Leonard Kinsey hit one out the (theme) park with HABST AND THE DISNEY SABOTEURS. His fictional follow-up to OUR KINGDOM OF DUST pulled me in almost immediately and he kept his foot on the gas pedal for the entire book, creating a funny and exciting novel about every Disney fan's dreams.
I don't want to spoil the book here, so I'll just mention that the story involves Reginald "Habst" Habstermeister and his backstage explorations of Disney's Florida theme parks. Habst uses his fake cast member credentials and more than a little cunning to gain access to the behind-the-scenes areas of several rather unpopular attractions and posts the videos to his YouTube channel in order to earn Google Ad revenue. When "Sat-Com" contacts him he begins uploading them to another location on the Darknet, and after he posts his videos, it seems something bad happens to said attraction. It doesn't take long for Habst and Disney Security Chief Charlie Walker (you might remember him from HOLLOW WORLD?) to link the two. What follows is an exciting adventure to find the culprits and find out what their intentions are.
I would recommend this book to most anyone, but especially to mature fans of the Disney parks. (By mature, I mean, this isn't for kids. Or for the easily offended. Or those who like their Disney sanitized and idealized.) Anyone can enjoy it, but my five-star rating (forthcoming on Amazon) is because I am that sort of Disney fan.
I hope Kinsey's work gets a wide audience because it's that good!
Here's the link to buy it for $3.99 in the Amazon Kindle Store: HABST AND THE DISNEY SABOTEURS
******
Meanwhile, feel free to check out my book, Doing Disney: How To Spend A Week At Disney's Florida Resort It's available on Amazon for $2.99.
Thanks!
*****
Showing posts with label Theme Parks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theme Parks. Show all posts
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Monday, November 4, 2013
Epcot - The world's best indoor theme park!
As any longtime reader of this blog will know, I'm interested in theme park development in general, and have done some studying of the processes that the Disney Company has gone through to develop their parks in the United States (and a little bit in Europe as well), because they are the gold standard, after all. Way back when, I did a handful of blog posts about what I saw as the "basics" to developing a theme park resort in the northern Midwest, specifically in the Chicagoland area. And one of my conclusions was that the park would probably have to be completely indoors.
It was suggested that there are examples of indoor theme parks, including the Mall of America in Minnesota (I've never been to it). And later, Dreamworks announced that they were going to develop an all-indoor theme park in New Jersey, close to New York City. But I was thinking about it, and I see Epcot as the first, and best, indoor theme park in the world.
Most theme parks in the northern United States are seasonally open. They run on weekends in the spring and fall, and run at full schedule, every day, over the summer, when kids are out of school. Weather is obviously the big reason for this, but I would also guess that the lack of more to do around them is part of it. They do not depend on "tourists" from other states to come visit them; it's more school kids from the area, and so they are busy when kids aren't in school.
But if an attraction was developed that was completely enclosed (like the Mall of America, for example), does it become a tourist destination? Especially in an area like Chicago, where there are so many other things to recommend travel to it? (This goes for the New Jersey project of Dreamworks, assuming that this is still on the table at all, being in pretty close proximity to NYC.)
Anyway, getting back to Epcot: Every attraction there, with the partial exception of Test Track, is indoors. You only have to go outside to walk between the various pavilions and to reach the World Showcase. Now I would agree that it would lose something if those pavilions were themselves enclosed. Part of their attraction is the fact that they showcase the architecture of the countries they represent, and have sort of a "city" feel - like, if you're going to Paris, or Munich, or Naples, perhaps, and wandering around an actual European (or Mexican, or Canadian or North African) city!
Consider if the walkways were enclosed between the pavilions. You'd have a place that could easily be visited in the middle of winter, without concerns about how much snow was coming down or how many layers of clothing you needed to wear. You could set Epcot in its current form in the northern U.S., and you'd have a functional theme park. Enclose the walkways (arcades, like in Disneyland Paris?) and you have an all-weather park!
I suppose, thinking about it, that most of the parks have a large element of indoor attractions (all the dark rides, the motion simulators, indoor coasters like Rock'n'Roller Coaster and Space Mountain, and most of the shows are enclosed) but Epcot has the general lack of ties to Disney content to be anyone's park, not only Disney. That, coupled with the fact that you could enjoy almost everything about it even if it was snowing like crazy outdoors, make it a prototypical indoor theme park!
*****
If you get a chance, please take a look at my latest offering, 14 Dark Windows, on Amazon for Kindle. It's a collection of short stories, some horror, some milder with supernatural or horrific elements, some just nice stories, available in ebook form for $2.99! Thank you!
*****
It was suggested that there are examples of indoor theme parks, including the Mall of America in Minnesota (I've never been to it). And later, Dreamworks announced that they were going to develop an all-indoor theme park in New Jersey, close to New York City. But I was thinking about it, and I see Epcot as the first, and best, indoor theme park in the world.
Most theme parks in the northern United States are seasonally open. They run on weekends in the spring and fall, and run at full schedule, every day, over the summer, when kids are out of school. Weather is obviously the big reason for this, but I would also guess that the lack of more to do around them is part of it. They do not depend on "tourists" from other states to come visit them; it's more school kids from the area, and so they are busy when kids aren't in school.
But if an attraction was developed that was completely enclosed (like the Mall of America, for example), does it become a tourist destination? Especially in an area like Chicago, where there are so many other things to recommend travel to it? (This goes for the New Jersey project of Dreamworks, assuming that this is still on the table at all, being in pretty close proximity to NYC.)
Anyway, getting back to Epcot: Every attraction there, with the partial exception of Test Track, is indoors. You only have to go outside to walk between the various pavilions and to reach the World Showcase. Now I would agree that it would lose something if those pavilions were themselves enclosed. Part of their attraction is the fact that they showcase the architecture of the countries they represent, and have sort of a "city" feel - like, if you're going to Paris, or Munich, or Naples, perhaps, and wandering around an actual European (or Mexican, or Canadian or North African) city!
Consider if the walkways were enclosed between the pavilions. You'd have a place that could easily be visited in the middle of winter, without concerns about how much snow was coming down or how many layers of clothing you needed to wear. You could set Epcot in its current form in the northern U.S., and you'd have a functional theme park. Enclose the walkways (arcades, like in Disneyland Paris?) and you have an all-weather park!
I suppose, thinking about it, that most of the parks have a large element of indoor attractions (all the dark rides, the motion simulators, indoor coasters like Rock'n'Roller Coaster and Space Mountain, and most of the shows are enclosed) but Epcot has the general lack of ties to Disney content to be anyone's park, not only Disney. That, coupled with the fact that you could enjoy almost everything about it even if it was snowing like crazy outdoors, make it a prototypical indoor theme park!
*****
If you get a chance, please take a look at my latest offering, 14 Dark Windows, on Amazon for Kindle. It's a collection of short stories, some horror, some milder with supernatural or horrific elements, some just nice stories, available in ebook form for $2.99! Thank you!
*****
Monday, October 28, 2013
The Treasures of Disney exhibit - Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry
The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago has a special exhibit going on right now: D23 Presents: Treasures of the Walt Disney Archives.
We had the chance to see this exhibit yesterday, and it was one of the better exhibits we've experienced at the Museum (and we've been members for several years now). That might be because we enjoy Disney, and I love the Disney history material. But we all found it to be quite fun, right up to the "Animation Academy" style class at the end of the exhibit. They had costumes from Enchanted, Mary Poppins, Pirates of the Caribbean, Alice In Wonderland, and a handful of other films. They had some interesting props, a bunch of macaques (is that the right word?) of various animation subjects, and other interesting things like the Nautilus model used in the filming of 20000 Leagues Under The Sea. The theme parks were covered as well.
It presented Walt as a forward-thinking genius who was one step ahead of the curve in the entertainment industry.
I'd actually like to go see it again. Check out the Museum of Science and Industry's info on the exhibit on their site.
*******
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Disney Guidebook coming out...
Yes, I've written a Disney guidebook, which will be released as soon as I finalize the cover. It will be an e-book, available on Amazon for Kindle, and later hopefully for Nook and through the iBookstore and other outlets. I'm also hoping to publish a paper version of it, but I think the e-book will be the best way to experience it.
What qualifies me to write a guidebook, you might ask? Well, we've visited Walt Disney World seven times since our kids were born, each time for 7 or 8 days. And each time we learned something. We got our patterns down. We found places that we return to for dining. We stayed at resort properties that we really liked, and at least one that we weren't crazy about.
We visit the resort like a lot of other people in our boat. We aren't all annual pass holders. We don't all live close enough to go every week or month, like some folks who write Disney books do. We get down there every year or every couple of years, spend a week there, and try to make the most of our stay. When we run into people going to Disney for the first or second time, we seem to usually have some good ideas for them, information that they are happy to have.
