The Spirited Seventh Heaven ...

[danlb_2000]

Those are single rides not entire lands.

No, never seeing Song of the South does not hurt enjoyment of Splash because the queue of Splash establishes the characters and story of the ride. Splash does not mention Uncle Remus at all. If the ride had a tar baby in the back part of one of the scenes then not seeing the movie or reading the books would hurt the full enjoyment of the ride.

There are a lot of details in ToT that are lost on people that don't know the show. Almost all the things in the tv room are references to the show and episodes. Again that doesn't hurt the enjoyment of the ride but people who DO get the references get more out of the ride than those who don't.

So why do these things not hurt a ride, but do a hurt a land?

 

[ParentsOf4]

when I read your first sentence I thought about Ronald Reagan...in that debate with Mondale I believe when he says "there you go again"

I don't want to be too picky, but for the sake of historical accuracy, he said that to Jimmy Carter.

You mean like when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

 

[ryan1]

So why do things thing not hurt a ride, but do a hurt a land?

I explained how Splash doesn't need prior knowledge of the story because the queue establishes what is going on. Same with ToT. The tv room establishes the story of what is going on in the ride so you are not lost. Those queues give you everything you need to know before getting on the ride. The Potter ride at IoA same thing.

It hurts a land because people will spend less time in and wandering around the land if they are cut off from a lot of "the story" of what is going on in the land. At least thats how I see it.

 

[Mike C]

I still wonder why for some people, "the rides" are the only things that count for the complete health of a park.

Because $94 a ticket for walking around a park with very little to do other than the rides shows a bit much? The Stretemosphere/Citizens of Hollywood are good, but not that good.

 

[FigmentJedi]

I still wonder why for some people, "the rides" are the only things that count for the complete health of a park.

Because "live shows as attractions" only exist at fixed points of time, are almost never scheduled after five o'clock and they don't often have that much revisit value. Hell, the only live shows I find all that appealing at Studios are Fantasmic and Indy.
You can't really call yourself a full-day park if you have almost nothing to occupy a guest's time in the evening and that's the big issue the Studio has.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I have a hard time understanding how people won't spend much time in a land based on an IP that doesn't interest them, but will still spends tons of time in an area or on an attraction that isn't based on an IP at all.

Basically, they're lying. Look at the most popular attractions in each park. For the most part they are either original concepts or based on 50+ year old IP. Creating a classic theme park attraction does not require a great intellectual property. The benefit of an intellectual property is the corresponding merchandise tie in and ease of marketing. This line of thinking results in a new "Frozen Ride" instead of an upgrade to the "Norway Ride".

 

[Goofyernmost]

You mean like when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Exactly!!!

 

[RSoxNo1]

My point was that if you are not very familiar with Potter or in this case Avatar a lot of the immersive details are not of interest because I don't "get" them so to me spending the 30 seconds to read the name of a book or what is written on a box is a waste and I don't do it.

I could spend hours at Trader Sam's at DL exploring the walls because nothing about it needs a reference.

That is why people can spend tons of time in non IP areas and not a lot of time on IP areas. Non IP areas are all inclusive.

Here's the thing though, Disneyland was created with these layers of detail, many of which went consciously unnoticed by guests every visit. I liken it to the Yeti though. Most people don't know that it moves, but their satisfaction with the attraction is lessened whether they know it or not. Universal could have taken an half @$$ed approach with Potter (you could argue this is the Transformers or Despicable Me approach) where they just plop in a Harry Potter attraction in an otherwise unthemed area. The attraction itself very well may still be great, but it would be that much more enhanced in a properly themed area.

Look at Radiator Springs Racers. It's integrated into the fabric of the land. You walk down the street and you see the Cadillac Mountain Range and it enhances the excitement. Look at Tower of Terror in DHS. From the moment you walk into the park you are in an area designed to lead you to Tower of Terror (pre-hat and Frozen banners). That type of placemaking enhances the experience.

You don't have to be familiar with the Harry Potter movies to appreciate the layers of detail in the area. Yes, many of the specific references will be meaningless, but their presence helps surround you in that world. It's why Diagon Alley is the single most wholly immersive theme park land in the world. It doesn't mean that Gringotts is the best attraction, nor does it mean that there aren't better examples of theming elsewhere. But what Diagon Alley does that no other land does is fully integrate you into that world. The structure/design of it completely remove you from the rest of the park. Cars Land doesn't succeed in that, and neither does Hogsmeade. I can't speak for Disney Sea, but my understanding is that there is some bleeding between lands. That doesn't exist in Diagon Alley.

 

[ryan1]

Here's the thing though, Disneyland was created with these layers of detail, many of which went consciously unnoticed by guests every visit. I liken it to the Yeti though. Most people don't know that it moves, but their satisfaction with the attraction is lessened whether they know it or not. Universal could have taken an half @$$ed approach with Potter (you could argue this is the Transformers or Despicable Me approach) where they just plop in a Harry Potter attraction in an otherwise unthemed area. The attraction itself very well may still be great, but it would be that much more enhanced in a properly themed area.

