Building trends: Immersive lands vs. single attractions

[DinoInstitute]

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.

I agree, I don't see the problem with Epcot or DHS really. I suppose it is because it is dated or has least to do. Which is funny, because DHS is, in theory, the park for immersive lands, so should be best according to this thread

 

[WondersOfLife]

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?

Wow.. never even realized that.. that kinda sucks /:

 

[disneyshane88]

I agree with the OP. I would much rather have lands that are "loosely themed" so they can fit multiple themed rides into it. MK is the best example. In tomorrow land you can have buzz light year and space mountain together. They arent similar themes but vaguely fit into the overall theme of the land. With then upcoming Avatar land you can't put any attraction that isn't themed around avatar. Which limits what they can in the future

 

[Marco226]

IMO, I think the single land with one IP idea is ok IF it's done nicely. I wouldn't have chosen Avatar to be put in DAK, but at least it's getting a huge plot of land to flesh out the pretty landscaping and add several attractions. Some lands, like the Toy Story one in HKDL and Bugs' Life in DCA are just kinda.. meh..

 

[morningstar]

I have long wondered why no one has built a Lord of the Rings land yet. That story has proven staying power. It is the second bestselling book of all time after the Bible. And it has unique and imaginative settings.

Anyway, I think yeah, generally, a loosely-themed land has more potential. However, a movie like Avatar seems difficult to fit into any such land. Would it go in Tomorrowland? It has a vastly different aesthetic. It's not so hard to fit Cinderella and Alice and Snow White into one land. These are all set in various parts of Europe over a few past centuries. When a movie creates a really unique setting, it becomes hard to blend it seamlessly into a land it shares with other properties.

 

[Bairstow]

I have long wondered why no one has built a Lord of the Rings land yet.

Christopher Tolkien, among others.

 

[Fox&Hound]

Wow! What a great topic. I hadn't really thought of it.

I guess when they build places like Avatar or Arendelle for Frozen (probably will happen one day) that it would be really difficult to replace an outdated ride (like they can do at say Tomorrowland). Hmmm....I guess they will probably fight all the more to keep the IP relevant: which means numerous sequels.

But I do agree that the strength of the ride should determine the popularity.

And while HP doesn't scare me of losing relevance, Avatar does.

Maybe this will be an issue and you'll see themed lands pop back up again. Look at the jaws area of Universal- how expensive was it to rip out that whole area? Universal is betting everything on Potter as a franchise with staying power!!!!

Hmmm....really interesting topic. 10 points to Gryffindor!

 

[POLY1985]

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.

This is a great point!

 

[Mawg]

I don't see a trend in either direction and think it depends on what the park has to offer to decide which way to develop. If a park is limited in it's attractions then a new land is a great idea. If a park has many attractions and some are outdated and rarely visited then replacement is called for. Making a park so big that you can't do everything in 1 to 2 days starts to bring disappointment that you went and could not do everything and it adds confusion as to how to navigate such a large park. If a park is that big it's time to start thinking about replacements of old out dated rides instead of expanding with new lands. MK - Replacements/Refurbishments not new lands, Epcot - Replacements/Refurbishments not new lands, HS - new lands, AK - New lands.

 

[RayTheFirefly]

In general, I prefer general themes, because they can still be super immersive (Adventureland, Fantasyland, Asia and Africa in DAK) and allow for more of a variety of rides more original attractions. I think that's the problem most people have with Little Mermaid; it's kind of just an awkward,brief run through of the movie with no story of goal of the attraction. I think when they try too hard to make it align with a story that already exists, it makes it harder to create a really great attraction.

 

[Bairstow]

In general, I prefer general themes, because they can still be super immersive (Adventureland, Fantasyland, Asia and Africa in DAK)

Now that I think about it, do the Asia or Africa areas at Animal Kingdom really count as "general" lands in the spirit of the original Disneyland lands?
Sure, they're not based on existing IPs like Harry Potter or Cars, but in a sense they both created their own cohesive IPs in the form of Harambe and the Kingdom of Anandapur.
In Adventureland, for example, you have the (very) general theme of tropical, non-European locations removed from major cities in which exist very disparate worlds like the golden age of piracy in the Caribbean, 1930s colonial Africa, and magical medieval(?) Iraq. By contrast, everything in the Asia area of Animal Kingdom is meant to be understood as taking place in modern day in the same place.

 

[RayTheFirefly]

Now that I think about it, do the Asia or Africa areas at Animal Kingdom really count as "general" lands in the spirit of the original Disneyland lands?
Sure, they're not based on existing IPs like Harry Potter or Cars, but in a sense they both created their own cohesive IPs in the form of Harambe and the Kingdom of Anandapur.
In Adventureland, for example, you have the (very) general theme of tropical, non-European locations removed from major cities in which exist very disparate worlds like the golden age of piracy in the Caribbean, 1930s colonial Africa, and magical medieval(?) Iraq. By contrast, everything in the Asia area of Animal Kingdom is meant to be understood as taking place in modern day in the same place.

Yeah, I see your point. But Anandapur is still a fictional place, and "Asia" is a pretty broad term. They could easily add things to that section with various Asian themes that would still feel cohesive. Same with Africa. Are Harambe and Kilimanjaro Safari connected? Not really, but it still makes sense and feels cohesive.