Our experiences are not the be-all-end-all of Disney experiences. They're OUR experiences. I thought it would be interesting to put together a "guidebook" from that perspective, not trying to give every last bit of information about every little thing on Disney property. I didn't do a ton of outside research to write this book. I mostly relied on my family's experiences and how we've done things over the course of our seven visits. I talk about how we structure our park visits, how we buy our tickets, how we get the most out of our money when visiting Walt Disney World. Take all of our advice, some of it, or just a little, but I think if you have young kids and are going to visit Disney every couple of years for a week at a time, you'll find something useful in the book.
Disney's MyMagic+ has come along and perhaps will change a bunch of stuff about how we have to structure our vacations, but for the most part, our observations stand on their own.
I'll have the cover here and on my Scott Dyson page and on my Scott Dyson Facebook page, and pricing information before it is released. I hope some of you will download a sample and take a look! Thanks for reading!
*****
What qualifies me to write a guidebook, you might ask? Well, we've visited Walt Disney World seven times since our kids were born, each time for 7 or 8 days. And each time we learned something. We got our patterns down. We found places that we return to for dining. We stayed at resort properties that we really liked, and at least one that we weren't crazy about.
We visit the resort like a lot of other people in our boat. We aren't all annual pass holders. We don't all live close enough to go every week or month, like some folks who write Disney books do. We get down there every year or every couple of years, spend a week there, and try to make the most of our stay. When we run into people going to Disney for the first or second time, we seem to usually have some good ideas for them, information that they are happy to have.
Our experiences are not the be-all-end-all of Disney experiences. They're OUR experiences. I thought it would be interesting to put together a "guidebook" from that perspective, not trying to give every last bit of information about every little thing on Disney property. I didn't do a ton of outside research to write this book. I mostly relied on my family's experiences and how we've done things over the course of our seven visits. I talk about how we structure our park visits, how we buy our tickets, how we get the most out of our money when visiting Walt Disney World. Take all of our advice, some of it, or just a little, but I think if you have young kids and are going to visit Disney every couple of years for a week at a time, you'll find something useful in the book.
Disney's MyMagic+ has come along and perhaps will change a bunch of stuff about how we have to structure our vacations, but for the most part, our observations stand on their own.
I'll have the cover here and on my Scott Dyson page and on my Scott Dyson Facebook page, and pricing information before it is released. I hope some of you will download a sample and take a look! Thanks for reading!
*****
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
New Blog: Theme Park University
I was surfing through my Disney blogs today (I wish some of them updated more regularly) and, on Leonard Kinsey's Dark Side of Disney blog, I noted a link to a new blog from Ron Schneider (Dreamfinder) and Josh Young, titled Theme Park University.
It appears to be an interesting look at the creative development behind theme parks in a general, and sometimes specific, sense.
Of note is a three article (so far) series by Josh Young about the development of the Hard Rock Theme Park in the Myrtle Beach area.
It actually got me excited about my own ideas about theme park development, some of which I wrote about in a series of blog articles back in December of 2009 and January of 2010. (You can find them by clicking on the archives over there to the left, selecting those two months and picking and choosing the articles, if you're so inclined.)
Take a look at the new blog if you find this sort of stuff interesting. I know I certainly do!
*****
It appears to be an interesting look at the creative development behind theme parks in a general, and sometimes specific, sense.
Of note is a three article (so far) series by Josh Young about the development of the Hard Rock Theme Park in the Myrtle Beach area.
It actually got me excited about my own ideas about theme park development, some of which I wrote about in a series of blog articles back in December of 2009 and January of 2010. (You can find them by clicking on the archives over there to the left, selecting those two months and picking and choosing the articles, if you're so inclined.)
Take a look at the new blog if you find this sort of stuff interesting. I know I certainly do!
*****
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Halloween treats for Disney!
Disney got a nice little treat in their Halloween bag yesterday after going trick-or-treating at George Lucas' place!
I heard on the news last night that George Lucas has sold LucasFilms to Disney, along with the rights to all their movie properties.
Is this a good thing, a great thing, or just tossing money away?
Seems to me that it's a great thing for Disney. More Star Wars movies WILL apparently be made. Lucas will be a "creative consultant" on future projects. I'm assuming that this purchase also includes the Indiana Jones franchise as well, though the news focused on Star Wars. Is American Graffiti part of the package? (I'm thinking of the 50's Prime Time Cafe...)
Anyway, besides the film possibilities, there is the theme park possibilities. Might that long-desired Star Wars Land be coming to Florida in the however-distant future? With the rumors of Avatar Land fading out at Animal Kingdom, perhaps the money will go toward something like this, a property that Disney now owns and doesn't have to share with Universal (like the Marvel properties)? Not right away, of course, but maybe down the road?
Lessee...Tattoine, the Death Star, Endor, Hoth...the list of worlds and places to draw from in designing a new land at DHS seems to be full of possibilities.
And I haven't even mentioned the film possibilities. Mostly because I don't know whether they'll be as great as those first three (the second three weren't quite up to that standard, by the accounts of most Star Wars true fans, at least). But the money they could bring in...
Well, that's probably why I didn't really focus on them. I don't care so much about the money they bring in for Disney. I'm not a Disney shareholder. I do care about the entertainment possibilities, and that seems like it would center on the theme parks, for my own interests.
Let's see what happens next...
*****
I heard on the news last night that George Lucas has sold LucasFilms to Disney, along with the rights to all their movie properties.
Is this a good thing, a great thing, or just tossing money away?
Seems to me that it's a great thing for Disney. More Star Wars movies WILL apparently be made. Lucas will be a "creative consultant" on future projects. I'm assuming that this purchase also includes the Indiana Jones franchise as well, though the news focused on Star Wars. Is American Graffiti part of the package? (I'm thinking of the 50's Prime Time Cafe...)
Anyway, besides the film possibilities, there is the theme park possibilities. Might that long-desired Star Wars Land be coming to Florida in the however-distant future? With the rumors of Avatar Land fading out at Animal Kingdom, perhaps the money will go toward something like this, a property that Disney now owns and doesn't have to share with Universal (like the Marvel properties)? Not right away, of course, but maybe down the road?
Lessee...Tattoine, the Death Star, Endor, Hoth...the list of worlds and places to draw from in designing a new land at DHS seems to be full of possibilities.
And I haven't even mentioned the film possibilities. Mostly because I don't know whether they'll be as great as those first three (the second three weren't quite up to that standard, by the accounts of most Star Wars true fans, at least). But the money they could bring in...
Well, that's probably why I didn't really focus on them. I don't care so much about the money they bring in for Disney. I'm not a Disney shareholder. I do care about the entertainment possibilities, and that seems like it would center on the theme parks, for my own interests.
Let's see what happens next...
*****
Friday, August 17, 2012
Six Flags Great America Gurnee Visit
We visited Six Flags' Great America in Gurnee, Illinois, on Wednesday. It was our first visit to that park in two years. We planned on going earlier this summer, but with 100 degree heat much of the season, it just wasn't happening. As it worked out, going in mid-August was a good experience. Not too hot and not overly crowded, right before school starts.
Great America started its existence as "Marriot's Great America". I know this because I was a teenager when it opened. Back then it attempted to be a bit more of a theme park with a handful of thrill rides. The log flume and the boat flume rides that were there at opening are still there. They actually sort of fit the theming. The Whizzer "Family" coaster was there back then, too. Then it was called "Willard's Whizzer". It's the same coaster, though.
Now it's a thrill ride park with a nod to the themes of each land. And not much of a nod. The log ride was and is in a part of the park called "Yukon Territory", and the boat flume ride, called "Yankee Clipper" was and is still in a part of the park called "Yankee Harbor". Aside from those two rides, however, rides don't have much relation to the part of the park where they're located. For example, the "Southwest Territory" area contains coasters called the Viper (a wooden coaster) and the Raging Bull (a big steel coaster). The Southwest Territory has nice theming in the buildings, but really, that's about it.
Orleans Place and Mardi Gras sections (separate sections according to the park guide map) are both themed like New Orleans. What rides might you expect to find in New Orleans? A swamp tour, maybe? A riverboat? A streetcar? These sections house The Dark Knight indoor dark coaster, Superman: Ultimate Flight (a flying coaster), the Condor (a spinning ride that raises you 112 feet in the air) and Roaring Rapids (a whitewater raft ride). There are bumper cars called Rue Le Dodge and a spinning coaster (think Primeval Whirl) called the Ragin' Cajun. Again, the buildings are nicely themed, but that's pretty much it.
