Theme Park or Amusement Park

[larrygator]

^Or you could call them all amusement parks like I do, I'm get amusement out of all of them.

 

Actually, I don't think I have ever used the term "theme park" outside of coaster/park forums. The general public (at least in the New York area) even gravitates to that term for all parks. Then again that might be a regional thing, like "soda" or "pop" or "coke".

[Teacups Make Me Sick]

CF is a chain of amusement parks. There is some theme (Maverick, Renegade, Prowler) but there is a much larger focus on concrete, trash cans, and coasters than SF has. They plop coasters where there is any space with disregard to the theme of the area (if the theming is still there).

 

Perhaps that is CF's theme...they could have gotten their inspiration from Staten Island: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_Kills_Landfill.

[musicmand]

^Or you could call them all amusement parks like I do, I'm get amusement out of all of them.

 

Actually, I don't think I have ever used the term "theme park" outside of coaster/park forums. The general public (at least in the New York area) even gravitates to that term for all parks. Then again that might be a regional thing, like "soda" or "pop" or "coke".

 

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."

[Rollerman87]

Honestly, I hate that term, "theme Park" as a whole because of the point that it is something very hard to judge.

 

Heck, I work at supposedly America's First Theme Park, Knott's Berry Farm, but it's more like half a theme park. Ghost Town still has amazing atmosphere and character, and even the trash cans are nicely placed as to look like barrels and not red topped eyesores. Then we have the Boardwalk, the very poster child for Cedar Fair concrete and trashcan theming. Even the uniforms (except for Xcel's) are very generic and bland.

 

I have always preferred the term Amusement Park for any park, even Disney and Universal parks.

[shepp]

Been thinking about this some more, and I realized my own mental distinction is between "coaster parks" like SFMM, where there's basically the thrill rides and maybe a second-rate stunt show, and "theme parks," where there's a bunch of other stuff to do, too. So IOA is my favorite "theme park," while SFGAdv is my favorite "coaster park." (And my home park, SFDK, would therefore be a "theme park," I guess, despite a lot of half-assed theming.)

 

I'd agree that part of the negative/defensive tone in this thread is a reaction to your choosing to use IOA as an example, though you haven't even been there. But one thing that hasn't been mentioned is how damn much fun a lot of the IOA theming is. Yes, I'm the kind of person who prefers the over-the-top exoticism of Port of Entry to the nostalgia of Main Street, USA. So to me, just walking around Seuss Island or The Lost Continent, taking in the amazing architecture and the level of imaginative detail, gives me considerably more pleasure than being in Frontierland or World Showcase. In the Disney Parks I've been to, only Toontown and the India section of DAK measure up on my delight-o-meter. And yes, even the twisted steel of the Hulk works well with the zappy look of Marvel Superheroes Island.

 

But you know, I could very well be wrong; I have lousy taste.

[tt.repo.man]

Its hard to say what is themed an what isn't. My definition of a themed ride is a ride that conveys a message or story. Expedition Everest is themed while Kumba isn't. I have trouble thinking of Busch Gardens Africa coasters having themes, Montu is the closest to having a theme.

[Montupoopc]

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.

 

I don't see how it makes any sense at all to say that a park with roller coasters on the skylie is automatically not a theme park. That kind of goes back to you not thinking IOA is not a theme park. Roller coasters and top-notch theming can and do coexist.

 

If IOA isn't enough to convince you, consider Alpengeist. This may be one of the best themed roller coasters anywhere. In my opinion, there are three major elements that go into deciding what "theming" on a roller coaster actually is: story, scenery, and the "experience" (what explains what this ride is doing). Alpengeist has all three. The story of a ghost haunting the alpine mountains, incredibly detailed theming, and the ride itself is to be compared to a ski lift. All this, and it's not hidden away inside a building.

 

And again, perhaps I'm just a major fan of Busch Parks (I'm a fan because I think their product is amazing, not the other way around),but it kind of blows my mind that you wouldn't consider Sea World a theme park. There are only three major roller coasters there (at the very least one of which essentially fits every possible quality of your definition of theming), side-by-side with a plethora of other shows and attractions. Have you not been to Sea World either?

 

I don't think theming is just one thing. You can stick a ride in a building, but that doesn't necessarily make it well themed. Rides don't need to be saturated with scenery in order to be well-themed. In fact, I think rides like Space Mountain and SheiKra succeed because their theming is so simple, yet effective.

[Electerik]

At this point, the distinction between amusement parks and theme parks is mostly semantic. Basically, the term "theme park" was created as a way to distinguish oneself from the old, dirty "amusement park." But, of course, there are no rules as to how a park may label itself. And time has marched on from there anyway.

 

I also think the GP have latched onto "theme park" because it's shorter and easier to say than "amusement park," which has only served to confuse matters further.

 

This might just be one of those things in life that you have to let go of, man.