My thesis is on immersive lands in theme parks, and filling out this survey will help me get data!

wityblack

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
So, I'm doing my thesis on immersive lands in theme parks and what makes them successful both artistically and financially. I need a whole bunch of data for this, so if you've been to either Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge, Pandora: The World of Avatar, or the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, you can super help me out by taking this survey about your thoughts on the lands!


(Plus it's a great way to get your aggression about Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge out)
 

boufa

Well-Known Member
Certainly not telling you your school business, but remember that this "fan" base is very biased, and definitely not representative of the general population. (Even though most of them think they are average fans).

For example, 99% of the people here hate adding IP to the parks... most of the common people who visit the parks like it. (Me too!)
 

Phroobar

Well-Known Member
It's my undergrad thesis. It's technically for my BA theatre studies, but I'm also a math major, so I'm spritzing in some math as well, hence the survey.
I guess if you think of theme parks as entertainment and immersive areas of the park as being a stage for larping then I guess a thesis for theater studies makes sense.
 

TROR

Well-Known Member
Certainly not telling you your school business, but remember that this "fan" base is very biased, and definitely not representative of the general population. (Even though most of them think they are average fans).

For example, 99% of the people here hate adding IP to the parks... most of the common people who visit the parks like it. (Me too!)
Prove it. You can't because that's a lie.
 

wityblack

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Certainly not telling you your school business, but remember that this "fan" base is very biased, and definitely not representative of the general population. (Even though most of them think they are average fans).

For example, 99% of the people here hate adding IP to the parks... most of the common people who visit the parks like it. (Me too!)

That's why I have a question about where you heard the about the survey. Part of the analysis will be looking at the bias from different subgroups of the community.
 

Model3 McQueen

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
So, I'm doing my thesis on immersive lands in theme parks and what makes them successful both artistically and financially. I need a whole bunch of data for this, so if you've been to either Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge, Pandora: The World of Avatar, or the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, you can super help me out by taking this survey about your thoughts on the lands!


(Plus it's a great way to get your aggression about Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge out)

Why did you make the questionnaire about 3 IP lands? What about the non-IP lands?
 

wityblack

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Why did you make the questionnaire about 3 IP lands? What about the non-IP lands?
Not including Tokyo DisneySea, I would wager that there really isn't any non-ip lands that would follow my definition of immersive. I'd be willing to put Asia and Africa under the label of Immersive, but I didn't want to add more than one land from Animal Kingdom, especially since I live in California and can't do on-site research. Pandora was a must, because it's such an interesting case study on how an IP that few really care about can still make an incredible land. I wanted to include Galaxy's Edge because it defied expectations and isn't as popular as predicted. And the Wizarding World of Harry Potter started the industry push towards immersive lands, so I couldn't leave it out, and I didn't want all of my lands to be Disney.
 

SuddenStorm

Well-Known Member
Not including Tokyo DisneySea, I would wager that there really isn't any non-ip lands that would follow my definition of immersive. I'd be willing to put Asia and Africa under the label of Immersive, but I didn't want to add more than one land from Animal Kingdom, especially since I live in California and can't do on-site research. Pandora was a must, because it's such an interesting case study on how an IP that few really care about can still make an incredible land. I wanted to include Galaxy's Edge because it defied expectations and isn't as popular as predicted. And the Wizarding World of Harry Potter started the industry push towards immersive lands, so I couldn't leave it out, and I didn't want all of my lands to be Disney.

