rd. Then in 1992, the investors sold their stake back to Disney; and according to this Wikipedia article, since as many people visit Epcot as live in Norway, the Norwegian tourism office still felt that having a presence at Epcot was a good thing. The government of Norway continued to pay Disney $200,000 a year for the pavilion until 2002, when their government voted to discontinue those payments.
So, he/she who pays the bills makes the decisions. And since Norway is no longer paying Disney for the pavilion (although Disney has elected to keep it going, which I think is a good choice), Norway no longer has a say in what is built there.
* From time to time, attractions need to be changed.
This is sometimes sacrilege in the Disney fan community, as we definitely have a segment (albeit small) of our population that would prefer for everything at Disney to remain as it was when the parks were opened. Even classic rides get moved, changed or removed from the parks completely. Change is as inevitable as death and taxes, and that holds especially true for the Disney Parks.
I once took a park tour where our guide said that at any given day, about 1/2 of the visitors through the turnstiles have never been to any Disney park. It stands to reason, then, that the other 1/2 have been at some point and Disney needs to adjust the Parks experience to keep those return guests interested and to give them a reason to come back again. Walt Disney famously said that Disneyland would never be done, it would always be evolving and changing. The parks would be boring and static if if was the same experience every time you went.
I am all for nostalgia but sometimes it has to be out with the old, and in with the new.
(On that note - - who do we have to talk to to get Stitch's Great Escape out of Magic Kingdom?! I have yet to encounter one person who actually likes that attraction.)
*Frozen (and its popularity) is not a flash in the pan.
Some feel that Frozen is the latest thing and its popularity will not stand the test of time and is a trendy, flash-in-the-pan movie. I respectfully disagree. I feel that Frozen is this generation's Little Mermaid, or Lion King. Scores of kids will remember this as their first "Disney movie in a theater" experience. They'll still remember every word to "Let It Go", even when they're in their 30s, 40s and beyond. They'll tell stories at Thanksgiving about how their mom or dad went to every Disney Store within a 100-mile radius and cyber-stalked DisneyStore.com to find the dolls, toys, dresses, etc.
I know some of you are getting sick of Frozen. Honestly, some days I am there with you. But you have to remember the media culture we have now, that we didn't have when Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and Lion King came out. Media is such an ever-present area of our lives (heck, most of us carry video and music players in our pockets and purses) and it can be hard to escape what's new and hot, so people can get sick of it after a while. However, I don't think this means that Frozen is a trend that will die over time. The story is so good and the music so incredible.
So, in summation - although it does mark a shift in the pavilion content at the World Showcase, I ultimately think that the removal of Maelstrom and in the inclusion is a good thing for Walt Disney World.
What are your thoughts? Are you Yay or Nay on the closing of Maelstrom?
No comments:
Post a Comment