The Spirited Back Nine ...

[AEfx]

No, you don't understand perfectly. The actual statement that you quoted from me was:

Please refer to the bolded part of the quote. The final line that you keep addressing was regarding the conversation at that time, as to which park (DHS or DAK) needed more help. Since they are both in need of attractions, I suggested that DHS needed more help (compared to DAK) because not only did it need more attractions, but it also needs help with its themes.

Please do your research before quoting somebody.

And I disagree with that notion, plain and simple.

I understand you perfectly.

I just think you are wrong. Sorry you can't handle that - not everyone who disagrees with you misunderstands you.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But I know, no amount of discussing this on a message board of enthusiasts is going to convince you otherwise. You either live inside the theme park enthusiast bubble, or you visit the bubble but understand the world outside of it. When you do look outside of it, you realize that if DHS did nothing at all but add a couple of E-tickets and built out some smaller rides, more folks would come. Folks aren't going to say, "Oh, I'm not going because that ride doesn't fit into the theme of the park." But they are saying "I'm not going because there aren't enough attractions to experience".

What happens is that people better connect with the experience and they spend more on food and souvenirs.

Yes, because it's in the middle of WDW and most folks already have tickets that include it.

If it were a lone park in the middle of the country, like the "lot more parks" you keep referencing, it would have closed within a few years or been re-purposed.

We also know now that the "saturated market" thing was a complete fallacy - particularly since, at the worst economic time since the Great Depression, Universal was able to prove it false. Had WDW built another park, or filled AK with exciting attractions, that falsehood would have never happened and especially during the cushy economic time in which it opened it would have expanded the audience. It didn't, because of the focus on theme vs. attractions.

Disneyland alone has about as much to do as Walt Disney World and Six Flags Great Adventure is about double. Of all of the parks at Walt Disney World, only the Magic Kingdom really has a respectable number of attractions.

As you note, the Wizarding World of Harry Potter - Hogsmead was able to completely buck a more than decade long trend of stagnation in the Orlando theme park market. It did so by adding two attractions if Olivanders is included as an attraction. It also seriously kicked down interest in Dueling Dragons even though all that changed was the queue and name. There was no park-wide infusion of new or rebuilt attractions. In note of this small increase in traditional attractions, most reviews consider the shops, the food and the whole experience to be an attraction, all the domains of the themed experience. Universal Studios Florida credited a nice surge in attendance to Transformers: The Ride 3-D but most of those people also already had multi-park admission like at Walt Disney World. It was Springfield where people opened their wallets and it seems doubtful that the new wave of spending in Springfield was generated by Kang & Kodos' Twirl 'n' Hurl or the midway games. The big new ride at the Wizarding World of Harry Potter - Diagon Alley has not had near the universal praise of Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey but the land itself continues to generate interest and it too is described as an attraction.

 

[CDavid]

No "normal" person goes to DHS and says that "oh that was a thematic mess!" or even really cares about things on such a macro level like that. Sure, it can be argued that they benefit from it without even knowing, but it's simply not a priority or even registers to most guests.

I wouldn't expect any typical guest to be able to articulate that Hollywood Studios is a "thematic mess", but I think we are selling the guests short to suggest they aren't going to at least semi-consciously pick up on the problems. Most of us here can probably tell you what movies we like and which we found disappointing, and most everyone can certainly recognize quality and productions which reflect a superior effort, even though we couldn't begin to describe the failure as one of bad directing, poor lighting choices (whatever that is), and so on. Surely we can expect the average guest, however, to discern a difference between the layout, theme, and organization of any of the other parks compared to the Studios.

They want fun, interesting, innovative attractions. They could care less how they are arranged, that's all icing.

If "how they are arranged" doesn't matter, then Mystic Manor or Dumbo would work just as well at any roadside (parking lot) carnival. Indeed, they may have a flying elephant spinner, but its not the same experience. Setting and theme both matter and contribute to the whole of the experience regardless of the extent we are consciously aware of either.

Those are fan concerns, not guest concerns.

They're concerns of both, or there wouldn't be any fans.

If DHS had a half-dozen new remarkable and impressive attractions, that would satisfy guests and they wouldn't care if they fit in with some esoteric theme.

So, if Disney built a half dozen off-the-shelf and minimally themed (or decorated) steel coasters of all types - complete with exposed track and all - that would satisfy most guests? That would certainly be a far cheaper, faster option than developing proper attractions to impress a discerning audience.

The whole "this belongs in X-park" thing and the "theme issues are most important" is an enthusiast notion, not a practical one that reflects most guests.

That concept originates with Disney itself, with themed lands and parks which attempt to transport guests to varied times and locations. Surely you do not mean to suggest it is all just about rides? Certainly attractions are appropriately the primary focus, but they hardly exist in isolation.

It's like someone who goes to great lengths to set a magnificent holiday dinner table, spares no expense or effort in having the best dishes and utensils, centerpiece, everything grandly themed - and then serving McDonalds on it.

Which is exactly an achievement Disney has long since mastered. McDonald's isn't gourmet dining by any stretch, but it is decent food, and dressing it up in such an elaborate manner creates something more special. If the "thematic mess" at the Studios truly does not register with typical guests, then neither would the Disney parks have become the success they are. Dumbo is of course the classic example (carnivals have flying elephant rides), but even Small World and Pirates are inherently just slow boat rides; Splash Mountain is just a flume ride, Space Mountain in just a bare coaster built indoors with some props. But the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

Disney didn't start things like the WS Character Bus just a few years in to Epcot because there was no demand.

A demand for the Disney characters to be present in Epcot Center doesn't mean the place was boring or unsuccessful without them, it just means that the guests wanted to see characters in a Disney park.

I never found it boring, but all one has to do is look back at the Unofficial Guide's of the time which pointed out that it was best to go to Epcot before MK so kids didn't expect the same kind of entertainment at Epcot and weren't disappointed.

Indeed, Epcot was never meant to be a second version of the Magic Kingdom, and certainly if you went in expecting more of the same, it wouldn't meet your expectations. Anyone who has ever entered the Magic Kingdom expecting to find a whole 'world' of thrill rides and extreme roller coasters - alongside the 'kiddie' rides - has also had their expectations dashed. That doesn't mean either park is lacking (or boring, etc.); It does mean that The Walt Disney Company had created something different and innovative, and a place which would become something a bit special for millions of people.

The problem, however, is that today there is a lack of attention to detail and the standards of theme and a cohesive, planned environment which were previously maintained in Epcot Center. It is, to a surprising extent, growing closer to a second version of the Magic Kingdom - and that's a problem. Typical guests may not be able to articulate the difference in those terms, but that doesn't mean it hasn't already undermined and compromised their vacation experience.

Presentation definitely has some impact, but it's no good if it doesn't serve as a backdrop/enhancement to the meat of the experience - it's like making a cake with 1" of cake and 10" of frosting on top of it.

Interesting analogy, because people do eat chocolate fudge; In fact it is quite delicious! I suppose a thin layer of cake on the bottom of the fudge would also be good, if perhaps a bit 'rich' tasting.

And a very simple, basic attraction can also be set in a highly themed, creative, and immersive context which richly adds to the experience. That said, I would quickly point out that care must be taken not to put style over substance, with a highly detailed setting but attractions which are lacking (New Fantasyland, arguably).

If that were the case, then AK would have driven attendance at WDW through the roof. It's by far the most intricately themed park in the nation.

If theme and cohesiveness at the macro park level was of the most importance to anyone but theme park enthusiasts on message boards, AK would be the most visited park in the country.

Not when the theme and detail lack something in appeal and widespread interest of the intended audience. The park was seen as too much like a zoo (despite promotion to the contrary), most guests have those closer to home, and it just isn't the sort of thing for which people have traveled to central Florida; The 'animal' theme just isn't sufficiently compelling to most people. Animal Kingdom's main problem, though, has long been just a lack of compelling things to do, much like the Studios, despite its well executed themed environments (style, but lacking in substance, again).

 

[Kman101]

To put it simply, I think AEfx is stating that what we discuss here likely doesn't always enter the brains of the "average guest".

Meaning they *likely* (doesn't mean many DON'T) aren't discussing how the park needs to change this or that, or add this attraction, or re-skin that, or re-theme this ... am I close? I'm really really simplifying ... meaning they aren't going to care that Chester and Hester's is a cheaply done land. Or that AK may need more rides. Or that Hollywood Studios is a thematic mess. I doubt the average guest discusses how they need to do a DCA style makeover of the park.

You think someone like my mom, the "average guest", who loves Disney, even thinks about the fact that DHS is a "thematic mess" (and it is).

Nope.

I think that's the overall point going for. And I don't think we're not giving the average guest enough credit. At least where WDW is concerned. Considering what I hear some of them call attractions and lands. Heck, I was embarrassed my mom called Haunted Mansion the Haunted House ride and not by it's name (and she's been going since Magic Kingdom opened)

We have to remember as hardcore fans we discuss things a lot more in depth than the average guest.