Other sections of the park include the County Fair, Hometown Square, and Carousel Plaza. The park features a waterpark called Hurricane Harbor.
None of this affected my sons' enjoyment of the 7 coasters they rode. (I myself only rode one - the new X-Flight wing coaster - and my neck told me that no more coasters would be ridden that day.) It's a thrill park. I guess those "lands" are convenient markers for the map, but not much else today.
I'm still trying to figure out what Batman: The Ride has to do with Yankee Harbor, however.
*****
Great America started its existence as "Marriot's Great America". I know this because I was a teenager when it opened. Back then it attempted to be a bit more of a theme park with a handful of thrill rides. The log flume and the boat flume rides that were there at opening are still there. They actually sort of fit the theming. The Whizzer "Family" coaster was there back then, too. Then it was called "Willard's Whizzer". It's the same coaster, though.
Now it's a thrill ride park with a nod to the themes of each land. And not much of a nod. The log ride was and is in a part of the park called "Yukon Territory", and the boat flume ride, called "Yankee Clipper" was and is still in a part of the park called "Yankee Harbor". Aside from those two rides, however, rides don't have much relation to the part of the park where they're located. For example, the "Southwest Territory" area contains coasters called the Viper (a wooden coaster) and the Raging Bull (a big steel coaster). The Southwest Territory has nice theming in the buildings, but really, that's about it.
Orleans Place and Mardi Gras sections (separate sections according to the park guide map) are both themed like New Orleans. What rides might you expect to find in New Orleans? A swamp tour, maybe? A riverboat? A streetcar? These sections house The Dark Knight indoor dark coaster, Superman: Ultimate Flight (a flying coaster), the Condor (a spinning ride that raises you 112 feet in the air) and Roaring Rapids (a whitewater raft ride). There are bumper cars called Rue Le Dodge and a spinning coaster (think Primeval Whirl) called the Ragin' Cajun. Again, the buildings are nicely themed, but that's pretty much it.
Other sections of the park include the County Fair, Hometown Square, and Carousel Plaza. The park features a waterpark called Hurricane Harbor.
None of this affected my sons' enjoyment of the 7 coasters they rode. (I myself only rode one - the new X-Flight wing coaster - and my neck told me that no more coasters would be ridden that day.) It's a thrill park. I guess those "lands" are convenient markers for the map, but not much else today.
I'm still trying to figure out what Batman: The Ride has to do with Yankee Harbor, however.
*****
Monday, June 25, 2012
Compare and Contrast
It's been interesting, having gone to three distinct amusement/theme parks in the span of about 2 weeks, to note the differing approaches these parks take to satisfying their guests. At the end of May, we went to Michigan's Adventure, an amusement park with classic thrill rides. In early June, we went to both Walt Disney World and Universal Studios Orlando, two sets of parks that depend on theming to entertain the customers.
Michigan's Adventure has moderate thrill rides and almost no theming. Their marquee ride, Shivering Timbers, is a huge wooden rollercoaster that sort of fits in with the way the park sort of just appears in the middle of the forest. They have another ride, a whitewater raft experience called Grand Rapids, which of course is the name of a city in Michigan (President Gerald Ford was from there). Their one and only indoor, sit-down restaurant is called Coaster's. It's sort of themed like a 50's diner.
Then you go to Disney, and you get story and theming around every corner. I don't have to talk too much about it on this blog; anyone reading probably knows as much or more about what Disney has to offer than I do. There are thrills to be found here: Space Mountain, Big Thunder Mountain, Splash Mountain, Mission: Space, Rock'n'Roller Coaster, Twilight Zone Tower of Terror - all are moderate (at least) thrill rides. But all depend on theming to make them more than just a rollercoaster with inversions, than a drop-ride, than a log flume, than a dark coaster - to make them memorable and repeatable.
Going over to Universal Studios, we find a few more thrill rides like Hollywood Rip-Rocket, Revenge of the Mummy, and even The Simpsons Ride. Again, their rides depend on theming to make them memorable. Each delivers a fairly unique experience. Their theming uses a certain edginess, a certain hip-ness, that you don't find at Disney, and that a place like Michigan's Adventure doesn't even try to use. The jokes are different - often aimed at adults and older teens. There's a blog post in there, somewhere, comparing the "feel" of the Universal Studios Resort parks and the Disney parks. But I don't know if I'm ready to write it.
I for one don't connect to either Michigan's Adventure, or Universal Studios in the same way I do to Disney. I did feel that connection over at Islands of Adventure, but that was a year and a half ago, and I think much of it was due to the current-ness of the Harry Potter movies and the timeless feel of Dr. Seuss and some of the other properties they used there.
Our next trip will likely feature more visits to Universal and maybe even none to a Disney park. If it happens that way, it will be because of Disney's all-or-nothing pricing policy, where it doesn't make sense to buy a two or three day ticket instead of a 6 or 7 day pass. Orlando and central Florida have more to offer than Disney, but we have discovered very little of it. So I'll see if those parks seem to foster more of a connection in the future.
*****
Michigan's Adventure has moderate thrill rides and almost no theming. Their marquee ride, Shivering Timbers, is a huge wooden rollercoaster that sort of fits in with the way the park sort of just appears in the middle of the forest. They have another ride, a whitewater raft experience called Grand Rapids, which of course is the name of a city in Michigan (President Gerald Ford was from there). Their one and only indoor, sit-down restaurant is called Coaster's. It's sort of themed like a 50's diner.
Then you go to Disney, and you get story and theming around every corner. I don't have to talk too much about it on this blog; anyone reading probably knows as much or more about what Disney has to offer than I do. There are thrills to be found here: Space Mountain, Big Thunder Mountain, Splash Mountain, Mission: Space, Rock'n'Roller Coaster, Twilight Zone Tower of Terror - all are moderate (at least) thrill rides. But all depend on theming to make them more than just a rollercoaster with inversions, than a drop-ride, than a log flume, than a dark coaster - to make them memorable and repeatable.
Going over to Universal Studios, we find a few more thrill rides like Hollywood Rip-Rocket, Revenge of the Mummy, and even The Simpsons Ride. Again, their rides depend on theming to make them memorable. Each delivers a fairly unique experience. Their theming uses a certain edginess, a certain hip-ness, that you don't find at Disney, and that a place like Michigan's Adventure doesn't even try to use. The jokes are different - often aimed at adults and older teens. There's a blog post in there, somewhere, comparing the "feel" of the Universal Studios Resort parks and the Disney parks. But I don't know if I'm ready to write it.
I for one don't connect to either Michigan's Adventure, or Universal Studios in the same way I do to Disney. I did feel that connection over at Islands of Adventure, but that was a year and a half ago, and I think much of it was due to the current-ness of the Harry Potter movies and the timeless feel of Dr. Seuss and some of the other properties they used there.
Our next trip will likely feature more visits to Universal and maybe even none to a Disney park. If it happens that way, it will be because of Disney's all-or-nothing pricing policy, where it doesn't make sense to buy a two or three day ticket instead of a 6 or 7 day pass. Orlando and central Florida have more to offer than Disney, but we have discovered very little of it. So I'll see if those parks seem to foster more of a connection in the future.
*****
Monday, May 7, 2012
Are Theme Parks "Shallow"?
I recently saw an interesting Facebook post by one of my Disney friends. This particular friend (David) runs the blog Disneyology, which is linked to over there at the left (Favorite Internet Spots). He posted a quote from someone suggesting that theme parks are shallow representations of a much richer reality and that people who enjoy them are pathetic. Here's the exact quote:
So, my question would be, is this news? Newsflash! Disney Theme Parks Aren't REAL! Do visitors to Disney theme parks think they are? Somehow I don't think so. Does it make it less entertaining to ride on Expedition Everest because it's not the real Mt. Everest? Again, I don't think so.
The interesting discussion in the comments centered on whether this critique is a critique of all art, or simply a prejudiced attack on theme parks specifically. I saw comments where famous films and famous paintings were mentioned; that if Mr. Halevy was criticizing all these experiences, his argument would hold water better. That could be true. Perhaps a Disney theme park is not comparable to the Mona Lisa, but it is a matter of degree.
Because both things are works of art. Lots of things are works of art. We wandered around a suburban art fair last Sunday, and I saw plenty of things that showed imagination in varying degrees. Some I liked. Some I'd never consider hanging in my own house. Some, I could tell with a mere glance, were simply not my cup of tea. But does that make them "bad" or "shallow", or their artist "talentless"? No, it just means that I didn't like them.
