Na Na Na HeyaNO: Popularity and the Proper Placement of a Frozen Attraction

 

Theoretical imagining of a Frozen overlay by Brandon Hardey

"Let it No" by Eric Proctor

Let’s talk about Frozen. When a film is this successful or simply even liked to a considerable extent, there will inevitably be cries for turning it into an attraction. There have been fans suggesting everything from a dark ride in the Magic Kingdom, a renovation of the Matterhorn into Elsa’s ice castle, and a retheming of Epcot’s Norway Pavilion and Maelstrom attraction into to Frozen—however, the latter actually looks like it has a chance at becoming reality. Various news and blog posts linking to this Norwegian news report claim that Disney has offered the country of Norway the chance to pay approximately $9 million dollars to maintain the pavilion and its signature ride Maelstrom or else the area will be converted to Arendelle. This coupled with the fact that FastPass+ isn't available for the attraction after September 28th and that Disney just released a special, limited edition Maelstrom t-shirt has fans concerned.

At first I wasn’t even sure if I should take this report seriously—since we Disney theme park enthusiasts have a habit of creating ridiculous rumors as a parody of the modern corporation’s attitudes towards the parks (such as making The Jungle Cruise into an Avatar-based ride). Reports of franchise integration into rides, particularly current and popular franchises, is normally taken with a grain of salt. But from the evidence above, it looks like this is indeed a possibility. 

So. Let’s talk about the film, about franchises, and about themes. A lot of this post’s content started out on MiceChat before the Epcot rumors were a legitimate concern. You can find that thread here and my original response here. I also suggest reading the posts I linked to in the opening paragraph above, as some make a lot of good points about the nature of Epcot and the current situation. The conversation intertwined several different threads revolving around the separate ideas of the quality of the film, its commercial success, its staying power, and the placement of franchises in Disneyland. It’s important to pick apart these issues and address them individually, since one doesn’t necessarily determine the other. 

I’m in the group of critics and fans that think the film is underwhelming. It’s nice in some regards, but it’s not a masterpiece. I highly recommend checking out both CriticalHit's and CellSpex's reviews of the Frozen, as they cover the majority of my complaints, and the purpose of this post isn't to review the film as many have done. Opinions of the film are subjective, however, its commercial performance and popularity is not. And the fact is that it made tons of money, people are scrambling for merchandise, and its songs are inescapable. It’s hard to deny that this film was a commercial success for Disney. Discussion of its future effects on the company is inevitable.

With that said, no one can say for certain what the staying power of Frozen will be since we’re witnessing it in its prime and popularity doesn’t necessarily translate into stayability. However, my question is, does it ultimately matter whether the film has staying power? A good attraction should be a good attraction on its own. Its environments should be interesting, its story should be engaging, it should transport us into its world or show us something new that works regardless of the film. Case in point: Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride and Splash Mountain. Very few people have seen the films that these attractions are based on, yet they function on their own because they are strong attractions regardless. If a ride for Frozen is built, it should be the same.

Seriously, my guess is that <0.1% of Guests, if that, have seen The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad or Song of the South. 

While I’m a strong advocate for original (non-franchise based) attractions in Disney parks, I also love traditional dark rides based on Disney fairy tales and, in my own armchair Imagineering, I’ve done quite a few of them, including for Frozen. Whether or not Frozen remains a beloved film, what’s not interesting about a mystical land cursed in eternal winter or seeing beautiful northern lights, fantastical trolls, ice castles being magically constructed, outrunning from wolves, experiencing glimpses of Scandinavian culture and legend, all flowing to matching music and brought to life with special effects and set pieces? That’s what should be the base of the ride and the heart of the discussion when basing an attraction off a film.

Not every movie needs to (or should) be turned into a ride, but when it is, the concept should be something that appeals to guests regardless of source material (the source material is just something that amplifies appeal), to account for both guests who don’t know the source material and the possibility of familiarity of/attachment to the source material fading over time. I won’t dive much into the debate of franchises versus original attractions beyond what I’ve already mentioned (that’s a different topic for a different time and a different post), but I will say that while I strongly believe that the park needs a better balance between original and franchise-based attractions (particularly in their new additions), I have little to no opposition to the idea of a Frozen dark ride if approached in a way where the environments and journey are the focus (like with Peter Pan’s Flight or Snow White’s Scary Adventures) rather than the characters (which seems to be the greater focus of weak Under the Sea: Journey of the Little Mermaid/The Little Mermaid: Ariel’s Undersea Adventure) and if placed in an appropriate area. I think that discussion of the film’s popularity (and personal opinions of the film) should be second to the engaging environments and experiences that can be taken from that film and applied to a three-dimensional medium, and how those experiences can enhance the land and the park as a whole.

However, with that said, the Norway Pavilion is not an appropriate area. While the original vision of Epcot (or, specifically, EPCOT Center) has waned, I’ll always defend it. Fantastical and fictitious countries are appropriate for Fantasyland, not the World Showcase, which is supposed to be grounded in reality, history, and culture. Again, it boils down to how an attraction’s experience and environment can enhance, benefit, enrich, and expand on its respective land and the park as a whole. The idea of an Arendelle Pavilion is in stark contrast with the surrounding countries’ pavilions, the idea of the World Showcase, and the fabric of Epcot. Nor does a Frozen attraction fit inside Norway’s Pavilion, as Arendelle is not a part of Norway, but a fictitious and mythical country that lacks significance to Norway’s actual culture, mythology, and history. I may have said that Frozen has glimpses of Scandinavian culture and legend, but that’s just it, glimpses. Fleeting sights that may intrigue us but fail to teach us anything of substance. That’s not what Epcot is about.