What is your definition of immersive?
 

wityblack

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
What is your definition of immersive?
I'll just post a couple paragraphs that explain it:

Csikszentmihalyi asserts that humans only have a certain amount of processing power, equivalent to about 110 bits of information per second. He observes that artists feel a sense of ecstasy when all of their energy and processing power is put towards creation, as they don’t have the computational power to focus on worries and any experiences that aren’t in the present. He defines this state as “experience flow.” In this state of ecstasy, “we are participating in a reality that is different from that of the everyday life that we’re used to.” This flow can be further extended past artistic creation, into enveloping experiences. With an immersive world, and a level of stimuli that can only be accepted in this other reality, one is brought away from the qualms of everyday life and severed from the human world they know. In this sense, to achieve immersion in a theme park setting, a world must nearly ubiquitously induce this state of flow, without guests having to work around blind spots and without having to ignore any stimuli that doesn’t feed into the story. This notion excludes the non-realistic and the fourth wall breaking attractions from immersion, and with a guest’s ability to choose where to focus, must also exclude that which doesn’t add to the world (warehouse ceilings, exposed structural beams, flat cut outs of characters, etc).

Suspension of disbelief mustn’t be needed for immersion in theme parks. In the theatre, the audience must ignore that they are sitting in a comfortable chair watching the action from before, and believe that it is unfolding in a natural way. They must ignore the non-linear, they must ignore the calculated spotlight that follows the character, they must ignore the blackouts and changes of scenery, they must ignore all of this to be immersed in the story. This ignorance can’t apply to the definition of immersive lands, as from the moment a guest steps into the land, they must be immersed effortlessly. Suspension of disbelief can only be subconscious, and merely apply to the existence of the elements of the land; the knowing that magic doesn’t exist, or that aliens don’t speak English, or that mountains can’t really float. Suspension of disbelief can apply to conventional knowledge of how the world works, not suspension of disbelief applied to presentational methods.

So, a standard definition to apply in the rest of the paper can be defined as follows. Immersion, as it applies to immersive lands in theme parks, is the inducing of flow, the 360 degree envelopment of an environment, the realism of the fantastical, and the ability to immerse with little suspension of disbelief. Under this lens, immersive lands will be evaluated thusly.

(Quotes and citations to be added later)
 

THE 1HAPPY HAUNT

Well-Known Member
I'll just post a couple paragraphs that explain it:

Csikszentmihalyi asserts that humans only have a certain amount of processing power, equivalent to about 110 bits of information per second. He observes that artists feel a sense of ecstasy when all of their energy and processing power is put towards creation, as they don’t have the computational power to focus on worries and any experiences that aren’t in the present. He defines this state as “experience flow.” In this state of ecstasy, “we are participating in a reality that is different from that of the everyday life that we’re used to.” This flow can be further extended past artistic creation, into enveloping experiences. With an immersive world, and a level of stimuli that can only be accepted in this other reality, one is brought away from the qualms of everyday life and severed from the human world they know. In this sense, to achieve immersion in a theme park setting, a world must nearly ubiquitously induce this state of flow, without guests having to work around blind spots and without having to ignore any stimuli that doesn’t feed into the story. This notion excludes the non-realistic and the fourth wall breaking attractions from immersion, and with a guest’s ability to choose where to focus, must also exclude that which doesn’t add to the world (warehouse ceilings, exposed structural beams, flat cut outs of characters, etc).

Suspension of disbelief mustn’t be needed for immersion in theme parks. In the theatre, the audience must ignore that they are sitting in a comfortable chair watching the action from before, and believe that it is unfolding in a natural way. They must ignore the non-linear, they must ignore the calculated spotlight that follows the character, they must ignore the blackouts and changes of scenery, they must ignore all of this to be immersed in the story. This ignorance can’t apply to the definition of immersive lands, as from the moment a guest steps into the land, they must be immersed effortlessly. Suspension of disbelief can only be subconscious, and merely apply to the existence of the elements of the land; the knowing that magic doesn’t exist, or that aliens don’t speak English, or that mountains can’t really float. Suspension of disbelief can apply to conventional knowledge of how the world works, not suspension of disbelief applied to presentational methods.

So, a standard definition to apply in the rest of the paper can be defined as follows. Immersion, as it applies to immersive lands in theme parks, is the inducing of flow, the 360 degree envelopment of an environment, the realism of the fantastical, and the ability to immerse with little suspension of disbelief. Under this lens, immersive lands will be evaluated thusly.