The first thing I thought of when reading the quote was the Jungle Cruise (because of the dated-ness of its special effects, and because of the mention of the crocodile), but then I thought of EPCOT's World Showcase. I thought of the detail that goes into making these small reproductions of various countries. Does it make me willing to forego a European vacation, because I've walked through Disney versions of England, France and Italy? Not at all. But these reproductions are accessible and entertaining to us. Simple economics say that we are going to be able to experience Disney more often than tour the great European cities.
The second thing I thought was that the first sentence is quite condescending. To presume to know anything about the lives of that woman and her husband, to know if they "accept such tawdry substitutes", or simply cannot experience anything other than this, seems to me to be irritatingly condescending. What is "grim" about something that brings someone pleasure, however small and fleeting? I think that Disney parks aspire to a bit higher level of providing enjoyment than he seems to give them credit for. But that's a matter of opinion.
David's take on it seems to be that there is no reason that the two things cannot both be appreciated on their own levels, and that while theme parks shouldn't be substituted for real experiences, they CAN be enjoyed as well for what they are and for the artistic ability and effort that goes into their creation. Others seem to feel that, as a work of art (however "tawdry" it may be) Disney theme parks should be compared to other works of art, not to real experiences. I hope I'm stating those positions accurately. Perhaps David will blog about it himself.
This blog has over the years concerned itself with Disney movies, other types of animated film entertainment, with Disney theme parks and with other amusement parks, and with attractions in the Midwest and in a few other places where we've vacationed. It has never advocated stopping one's experience at the Disney park, even though they are the main focus of the blog. But I don't see how one precludes the other.
******
“The overwhelming feeling that one carries away is sadness for the empty lives which accept such tawdry substitutes. On the riverboat, I heard a woman exclaim glowingly to her husband, “What imagination they have!” He nodded, and the pathetic gladness that illuminated his face as a papier-mâché crocodile sank beneath the muddy surface of the ditch was a grim indictment of the way of life for which this feeble sham represented escape and adventure.” - Julian Halevy.
So, my question would be, is this news? Newsflash! Disney Theme Parks Aren't REAL! Do visitors to Disney theme parks think they are? Somehow I don't think so. Does it make it less entertaining to ride on Expedition Everest because it's not the real Mt. Everest? Again, I don't think so.
The interesting discussion in the comments centered on whether this critique is a critique of all art, or simply a prejudiced attack on theme parks specifically. I saw comments where famous films and famous paintings were mentioned; that if Mr. Halevy was criticizing all these experiences, his argument would hold water better. That could be true. Perhaps a Disney theme park is not comparable to the Mona Lisa, but it is a matter of degree.
Because both things are works of art. Lots of things are works of art. We wandered around a suburban art fair last Sunday, and I saw plenty of things that showed imagination in varying degrees. Some I liked. Some I'd never consider hanging in my own house. Some, I could tell with a mere glance, were simply not my cup of tea. But does that make them "bad" or "shallow", or their artist "talentless"? No, it just means that I didn't like them.
The first thing I thought of when reading the quote was the Jungle Cruise (because of the dated-ness of its special effects, and because of the mention of the crocodile), but then I thought of EPCOT's World Showcase. I thought of the detail that goes into making these small reproductions of various countries. Does it make me willing to forego a European vacation, because I've walked through Disney versions of England, France and Italy? Not at all. But these reproductions are accessible and entertaining to us. Simple economics say that we are going to be able to experience Disney more often than tour the great European cities.
The second thing I thought was that the first sentence is quite condescending. To presume to know anything about the lives of that woman and her husband, to know if they "accept such tawdry substitutes", or simply cannot experience anything other than this, seems to me to be irritatingly condescending. What is "grim" about something that brings someone pleasure, however small and fleeting? I think that Disney parks aspire to a bit higher level of providing enjoyment than he seems to give them credit for. But that's a matter of opinion.
David's take on it seems to be that there is no reason that the two things cannot both be appreciated on their own levels, and that while theme parks shouldn't be substituted for real experiences, they CAN be enjoyed as well for what they are and for the artistic ability and effort that goes into their creation. Others seem to feel that, as a work of art (however "tawdry" it may be) Disney theme parks should be compared to other works of art, not to real experiences. I hope I'm stating those positions accurately. Perhaps David will blog about it himself.
This blog has over the years concerned itself with Disney movies, other types of animated film entertainment, with Disney theme parks and with other amusement parks, and with attractions in the Midwest and in a few other places where we've vacationed. It has never advocated stopping one's experience at the Disney park, even though they are the main focus of the blog. But I don't see how one precludes the other.
******
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Disney Parks: DAK getting an added land...
If the blog reports are true (I've read it in several locations now, including FutureProbe and Voyages Extraordinaires), Disney's Animal Kingdom is adding a whole other land, to be based on the movie Avatar. Reactions appear to be mixed.
The most common objection seems to be that Disney is not trusting enough in its own properties and its Imagineers to come up with something interesting enough to base an entire land on. Instead, they are "copying" off Universal and licensing a franchise to create content for their park. I suppose there is something to this. Not so much the properties part, because, well, what does Disney have as far as film that would fit with an entire land in the Animal Kingdom? I'm not sure; perhaps someone has some ideas. I understand the objection, but I don't know what the content that they already own that they're supposed to use is.
The second part is that the Imagineers could come up with something more engrossing than Avatar. This is a stronger objection, in my view. The Imagineers have proven themselves over and over again. Could they, on their own, have come up with a Beastly Kingdom conceptual overlay, for example, that would work better than Avatar? It's likely they could.
It does seem that Robert Iger likes acquiring properties rather than developing them, so the licensing of Pandora fits in with his modus operandi. Then there's cost. I'd guess that, since this story and theme have been pretty well developed for the film, perhaps it is somewhat cheaper to turn it into a land. Perhaps it's even significantly cheaper. I don't know. But it does take out the beginning stages of development, with all the failed ideas and directions, and sets the Imagineers firmly on their path. And there is no reason that they cannot shine in what they finally conceptualize and develop for the theme park land.
In the end, I don't care. This development addresses some significant problems that Disney has. They need something more at this park, and they need something to add capacity to the parks at the resort, on a whole. A while back I posted an entry wishing for a fifth gate, and in the comments it was suggested that they can't (or won't) maintain what's already there, and that what they really need is to turn DAK and DHS into something closer to a full day park.
This development may just do that for Disney's Animal Kingdom.
*****
The most common objection seems to be that Disney is not trusting enough in its own properties and its Imagineers to come up with something interesting enough to base an entire land on. Instead, they are "copying" off Universal and licensing a franchise to create content for their park. I suppose there is something to this. Not so much the properties part, because, well, what does Disney have as far as film that would fit with an entire land in the Animal Kingdom? I'm not sure; perhaps someone has some ideas. I understand the objection, but I don't know what the content that they already own that they're supposed to use is.
The second part is that the Imagineers could come up with something more engrossing than Avatar. This is a stronger objection, in my view. The Imagineers have proven themselves over and over again. Could they, on their own, have come up with a Beastly Kingdom conceptual overlay, for example, that would work better than Avatar? It's likely they could.
It does seem that Robert Iger likes acquiring properties rather than developing them, so the licensing of Pandora fits in with his modus operandi. Then there's cost. I'd guess that, since this story and theme have been pretty well developed for the film, perhaps it is somewhat cheaper to turn it into a land. Perhaps it's even significantly cheaper. I don't know. But it does take out the beginning stages of development, with all the failed ideas and directions, and sets the Imagineers firmly on their path. And there is no reason that they cannot shine in what they finally conceptualize and develop for the theme park land.
In the end, I don't care. This development addresses some significant problems that Disney has. They need something more at this park, and they need something to add capacity to the parks at the resort, on a whole. A while back I posted an entry wishing for a fifth gate, and in the comments it was suggested that they can't (or won't) maintain what's already there, and that what they really need is to turn DAK and DHS into something closer to a full day park.
This development may just do that for Disney's Animal Kingdom.
*****
Friday, September 16, 2011
The Opening Sequence...
Sam Gennaway at Samland (too lazy to put this link in, sorry) had a post that caught my interest a short time ago, titled The Magic Kingdom: A Grand Entrance> In it he talks about the approach to the Magic Kingdom from the guest's perspective, and the way that Walt Disney and the Imagineers wanted to control the experience. Sam also talks about the "storyboarding" of the event, as many of the Imagineers came from a film background. So it was no surprise that the experience has parallels to the opening sequences from a film.
