Frozen Ever After

[JungleSkip]

Universal rides used to be sponsored a lot. I remember JPRA was sponsored by General Electric for a while, and there were plenty of other sponsorships. Not sure where they are now, I guess Universal decided they didnt care to be dependent on other companies for the well-being of their attractions.

I think it's more that most companies don't see the benefit in sponsorship anymore. Most of the Disney rides that had sponsors no loner do either.

Except in Tokyo, where it seems like every attraction has a sponsor.

 

[MrRoamer]

Thanks for reminding me about Mummy and JP, seems odd that they have ditched the model when it could help spread out funding.

I think it's more that most companies don't see the benefit in sponsorship anymore. Most of the Disney rides that had sponsors no loner do either.

Except in Tokyo, where it seems like every attraction has a sponsor.

I think there are still quite a few in MK, AK, and HS but can't think of them off the top of my head.
Epcot is still pretty much entirely sponsored: Ellen's Energy with GE, Spaceship Earth with Siemens, Test Track by GM, Soarin by United Airlines(?), apparently all of the pavilions

So if Norway has to pay to keep them from replacing stuff with Frozen does that mean Mexico had to pay for the update to their ride that no one was happy with? Is that the reason why the Body Wars pavilion is nothing but special event space to be rented out?

 

[JungleSkip]

I think there are still quite a few in MK, AK, and HS but can't think of them off the top of my head.
Epcot is still pretty much entirely sponsored: Ellen's Energy with GE, Spaceship Earth with Siemens, Test Track by GM, Soarin by United Airlines(?), apparently all of the pavilions

Energy and Soarin' do not have sponsors, along with Seas and Imagination. I'm not sure how many of the WS pavilions actually have sponsors left.

And the only MK attraction that I think may have a sponsor is the TTA (Alamo). Kodak used to sponsor all the 3-D movies, but obviously no longer does.

 

[Lucky Planet]

So if Norway has to pay to keep them from replacing stuff with Frozen does that mean Mexico had to pay for the update to their ride that no one was happy with? Is that the reason why the Body Wars pavilion is nothing but special event space to be rented out?

That's exactly what I was wondering as well. Do the other countries give money to Disney?

and I am also wondering if Epcot really makes people go to those countries, is Epcot really that much of a decision maker for people that want to travel to those countries?

 

[MrRoamer]

Energy and Soarin' do not have sponsors, along with Seas and Imagination. I'm not sure how many of the WS pavilions actually have sponsors left.

And the only MK attraction that I think may have a sponsor is the TTA (Alamo). Kodak used to sponsor all the 3-D movies, but obviously no longer does.

I stand corrected, didn't realize the sponsorship had fallen off of so many. Amazing what you can learn if you just look for it

I think this raises a new question with so many of the sponsorships gone now. I feel like that is kind of saying that these rides/areas have now been paid for and don't need to be sponsored anymore (like a toll road), so forcing Norway and other pavilions to pay additional money for upgrades or maintenance seems like more of a big deal. I'm sure I wouldn't care this much if it was Morocco but I love Norway and don't want to see it become Let it Go Land.

 

[UNIrd]

Disney hitting up Norway for millions of dollars or else turning the pavilion into Frozen is kinda giving me a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[rhino4evr]

well It kinda makes sense on a business stand point. If Norway isn't going to support their own attraction, then Disney should be able to do what it wishes. The original idea and concept of Epcot has already been squandered anyway.

 

[Vyrus]

This bothers me a lot, yes the host countries helped build and sponser their countries. On one hand Disney offered Norway the chance to be a country with the understanding they help sponsor and fund upkeep and repairs...on the other hand we have TDO who loves to line their pockets with money and make people think they ARE keeping things up to date with paint and spackel.

I doubt the aesthetic of Norway would change at all from how it currently looks, the difference is that the ride would change and they'd add a M&G with Anna and Elsa, almost every country has a character M&G too.

London - Alice / Mary Poppins
France - Belle / Aurora
Morocco - Jasmine / Aladdin
Japan - Mulan
Germany - Snow White

So M&G isn't a big deal, and a ride change at this point is inetivible, but Disney telling them to pay 9 million or risk losing the pavilion as a whole is pretty shady IMHO and sounds like a money grab. Cause TDO could say, ok....everything stay the same, but we are still changing the ride. It'll still be Norway, but featuring a ride with Frozen.

 

[UNIrd]

well It kinda makes sense on a business stand point. If Norway isn't going to support their own attraction, then Disney should be able to do what it wishes. The original idea and concept of Epcot has already been squandered anyway.

Not World Showcase though.. But now with Arendelle featuring Frozen®™ it might be.

 

[MrRoamer]

Not World Showcase though.. But now with Arendelle featuring Frozen®™ it might be.

Just wait until they get a hold of the maps and globes and put a Micky Mouse sticker where Norway should be with Arendelle written in sharpie on it.... Only $39.95!!!! :ears:

 

[rhino4evr]

Disney is fully aware that Norway needs a massive refurb, but also that the expense spent won't really justify any sort of gain for them. Spending that refurb money on a new and guaranteed to be popular frozen attraction makes a lot of sense on paper. We will see how well they pull it off. I have my doubts

 

[Cole]

I think it's pretty disgusting that disney is taking down a Country's pavilion over frozen instead of just changing the ride. Especially after basically telling them "If you don't pay (insert a probably unpayable amount of money here) then we will take your land away from you". It sucks seeing maelstrom go but it REALLY sucks knowing how it's going to go, incredibly scummy

 

[Viator]

That's the one reason why I do NOT like WDW; because of how Shady its going with especially Epcot. I just hope they find A way to keep Norway

but we know where it most likely go now..

 

[Miketheboss]

Disney brought the country popularity, they want to get money out of it. Disneys vacation club has Norway has a destination and it even saids that the storybook villages of Norway served as an inspiration to Frozen. I don't think Disney would take away the pavilion, but they would have 100% control of it if they don't pay up.

 

[TylerDurden]

All of the countries in World Showcase started out being sponsored by their corresponding countries. This is the reason many countries fell through (no African country could ever secure a spot as sponsor). How do you guys think World Showcase is even possible? The amount of detail in each country rivals the total amount of detail in many full theme parks, and that comes with a price tag Disney needed help with. The benefit for the country is that the pavilions educate guests on the country and culture and while may not directly promote tourism (although that is an optimistic goal), it increases awareness to a huge concentrated population which these governments liked.

So now we have Norway...obviously they went ahead and sponsored a pavilion for some of said benefits (remember Epcot was built in a period emphasizing world peace and all that good stuff). Now, I dont know what their present situation is, but as it stands, Disney wants to put a large Frozen presence in the Norway pavilion, but Norway is the original sponsor of that pavilion. Disney cant just go ahead and put Frozen all over the place...THAT would be slimy and shady. Disney is instead telling Norway what they would like to do, but if the country wants to continue giving them enough money to sponsor the pavilion properly, then they will leave it as it is.

You guys are blowing it out of proportion via poor wording. Disney is a business who sees a huge opportunity to bring a new attraction, a boost in attendance, and some solid merchandise sales. Why should they be kept from doing so if Norway is unwilling to maintain their current pavilion as is? Its completely reasonable to expect Norway to promise to keep up their end of the bargain if theyre going to be what gets in the way of an expansion with massive revenue potential. I swear, the Disney bias here cracks me up sometimes...did we all become ambassadors of US-Norway relations just to keep sh*tting on them?

 

[JungleSkip]

I honestly don't care about the sponsor debate. If Norway wants it saved they can pay up.

I more care about Disney continuing the errosion of their parks' purposes to all become Magic Kingdom B, C, and D.

 

[rhino4evr]

All of the countries in World Showcase started out being sponsored by their corresponding countries. This is the reason many countries fell through (no African country could ever secure a spot as sponsor). How do you guys think World Showcase is even possible? The amount of detail in each country rivals the total amount of detail in many full theme parks, and that comes with a price tag Disney needed help with. The benefit for the country is that the pavilions educate guests on the country and culture and while may not directly promote tourism (although that is an optimistic goal), it increases awareness to a huge concentrated population which these governments liked.