(Quotes and citations to be added later)
I don't know about all that, to me immersion would be being able to walk up the Falcon Ramp.
 

Model3 McQueen

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Not including Tokyo DisneySea, I would wager that there really isn't any non-ip lands that would follow my definition of immersive. I'd be willing to put Asia and Africa under the label of Immersive, but I didn't want to add more than one land from Animal Kingdom, especially since I live in California and can't do on-site research. Pandora was a must, because it's such an interesting case study on how an IP that few really care about can still make an incredible land. I wanted to include Galaxy's Edge because it defied expectations and isn't as popular as predicted. And the Wizarding World of Harry Potter started the industry push towards immersive lands, so I couldn't leave it out, and I didn't want all of my lands to be Disney.

I'm sorry but with all due respect, I think you're taking a very misguided approach. You can't tell me that MainStreet, Adventure Land, Frontier Land aren't immersive. You can't tell me that there isn't something brilliant about walking up to a haunted hotel down Sunset Blvd in DHS. What about the cute charm of Fantasyland? Although it does have IP attractions, Fantasyland isn't itself IP. World showcase at EPCOT is, generally speaking, the definition of non-IP immersion.

I understand the message you are trying to convey. I get it. It's just this line of thinking that's making the suits zu all over the parks with their advertisement and IP.
 

wityblack

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I'm sorry but with all due respect, I think you're taking a very misguided approach. You can't tell me that MainStreet, Adventure Land, Frontier Land aren't immersive. You can't tell me that there isn't something brilliant about walking up to a haunted hotel down Sunset Blvd in DHS. What about the cute charm of Fantasyland? Although it does have IP attractions, Fantasyland isn't itself IP. World showcase at EPCOT is, generally speaking, the definition of non-IP immersion.

I understand the message you are trying to convey. I get it. It's just this line of thinking that's making the suits ****zu all over the parks with their advertisement and IP.

I completely agree with you that most of those are immersive experiences. Main street is immersive from the exteriors and most of the interiors, but the only attraction above an a-ticket is an animatronic Lincoln attraction which doesn't fit with the time period. Fantasyland is wonderful, but not cohesive enough to be immersive. It's incredibly charming, but things don't flow, and there's no reasoning behind flying elephants and miniature models and the rides are certainly not immersive. Frontierland is the closest to being immersive. My argument at the end of the paper is that immersion isn't needed, and basing them off of popular IPs doesn't draw more crowds, but creating compelling stories does. I also mention singular attractions that aren't IP based that are in themselves immersive, Haunted Mansions and Pirates of the Caribbean.

(I also consider World Showcase as mini-immersive lands in my section where I look at predecessors.)
 
Last edited:

Janir

Well-Known Member
So, I'm doing my thesis on immersive lands in theme parks and what makes them successful both artistically and financially. I need a whole bunch of data for this, so if you've been to either Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge, Pandora: The World of Avatar, or the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, you can super help me out by taking this survey about your thoughts on the lands!


(Plus it's a great way to get your aggression about Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge out)
Done. Good luck on your thesis and I hope one day your thesis gets used for designing and planning immersive lands in theme parks
 

THE 1HAPPY HAUNT

Well-Known Member
I completely agree with you that most of those are immersive experiences. Main street is immersive from the exteriors and most of the interiors, but the only attraction above an a-ticket is an animatronic Lincoln attraction which doesn't fit with the time period. Fantasyland is wonderful, but not cohesive enough to be immersive. It's incredibly charming, but things don't flow, and there's no reasoning behind flying elephants and miniature models and the rides are certainly not immersive. Frontierland is the closest to being immersive. My argument at the end of the paper is that immersion isn't needed, and basing them off of popular IPs doesn't draw more crowds, but creating compelling stories does. I also mention singular attractions that aren't IP based that are in themselves immersive, Haunted Mansions and Pirates of the Caribbean.

(I also consider World Showcase as mini-immersive lands in my section where I look at predecessors.)
New Orleans Square and Adventureland would like to have a word with you.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom