How do I explain that my park is fictitious?

[mharrington]

So I stuggled with this too. Way I solved it, put the park/resort in my novel, in order to write it, I have to build it, I operate my ideas based off the au/fansty world I've created for the novel. It's bound by those logistics.

Are you saying that I should engage in world-building? Because it's hard enough to build a park without also building a whole new world to go with it, as if that world exists just for the benefit of the park.

At one point, I tried to figure out how to do my park in both Germany and Brazil by combining both into a made-up city called Berlisilia (something like San Fransokyo), but that would require describing this city, where it's located (likely Brazil), its history, etc. It seems totally unnecessary when all I want to do is just do the park.

That's another reason for the disclaimer, particularly since I'm not used to admitting that these ideas are just those: ideas, and probably will never see the light of day. Why do you think so many movies have that "this is a work of fiction" disclaimer at the end (or beginning, in the early days of movies)?

 

[JokersWild]

Are you saying that I should engage in world-building? Because it's hard enough to build a park without also building a whole new world to go with it, as if that world exists just for the benefit of the park.

At one point, I tried to figure out how to do my park in both Germany and Brazil by combining both into a made-up city called Berlisilia (something like San Fransokyo), but that would require describing this city, where it's located (likely Brazil), its history, etc. It seems totaly unnecessary when all I want to do is just do the park.

That's another reason for the disclaimer, particularly since I'm not used to admitting that these ideas are just those: ideas, and probably will never see the light of day. Why do you think so many movies have that "this is a work of fiction" disclaimer at the end (or beginning, in the early days of movies)?

I think you’re overthinking. You don’t need to completely flesh out a fictional city for your park. You could literally just say “Berisilia is a fictional city combining cultural elements from both Brazil and Germany” and we’d all be pretty satisfied. I mean, even San Fransokyo has barely any world-building other than some minimal architectural stuff.

I’ve fallen into the same traps before - I’ve spent months looking for the perfect unpopulated coastline in Northern California for a park I’d like to work on. But at some point you just need to try to make concessions and learn when to move past those minute details that no one else will ever notice.

In terms of film disclaimers, those are put into films mainly to avoid possible litigation from people trying to claim that the events of the movie happened to them or their family. Sounds crazy, but it has happened, I think. All you’d really need for a disclaimer is a sentence explaining that your park is a work of fiction that doesn’t reflect the real world, if you even need anything at all.

 

[mharrington]

I think you’re overthinking. You don’t need to completely flesh out a fictional city for your park. You could literally just say “Berisilia is a fictional city combining cultural elements from both Brazil and Germany” and we’d all be pretty satisfied. I mean, even San Fransokyo has barely any world-building other than some minimal architectural stuff.

You're right, I am overthinking, because it's what I do. I'm autistic and literal-minded, and I wouldn't be satisfied, because being totally fictitious is not really my thing. It would mean not paying attention to anything real-world and just going completely wild in doing anything with rides, even if the technology for them doesn't exist. That's just not me. I like to set my ideas in real places.

As for San Fransokyo, I believe only pre-release materials revealed the alternate history of that, which you would probably never notice if you just saw the movie and nothing else. I would think "Berlisilia" would require the same thing beyond just "cultural elements of Brazil and Germany". It would require a history, for one, and that alone would bog down the park. Also, what of the language? Would it be Portuguese or German? Or both? If both, wouldn't that mess up the entrance signs if you've got to do multiple names in multiple languages? The same goes with the rides themselves.

I’ve fallen into the same traps before - I’ve spent months looking for the perfect unpopulated coastline in Northern California for a park I’d like to work on. But at some point you just need to try to make concessions and learn when to move past those minute details that no one else will ever notice.

I'm steering clear of anywhere in the U.S. for a park, as we've already got two on two separate coasts.

In terms of film disclaimers, those are put into films mainly to avoid possible litigation from people trying to claim that the events of the movie happened to them or their family. Sounds crazy, but it has happened, I think. All you’d really need for a disclaimer is a sentence explaining that your park is a work of fiction that doesn’t reflect the real world, if you even need anything at all.

Yes, it did happen, way back in 1932 with a movie called "Rasputin and the Princess". It's an interesting story.

And yes, as I'm entirely uncomfortable with being totally fictitious with my park, I would need a disclaimer, as it's out of character for me. If it's not going to be beholden to the real world, then why should it be realistic at all? For one thing, why would it need to utilize any real-world technology for its rides? If it's entirely fictitious, then there should be no constraints whatsoever, and that's just too much for me when you don't have a way of bringing it down to Earth, for a lack of better words.

Like I said, I'm more the kind of person who likes to control the imagination (like Dr. Channing), rather than let it run wild (like the Dreamfinder).

 

[mharrington]

Another thing I've thought of doing is putting my park in a mythical setting like Xanadu (and not just because of the Olivia Newton-John movie either).

 

[MickeyMouse10]

I think you would be breaking the 4th wall if you came out and said "This is fictitious". It would be better to just lay your basic plans out on the table.

Fiction Writers don't come out and say "Everything I'm going tell you is a lie and doesn't actually exist".

 

[Ludpat Mike]

You can simply add an introduction in which you can explain that the park is fictional if that matters to you.

Once I did an Italian Disneyland (because I'm an Italian and as most enthusiasts I'd love to have a park in my country) and explained in an introduction why in my alternate reality that would make sense - and also I took that as an opportunity to explain the "ideals" that guided such "project".

On the other hand as I am part of an Italian armchair imagineering live series on Youtube, the other participants and I say in the first minutes of each episode that everything is just something we invented and neither a rumor nor an announcement. It is probably unnecessary, but we don't want to see fanpages saying "Disneyland Paris is getting a new Dark Ride in Frontierland and it will be like this" just because one of us had pitched that idea.

On this forum I just assume everything is fictious even if something is quite realistic.

But again I think a simple phrase at the beginning of your post like "this project is entirely fictional, and it must be regarded as such, not as a rumor, an announcement, a leak" will do it if it is so important for you.

 

[mharrington]

I think you would be breaking the 4th wall if you came out and said "This is fictitious". It would be better to just lay your basic plans out on the table.

Fiction Writers don't come out and say "Everything I'm going tell you is a lie and doesn't actually exist".

How then do people know it's a lie if it isn't said so.

You can simply add an introduction in which you can explain that the park is fictional if that matters to you.

Once I did an Italian Disneyland (because I'm an Italian and as most enthusiasts I'd love to have a park in my country) and explained in an introduction why in my alternate reality that would make sense - and also I took that as an opportunity to explain the "ideals" that guided such "project".

On the other hand as I am part of an Italian armchair imagineering live series on Youtube, the other participants and I say in the first minutes of each episode that everything is just something we invented and neither a rumor nor an announcement. It is probably unnecessary, but we don't want to see fanpages saying "Disneyland Paris is getting a new Dark Ride in Frontierland and it will be like this" just because one of us had pitched that idea.

On this forum I just assume everything is fictious even if something is quite realistic.

But again I think a simple phrase at the beginning of your post like "this project is entirely fictional, and it must be regarded as such, not as a rumor, an announcement, a leak" will do it if it is so important for you.

I don't like the word "fictional". It's too on the nose. How can you see something if it doesn't exist? And wouldn't you have to explain the alternate reality/history?

You also didn't answer my other question: if it's unrealistic, why pay attention to real-world constraints, such as existing technologies for rides?

 

[PerGron]

I designed a new Disney Park that is just a much bigger version of Animal Kingdom with multiple different continents featured. Now, Disney would probably never do another animal park, especially one bigger than their already biggest park, but as a zookeeper and someone who loves Disney and designing zoos, I wanted to do it as a thought experiment.

I get the want to make it realistic, and if that’s the route you want to go, go for it! But if it’s not all super realistic, don’t worry about it, we all just enjoy reading the projects people come up with!

I promise, whether you set it in a super realistic setting or on the Moon, people will still show up and like everything you post! Do what your heart wants to do!

 

[mharrington]

I designed a new Disney Park that is just a much bigger version of Animal Kingdom with multiple different continents featured. Now, Disney would probably never do another animal park, especially one bigger than their already biggest park, but as a zookeeper and someone who loves Disney and designing zoos, I wanted to do it as a thought experiment.

I get the want to make it realistic, and if that’s the route you want to go, go for it! But if it’s not all super realistic, don’t worry about it, we all just enjoy reading the projects people come up with!

I promise, whether you set it in a super realistic setting or on the Moon, people will still show up and like everything you post! Do what your heart wants to do!

What I want to know is if it's unrealistic, then why not be entirely unrealistic and not use any real-world technology?

 

[JokersWild]

What I want to know is if it's unrealistic, then why not be entirely unrealistic and not use any real-world technology?

I mean there’s nothing stopping you from doing that either. Be as realistic or unrealistic as you want. Everyone here is very open to anything.

 

[PerGron]

What I want to know is if it's unrealistic, then why not be entirely unrealistic and not use any real-world technology?

You totally can do that too! You could design an entire park on Jupiter that is staffed entirely by squids that only speak Portuguese and I guarantee nobody would even think twice! Have fun with it, that’s why we’re all here. If you want it to be a realistic park, go for it, if you want to make up technology, go ahead! If you want to make it all underwater and the only people that can get tickets are mermaids, that’s fine too! It’s about your creativity more than anything else

 

[mharrington]

You totally can do that too! You could design an entire park on Jupiter that is staffed entirely by squids that only speak Portuguese and I guarantee nobody would even think twice! Have fun with it, that’s why we’re all here. If you want it to be a realistic park, go for it, if you want to make up technology, go ahead! If you want to make it all underwater and the only people that can get tickets are mermaids, that’s fine too! It’s about your creativity more than anything else

Setting a park in outer space is too ridiculous, in my opinion. Like I said, I'm more of a Dr. Channing (i.e., controlling the imagination) than a Dreamfinder (i.e., letting the imagination run wild). I don't want anything that challenges the laws of reality.

 

[mharrington]

If I were to set my park in an entirely made-up, fictitious place, how would I be able to include Soarin' into this? The ride has you flying over real places, and it ends with the location the park is set in. In most cases, it ends in the park itself (as in California, Florida and Japan), though it did end in the city in which the park was located instead in Shanghai.

 

[Ludpat Mike]

I don't like the word "fictional". It's too on the nose. How can you see something if it doesn't exist? And wouldn't you have to explain the alternate reality/history?

Not to brag, but some people said they could imagine the rides I was describing for them (they are not on this forum as they are not Disney-themed). I guess it is up to you, some people find it easier to get a picture in their mind of what you tell them.
About the alternate reality... I kind of explained it because I wanted to and you can do that as well if you want to. You don't "have to", you can if that's something you want to do.

Also... "how can you see something if it doesn't exist?". How do you think actual imagineering works? I think that it must be something like this: a group of people gathers and gives suggestions. Then they have to "see" those things in their mind so they can draw them on paper and work on the more technical aspects.

You also didn't answer my other question: if it's unrealistic, why pay attention to real-world constraints, such as existing technologies for rides?

I think it is just a matter of taste. I like imagining things that are kind of doable also because that is the kind of armchair imagineering I like most. But that is still up to you. Do you want to imagine a park bigger than France (the whole country)? Then do it! Do you want to imagine a rollercoaster that literally allows you to fly? Do it!

 

[mharrington]

Not to brag, but some people said they could imagine the rides I was describing for them (they are not on this forum as they are not Disney-themed). I guess it is up to you, some people find it easier to get a picture in their mind of what you tell them.
About the alternate reality... I kind of explained it because I wanted to and you can do that as well if you want to. You don't "have to", you can if that's something you want to do.

The fact is, I'm not used to admitting that my ideas are set in a place not of this world or something. I like to try to set my ideas in the real world whenever possible. That's why I need a disclaimer, so I can at least be honest that this is probably not going to happen. Can you or anyone else think of some good words to use to describe the park's fictitious nature?

What's more, if I set in an entirely fictitious area, one not of this world, I'm pretty sure I would have to explain that area not of this world first in as much detail as possible. In other words, I would have to do some worldbuilding, and I'm not too good at making things up. It's difficult enough to do a park in a real-world location, never mind inventing a whole new world to go along with the park.

For instance, I had at one point thought of making up an entire city somewhere, possibly in Brazil, and mixing it with Berlin to call it "Berlisilia" (a merge of Berlin and Brasilia), but that would require a ton of background on the city itself before delving into the park. What's more, what language would it be? Portuguese? German? I don't believe there has ever been a park, Disney or otherwise, that has ever used more than two languages in a park. It's usually English and the language of the country it's in, but that's it.

So as you can see, I need a disclaimer to admit that my ideas are fictitious (because unlike a lot people here, I don't automatically "get" it without any help) and I like to be as realistic as possible and deviate too much from conventional wisdom.

Also... "how can you see something if it doesn't exist?". How do you think actual imagineering works? I think that it must be something like this: a group of people gathers and gives suggestions. Then they have to "see" those things in their mind so they can draw them on paper and work on the more technical aspects.

The problem is that you can't really "see" anything in your mind. The only way you can truly put it in visual form is to maybe draw pictures. Or better yet, perhaps use Roller Coaster Tycoon or Planet Coaster or something. That way, you can at least see a visual representation of your idea. After all, don't Imagineers draw pictures, as you said?

I'm not really the best drawer of pictures, I'm sorry to say. My drawing skills hadn't improved much since high school.

 

[Ludpat Mike]

The fact is, I'm not used to admitting that my ideas are set in a place not of this world or something. I like to try to set my ideas in the real world whenever possible. That's why I need a disclaimer, so I can at least be honest that this is probably not going to happen. Can you or anyone else think of some good words to use to describe the park's fictitious nature?

Something like this mignt work: "the following [park/attraction] doesn't actually exist. It is just something that came out of my own imagination". What do you think?

What's more, if I set in an entirely fictitious area, one not of this world, I'm pretty sure I would have to explain that area not of this world first in as much detail as possible. In other words, I would have to do some worldbuilding, and I'm not too good at making things up. It's difficult enough to do a park in a real-world location, never mind inventing a whole new world to go along with the park.

You can add worldbuilding if you want to. Once I thought bout setting the Italian Disney Park in a made up Italian City called Romipoli (the name comes from Rome+Milan+Naples/Napoli). Then I thought setting it near Rome would have made more sense. But I don't think anyone would have come to ask more about Romipoli.

For instance, I had at one point thought of making up an entire city somewhere, possibly in Brazil, and mixing it with Berlin to call it "Berlisilia" (a merge of Berlin and Brasilia), but that would require a ton of background on the city itself before delving into the park. What's more, what language would it be? Portuguese? German? I don't believe there has ever been a park, Disney or otherwise, that has ever used more than two languages in a park. It's usually English and the language of the country it's in, but that's it.

There are parks in Europe that have even more languages. Disneyland Paris has like 4 of them or more I think.
In your case I get that setting something near an actual city might work better.

The problem is that you can't really "see" anything in your mind. The only way you can truly put it in visual form is to maybe draw pictures. Or better yet, perhaps use Roller Coaster Tycoon or Planet Coaster or something. That way, you can at least see a visual representation of your idea. After all, don't Imagineers draw pictures, as you said?


I'm not really the best drawer of pictures, I'm sorry to say. My drawing skills hadn't improved much since high school.

I usually don't draw either. I just describe with (too many, probably) details what I'm thinking about and usually it works. I sometimes do some sketches of some details or facades just because I'm not sure people will picture in their head exactly what I want them to picture.

But, again, recently I have described for 20 full minutes a Dracula-inspired ride with many, many details about the preshow and the ride experience ("you arrive in this room where on the left you can see this, then you turn and on the right there is that") and nobody seemed to be too confused.
Also, I have to admit that when I describe a ride idea I'm more concerned about telling the story than all the technology involved and so on (otherwise I would have stopped a long time ago).

Anyway the thing is, we are all different. We do things differently, we have different limits and skills. So, do what you like and have as much fun as you can.

 

[mharrington]

Something like this mignt work: "the following [park/attraction] doesn't actually exist. It is just something that came out of my own imagination". What do you think?

All of my ideas are basically like that, that they don't actually exist. It's just that I like to set them up realistically, as if they could exist in the future. I'm finicky like that. I'm just having a tough time coming up with an idea that was never meant to be realistic.

One problem with being entirely fictitious (i.e., unrealistic and proud of it) is that I want to include Soarin' in this park, which of course is a flight over various locales across the world. The ride usually ends with a flight through the park it's set in, save for Shanghai, which ends in Shanghai. How I be able to end the ride if the park is not of this world?

You can add worldbuilding if you want to. Once I thought bout setting the Italian Disney Park in a made up Italian City called Romipoli (the name comes from Rome+Milan+Naples/Napoli). Then I thought setting it near Rome would have made more sense. But I don't think anyone would have come to ask more about Romipoli.

I think I would. If you hadn't mentioned the meaning of the name, I would have been utterly stumped. It would also make sense to be more descriptive about it.

Another idea I've had was to set it up in a fictitious location that already exists, such maybe "Xanadu" (which is a metaphor for opulence or an idyllic place), based on a poem by Coleridge, as part of "Kubla Khan". It's also derivative of the movie with Olivia Newton-John. But again, Xanadu is not a real place, so how could Soarin' end there?

There are parks in Europe that have even more languages. Disneyland Paris has like 4 of them or more I think.
In your case I get that setting something near an actual city might work better.

I don't remember there being any park where more than two languages were heard. The only exceptions were guidemaps and Small World. They originally did want several European languages in Disneyland Paris, but that didn't go over very well and was a contributing factor to it not doing so well.

I usually don't draw either. I just describe with (too many, probably) details what I'm thinking about and usually it works. I sometimes do some sketches of some details or facades just because I'm not sure people will picture in their head exactly what I want them to picture.

Exactly. It's hard to really see something just from words alone. The best I can do without drawing is to try and find pictures online and post them on the threads.

Also, I have to admit that when I describe a ride idea I'm more concerned about telling the story than all the technology involved and so on (otherwise I would have stopped a long time ago).

Are you saying I should just ignore the technical aspects?

 

[MickeyWaffleCo.]

But again, Xanadu is not a real place, so how could Soarin' end there?

You just let Soarin’ end there and don’t explain it. If you don’t explain it, people won’t care. Search for “suspension of disbelief.” Pirates of the Caribbean takes place at night. Disney never explains how you went from daytime outside to nighttime inside, but guests don’t care because it feels magical anyway.

Are you saying I should just ignore the technical aspects?

I believe he’s saying it’s up to you. If you want to cover every single technical detail, you can, and there are people who would appreciate that. If you don’t want to, don’t, and people will still appreciate the concepts themselves.

 

[mharrington]

You just let Soarin’ end there and don’t explain it. If you don’t explain it, people won’t care. Search for “suspension of disbelief.” Pirates of the Caribbean takes place at night. Disney never explains how you went from daytime outside to nighttime inside, but guests don’t care because it feels magical anyway.

I care. As I've said before, Soarin' is a trip across some of the world's great icons. And while most of the versions end in a trip over a Disney park (Disneyland (rather than CA Adventure), Epcot, Tokyo DisneySea), Shanghai Disneyland is the one exception, as it ends in the city of Shanghai:


As I've also said, Xanadu is not a real place, so it's kind of difficult to end a ride like Soarin' over a made-up place if you don't know what's what or where.

 

[MickeyJedi]

I have been pondering a new park for some time now, even created some threads on the matter. I've seen a lot of people here putting up their own threads on their own park ideas, no matter how fictitious. The truth is, even though my ideas are usually as fictitious as any of them, I try to be realistic, but I don't want to come across as being deluded. I usually try and take realities into account before I do anything, but apparently the blue sky process indicates that no logistics (such as physical space, funding, etc.) are not required, only blue sky. But how can explain my ideas are unreal and probably will never happen? Because for me, it's really no fun to come up with ideas if reality is not taken into account.

I have been doing the same thing, I've been working on a theme park that is based around different movie genres. In fact, I've been working on this idea since middle school back in 2006. I've created three different versions of this idea, and none of them have seem to catch on in my mind anyway.