So now we have Norway...obviously they went ahead and sponsored a pavilion for some of said benefits (remember Epcot was built in a period emphasizing world peace and all that good stuff). Now, I dont know what their present situation is, but as it stands, Disney wants to put a large Frozen presence in the Norway pavilion, but Norway is the original sponsor of that pavilion. Disney cant just go ahead and put Frozen all over the place...THAT would be slimy and shady. Disney is instead telling Norway what they would like to do, but if the country wants to continue giving them enough money to sponsor the pavilion properly, then they will leave it as it is.

You guys are blowing it out of proportion via poor wording. Disney is a business who sees a huge opportunity to bring a new attraction, a boost in attendance, and some solid merchandise sales. Why should they be kept from doing so if Norway is unwilling to maintain their current pavilion as is? Its completely reasonable to expect Norway to promise to keep up their end of the bargain if theyre going to be what gets in the way of an expansion with massive revenue potential. I swear, the Disney bias here cracks me up sometimes...did we all become ambassadors of US-Norway relations just to keep sh*tting on them?

A+ post. this was exactly my point, just way more put together.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

Sponsors were companies or royal families in the countries. I do not believe much was given by the governments of the countries, if I'm not mistaken. Still, the point still stands.

 

[tielo]

I think they should remake Norway into Frozenway, it brings in cash! Frack showing faithful representations of countries like Walt wanted, he's dead and the investors want to see more money. Integrity never got Disney money (after Walt died) so slap on the blue paint, slap a miniature ice castle on the rock work and replace the stores and ride with Elsa and Anna meet and greets and lots of Frozen merchandise. And for frack sake change the firework show in a frozen show! Who the heck wants Norway when you can have something Frozen instead. The story didn't even originated from Norway but the bloody Netherlands! Get that blue light district on!
For anyone being in doubt, this was sarcasm.

 

[Atticus]

All of the countries in World Showcase started out being sponsored by their corresponding countries. This is the reason many countries fell through (no African country could ever secure a spot as sponsor). How do you guys think World Showcase is even possible? The amount of detail in each country rivals the total amount of detail in many full theme parks, and that comes with a price tag Disney needed help with. The benefit for the country is that the pavilions educate guests on the country and culture and while may not directly promote tourism (although that is an optimistic goal), it increases awareness to a huge concentrated population which these governments liked.

So now we have Norway...obviously they went ahead and sponsored a pavilion for some of said benefits (remember Epcot was built in a period emphasizing world peace and all that good stuff). Now, I dont know what their present situation is, but as it stands, Disney wants to put a large Frozen presence in the Norway pavilion, but Norway is the original sponsor of that pavilion. Disney cant just go ahead and put Frozen all over the place...THAT would be slimy and shady. Disney is instead telling Norway what they would like to do, but if the country wants to continue giving them enough money to sponsor the pavilion properly, then they will leave it as it is.

You guys are blowing it out of proportion via poor wording. Disney is a business who sees a huge opportunity to bring a new attraction, a boost in attendance, and some solid merchandise sales. Why should they be kept from doing so if Norway is unwilling to maintain their current pavilion as is? Its completely reasonable to expect Norway to promise to keep up their end of the bargain if theyre going to be what gets in the way of an expansion with massive revenue potential. I swear, the Disney bias here cracks me up sometimes...did we all become ambassadors of US-Norway relations just to keep sh*tting on them?

If you want to learn more about the creation of EPCOT Center, a la 1982, read "Realityland" by David Koenig (link below). The post above nails it. http://www.amazon.com/Realityland-True-Life-Adventures-Disney-World/dp/0964060523

The exposure provided by WDW is to its guests is MASSIVE. There are 195 countries in the world, but only 11 in the World Showcase. At Epcot, Norway is 9.1% of the entire world, while in reality, it is only 0.5% of it. If Norway gets to keep its name on the Pavilion and collect the massive appeal of Frozen, they are getting a sick bargain. Their theme park ad space ballooned in value when Disney decided to base its Broadway-sister flick in Fake Norway, or Arendale.

Think of it this way: 1% of tourists visiting New Zealand claimed they had come due to Lord of the Rings. That 1% represents $27 million USD of the tourism economy per year. Now there's a generation of little girls who've fallen in love with Arendale. What would 1% do for Norway?
:ears: