Building trends: Immersive lands vs. single attractions

[Sketch105]

Is anyone scared of this new building trend?

We're seeing so many parks focus more on placemaking of ONE property over a large area rather than single attractions. And it's very exciting to see the theme park industry get a shot in the arm from building huge, immersive environments..however I wonder what they'll be like over the long term?

Theme parks used to be built on a principal- You have several areas, and each area has a blanket theme- Adventure or Fantasy or Sci Fi or New York!

Next: You build several attractions in each area that go along with that theme- A cruise through a jungle, or an alien rollercoaster or King Kong! Over the years, you take out/retheme attractions as they age, but they at least (even loosely) fit the theme.

Do you think this trend of building all out environments for one single property might be detrimental down the road vs. building just one attraction? Do you think any of the franchises built might not have legs past ten years? Do you think it will be harder down the line when CARS or The Simpsons have run their course, and its time to freshen up?

 

[Tom Morrow]

Wizarding World - Hogsmeade didn't bother me at all because IOA already had an entire land themed to one property - Jurassic Park, so Harry Potter fit right in. Over at US, though, it doesn't quite fit with the rest of the park, though I am glad they emphasized that the area is also "London".

Either way, Harry Potter has the staying power of Star Wars, so I don't think relevancy will be an issue for decades, or ever. Cars and AVATAR, on the other hand... especially Avatar... yeah, Cars is popular with young boys but just an afterthought to everyone else. The land is amazing, but I do wonder about it's long-term potential. I guess it would force them to stay fresh and update the area if needed.

 

[Tim Lohr]

I think it always comes back to "is the ride any good?" Splash Mountain is based on a movie that hasn't been available in this country for almost 30 years, but people like the characters, ride, music and the over all experience.

But I think WDW's problem with AK and the FLE is that there's a lot of pretty landscapes and rock work to look at, but not much to do. The Avatar-land looks to be a fairly large piece of real-estate that's only going to house 2 rides? Spending lots of time and money on big projects that get mixed reviews when they open comes back to the "is the ride any good" issue, and if they aren't any good when they open I think it's only a matter of time before they get replaced

 

[Bairstow]

I'm not sure if I understand the topic as phrased by the OP.

Are we discussing large vs small themed lands (Tomorrowland vs Springfield) or are we talking about the concept of lands built around a loose theme vs established franchises (Harambe vs Hogsmeade) ?

 

[Wikkler]

The last one.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Wizarding World - Hogsmeade didn't bother me at all because IOA already had an entire land themed to one property - Jurassic Park, so Harry Potter fit right in. Over at US, though, it doesn't quite fit with the rest of the park, though I am glad they emphasized that the area is also "London".

Either way, Harry Potter has the staying power of Star Wars, so I don't think relevancy will be an issue for decades, or ever. Cars and AVATAR, on the other hand... especially Avatar... yeah, Cars is popular with young boys but just an afterthought to everyone else. The land is amazing, but I do wonder about it's long-term potential. I guess it would force them to stay fresh and update the area if needed.

That and none movie related interest. I have never seen the "Cars" movie, but, I would love to experience the ride just from the You-Tube postings that I have seen. If the attraction/ride is interesting enough or classic enough, then it will continue to be popular. You mention a couple and you can add things like Small World, not based on anything, yet has survived, without question, for 50 years. Some things just never get old. Wish I could say that for myself.

 

[kap91]

Yes it does bother me (particularly when applied to the castle parks which are supposed to have lands based on broad themes - aka not Star Wars....my hope is that it's a temporary phase, particularly because with the scale of theme park construction these days almost anything that's built essentially must be permanent. There's only really a handful of IP that lends itself to entire lands. However I'm also concerned about the trend towards rides based on existing IP vs. original. I can understand why the parks want to do it, and the public does as well, but 80% of the best rides ever made were not based on anything or were only very loosely based.

That being said - the amazing immersive large scale environments being built are still awesome and certainly better than nothing.

 

[Bairstow]

I realize people don't like the trend of whole lands being based on singular IPs, but has there been a "bad" one yet?

 

[kap91]

I realize people don't like the trend of whole lands being based on singular IPs, but has there been a "bad" one yet?

Toy story land?

 

[Bairstow]

Toy story land?

Where is that?

 

[kap91]

Where is that?

Hong Kong.

Probably could mention a bugs land too but that would be easy enough to raze.

 

[MDactor1980]

I'm a big supporter of the HP area, but remain skeptical about Avatar-land. Maybe I'll be more convinced when there are some Avatar sequels to convince me that this is a land worth breathing life into on such a scale. Otherwise, I'm more in tune with the Fantasyland approach of each entity getting it's own ride.

 

[MDactor1980]

However I would LOVE for Disney to be able to do a Marvel-land to put the one at US to shame!

 

[Bairstow]

However I would LOVE for Disney to be able to do a Marvel-land to put the one at US to shame!

Do Marvel comics really lend themselves to themed lands, though?
Those stories are usually about interesting heroes doing things in everyday places (almost always New York City).

 

[MDactor1980]

Do Marvel comics really lend themselves to themed lands, though?
Those stories are usually about interesting heroes doing things in everyday places (almost always New York City).

I would argue in favor. They are everyday places, but extraordinary characters/situations. Half of DHS is versions of everyday situations...

I fully admit that I'm a comic-book nerd and just being greedy for a better experience (and less reasons to visit US/IOA)!

 

[Disneyhead'71]

I would argue in favor. They are everyday places, but extraordinary characters/situations. Half of DHS is versions of everyday situations...

I fully admit that I'm a comic-book nerd and just being greedy for a better experience (and less reasons to visit US/IOA)!

Why would you want less reasons to visit UOR?

 

[MDactor1980]

Why would you want less reasons to visit UOR?

I prefer WDW overall. UOR is fine, but besides Hogsmeade, I don't find it to truly be on par with WDW.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

I find a lot of WDW to not be on par with WDW. Chester and Hester's, Future World, all of DHS, and Tomorrowland to toss out a few.

 

[MDactor1980]

At least in terms of MK & Epcot, there is enough other things to distract from the less stellar parts. Only went to AK for the first time this year and found it to be okay (but very underwhelmed by DinoLand), but not my favorite. I don't get the hating on DHS that goes on.

 

[DinoInstitute]

I miss the good old trend where we would get a new ride or two a year and a few refurbishments. This kind of bothers me, and if any of you read my other posts in other threads, the whole "immersive experience" is so over used and a false term that makes it sound great, IMO.