I never really thought about the approach to the Magic Kingdom, or to any Disney park, from this exact perspective, but I think it can apply to every park. Think about an opening montage of a film, then compare it to the "framed" view from, say, the monorail coming up on Epcot. You get your wide shot, narrowing in focus as we approach the park, the Sphere getting larger and larger, until finally it disappears out of the shot as we loop around FutureWorld, and again the wide shot shows the American Adventure in the distance, teasing us with the view for a few seconds until we loop back around and exit the monorail. The Sphere looms now, and as we pass through the entryway we have a still shot of the icon. As we walk toward it, it gets larger and larger, until we are in its shadow, and now we're part of the story.
It works for Animal Kingdom, too, as you drive in. You see the huge Tree of Life in the distance (the wide opening shot) then it disappears behind the foliage as you approach the gates. Finally you (the camera) are passing through the lush jungle, animals on either side of you, exploring a bit along the way, until you burst into the clearing, and there it is, a closer "wide" shot, now looking absolutely huge. And you are into the story.
I don't know film terminology, I am not from a film background. Yet I love watching movies, and I find this comparison to be almost inspiring. It's a whole other way of experiencing the park as I approach it.
Filmmakers build excitement and suspense, setting up the entire story through the use of their opening montages; Disney Imagineers do much the same thing. I'm looking forward to visiting in the future, to consider my approaches to the parks in these terms. I'm also going to think about this as I continue to armchair imagineer my own parks...
Thanks, Sam, for a Disney enthusiasm boost.
*****
I never really thought about the approach to the Magic Kingdom, or to any Disney park, from this exact perspective, but I think it can apply to every park. Think about an opening montage of a film, then compare it to the "framed" view from, say, the monorail coming up on Epcot. You get your wide shot, narrowing in focus as we approach the park, the Sphere getting larger and larger, until finally it disappears out of the shot as we loop around FutureWorld, and again the wide shot shows the American Adventure in the distance, teasing us with the view for a few seconds until we loop back around and exit the monorail. The Sphere looms now, and as we pass through the entryway we have a still shot of the icon. As we walk toward it, it gets larger and larger, until we are in its shadow, and now we're part of the story.
It works for Animal Kingdom, too, as you drive in. You see the huge Tree of Life in the distance (the wide opening shot) then it disappears behind the foliage as you approach the gates. Finally you (the camera) are passing through the lush jungle, animals on either side of you, exploring a bit along the way, until you burst into the clearing, and there it is, a closer "wide" shot, now looking absolutely huge. And you are into the story.
I don't know film terminology, I am not from a film background. Yet I love watching movies, and I find this comparison to be almost inspiring. It's a whole other way of experiencing the park as I approach it.
Filmmakers build excitement and suspense, setting up the entire story through the use of their opening montages; Disney Imagineers do much the same thing. I'm looking forward to visiting in the future, to consider my approaches to the parks in these terms. I'm also going to think about this as I continue to armchair imagineer my own parks...
Thanks, Sam, for a Disney enthusiasm boost.
*****
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Disney Books: Building A Better Mouse
I finished my read of Steve Alcorn's and David Green's Building A Better Mouse - The Story of the Electronic Imagineers Who Designed Epcot last night. I've mentioned before that I thought it was a little pricey at $19.95 when it clocks in at 130 pages or so. I suppose you can chalk this up to the fact that it's published in limited numbers by ThemePerks Press - I know that doing these sorts of books in this manner results in a higher-than-it-should-be unit price. (I remember having the opportunity to read Tim Pratt's Bone Shop, an urban fantasy novel that he was self publishing, and balking at the price tag of $19.00. I ended up buying it for the Kindle for $5.00. Well worth it at that price!)
Cost notwithstanding, I enjoyed this book quite a lot. It's a series of anecdotes about the construction process of the unique theme park known as EPCOT or EPCOT Center or simply Epcot, whatever you prefer. It focuses a lot on the processes at The American Adventure, where Alcorn seemed to spend most of his time and energy.
We know something of Steve Alcorn's work through his book Theme Park Design; he is an electrical engineer if I read it right. David Green is less familiar to me - his bio on the back cover states that he is the president of Monteverdi Creative, Inc, a company that provides creative and technical design services. It seems David worked as a "wirelister" at EPCOT, though I am not entirely clear on what that is exactly.
It's amazing that these young engineers put forth the effort and the imagination they needed to put forth, all on short and irregular sleep hours and for not much pay. It seems like the engineers certainly enjoyed the perks of the job provided by Disney - merchandise, access to the parks, free lodging that tourists/guests were paying big bucks for. But they had a lot to contend with - not the least of which was union employees who had an interest in dragging out the job as long as possible instead of finishing on time or (God forbid!) early. Plus, the union rules required that union employees do all the wiring, even of sophisticated electronic circuit boards with which many of them had no experience or training. Mistakes were often made. And some of them were perhaps not mistakes but actual malicious actions in order to keep things from working right for whatever reason.
I didn't mean to recap the work, but it's a lot of fun to read and I'm glad I own it, even at the somewhat higher cost. I'd love to take Alcorn's class on Theme Park Design and learn even more about his experiences.
One somewhat depressing side effect of reading the book: the realization of the actual cost of doing a world class theme park. EPCOT was budgeted at 400 million dollars around 1980. It actually cost 1.2 BILLION to build it. Three times the original estimate. What would it cost today to do something like that? Probably 4 billion or so. Maybe more. That's sort of daunting. (Okay, more than "sort of"...) Who possibly could finance something like that? Anyone who could is going to want total control of such a project. There goes my plans! ;-)
*****
Cost notwithstanding, I enjoyed this book quite a lot. It's a series of anecdotes about the construction process of the unique theme park known as EPCOT or EPCOT Center or simply Epcot, whatever you prefer. It focuses a lot on the processes at The American Adventure, where Alcorn seemed to spend most of his time and energy.
We know something of Steve Alcorn's work through his book Theme Park Design; he is an electrical engineer if I read it right. David Green is less familiar to me - his bio on the back cover states that he is the president of Monteverdi Creative, Inc, a company that provides creative and technical design services. It seems David worked as a "wirelister" at EPCOT, though I am not entirely clear on what that is exactly.
It's amazing that these young engineers put forth the effort and the imagination they needed to put forth, all on short and irregular sleep hours and for not much pay. It seems like the engineers certainly enjoyed the perks of the job provided by Disney - merchandise, access to the parks, free lodging that tourists/guests were paying big bucks for. But they had a lot to contend with - not the least of which was union employees who had an interest in dragging out the job as long as possible instead of finishing on time or (God forbid!) early. Plus, the union rules required that union employees do all the wiring, even of sophisticated electronic circuit boards with which many of them had no experience or training. Mistakes were often made. And some of them were perhaps not mistakes but actual malicious actions in order to keep things from working right for whatever reason.
I didn't mean to recap the work, but it's a lot of fun to read and I'm glad I own it, even at the somewhat higher cost. I'd love to take Alcorn's class on Theme Park Design and learn even more about his experiences.
One somewhat depressing side effect of reading the book: the realization of the actual cost of doing a world class theme park. EPCOT was budgeted at 400 million dollars around 1980. It actually cost 1.2 BILLION to build it. Three times the original estimate. What would it cost today to do something like that? Probably 4 billion or so. Maybe more. That's sort of daunting. (Okay, more than "sort of"...) Who possibly could finance something like that? Anyone who could is going to want total control of such a project. There goes my plans! ;-)
*****
Monday, January 31, 2011
THEME PARK DESIGN - Themed Attractions
In Chapter 2 of his book Theme Park Design, Steve Alcorn notes that "theme parks" are only one of the different types of themed attractions. He lists several others:
We've all probably been to museums and themed restaurants, and probably a Visitors' Center at a national park. I'm not as sure about the others. Would the "Jelly Belly Factory Tour" qualiify as a corporate communications center? It's certainly a type of themed attraction. What about something like the Empire State Building or the CN Tower in Toronto, or the Sears (Willis) Tower or the John Hancock Building in Chicago?
I was trying to come up with other examples of themed attractions in my own experience, because Alcorn mentions after his list that there are many more examples. Slightly later in the book he mentions arcades, and these could be themed, I suppose, though probably relatively few of them are. And casinos, especially those in Vegas, rely heavily on theming. I guess you could characterize them as "adult theme parks", but it's more than that. The fountains at Bellagio, the Volcano at Mirage, and the pirate ship at Treasure Island are all examples of themed entertainment that are designed to draw in people to the core businesses, that is, casinos, hotels and restaurants.
Some places, like Bellagio and Wynn Las Vegas, are really attractions in and of themselves. They are incredible examples of over-the-top luxury that become more than just a hotel, a spa, a casino or a restaurant. (I haven't been to Vegas in a few years now so I don't know what other examples of decadence abound there.)
