musicmand

Consider: Magic Kingdom (and WDW itself) opened in 1971. Epcot opened 11 years later, in 1982. 7 years later, in 1989, we are invited to Disney's MGM Studios. Finally, 9 years after that, Animal Kingdom opens its doors in 1998. We are now 11 years after the opening of the last WDW park. Since then, Universal opened Islands of Adventure and expanded itself into a full-fledged Resort... but Disney hasn't really done anything significant. Yes, they've been working on their Vacation Club dwellings, but what will draw the crowds without fresh attractions? Arguably, the reason for Animal Kingdom could be the relative failure of the Studios, and perhaps should not be considered for setting a trend. Also, the Disney company has added California Adventure, Disney FantaSea, and the Disney Studios in Paris, so it's not as if they've been sitting on their hands. Of course, it's not as if WDW is leaving guests with a shortage of fun and entertainment. Their resort is the top tourist destination in the world for a reason. I just find it interesting that despite opening a new park once a decade since the doors opened, we hear no plans for a new park or even a major expansion on the east coast property. With Universal's Wizarding World of Harry Potter set to open in 2010, one would expect a major retaliation from Disney, but nothing seems to be on the horizon. Thoughts?

That's an interesting angle that I hadn't considered. Around here, "Theme Park" is the term generally used for any permanent park with roller coasters and similar attractions. "Amusement Park" conjures pictures of Coney Island or something similar from fifty years ago. Of course, now Disney et al are adding a new designation for us to consider- "Resort." Hotels are becoming almost a necessity to every major park, and are themed to the hilt as well. Most of the big parks also have a water park attached, and many feature some sort of a shopping district onsite or nearby. I guess that's a bit off topic for this discussion, but it is certainly interesting to examine the designations that we give to these things. I'd imagine if you only had one local park, the name of that park would become your vernacular for "Amusement Park."

I will have to admit my lack of experience with a lot of parks. I think I can only boast about 12 (6 Disney, 2 Universal, Worlds of Fun, Silver Dollar City, Elitch Gardens (while it was Six Flags), and Jazzland (before it became Six Flags New Orleans). I've also been in that mini-park in the Mall of America, but I don't really count that (except on my coaster count). Both Florida and Southern California are interesting microcosms in regards to theme parks. Disney sort of set the trend in each case, and others are left trying to figure out how to capitalize and compete with the mouse. Some of the finest thrill rides on the planet can be found there within a short drive of Mickey, as well as some of the best shows and atmospheres. Some parks decide to go head to head with Disney, and I think Universal has done a fine job. 9 times out of 10, I would prefer Universal Studios (on either coast) to Disney's Hollywood Studios. Other parks decide to flank the tourists and come at their dollars from another angle, something Disney didn't really offer- thrill rides. So all of a sudden we have 100-mph Superman: The Escape at Magic Mountain in Cali. Busch and Seaworld in Florida all have 60+ mph offerings, with drops that dwarf the "Mountains" that the Mouse built. In fact, these more thrilling attractions were enough to get Mickey's attention, and soon Disney was adding Expedition Everest, Rockin' Roller Coaster, and California Screamin to compete. I'd like to set forward the theory that if you want to compete with Disney (which is arguably the ultimate in theme-based amusement parks), there are two mindsets: Attack head-on with world class theming, which is as good or better than Walt's ideas; or go after the bread and butter thrill crowd (which Disney often leaves cold) by building rides that blow the tamer Disney rides out of the water. This is not to say that it is impossible to build an exciting thrill ride within the confines of world class theming (Revenge of the Mummy is a fantastic example of this), nor that one cannot do excellent theming in a park whose primary focus is to drop you, roll you, flip you over upside down, and make you want to do it again. I'm simply postulating that a cohesive park often has one primary mindset- theme or thrill- and that while the other is often present, it is usually secondary. For what it's worth, it's incredibly difficult to decide on an itinerary in California or Florida. My wife doesn't really care for "extreme" rides. Heck, prior to our first trip together to Orlando, she had never even ridden a roller coaster (Mummy was her first, and Rockin Roller Coaster was her second- what an introduction). So we seek out parks that offer what we both love: Exciting rides for me, immersive atmosphere for her. I then get to enjoy the atmosphere while she (generally) enjoys the rides. Of course, we'll both cater exclusively to what the other wants sometimes- we'll do museums and zoos for her atmosphere, and we'll go to Worlds of Fun and such for my thrills- but the park that can give both will get us as return customers. Thus, we bypassed the SeaWorlds and the Legolands and the Six Flags and went to the Disneys and the Universals. Anything with coasters on the skyline was pretty generally eliminated as there was too much to do and see. We also bypassed the museums and zoos for the most part (although the San Diego Zoo was pretty amazing, even for a guy that doesn't care for zoos). I don't doubt that we missed out on a lot of great stuff, but you can only fit so much in, you know? One of these days, I'll convince her to do a tour of several parks in the summer (we should really try to tag along on one of these TPR tours). I'd probably have to repay her by going to art galleries and botanical gardens, but hey, it'd be worth it.