 

[Bairstow]

Yeah, I see your point. But Anandapur is still a fictional place, and "Asia" is a pretty broad term. They could easily add things to that section with various Asian themes that would still feel cohesive.

Could, but haven't.
Even the bird show is carefully themed to fit in with the Anandapur story.

Same with Africa. Are Harambe and Kilimanjaro Safari connected? Not really, but it still makes sense and feels cohesive.

They totally are.
The idea is that Harambe village exists on the edge of the Harambe Wildlife Preserve, where Kilimajaro Safaris operates.

 

[RayTheFirefly]

They totally are.
The idea is that Harambe village exists on the edge of the Harambe Wildlife Preserve, where Kilimajaro Safaris operates.

Oh, whoops. But my point is that they definitely could add more African things nearby and it would feel cohesive. But I do see your point. Still, aren't we all glad it's called Harambe instead of Lion King Land? Haha.

 

[Thrill]

Personally, I like detailed lands. The reason: most lands that aren't rigorously themed are messy and suffer from identity crises; specifically, the entirety of Hollywood Studios, Tomorrowland, Fantasyland, and Adventureland. (Future World has identity issues now, but it used to be pretty defined.) These all have random elements coming from everywhere as a result of minimal definition.

Contrary to popular belief, we actually do/did see strong themed lands in the Magic Kingdom. Frontierland/Liberty Square are pretty cleverly designed to flow geographically and chronologically. While the Haunted Mansion isn't woven into the lands as a story element, the area is structured and generally isn't jarring (though Splash Mountain is technically out of place). Meanwhile, Adventureland has no cohesion. Within eyeshot, you can see elements of the tropical islands, the Middle East, and jungles.

The most concerning thing to me isn't the lack of new rides; it's the lack of immersive rides. In 15 years, the only immersive and intricately themed ride added to WDW is Expedition Everest. As for Mission: Space, Soarin', Toy Story Mania, The Little Mermaid, all of these are decent rides, but I don't feel like I'm in a different place while I'm on them. I'm playing a video game, watching a screen, or on a borderline D-Ticket where I can see things hanging from the ceiling. What Disney needs to do is to continue building elaborate lands such as Anandapur, but fill them with elaborate rides such as Expedition Everest or the Haunted Mansion. No more costly exteriors with minimally immersive interiors (Little Mermaid).


Side note on Avatar: the franchise's staying power is irrelevant. Pandora can be worked into Animal Kingdom as a new, more cohesive take on something like Beastly Kingdom. It is a truly beautiful setting in the movie, and if they play their cards right, Pandora will be immortalized by its theme park execution. While I prefer new IPs, I see Pandora as (potentially) Animal Kingdom's much more expensive version of Splash Mountain. It's based on a franchise of questionable popularity, but can make for a heck of a theme park attraction, and that's what matters.

 

[Mater_Disney]

I would disagree that just because kids don't know the story that the story in the ride is then rendered useless and non-entertaining. Take Splash Mountain, for example. The ride is based on a movie which almost no one has heard of (Song of the South) because Disney cancelled the production of it shortly after release due to concerns about racial issues, yet it remains a very popular ride (when working) to this day.

The magic of Disney comes from the company's ability to tell a story in their rides, and I think that setting the scene beforehand with themed lands adds to the experience. Few people coming to Disney, especially kids, have seen every single movie that has a ride with its theme at the parks. It just isn't necessary to understand the plot of the ride.

Do you come to Disney to see familiar faces on the rides or to immerse yourself in stories which greatly vary from your everyday life?

For me, it's the latter.

 

[Sketch105]

First off...WOW. Thank you to everyone who has participated in this discussion. All of you have made some great points. Love the references to Splash Mountain- its a great attraction that stands on its own.

I guess I did not cut to the nitty gritty- I feel that with building some of these immersive lands, they are taking a big risk in future enhancements down the road. These are lands that hinge on the popularity of the IP to drive attendance and continue to make guests spend money in these areas.

I worry that some of these properties they are choosing to build lands on- well, might not stand the test of time. Its one thing to pour money into a SINGLE attraction and then ten years later close it for something else after it has done its job of boosting attendance and selling merchandise for a few years. It's another to take an entire LAND and close it and re-theme it because the popularity of the ride/brand did not last as long as previously thought.

Remember in the early 90s that Hanna-Barbera was a HOT commodity, and every studio/theme park wanted a piece of the pie. Now it's a brand based on nostalgia and direct-to-video Scooby Doo movies. In less than 20 years, they've become almost non-existent in popular culture.

Maybe Disney should've just built ONE Avatar ride rather than bank on a whole land seven years after the intial film whose sequel eggs haven't hatched?

 

[MarkTwain]

This is a great point and I think demonstrates more long-term thinking than theme parks are demonstrating at the moment. I agree with those that pointed how loosely-themed lands allow for much easier swapping out of attractions, but I suspect parks right now care much more about getting people in the gates ASAP and dealing with repercussions later, than in designing for decades in the future.

 

[TubaGeek]

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

I would have more faith in that if they had built anything in the last 15 years that could top Uni's Spidey.

 

[RayTheFirefly]

Maybe Disney should've just built ONE Avatar ride rather than bank on a whole land seven years after the intial film whose sequel eggs haven't hatched?

I agree with what most people are saying. If the land/attractions are executed well, it won't matter what the IP's popularity is. It'll become iconic in its own right.