"Norway at Night" by Bob Rowan

The following quotes are from Walt Disney’s EPCOT Center: Creating the New World of Tomorrow (from the park’s opening in 1982, showing Guests what EPCOT Center was all about—unfortunately, I only have the abridged version but I still managed to pull some quotes that reflect the mission of Epcot):

"World Showcase, curving along the shores of the lagoon that connects it to Future World, is a permanent community of nations whose pavilions stand side by side in exemplary amity. [….] Possibly one of the reasons there is no international disharmony is that all of the foreign countries have equal waterfront footage.  […] The broadening effects of tourism work two ways. Not only are Epcot’s guests introduced to the cultures, customs, crafts, and foods of other lands, but on the staff of each pavilion are about a dozen young men and women from that country, giving them a chance to meet Americans and other nationals. Through a program called Showcase Fellowships, these youngsters from participating countries are brought to Ecpot Center not only to work but to participate in an international community certain to enrich their outlook.  […] During the entire year, the Disney entertainment division will focus on particular festivals of the various World Showcase countries… Countries not represented at World Showcase also have been invited to participate, in an effort to create a broad international ambiance.  [… T]he possibilities are virtually limitless for the establishment of a true community of nations at Epcot Center.”

A common criticism of Epcot is the idea that Disney was supposedly trying to deter people from vacationing abroad by providing a faux experience of each country, thus attracting more Guests to their park. But this is actually the opposite of EPCOT Center’s original vision—the idea behind the World Showcase was to peak Guest’s interest in countries and prompt world exploration. While nations and cultures have not always been accurately represented (and have unfortunately been rather Eurocentric), there was an effort for authenticity—Disney’s establishment of the World Showcase Fellowships so the staff in each pavilion would be from its respective country, how everything originally sold in the pavilions’ shops was made in the countries represented, and the want for a variety of countries to be participants in the venture. In the TravelPort in CommuniCore East you could even play around with touch screen previews of various global travel destinations and gain actual information from the travel service desk about booking a trip abroad (an example of how the two halves of the park complemented each other).

Concept art via Theme Park Review

Another quote from further back from an 1975 Annual Report to shareholders for a slightly more nascent concept of the World Showcase and its purpose:

“Beyond the scientific and technological aspects of EPCOT the project holds great promise for the advancement of international cooperation and understanding. The World Showcase, planned for opening in late 1979, will be devoted to this goal. An on-going international exposition, for which an admission will be charged, the World Showcase will communicate the culture, heritage, history, technology, trade, tourism and future goals of the participating nations.”

A fictitious fantasy country does not support this vision, particularly since, as mentioned, Frozen, while carrying hints of Scandinavian culture in sequences like “Vuelie/Frozen Heart” and the coronation scene, is not particularly heavy on actual “culture, history, heritage, technology, tourism, trade, or national goals.” It doesn’t contribute to showing us something about the world or teaching us something about Scandinavia. It isn’t even set in a “real” country, which completely contradicts the very basis of the World Showcase and the vision of Epcot—a park designed to show us the possibilities of the future through both technology and international harmony, to teach us both science and culture, to provide not escapism like the Magic Kingdom, but intellectual enrichment and opportunities to become curious and excited about reality (though I personally think there’s more to the castle parks than pure fantasy and escapism, but, again, that’s for another time and another post). Even if the park has suffered from outdated representations and irrelevant character additions, it’s a vision worth admiring and defending. Pulling a quote from Theme Park Insider:

“The report implicitly raises an interesting question, however: Is it better for Norway to have an Epcot pavilion filled with outdated information and cultural stereotypes, or to allow Disney to reimagine it as unapologetic fiction? It is easier to justify abandoning a non-fiction theme when the non-fiction isn’t that accurate anymore, after all. But why must those be the only two choices? What about Norway, or, more likely, a Norwegian company, putting up the cash to renovate the Norway pavilion into something more exciting, more entertaining, and more accurately reflective of Norway today? Yeah, that’s not as conceptually easy as just making the whole thing into Arendelle, Florida, but theme park design pros usually rise to a challenge when given the opportunity and means to do it.”

Going back to the basis of theme park design, a Frozen attraction or pavilion is an example of an attraction concept detracting from its respective land and park rather than enhancing and enriching it. It only continues the homogenization of Disney parks into the generic Disney brand and continues watering down what made Epcot special. That’s why I’m against a Frozen presence in Epcot (and quite frankly, I’m against practically any Disney character presence at all besides Epcot originals like Figment).

A Frozen attraction or presence in Fantasyland in the Magic Kingdom (or other castle parks)—a land that’s a celebration of our imagination, our creativity, and our ability to believe in fantastical things—is a far more appropriate placement. It fits all of those themes well. If made into an immersive attraction that invites the Guests to partake in the creativity and wonder of its world and environments, then it could be a strong addition to Fantasyland and help bring new depth to those themes. Not to mention that a lot of Frozen concept art had somewhat of a Mary Blair influence which could easily translate to a theme park attraction and fit in artistically with other rides that have a heavy Blair influence on either their films or the attraction itself—Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella, and, of course, “it’s a small world.” If designed and constructed well, the popularity of the film shouldn’t matter, but where it’s placed and the way it affects its surroundings, its respective land, and the park should. A theme park attraction doesn’t exist in isolation, and if it ultimately only combats with and detracts from its environment and their themes, there’s no point to its existence, it’s only an opportunity wasted.

  

"The Spirit of Norway" by Brandon Meier, unknown via pinterest, "Norseman" by misterhowe

Photo credits listed below pictures. All non-credited photos are from Wikipedia. If you know the artist of the middle photograph in the above photo set, please contact me so I can credit them.

EDIT (9/12): It is official. The Frozenapocalypse takes over October 5th. Sad times. Short and sweet additional reading from one of my favorite theme park tumblrs.