Look at Radiator Springs Racers. It's integrated into the fabric of the land. You walk down the street and you see the Cadillac Mountain Range and it enhances the excitement. Look at Tower of Terror in DHS. From the moment you walk into the park you are in an area designed to lead you to Tower of Terror (pre-hat and Frozen banners). That type of placemaking enhances the experience.

You don't have to be familiar with the Harry Potter movies to appreciate the layers of detail in the area. Yes, many of the specific references will be meaningless, but their presence helps surround you in that world. It's why Diagon Alley is the single most wholly immersive theme park land in the world. It doesn't mean that Gringotts is the best attraction, nor does it mean that there aren't better examples of theming elsewhere. But what Diagon Alley does that no other land does is fully integrate you into that world. The structure/design of it completely remove you from the rest of the park. Cars Land doesn't succeed in that, and neither does Hogsmeade. I can't speak for Disney Sea, but my understanding is that there is some bleeding between lands. That doesn't exist in Diagon Alley.

While I agree with this I would say that the people familiar with HP can spend much more time in those areas than people not familiar. I completely agree that a surrounding area can enhance a ride I'm just saying that the immense detail is lost of some people and that those people do not get out of the land what those familiar with the IP do. Unlike a non IP centric land where everyone sees the same details and everyone can get all the references/easter eggs.

 

[Cesar R M]

You mean like when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Nah, It was when the Egyptians sold the French the area known as "Florida".

 

[Cesar R M]

Because "live shows as attractions" only exist at fixed points of time, are almost never scheduled after five o'clock and they don't often have that much revisit value. Hell, the only live shows I find all that appealing at Studios are Fantasmic and Indy.
You can't really call yourself a full-day park if you have almost nothing to occupy a guest's time in the evening and that's the big issue the Studio has.

I never explicitly said only DHS.
I seen that "only rides count" tossed at AK too.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Is someone who's never seen Song of the South shut out of the full experience of Splash Mountain and do they somehow get less enjoyment out of it? Does someone who's never seen an episode of Twilight Zone really miss out on much when they ride Tower of Terror?

Have you seen Song of the South? It's plot is not actually about all of the animated characters. Similarly the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror is not based on any episode of The Twilight Zone. That is one of the big differences between past and present uses of existing intellectual property. The focus now is less on expanding an established universe, but on replicated what is already known.

 

[RSoxNo1]

While I agree with this I would say that the people familiar with HP can spend much more time in those areas than people not familiar. I completely agree that a surrounding area can enhance a ride I'm just saying that the immense detail is lost of some people and that those people do not get out of the land what those familiar with the IP do. Unlike a non IP centric land where everyone sees the same details and everyone can get all the references/easter eggs.

Your point about length of time in the area is well taken. However, I can't think of a land I've experienced (again, never been to Disney Sea) where I really wanted to explore it if it wasn't linked to an IP I enjoyed.

 

[DisUniversal]

Have you seen Song of the South? It's plot is not actually about all of the animated characters. Similarly the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror is not based on any episode of The Twilight Zone. That is one of the big differences between past and present uses of existing intellectual property. The focus now is less on expanding an established universe, but on replicated what is already known.

Yes, I've seen it more than once and have also seen many, if not most episodes of The Twilight Zone. Has nothing to do with familiarity with an IP being required in order to enjoy it. That is a ridiculous premise.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yes, I've seen it more than once and have also seen many, if not most episodes of The Twilight Zone. Has nothing to do with familiarity with an IP being required in order to enjoy it. That is a ridiculous premise.

Familiarity is being more and more necessary as property-based themed entertainment continues to be aimed more at the existing audience.

 

[twebber55]

Familiarity is being more and more necessary as property-based themed entertainment continues to be aimed more at the existing audience.

whats the better attraction Ratatouille or mystic manor?

 

[DisUniversal]

Familiarity is being more and more necessary as property-based themed entertainment continues to be aimed more at the existing audience.

Familiarity may be what attracts an IP's fanbase, however that doesn't equate to less enjoyment for those not intimately familiar with the IP.

 

[lazyboy97o]

whats the better attraction Ratatouille or mystic manor?

The consensus rather widely seems to be that Mystic Manor is the superior attraction. What does that have to do with my point? Disney didn't have much of a choice in Hong Kong and Ratatouille is quite popular in France.

Familiarity may be what attracts an IP's fanbase, however that doesn't equate to less enjoyment for those not intimately familiar with the IP.

It does when those unfamiliar get lost because knowing the films is necessary to understanding the experience. Disney is designing more and more assuming that the film has been seen by the theme park audience.

 

[twebber55]

Familiarity is being more and more necessary as property-based themed entertainment continues to be aimed more at the existing audience.

based on these words familiarity is necessary yet a non IP is the better attraction....

which takes me right back to my signature..its all about execution

 

[lazyboy97o]

based on these words familiarity is necessary yet a non IP is the better attraction....

which takes me right back to my signature..its all about execution

Whether or not familiarity is necessary is not some blanket fact. It has to do with how properties are treated. Projects that assume the audience is fully familiar with the source (The Little Mermaid) will be handled differently than those that use the source as a starting point (The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror).