Yeah. I think I’d put myself in the category.
But it’s confusing when some of those same people make comments like:
I mean, I don't think its really all that confusing - I consider myself someone who loves the details, but not all details are created equal.
Big Thunder at Disneyland Paris has a rich backstory that is intricately interwoven with Phantom Manor and the land as a whole. Guests can still enjoy these things without being aware of this, but the "history" is fully developed, well integrated, and fascinating to uncover for the initiated.
Meanwhile, Big Thunder at WDW littered the queue a few years ago with new "offices" and props that "told the story" of the mining company's owner, "Barnabas T. Boullion", a character who we'd never heard of before, who is never referenced again, and whose attraction was successful for 40+ years without him. To me this backstory is mostly ineffectual business.
The main difference between these two examples is that one of them feels rewarding to discover, and the other just feels like information. Ultimately it comes down to one genuinely being used as a conceptual cornerstone and the other essentially being a cosmetic application.
Mere props with funny names on them aren't what stimulate the guests, the indication of a rich and developed history is. One points to a mystery that can be discovered, and the other ends just about where it begins. The signifiers are similar, but what they signal is not.
The main question to ask when it comes to details, and backstory in particular, is "what has changed now that I know this?" In the case of DLP's Big Thunder, quite a bit changes - not only do the clues throughout the different attractions start to piece together, but the care and consideration which went into those attractions becomes obvious. At WDW's Big Thunder, not much changes when you learn about "Barnabas T. Bouillion". It basically amounts to a fun fact. It doesn't reveal much consideration because, truthfully, there isn't much beyond "How can we sneak in a tribute to Tony Baxter?" Which is a fine thing to do, but feels about as deep as it is.
Point being, there's a reason one ride feels full of legitimately special details and the other feels like a ridiculous backstory, and it makes sense that one makes a better impression than the other.