IMO.

Theming is important, I don't think anyone is really disagreeing on that.

And can we not talk down to each other?

 

[tirian]

To put it simply, I think AEfx is stating that what we discuss here likely doesn't always enter the brains of the "average guest".

Meaning they *likely* (doesn't mean many DON'T) aren't discussing how the park needs to change this or that, or add this attraction, or re-skin that, or re-theme this ... am I close? I'm really really simplifying ... meaning they aren't going to care that Chester and Hester's is a cheaply done land. Or that AK may need more rides. Or that Hollywood Studios is a thematic mess. I doubt the average guest discusses how they need to do a DCA style makeover of the park.

You think someone like my mom, the "average guest", who loves Disney, even thinks about the fact that DHS is a "thematic mess" (and it is).

Nope.

I think that's the overall point going for. And I don't think we're not giving the average guest enough credit. At least where WDW is concerned. Considering what I hear some of them call attractions and lands. Heck, I was embarrassed my mom called Haunted Mansion the Haunted House ride and not by it's name (and she's been going since Magic Kingdom opened)

We have to remember as hardcore fans we discuss things a lot more in depth than the average guest.

IMO.

I'm not so sure about that. I've brought many first-time guests to the parks over the last few years, and every single one commented that the Studios "didn't have that magic" or "wasn't very complete." People do pick up on the different atmosphere, even if they don't spend enough time on Disney fan sites to be able to articulate the reasons they feel a certain way. And let's be honest—regardless of hard facts, emotional responses are more significant for guests.

 

[Kman101]

I'm not so sure about that. I've brought many first-time guests to the parks over the last few years, and every single one commented that the Studios "didn't have that magic" or "wasn't very complete." People do pick up on the different atmosphere, even if they don't spend enough time on Disney fan sites to be able to articulate the reasons they feel a certain way. And let's be honest—regardless of hard facts, emotional responses are more significant for guests.

To be fair, I can bring a guest and they could love the park. Everyone experiences things differently.

I get what you're saying though. Especially when theming is being taken to a new level, but I still don't believe the overall guest cares. Which is sad. They care that Julie didn't get to see Elsa. They care that they get their money's worth.

I mean, considering the fact that most guests don't even look where they are walking I doubt they're going around the park talking about what needs to be changed or added.

I'm not saying it justifies the parks being incomplete but we're giving them too much credit IMO.

I think all of us might have to agree to disagree on this one.

Edit: Let me use this as an example ... the Peter Pan exterior at Magic Kingdom. I'm sure we'd all love for it to be themed like the one at Disneyland, or Paris. Would the average guest probably be more wowed by that, than what MK offers? Yes. But I don't see the average guest saying wow, I would have enjoyed that so much more if the exterior were better themed.

 

[BrianLo]

I'm not so sure about that. I've brought many first-time guests to the parks over the last few years, and every single one commented that the Studios "didn't have that magic" or "wasn't very complete." People do pick up on the different atmosphere, even if they don't spend enough time on Disney fan sites to be able to articulate the reasons they feel a certain way. And let's be honest—regardless of hard facts, emotional responses are more significant for guests.

I agree. While guests are hardly the most discerning bunch and care mostly for pure attraction count, the average guest at the end of the day can pick up on a well themed land and appreciate it, even if they don't articulate it.

One needs only spend some time Eavesdropping as people enter Diagon Alley or Radiator Springs to realize that the average theme park guest can be just as impressed by an excellent atmosphere as the theme park nerds.

Watch the tears flow as 20 somethings see Hogwarts for the first time, the throngs of people trying to take pictures of the Gringott's dragon or Dads getting more excited than their four year old sons when seeing the Cadillac range... these are not isolated events. Theming matters to the masses even if they don't realize it beforehand.

 

[AEfx]

As you note, the Wizarding World of Harry Potter - Hogsmead was able to completely buck a more than decade long trend of stagnation in the Orlando theme park market. It did so by adding two attractions if Olivanders is included as an attraction. It also seriously kicked down interest in Dueling Dragons even though all that changed was the queue and name. There was no park-wide infusion of new or rebuilt attractions. In note of this small increase in traditional attractions, most reviews consider the shops, the food and the whole experience to be an attraction, all the domains of the themed experience.

Absolutely. The theming in that "land" was most definitely a huge factor in it's success. In that particular case, even the buildings are an "attraction" - as it was a replication of a movie set.

But no one gives a fig how it ties into the "overall theme" of IOA. That land could have been dumped anywhere and it would have had the same impact.