This thread is becoming far more negative than I had hoped or expected. I was hoping the negativity toward some of my previous posts on this subject were simply because I was hijacking another thread. Apparently this is coming across as a personal attack against some of your favorite parks. So let me restate what I'd like to achieve: I would like to talk about what constitutes a "Theme Park" as opposed to an "Amusement Park." How much "theme" can give you the designation? To me (and this is only my opinion), the theme has to feel like the top design priority, and not the showing off of the extreme rides. That's not to say that the rides cannot be visible, just that they should be second in priority to the theming. Due to my midwest location, I don't get the chance to visit a great variety of parks (maybe 1-3 a year, and it's usually the same ones). Thus, I'm also trying to find more highly themed immersive parks like Silver Dollar City or the Disney parks. Why do I want to differentiate? Because the SF/CF parks are easy to find. The Disney/Universal/Busch types are a little more rare.

I guess my question for discussion is what distinguishes a "Theme" park from an "Amusement" park. Or perhaps it's just a gradient between the two.

The crowds are a necessary evil. Not much you can do to hide those... not and still turn a profit, of course. I just think you can do more for theming than paint the steel track green and call it "The Hulk." I think you can do more than just show a video at the beginning and call that a "theme." I don't know. Coasters can be themed well during the ride, and I can easily ignore the coaster track if there's an attempt to blend it in. After all, I can ignore people in coaster cars zipping past holes in the Matterhorn due to theming. Netdvn's pictures are awesome, and that type of theming is even more attractive to me than most of what Disney does. After all, who builds ruins and buildings for a high speed steel coaster to fly through? Let me ask this- what makes Space Mountain such a popular ride? It's certainly not the roller coaster, which on its own is rather average. It's the theming, the darkness, the allure, the mystery. Why wouldn't the same theming increase the allure of a high speed coaster? Oh wait, that's Disney's Rockin' Roller Coaster. Since you mentioned the Harry Potter thread, can you imagine the best themed "Quidditch Coaster" queue and loading station... and then the ride is just a steel coaster on a flat piece of land? Wouldn't you feel slighted? Now imagine instead that as you go up the lift hill, you go up over a huge wall and realize the bulk of the coaster is inside of a huge Quidditch pitch. The track swoops above and below the pitch, reminiscent of the HP movie. The track winds around the towers of the field, and swoops down in front of the wall to the delight of the queue line. After a few more near misses zipping along the outside of the wall, the track swings back around to the station. World class theming enhances a world class ride, and the same can be done for a world class park. Any time when "theming" a roller coaster ends with paint color and a logo on the train car proves to me that the theme is not important.

