Originally Posted By Rebekah This topic is for discussion of the 4/2/2002 news item <b><a href="http://orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/orl-asec-decade040202.story" target="_blank">OrSen: Theme parks wonder what to do next</a></b> The April 2nd <I>Orlando Sentinel</I> takes a look at what is on the horizon in the theme park industry.
Originally Posted By damon63 >And at the end of the day, the "Disney Decade" notwithstanding, that scenario might describe the theme park of the future: fantasy instead of fury, more fancy and less funding, and storytelling over special effects.< Sounds like California Adventure...
Originally Posted By Dlmusic <<So instead of taking years to conceive and build elaborate attractions, the theme parks are looking at ways to provide immediate gratification - in the form of less-expensive and less-permanent forms of entertainment.>> So instead of making Pirates of the Caribbean (which caused record attendance), Haunted Mansion (which caused record attendance, Star Tours (which caused record attendance) they are going to revert to stage shows. Sounds smart to me. <<"The '90s were an attractions arms race. That has led them [the parks] to a level of sophistication and cost where they would rather not be,">> In other words they're greedy now, they don't want to give the consumer what they rightly deserve. <<Staying ahead of an easily impressed constituency is giving way to keeping up with an increasingly disenchanted one whose expectations are rapidly rising.>> DisneySea sure impressed me, it blew me out of the water. IOA was satisfactory as well. It ain't impossible, you just gotta do a good job. <<The uncertainty about the formula for success comes at a dire time for the industry.>> So in other words the theme parks aren't building big attractions and are suprised people are saving up until they do. <<"I don't buy the idea that it's always got to be new hardware," Gault said.>> Very true, for example Splash Mountain was an old ride system that turned into a beautiful attraction. Reinventing the wheel isn't important, quality is the key. <<And executives point to recent surveys showing that typical theme-park guests spend only 3. percent of their time on rides.>> Yeah, but how much time do they spend waiting in lines for rides? And with the ride times getting shorter and shorter with attention spans it's no wonder people aren't on rides that long. <<Adding enough new thrill rides to match less complex competitors such as Six Flags' growing chain of 42 coaster-happy parks won't work anyway, they say.>> True again, the key word it "quality." Six Flags is not famous for quality (except in thrill ride sense), they aren't famous for giving you a 3-D world. <<"Their strength is creating fantasy illusion. I can go anywhere for a thrill ride. But I can only take my kid to Small World at Disney; there's nothing else like it," Linkenheimer said. "And it doesn't have a lot of expensive technology.">> Very true, this is how you seperate the mice from the men (pun intended). <<"Study the tourists as they leave town at the airport. How many are wearing hats or T-shirts about rides? Not many,">> That's somewhat true, but I see a lot of people wearing shirts with Disney attractions on them. Especially the rich ones like Pirates, Haunted Mansion and Splash Mountain. <<Indeed, theme parks were popular long before they began adding blockbuster rides.>> Disneyland opened with what was then blockbuster rides. <<"Disneyland opened in 1955 without a single thrill ride and didn't have one until 1959, when the Matterhorn Bobsleds opened," Rogers said.>> Blockbuster does not = thrill. Haunted Mansion is a blockbuster and has what I would consider a very tame ride system. Some might label Soarin' a blockbuster and it's not thrilling at all. The important thing is again quality. <<fantasy instead of fury, more fancy and less funding, and storytelling over special effects.>> Sorry but that's wrong. The best way to tell stories are through special effects especially at a theme park. Imagine Pirates of the Caribbean with no special effects, that means no AAs, no fire, no crumbling buildings, no lighting. . .nothing. Just a ride through a wax museum. If that's the future of theme parks than expect attendance to plummet.
Originally Posted By kingofwishfulthinkin My main problem is their saying of "'Back To The Future' isn't relevant to today's park-goer". That movie is a modern classic, and it has a tremendous audience. The big DVD release this year will prove that people still like this movie. By saying that BTTF is irrelevant, I think they're being awfully presuming. This Chiquita Bonita woman sounds interesting, though. As for the main parks that we discuss here, I don't know what to say really. I would like some new rides, but at the same time, I want to keep things like "The Great Movie Ride" and "Cranium Command". You know, you could easily get a new set of actors to film new footage and to take over the roles of the various parts of the brain (I think Tina Fey and Horatio Sanz of "SNL" would be good as the logical and emotional parts of the brain, respectively). You could also get enhanced and retooled effects onto "Body Wars", new footage of Mexico for "El Rio De Tiempo"... Yet also, the Disney company could buy more land for more parks, so we still get new rides. Okay, I'm probably too pie-in-the-sky on this one, but it's a thought, isn't it? Sincerely, John Kilduff...the King Of Wishful Thinking
Originally Posted By Sir_Clinksalot I am a huge fan of the Back to the Future movies, but, to be honest, I do not care for the ride.
Originally Posted By x-TDL-character BTW, are you a DL musician, or does your handle mean something else?
Originally Posted By OrlandoBoi Dlmusic...you said EVERYTHING I wanted to say when I read that article. And no-to the above poster, I actually thought of the EXACT opposite(reCA)when I read that.
Originally Posted By Dlmusic <<BTW, are you a DL musician, or does your handle mean something else?>> I'm not a Disneyland musician, but I do love Disneyland music (hence the name).