Universal's parks have no central, overlaying "theme", yet they have continued to prosper. Putting another HP land in the Studio park just reenforces that. And in truth, the Disney parks really don't do that either - and never really have. The "central theme" thing folks are going for have always been nebulous at best, and so general that virtually anything could be twisted to be a part of it (Dinosaurs in Future World, for example)..

I think the crux of the argument going on here is that folks are applying the "theme" in "theme park" differently. In practice, "theme park" means a place where individual areas are themed versus stand-alone bare-bones rides. While it's a lovely notion that it all should further tie in together on the macro level, it really isn't realistic to do so - putting parks in a box and demanding that the individual themed locations somehow all tie in with each other just isn't practical and has never really been the case, all the way back to the inception of the term at Disneyland.

Fans tend to wax about park identity crises, and it's brethren, but that's so far down the line of priorities of most guests as to really be inconsequential. Just about everyone who comes to Disney has a ticket to visit all the parks, and I really don't believe most of them care which ride/attraction is in each park, since the notion that there is a proper place or not simply doesn't even occur to them.

It's a product of the more academic thinking about the parks that we do on message boards like this - because in reality, walking through any of the parks as a guest and not someone that "studies" them and uses outside documentation - the theories fall apart anyway because the parks simply have not developed on those lines and a large percentage of attractions could be picked up and swapped out at different parks and the overall effect would be the same.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Disney tried a theme park for people who are not fans of theme parks. It was a very big idea behind how Disney's California Adventure was designed and executed. The people who visit theme parks, to some degree or another, are people who appreciate the qualities of theme parks. There are plenty of places offering kids the chance to meet a person in a [character] costume and in some cases those costumes are better than Disney's. People still spend thousands to do that in the appropriate environment. Theme parks also always held out an emphasis on place that for a long time and still in a lot of places was absent from urban design and is vigorously being reintroduced in many places across the country. The whole reason a house in something like Celebration or a more urban area can command a higher price is because of the larger environment that "average" people also do not properly articulate.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think the crux of the argument going on here is that folks are applying the "theme" in "theme park" differently. In practice, "theme park" means a place where individual areas are themed versus stand-alone bare-bones rides. While it's a lovely notion that it all should further tie in together on the macro level, it really isn't realistic to do so - putting parks in a box and demanding that the individual themed locations somehow all tie in with each other just isn't practical and has never really been the case, all the way back to the inception of the term at Disneyland.

You're the one who has just now introduced this sudden distinction. Even as a park of unrelated lands, much of Disney's Hollywood Studios is placeless.

 

[AEfx]

I agree. While guests are hardly the most discerning bunch and care mostly for pure attraction count, the average guest at the end of the day can pick up on a well themed land and appreciate it, even if they don't articulate it.

One needs only spend some time Eavesdropping as people enter Diagon Alley or Radiator Springs to realize that the average theme park guest can be just as impressed by an excellent atmosphere as the theme park nerds.

Watch the tears flow as 20 somethings see Hogwarts for the first time, the throngs of people trying to take pictures of the Gringott's dragon or Dads getting more excited than their four year old sons when seeing the Cadillac range... these are not isolated events. Theming matters to the masses even if they don't realize it beforehand.

Theming around attractions absolutely is a factor (though less than the attractions themselves, obviously). But what really doesn't matter is this notion of "cohesiveness" of individual parks which is really an fandom invention around WDW specifically (this ride belongs in this park only) that folks simply cling to in spite of overwhelming evidence that it doesn't matter. And, of course, without attractions, theming is nothing (as I said above, the Potter lands are an attraction in and of themselves as they are a replication of a movie environment). It's not just about "rides" but attractions - the only thing even remotely close (yet still miles away) Disney has done that would qualify on it's own as an attraction in recent memory is BoG, which of course they have to muck up so bad that only a tiny percentage of guests are able to experience it - but that's another thread.

 

[AEfx]

You're the one who has just now introduced this sudden distinction. Even as a park of unrelated lands, much of Disney's Hollywood Studios is placeless.

I introduced it because another poster laughably thought me uneducated on the topic and tried to tell me I didn't understand the distinction by lecturing me on Six Flags vs. Disney like I just fell off the bumpkin truck into this here theme-atic park discussin'.

I wouldn't argue that DHS could use more theming in individual areas, but it's hardly the worst problem the park has - which is the point. And in truth, it's not really solvable in the way fans want it to be. The park simply needs more attractions, period - and it will draw folks if those attractions are of the superior quality that WDW used to be known for churning out.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I wouldn't argue that DHS could use more theming in individual areas, but it's hardly the worst problem the park has - which is the point. And in truth, it's not really solvable in the way fans want it to be. The park simply needs more attractions, period - and it will draw folks if those attractions are of the superior quality that WDW used to be known for churning out.