So I'm watching the Universal Parks in Orlando, and can't help but wonder if they are making a mistake. They've got a park with extreme roller coasters clearly featured, and then they've got a park where you're sucked into the world of movies. When considering new attractions and expansions, what do they do? They decide that they will add an extreme roller coaster with little theming into the park whose obvious purpose was to put people into the movies, and they add a giant themed area into the park which had traditionally been marketed toward "thrill seekers." It really got me thinking about the difference between a Theme Park and an Amusement Park with theming, if that makes sense. I had always viewed the division of the two to be based solely on its primary focus. If the park seems focused solely on establishing and maintaining a theme, to me that park becomes a "Theme Park". They will go to great length to blend the rides into the context of the theme, making the theme supremely important. Disney's Animal Kingdom is a great example of this. They built an entire mountain in order to add a new exciting roller coaster. They designed a dinosaur section so craftily that they could really install any cheesy ride they could want with a couple of cartoon dino heads. Nothing detracts from the theme. On the other hand, you have the parks who want you know up front that they have great rides. These are the ones with lift hills towering on the skyline. These parks show off their corkscrews, their loops, their drop towers. The rides (or the parks themselves) may have a bit of theming, but it is obvious that the rides supersede the theme. Thus, this park (to me, at least) is classified as an "Amusement Park." Until the addition of HRRR at Universal Orlando, I would have considered that park a Theme Park. From the minute you walk in, you never see the "guts" of a ride. Everything was carefully constructed within show buildings, and everything is blended in with the surrounding scenery. To be honest, I never visited Universal's Islands of Adventure because I considered it an "Amusement Park," and while it certainly looked cool with the Hulk's loops looming on the skyline, my wife and I were gunning for a "theme" adventure. One more set of examples from my "local" parks. Kansas City's Worlds of Fun is loosely based on "Around the World in 80 Days." It has different themed lands, and rides generally adhere to the theme of the land. You might think this is a theme park. However, the roller coasters are right out there in the open, and the park's focus is apparent. You see the Patriot (suspended steel) showing off its loops. You see the entire compact structure of Spinning Dragons (crazy mouse). Even the smaller rides are generally all within sight for the entire queue. To me, even though the park is well themed and fun, I would never call it a Theme Park in the same line as something like Disney. This, to me, is an Amusement Park. Nothing wrong with that. It just is what it is. On the other hand, consider Silver Dollar City in Branson, MO. Themed after an Ozark settlement, SDC features craftsmen and an underground cave tour (around which the park was originally built) to support their theme. The Ozark trees and hills obscure most of the outdoor roller coasters. The visible rides are (generally) themed appropriately to help the suspension of disbelief. When they decided that they needed to add a children's ride area, they didn't turn to cartoon characters. Instead, they created a Missouri-style amusement-park-within-a-park with a classic 1900's feel. Here, rides with a campy theme could be out in the open without disrupting the overall theme of the park. It's very similar to Disney's treatment of the Dinosaur Park in Animal Kingdom. Every choice they make, every decision, shows that the theme is paramount. Thus, SDC to me is a Theme Park. Don't get me wrong. If I want extreme rides, Worlds of Fun beats SDC hands down (especially with the new much-lauded Prowler which I have yet to ride). Going 70 mph on the Mamba will beat almost anything that SDC has to offer (although the first hill in Power Keg is pretty hardcore). If I want an escape, though, SDC will let me venture into a past gone by, while WoF keeps me firmly in 2009. What are your thoughts on Theme and Amusement Parks? Is there perhaps a third category for parks like Universal's Island of Adventure that focus on both aspects- rides and theme? I'm also very curious to discover more "Theme Parks" like what I described.

Here are the only two pictures I have of Kong on his final fateful day. You can imagine how shocked we were when we woke up at my cousin's place in San Diego the next morning and saw the news. Crazy.

^^ Hard to really guess about the castle. The concept art shows a courtyard in the middle. Wouldn't be too hard to build a facade around the edge of the box and leave the interior hollow. I'd also assume that the castle, as the most iconic and visible part of the new land, would be either first up or last up. It appears they're going with the latter.

Gahh! Timberwolf is my number 1 woodie that I've ridden (granted, that's not a lot)! The jackhammering is part of the fun! Anyway, I can't wait to get back down the road to WoF and check out the Prowler. If I was smart, I would have taken a personal day from work this week and went before all the schools let out.

We'll have to head down there soon to check out the new coaster. My wife and I are trying to decide if we should do the season pass thing or not- the Halloween thing is supposed to be really good, and we only would need to go 3 times to make the SP worth it. Once early summer, once before school starts again (I'm a teacher), and then again in October. Who knows?

My wife and I went on the tram tour at around 4pm. Park closed at 6. At 10, it was ablaze. I figure after tens of thousands of people saw King Kong at USH, we were within the last couple hundred people to ever experience it.

