Dragonrider1227
Well-Known Member
That's my thought on the matter. Don't be stingy. Share the wealth! At least to a point. Too much cloning can seem lazy but in the short run, it works for those who can't make it to both parks.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
What's the deal with clones?
- Thread starter mharrington
- Start date
I'm not the one who's being stingy. I personally don't mind clones. I'm just trying to figure why other people don't care for clones and how everyone wants everything to be 100% original.
David S.
Member
I agree, I don't mind "clones", and in fact there are many classic attractions that IMO a "Magic Kingdom" - style "castle park" would be incomplete without.
I hate to use a business term, but it's kind of like a "franchise". I don't personally eat burgers, but, for instance, you would expect to be able to buy a Big Mac and French Fries at ANY McDonald's location, and it wouldn't seem like a "true" McDonald's if you couldn't get these.
Likewise, IMO, an MK-style park would feel incomplete without the classics.
Now of course, exactly WHICH attractions should be considered such classics is the subject of great debate!
I've never been to any of the overseas parks, but I know if I ever make it to Paris, the left half of the park sure will feel "incomplete" to me without Splash Mountain, Country Bears, Tiki Birds, and Jungle Cruise, which are 4 of my top 5 Adventureland/Frontierland attractions (Big Thunder is the other, which Paris DOES have).
And of course, Hong Kong is missing LOTS of classics that IMO every MK should have, including all those mentioned above except the Jungle Cruise. But they are also missing Pirates, the Riverboat, and ALL the Fantasyland dark rides EXCEPT Pooh! To name a few!
Two more good arguments in favor of "clones" that others have mentioned and I agree with:
* When attractions are "cloned", there are usually differences between the versions, making each a unique interpretation of the concept.
* Not everyone can or will make it to multiple resorts. Most people will visit the one they live closest to the most, and if they do make it to SOME of the others, it may be just a once-in-a-lifetime event.
So, if the parks were like my DVD collection, where I had equal access to all of them based on a whim, I would agree more with the idea of having unique things in each (although I'd still feel that the "classics" should be in every MK-style park). But since I can't just press a button and appear in Anaheim, or Paris, or Tokyo, I certainly can see, and agree with, the practical reasons why "clones" can be good!
I hate to use a business term, but it's kind of like a "franchise". I don't personally eat burgers, but, for instance, you would expect to be able to buy a Big Mac and French Fries at ANY McDonald's location, and it wouldn't seem like a "true" McDonald's if you couldn't get these.
Likewise, IMO, an MK-style park would feel incomplete without the classics.
Now of course, exactly WHICH attractions should be considered such classics is the subject of great debate!
I've never been to any of the overseas parks, but I know if I ever make it to Paris, the left half of the park sure will feel "incomplete" to me without Splash Mountain, Country Bears, Tiki Birds, and Jungle Cruise, which are 4 of my top 5 Adventureland/Frontierland attractions (Big Thunder is the other, which Paris DOES have).
And of course, Hong Kong is missing LOTS of classics that IMO every MK should have, including all those mentioned above except the Jungle Cruise. But they are also missing Pirates, the Riverboat, and ALL the Fantasyland dark rides EXCEPT Pooh! To name a few!
Two more good arguments in favor of "clones" that others have mentioned and I agree with:
* When attractions are "cloned", there are usually differences between the versions, making each a unique interpretation of the concept.
* Not everyone can or will make it to multiple resorts. Most people will visit the one they live closest to the most, and if they do make it to SOME of the others, it may be just a once-in-a-lifetime event.
So, if the parks were like my DVD collection, where I had equal access to all of them based on a whim, I would agree more with the idea of having unique things in each (although I'd still feel that the "classics" should be in every MK-style park). But since I can't just press a button and appear in Anaheim, or Paris, or Tokyo, I certainly can see, and agree with, the practical reasons why "clones" can be good!