Simply more attractions don't result in that superior quality because that superior quality is drawn out of a larger experience.

 

[Kman101]

No one is arguing the average guest isn't wowed by an amazing experience (at least I hope we're not or I'm totally missing the discussion).

Give the guests what they don't know they want.

I go back to my point, is the guest experience dampened by the lack of exterior theming to Peter Pan or are they still going to have a great time riding the attraction? Would a better themed exterior make it better? Absolutely but I just don't see it as what guests are talking about.

Unfortunately, Maelstrom to Frozen is a good example. Do you think the average guest is going to care that Frozen has taken over and isn't really appropriate? Maybe but in the long run, no, they won't.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I'm not so sure about that. I've brought many first-time guests to the parks over the last few years, and every single one commented that the Studios "didn't have that magic" or "wasn't very complete." People do pick up on the different atmosphere, even if they don't spend enough time on Disney fan sites to be able to articulate the reasons they feel a certain way. And let's be honest—regardless of hard facts, emotional responses are more significant for guests.

Of course it didn't have the magic and appeared to be incomplete because that is exactly the case. It isn't because the theme overall doesn't fit because I can't think of a thing in DHS that isn't connected with Movies, TV or General Entertainment... all of which start out in a studio.

The problem is not theme it is that there isn't a d*mn thing to do when you get there. Or better put, there is nothing there that the public wants to do with the exception of a couple of rides that require half a day in line just to see.

 

[Kman101]

Exactly. If you are a first time guest to DHS, yeah, you can make a full day out of it most likely, if you like all of the shows and can do "all" of the rides. There's a lot to do it's just been long overdue for expansions and re-theming in areas.

Hollywood Blvd., Sunset Blvd., Echo Lake, Pixar Place, even the Streets of America aren't that bad in terms of theming. I've always enjoyed the overall look of DHS. And I like that it's a smaller park.

Animation Courtyard though feels faded and dated to me the most now. That and Superstar Theater. Plus certain spots of the Backlot. Thankfully the backlot seems prime for a makeover.

 

[truecoat]

Disney tried a theme park for people who are not fans of theme parks. It was a very big idea behind how Disney's California Adventure was designed and executed. The people who visit theme parks, to some degree or another, are people who appreciate the qualities of theme parks. There are plenty of places offering kids the chance to meet a person in a [character] costume and in some cases those costumes are better than Disney's. People still spend thousands to do that in the appropriate environment. Theme parks also always held out an emphasis on place that for a long time and still in a lot of places was absent from urban design and is vigorously being reintroduced in many places across the country. The whole reason a house in something like Celebration or a more urban area can command a higher price is because of the larger environment that "average" people also do not properly articulate.

DCA wasn't even a good amusement park.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Wow. Lots of kvetching today. It's like no one wants to wait six years for the studios to be fixed...

 

[Cesar R M]

And that's a huge part of the problem. The types of shows you see at Disney are now everywhere in life. They aren't special anymore for the most part. I mean, how impressive is a 7-minute 3-D movie when someone can go and see a full-length 3-D movie any old day at home. Bring a water spritzer with you and there you go.

So, broadway style shows are everywhere in the US?

 

[spacemt354]

And I disagree with that notion, plain and simple.

I understand you perfectly.

I just think you are wrong. Sorry you can't handle that - not everyone who disagrees with you misunderstands you.

If you don't agree that themes are DHS's biggest problem, that's fine. But I never said that they were. I simply said it was one of the problems.

You "just think" I'm wrong, yet in fact, you've actually agreed with me in your prior statements.

Absolutely. The theming in that "land" was most definitely a huge factor in it's success. In that particular case, even the buildings are an "attraction" - as it was a replication of a movie set.

my initial statement about DHS addresses the need for both thematic re-representation of the park (ie cohesive lands, a better overall message) AND the addition of new, innovative attractions within those lands.
It's not simply attractions or theme. It's both.

Theming around attractions absolutely is a factor (though less than the attractions themselves, obviously).

The only part where I see a disagreement between us is on the level of importance regarding theme vs. attraction. Other than that, you're basically arguing the same thing I am.

To be honest I'm not sure what you're complaining about and I'm not sure why you have gotten so aggressive with your accusations. This topic was dormant since the beginning of November yet for some reason you chose to bring it up again.