Thank you! PLEASE let's get back on topic, no one wants to read an off-topic argument between two people who haven't even set foot inside the park. True dat. I'm just really hoping that US will be able to do Harry justice... but I'm trying not to get my expectations so high as to be disappointed.

Alright, so maybe a third category is needed. Honestly, I like Six Flags parks. They're fun (although I've not been to many of them), so the comparison isn't an insult. I just meant that IoA looks like a "regular" park (Six Flags, Cedar Fair, etc) on steroids. To fit my idea of a true Theme Park, you should broadcast that from the beginning. If you want to be a Thrill Park or Amusement Park, you should broadcast that from the beginning. Take a look: Magic Kingdom: Epcot: (Of course, the idiotic wand is gone now) Universal Studios Hollywood: Disneyland: California Adventure: Animal Kingdom: In all of these parks, you don't see a single "ride" as you enter. You see structures, yes, but they are all themed appropriately so you feel as if you are entering another world. Now, to compare... Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom: Six Flags Magic Mountain (from the entrance plaza): Maple Leaf Park: Sanrio Park Harmonyland: Islands of Adventure: Do you see what I'm saying? The former parks establish a theme first (Theme parks), while the latter parks advertise their thrill rides (Thrill or Amusement Parks). I'm not saying one is superior to the other- they're just different. Please understand that I really do want to visit IoA soon (although I will probably wait until WWoHP opens, which means I won't visit on my Florida Spring Break 2010 trip), but I haven't seen enough to convince me it's in the same vein as Disney.

Sorry to have derailed the topic. Wasn't my real intention. Waiting for more construction photos, actually. I had just always assumed IoA was more of a thrill-based park where the rides were the focus, and the theme adds to the allure of the rides; compared to Disney, where the immersion in the fantasy comes first and the rides support that magic. That's what I see when they build huge, extreme coasters out in the open. It sort of declares, "Come ride our mega roller coasters!" doesn't it? I really like a park where you can almost forget that you're at a park and let yourself really get into the illusion that you're in New Orleans or the old west or somethng like that. I also love parks that throw you up in the air, drop you, spin you around, and leave you wishing that you hadn't just had that funnel cake. They both rock, but they're just different. Really, this can all be summed up as my argument as to why we chose not to visit IoA. The same can be applied to why we didn't visit any other of those Orlando area theme parks. We hit USO on New Years' Day (beautiful, because there was no crowd so we were effectively done before lunch), then we checked into Disney and rode Rockin' Roller Coaster before it went down for refurb (3 hour wait), and spent the next week with the mouse. The post that I replied to implied that IoA proved that US could compete with Disney. I'm just saying that their press crew and their "curb appeal" wasn't enough for me. And ultimately, if you can't get the folks through the gate, what else matters?

So I guess you could call this a premature evacuation?

And that is where I stopped caring I just can't understand your argument. You are bashing one of the most innovative and highly themed THEMEPARKS ever created and you have never even been there. Last I checked the Incredible Hulk, Dr. Doom, and Spiderman were all Marvel comics. The rides blend with a back story, themed environments, and I mean even the queue's are heavily themed. For crying out loud you walk through the bugle in spiderman. How is that corny? Now I'm going to go bash and rant about something I have never done nor experienced! I said several times that I didn't think IoA was a bad park! I'm just saying that from the outside, it doesn't look like a THEME park in the same vein as Disney or the USH or Orlando parks. Of course, I may be (and probably am) totally wrong. As an outsider, though, I still see standard fare: Simulator ride, launched steel coaster, a space shot, a log flume, river raft, suspended coaster, teacup ride, carousel, stunt show, dark ride... And you're not in a magic kingdom, not in a futuristic world, not even in a movie studio. I'm sure it's a great park, but it LOOKS like it has more in common with a great park like Six Flags Great America or Cedar Point than with Disney or Universal Studios.

Wow! Guess I struck a nerve! First, my opinion is only worth so much, since I've not been in the park. Just the outsider looking in, really. Here's what I see- at Disney, every roller coaster is built into a building or a mountain (except for California Screamin'). For the majority of the rides, the queue is themed from the second you walk in the door (strange exception is DL's Matterhorn). The area around the ride is themed to make the ride blend in. Granted, there are some awkward and out of place rides at Disney (Dumbo, Aladdin's Flying Carpets, etc), but the "headliners" are themed heavily. On top of that, there's an overarching theme to the entire park. The different "lands" make sense (I don't count any of the kid's areas as REALLY part of any park). By contrast, look at IoA (again, from a prospective visitor's PoV): Two huge coasters are out in the open. Nothing to blend the tracks into the background- just "coaster" all the way. Nothing wrong with that, but that's what it is. On top of that, to the outsider, the theming is sort of corny- Marvel comics-themed island? Six Flags did it with Batman. Sunday Comics-themed Land? Hasn't Cedar Fair been doing Peanuts for years? Looking at the rest of the themed areas- Jurassic Park, Seuss, Mythical Creatures... It seems completely random- no overarching theme. Nothing to tie it together, which makes it less of a Theme Park and more of an Amusement Park to me. I'm not saying it's a bad park. Heck, Cedar Point doesn't have an overarching theme or heavy ride theming, and nobody would say that's a bad park. On the other hand, there are plenty of parks themed to the teeth that are only average (Silver Dollar City in Branson springs to mind). Of course, I was disappointed to not visit IoA, but we will certainly get there as soon as WWoHP opens.

My meaning is this: I see parks in two ways: Theme Parks are like Disney or US wherein the majority of their effort is spent disguising the rides under an elaborate theme. For example, if you didn't know what "Revenge of the Mummy" was, you'd not have any idea you were getting in line for a roller coaster. Amusement Parks, on the other hand, are like giant fairs with the rides right out there in the open. Sure, there might be a theme, but there's no mistaking that you're getting ready to go on a roller coaster (even if it does carry a dragon theme). Six Flags, Seaworld, et al, all seem to bend toward the extreme ride end that precludes a necessary theme. That's what a good chunk of Disney's California Adventure is, too. I just always saw IoA as that same type of thing.

I don't know about that. Until this point, I've never seen IOA as anything more than a glorified Six Flags. When my wife and I went to Florida three Disneys ago (2007), we had the choice to hop between parks, but chose instead to do only the Theme Park (Universal Studios) rather than the Amusement Park (Islands). This new land might do more to make Universal a real contender. I'm trying not to get my hopes up too high on this Harry Potter project, though. US has a way of getting its attractions 75% of the way to awesome... and never push through the last little bit. Universal owns a few really fantastic rides- Mummy (Orlando), Jurassic Park (Hollywood)- but the majority are just *almost* great. And even their GREAT attractions tend to get "let go" over the years (I saw T2:3D in Hollywood last summer, and they didn't even use a motorcycle). I expect WWoHP to be a great deal smaller than most of us are imagining. After all, the Potter universe could easily sustain an ENTIRE park.

Ah... so maybe they're not as behind as it looks. Where are the insider pics from the offsite building location?

Does anybody else suspect that they are hideously behind schedule for a 2010 opening? At best, 15 months from where they are now to finished product on an entire land? I was hoping that they might have it open by the time my wife and I go to Florida on Spring Break 2010, but I think that's out of the question. 15 months before Disney opened Expedition Everest, the 3 structures involved were about halfway done. The foundations were complete 2 years before opening. And that was all for one ride (and the associated theming, of course). Even the prep work started 3 years before opening! Universal definitely has their job cut out for them to build a dozen or more buildings and theme it all. I'm just worried that the tight schedule might lead to a substandard product. I'd almost prefer that they push the opening date back to 2011 and get it done right. I'm looking back on past information, and Universal thought they'd have Hogwarts DONE by late 2008/early 2009. We haven't even seen one structure begin to go up on top of the box. The box itself has only been completed (and by that, I mean enclosed) for a few months now. Assuming the interior was empty until the exterior was completed, the super-mega-robot-arm-ride only has about 18 months to be constructed, themed, and tested. When you're competing with Disney quality theming on such a popular intellectual property, 18 months may not cut it (again, compare that timeline with Expedition Everest). This also means that other high-quality attractions may not find their way into Potter-ville, at least not by opening day.