Whole towns probably have become types of themed attractions. Napa and Sonoma Valleys in California are dedicated to wine tasting. Some of the wineries are quite impressive; they probably are more opulent than they need to be for just raising and selling wine. They are part of the whole themed experience. The entire town of Sedona is another example, I think. You've got your red rock, your crystals and vortices channeling spirit energy, your cliff dweller ruins, and your southwestern artist motif going. New Orleans' Bourbon Street is another sort of themed entertainment venue, this one for jazz, booze and partying into the wee hours.
Closer to home, the Wisconsin Dells is another town/area that has basically become one big themed attraction. Everywhere you look there's a waterpark. There are amusement parks, water shows, magic shows, miniature golf, arcades, boat rides, shopping and eateries. The theming is haphazard, but I would guess that the overriding idea is just family fun.
Near the end of the book, Alcorn lists several themed attractions that "worked". Among them are:
I've mentioned a few others in the course of this article. Anyone want to suggest any others, feel free.
This book goes on my shelf of themed attraction books, right next to the Disney collection! I hope to find more like it.
*****
- Museums
- National Park Service Visitor Centers
- Corporate Communications Centers
- Broadcast Studio Visitor Tours
- Themed Shopping Malls
- Themed Restaurants
We've all probably been to museums and themed restaurants, and probably a Visitors' Center at a national park. I'm not as sure about the others. Would the "Jelly Belly Factory Tour" qualiify as a corporate communications center? It's certainly a type of themed attraction. What about something like the Empire State Building or the CN Tower in Toronto, or the Sears (Willis) Tower or the John Hancock Building in Chicago?
I was trying to come up with other examples of themed attractions in my own experience, because Alcorn mentions after his list that there are many more examples. Slightly later in the book he mentions arcades, and these could be themed, I suppose, though probably relatively few of them are. And casinos, especially those in Vegas, rely heavily on theming. I guess you could characterize them as "adult theme parks", but it's more than that. The fountains at Bellagio, the Volcano at Mirage, and the pirate ship at Treasure Island are all examples of themed entertainment that are designed to draw in people to the core businesses, that is, casinos, hotels and restaurants.
Some places, like Bellagio and Wynn Las Vegas, are really attractions in and of themselves. They are incredible examples of over-the-top luxury that become more than just a hotel, a spa, a casino or a restaurant. (I haven't been to Vegas in a few years now so I don't know what other examples of decadence abound there.)
Whole towns probably have become types of themed attractions. Napa and Sonoma Valleys in California are dedicated to wine tasting. Some of the wineries are quite impressive; they probably are more opulent than they need to be for just raising and selling wine. They are part of the whole themed experience. The entire town of Sedona is another example, I think. You've got your red rock, your crystals and vortices channeling spirit energy, your cliff dweller ruins, and your southwestern artist motif going. New Orleans' Bourbon Street is another sort of themed entertainment venue, this one for jazz, booze and partying into the wee hours.
Closer to home, the Wisconsin Dells is another town/area that has basically become one big themed attraction. Everywhere you look there's a waterpark. There are amusement parks, water shows, magic shows, miniature golf, arcades, boat rides, shopping and eateries. The theming is haphazard, but I would guess that the overriding idea is just family fun.
Near the end of the book, Alcorn lists several themed attractions that "worked". Among them are:
- The Star Trek Experience, The Hilton Las Vegas (closed)
- Caesar's Magical Empire, Caesar's Palace, Las Vegas (closed>
- Buccaneer Bay, Treasure Island, Las Vegas (modified)
- Ka, Cirque Du Soleil, MGM Grand Las Vegas
- NASA's Space Center Houston, Texas
- Nauticus, National Maritime Center, Norfolk VA
- The Pro Football Hall of Fame, Canton, OH
- COSI, Columbus, OH
- Madame Tussaud's, Worldwide
I've mentioned a few others in the course of this article. Anyone want to suggest any others, feel free.
This book goes on my shelf of themed attraction books, right next to the Disney collection! I hope to find more like it.
*****
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Why Story is King: Steve Alcorn in THEME PARK DESIGN
This is an important idea to Steve Alcorn; important enough that he uses "Why Story Is King" as the first sub-topic in his Chapter 5, titled RIDES, and then as the title of Chapter 9.
With respect to rides, Alcorn talks about his favorite Disney rides: a toss-up beetween "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "The Haunted Mansion". I've seen it echoed time and time again in blog posts and posts on the MiceAge discussion boards, these are the two rides that "real" Disney fans list as their favorites. Alcorn says that he now understands that what made these rides his favorites was their use of story as their "key ingredient".
Would everyone agree with that? I've seen it mentioned a few times that the reason these rides are timeless and so repeatable is the level of detail in the ride. So perhaps it isn't JUST story. Perhaps it's the combination of story and incredible attention to details. I know I'm still finding stuff in the Magic Kingdom's Haunted Mansion that is new to me when I ride it. It's a great experience every time I ride it, and I'm not entirely sure that it's all because of the story.
On the other hand, most of the "dark rides" in Fantasyland ARE almost entirely dependent on the story they tell. I don't see the same level of detail on Snow White or on Pooh that I see on Haunted Mansion and Pirates.
In Chapter 9, Alcorn talks about story as a component of Disney's thrill rides like Tower of Terror and Rock'n'Roller Coaster, He compares them to other thrill rides like Knotts Berry Farm's Parachute Drop, and concludes that the Disney rides are better, but almost always much more costly also. He mentions Universal's Earthquake ride, which I've never been on, and he feels that the reason it is less than "completely fulfilling" is because it does NOT have a satisfying story. The riders aren't given a reason for even being ON the subway train.
It was interesting to me that Alcorn feels that The Lord of the Rings would not make a good ride. He states that "rides with more complicated storylines are often best implemented using simulators". I take it that he feels LOTR is just too complicated to make a good attraction.
(I'm not sure he's completely right on that one. I think it would make an incredible "land" ala The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, what with the richness of detail and settings that the films offered to viewers. And I think that parts of the story would translate well to dark rides. The Mines of Moria, where Gandalf battles the Balrog and is lost to the Fellowship, for example, would make a really cool dark ride, if told with animatronics and with video on the level of Spiderman or The Forbidden Journey of Harry Potter. Other scenes would be probably make excellent dark rides or thrill rides. Just my opinion.)
I've seen it suggested in various places that Disney relies too much on the rule that everything has to have a backstory of some sort. They use it instead of making a higher quality ride, if I'm reading the criticisms correctly. But Alcorn seems to say you NEED both - high quality AND a good story, because "Story is King".
*****
With respect to rides, Alcorn talks about his favorite Disney rides: a toss-up beetween "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "The Haunted Mansion". I've seen it echoed time and time again in blog posts and posts on the MiceAge discussion boards, these are the two rides that "real" Disney fans list as their favorites. Alcorn says that he now understands that what made these rides his favorites was their use of story as their "key ingredient".
Would everyone agree with that? I've seen it mentioned a few times that the reason these rides are timeless and so repeatable is the level of detail in the ride. So perhaps it isn't JUST story. Perhaps it's the combination of story and incredible attention to details. I know I'm still finding stuff in the Magic Kingdom's Haunted Mansion that is new to me when I ride it. It's a great experience every time I ride it, and I'm not entirely sure that it's all because of the story.
On the other hand, most of the "dark rides" in Fantasyland ARE almost entirely dependent on the story they tell. I don't see the same level of detail on Snow White or on Pooh that I see on Haunted Mansion and Pirates.
In Chapter 9, Alcorn talks about story as a component of Disney's thrill rides like Tower of Terror and Rock'n'Roller Coaster, He compares them to other thrill rides like Knotts Berry Farm's Parachute Drop, and concludes that the Disney rides are better, but almost always much more costly also. He mentions Universal's Earthquake ride, which I've never been on, and he feels that the reason it is less than "completely fulfilling" is because it does NOT have a satisfying story. The riders aren't given a reason for even being ON the subway train.
It was interesting to me that Alcorn feels that The Lord of the Rings would not make a good ride. He states that "rides with more complicated storylines are often best implemented using simulators". I take it that he feels LOTR is just too complicated to make a good attraction.
(I'm not sure he's completely right on that one. I think it would make an incredible "land" ala The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, what with the richness of detail and settings that the films offered to viewers. And I think that parts of the story would translate well to dark rides. The Mines of Moria, where Gandalf battles the Balrog and is lost to the Fellowship, for example, would make a really cool dark ride, if told with animatronics and with video on the level of Spiderman or The Forbidden Journey of Harry Potter. Other scenes would be probably make excellent dark rides or thrill rides. Just my opinion.)
I've seen it suggested in various places that Disney relies too much on the rule that everything has to have a backstory of some sort. They use it instead of making a higher quality ride, if I'm reading the criticisms correctly. But Alcorn seems to say you NEED both - high quality AND a good story, because "Story is King".
*****
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Disney Books: THEME PARK DESIGN by Steve Alcorn
While it's not strictly about Disney, this title from engineer Steve Alcorn has a ton of Disney-related content - stories about development of a handful of attractions at Epcot, especially the American Adventure show. And while this is not strictly a review in the sense that I'm not looking to critically analyze this book and tell my readers (optimistic, I know...)whether it's good or bad and why, I am going to tell you that I really enjoyed it and flew through it.
Others' experience with the subject matter may vary, but what anyone buying or borrowing this title will get is a sometimes very technical look at the processes behind both theme park design and attraction design. Alcorn might lose some readers when he starts talking about digital signal processors (DSP's) and video formats and programmable logic controllers (PLC's) and scripted show controllers and such. The level of detail is perhaps a bit intimidating at times, but it did (for me, at least) reinforce the idea that Alcorn knows what he's talking about.
(I guess that's sort of a review, after all...)
Anyone who's read this blog for a while or read back entries of the blog knows that I'm interested in theme park design from my own angle - conceptualizing and designing an original theme park in my area, near a major northern midwestern city. I'm not a city planner or an architect, not an engineer, not an artist, and I don't have a theater background. In short, I have no reason to think I could ever actually do this, but it remains a dream, and I keep working on it. Knowing this about me, one can maybe understand why a book like this would attract me. I've never come across a whole BOOK on this subject.
I thought it was interesting that Alcorn points out that when he hires, he looks for certain things. Obviously, since his is an engineering firm, he hires engineers, not artists or business people. But he also looks for experience in themed entertainment. He lists some examples of something that might look good is someone who worked at a theme park during the summer, or worked as part of the stage or technical crew for a local theater group, or even playing in a rock band. (I'd qualify on the last one - I've played in a dozen different rock bands over the years.)
Alcorn also talks about "empty theming" in his last chapter. He mentions that he thinks it's crazy for a restaurant to just nail "junk" to the walls and consider this a theme. I thought immediately of TGI Fridays. They do exactly this. This could probably apply to so-called theme parks like Six Flags and many others. They're big amusement parks with very superficial theming at best. Naming a coaster "Batman" then putting up some Batman artifacts or pictures does not make it a "themed" ride.
I also thought it was interesting that he points to the CN Tower in Toronto as the first place for a motion simulator to be used outside of industry or commercial application. I was on that simulator, watching the movie and riding in the motion theater, riding a log down a river and through a sawmill among other experiences. I thought it was interesting, and I also thought that the Ripley's Believe It or Not motion theater in Niagara Falls was interesting, if not all that impressive. It points to the widespread use of these simulators as entertainment, no matter how thin the theming is.
All in all, this was, for me, a very rapid read that inspired and informed me about some of the things I might actually need to consider if my blue sky dreaming was to ever get any closer to reality. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in the technical side of developing and running a theme park, and to anyone with aspirations to work in the field of themed entertainment.
*****
Others' experience with the subject matter may vary, but what anyone buying or borrowing this title will get is a sometimes very technical look at the processes behind both theme park design and attraction design. Alcorn might lose some readers when he starts talking about digital signal processors (DSP's) and video formats and programmable logic controllers (PLC's) and scripted show controllers and such. The level of detail is perhaps a bit intimidating at times, but it did (for me, at least) reinforce the idea that Alcorn knows what he's talking about.
(I guess that's sort of a review, after all...)
Anyone who's read this blog for a while or read back entries of the blog knows that I'm interested in theme park design from my own angle - conceptualizing and designing an original theme park in my area, near a major northern midwestern city. I'm not a city planner or an architect, not an engineer, not an artist, and I don't have a theater background. In short, I have no reason to think I could ever actually do this, but it remains a dream, and I keep working on it. Knowing this about me, one can maybe understand why a book like this would attract me. I've never come across a whole BOOK on this subject.
I thought it was interesting that Alcorn points out that when he hires, he looks for certain things. Obviously, since his is an engineering firm, he hires engineers, not artists or business people. But he also looks for experience in themed entertainment. He lists some examples of something that might look good is someone who worked at a theme park during the summer, or worked as part of the stage or technical crew for a local theater group, or even playing in a rock band. (I'd qualify on the last one - I've played in a dozen different rock bands over the years.)
Alcorn also talks about "empty theming" in his last chapter. He mentions that he thinks it's crazy for a restaurant to just nail "junk" to the walls and consider this a theme. I thought immediately of TGI Fridays. They do exactly this. This could probably apply to so-called theme parks like Six Flags and many others. They're big amusement parks with very superficial theming at best. Naming a coaster "Batman" then putting up some Batman artifacts or pictures does not make it a "themed" ride.
I also thought it was interesting that he points to the CN Tower in Toronto as the first place for a motion simulator to be used outside of industry or commercial application. I was on that simulator, watching the movie and riding in the motion theater, riding a log down a river and through a sawmill among other experiences. I thought it was interesting, and I also thought that the Ripley's Believe It or Not motion theater in Niagara Falls was interesting, if not all that impressive. It points to the widespread use of these simulators as entertainment, no matter how thin the theming is.
All in all, this was, for me, a very rapid read that inspired and informed me about some of the things I might actually need to consider if my blue sky dreaming was to ever get any closer to reality. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in the technical side of developing and running a theme park, and to anyone with aspirations to work in the field of themed entertainment.
*****
Monday, November 1, 2010
What is it about Disney?
I was thinking about this over the weekend as we prepare for our upcoming WDW vacation, wondering what it is about Disney that attracts me?
If you've read any of my old posts, you probably know that I've come sort of late to Disney in my life. Not to a love of Disney movies; I've always loved them from the time I was a little kid and 101 Dalmations captured my fancy, along with many others. But the parks - to them I am a late-comer. I went in high school with my HS band, when only the Magic Kingdom was built, and I just don't remember much of it. I mean, I remember having a blast there, riding Space Mountain, Haunted Mansion and Pirates, and the Skyway, but for some reason it didn't register that Disney was doing something more than other, more local "theme" parks were doing. Right around that time, Marriot's Great America (now a Six Flags park) opened, and in hindsight it is obvious that they were trying to connect to the Disney theming, but on a less intricate, less detailed level. With "lands" like Hometown Square, County Fair, Yukon Territory, Yankee Harbor, and a few other America-themed areas, they were sort of trying to tie into that feeling that you get when you walk down Main Street, USA at a Disney MK type park.
But I'm getting off track here. Since we chose to combine a Disney vacation with a professional meeting held in Orlando in 2004, we've been to WDW 4 times (including that first one) and Disneyland twice. And it was really after the second trip that I fell in love with Disney as a destination...not after the first trip. So what was it?
Well, part of it was that my kids were older at that second trip. Not a lot older, but when you're in preschool, two years is a lot. They definitely enjoyed the trip more the second time. My little one wasn't as afraid of different rides and shows. I mean, Hopper's appearance in It's Tough To Be A Bug was still a little frightening, and there were a few loud noises on Pirates that startled him, but generally he did well on most everything. And my older boy was game for some coasters, like Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, and he was ready for Splash Mountain.
But the other thing that was different was that we went to Epcot for the first time. We didn't make dining reservations; we just took what we could get, and what we were able to get was dinner at the restaurant in Italy and lunch at the Morocco pavilion. But we were bowled over by the dining choices and by the architecture of those pavilions. And we were knocked out by Soarin'! We loved Epcot!
And when I left there that time, I remember thinking, as I would drive to work, that someone, some entertainment company, could do something like Epcot anywhere. You could go to visit Morocco, or France or Italy, any time of the year! Good weather was only part of the equation when most of the attractions were inside show buildings. And good design should make someone able to draw up a place that would have elements that would work well in winter, as well as elements for summer. It started me on a thought experiment that I'm still messing with - designing a "resort" and "theme park" complex somewhere around where I live.
So that's part of it - the idea that I'm sort of studying Disney to further this thought experiment of mine. But there's more to it than that, certainly. Because there is a sort of "magic" that comes with walking through the gates of the Magic Kingdom, or Disneyland, or Epcot, or any Disney park. There's a magic in staying in their hotels, getting excellent customer service, having good dining experiences regularly, with boarding a bus or a monorail and knowing that your destination is somewhere completely different than anywhere else on earth, at least in *my* experience.
What is it about Disney for you? Is it the connection to the well loved films and TV programs? Is it your kids' reactions to the castle and the characters, to the iconic attractions? Is it the look and feel of the place? Is it the hotels? The restaurants? Is there something about Disney that doesn't have to do with "content" per se?
I'd love to hear what other people think about this.
*****
If you've read any of my old posts, you probably know that I've come sort of late to Disney in my life. Not to a love of Disney movies; I've always loved them from the time I was a little kid and 101 Dalmations captured my fancy, along with many others. But the parks - to them I am a late-comer. I went in high school with my HS band, when only the Magic Kingdom was built, and I just don't remember much of it. I mean, I remember having a blast there, riding Space Mountain, Haunted Mansion and Pirates, and the Skyway, but for some reason it didn't register that Disney was doing something more than other, more local "theme" parks were doing. Right around that time, Marriot's Great America (now a Six Flags park) opened, and in hindsight it is obvious that they were trying to connect to the Disney theming, but on a less intricate, less detailed level. With "lands" like Hometown Square, County Fair, Yukon Territory, Yankee Harbor, and a few other America-themed areas, they were sort of trying to tie into that feeling that you get when you walk down Main Street, USA at a Disney MK type park.
But I'm getting off track here. Since we chose to combine a Disney vacation with a professional meeting held in Orlando in 2004, we've been to WDW 4 times (including that first one) and Disneyland twice. And it was really after the second trip that I fell in love with Disney as a destination...not after the first trip. So what was it?
Well, part of it was that my kids were older at that second trip. Not a lot older, but when you're in preschool, two years is a lot. They definitely enjoyed the trip more the second time. My little one wasn't as afraid of different rides and shows. I mean, Hopper's appearance in It's Tough To Be A Bug was still a little frightening, and there were a few loud noises on Pirates that startled him, but generally he did well on most everything. And my older boy was game for some coasters, like Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, and he was ready for Splash Mountain.
But the other thing that was different was that we went to Epcot for the first time. We didn't make dining reservations; we just took what we could get, and what we were able to get was dinner at the restaurant in Italy and lunch at the Morocco pavilion. But we were bowled over by the dining choices and by the architecture of those pavilions. And we were knocked out by Soarin'! We loved Epcot!
And when I left there that time, I remember thinking, as I would drive to work, that someone, some entertainment company, could do something like Epcot anywhere. You could go to visit Morocco, or France or Italy, any time of the year! Good weather was only part of the equation when most of the attractions were inside show buildings. And good design should make someone able to draw up a place that would have elements that would work well in winter, as well as elements for summer. It started me on a thought experiment that I'm still messing with - designing a "resort" and "theme park" complex somewhere around where I live.
So that's part of it - the idea that I'm sort of studying Disney to further this thought experiment of mine. But there's more to it than that, certainly. Because there is a sort of "magic" that comes with walking through the gates of the Magic Kingdom, or Disneyland, or Epcot, or any Disney park. There's a magic in staying in their hotels, getting excellent customer service, having good dining experiences regularly, with boarding a bus or a monorail and knowing that your destination is somewhere completely different than anywhere else on earth, at least in *my* experience.
What is it about Disney for you? Is it the connection to the well loved films and TV programs? Is it your kids' reactions to the castle and the characters, to the iconic attractions? Is it the look and feel of the place? Is it the hotels? The restaurants? Is there something about Disney that doesn't have to do with "content" per se?
I'd love to hear what other people think about this.
*****
Monday, October 4, 2010
Theme Parks - Kinetic Energy
When you are wandering around a Disney theme park, perhaps you notice that things are moving. Or perhaps you don't notice. But it makes an impression, if only subconsciously.
I don't have a great deal of theme park experience. I've been to both Disneyland Resort and Walt Disney World Resort, and I've gone to Six Flags Great America, plus the St. Louis version of Six Flags and a couple of smaller parks. But when I think about it, the major difference I see is the quality of motion around the guests at the parks. Yes, at Six Flags, there is plenty of motion with coasters flying around, but they just look intimidating and scary.
At Disney parks, the motion is of a different quality. In Tomorrowland, you have the PeopleMover going past above you, and the Astro Orbiter, also happening above your head. At Splash Mountain you see the logs coming out of the mountain and down the flume before spashing into the water. Even Dumbo and the Magic Carpets of Aladdin provide kinetic energy in their corners of the park. Near the main entrance the Disney Railroad provides the motion.
The motion at the Magic Kingdom is exciting, inviting (perhaps), interesting, but not intimidating or frightening in the least.
Epcot's Dancing Waters Fountain provides kinetic energy in the Communicore, as does the monorail itself as it loops through the park. Test Track, of course, has the motion of its vehicles as they race past its entrance, and the pools of the Imagination! pavilion have their own brand of kinetic attraction with the illusion of water flowing uphill. Even The Seas With Nemo and Friends have motion with those silly animatronic pelicans in front of its entrance.
The other two parks don't have as much kinetic energy available for guests' diversion and for subliminal atmosphere, at least not that I can think of. It's been almost two years since I've been to Disney, so some stuff is a bit hazy in my mind. (I'll be rectifying that next month with my family.)
If any readers come up with any other examples of how Disney uses kinetic energy to set atmosphere and keep things interesting for the guests without hitting them over the head with the motion, please feel free to mention them in the comments section.
Thanks for reading.
******
I don't have a great deal of theme park experience. I've been to both Disneyland Resort and Walt Disney World Resort, and I've gone to Six Flags Great America, plus the St. Louis version of Six Flags and a couple of smaller parks. But when I think about it, the major difference I see is the quality of motion around the guests at the parks. Yes, at Six Flags, there is plenty of motion with coasters flying around, but they just look intimidating and scary.
At Disney parks, the motion is of a different quality. In Tomorrowland, you have the PeopleMover going past above you, and the Astro Orbiter, also happening above your head. At Splash Mountain you see the logs coming out of the mountain and down the flume before spashing into the water. Even Dumbo and the Magic Carpets of Aladdin provide kinetic energy in their corners of the park. Near the main entrance the Disney Railroad provides the motion.
The motion at the Magic Kingdom is exciting, inviting (perhaps), interesting, but not intimidating or frightening in the least.
Epcot's Dancing Waters Fountain provides kinetic energy in the Communicore, as does the monorail itself as it loops through the park. Test Track, of course, has the motion of its vehicles as they race past its entrance, and the pools of the Imagination! pavilion have their own brand of kinetic attraction with the illusion of water flowing uphill. Even The Seas With Nemo and Friends have motion with those silly animatronic pelicans in front of its entrance.
The other two parks don't have as much kinetic energy available for guests' diversion and for subliminal atmosphere, at least not that I can think of. It's been almost two years since I've been to Disney, so some stuff is a bit hazy in my mind. (I'll be rectifying that next month with my family.)
If any readers come up with any other examples of how Disney uses kinetic energy to set atmosphere and keep things interesting for the guests without hitting them over the head with the motion, please feel free to mention them in the comments section.
Thanks for reading.
******
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Future of Themed Entertainment
If you've read any of the older posts on this site, you know I sort of pipe-dream about developing a theme park of my own design. Anyone who is interested in the magic behind the scenes could look at the website Themed Attractions.com, where many articles on "imagineering" are posted.
One of the articles posted is a paraphrase of a speech given by Bob Rogers, and it concerns where the concept of the theme park might be headed in the future. I think it's a very interesting read, talking about Walt's reinvention of the form of entertainment in the 1950's, and how the theme park has digressed to sort of live by the "old" rules again.
Here's the link: The Coming Revolution in Themed Entertainment
*****
One of the articles posted is a paraphrase of a speech given by Bob Rogers, and it concerns where the concept of the theme park might be headed in the future. I think it's a very interesting read, talking about Walt's reinvention of the form of entertainment in the 1950's, and how the theme park has digressed to sort of live by the "old" rules again.
Here's the link: The Coming Revolution in Themed Entertainment
*****
Steve Mills on Disney and the Theme Park Experience
I was going through the documents on this computer, and came across something I had copied and saved a while back. It is an article by Steve Mills on "American Theme Parks and the Landscapes of Mass Culture". In it Mills explores some basic background on amusement and theme parks, then looks at Disney's impact on the entertainment form.
I don't know that there is anything earth-shattering in the article, but I think it's an interesting read for any Disney-phile.
Here is the link to the article: American Theme Parks and the Landscapes of Mass Culture
*****
I don't know that there is anything earth-shattering in the article, but I think it's an interesting read for any Disney-phile.
Here is the link to the article: American Theme Parks and the Landscapes of Mass Culture
*****
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
That's Expensive!
After reading the book by Marc Eliot, I pulled out my copy of Michael Barrier's The Animated Man and was scanning some of the strike information it contained. It is very similar to the material described in Eliot's book, with the major difference being the way Barrier viewed Disney's motivation in the whole thing. Barrier interviews a lot of people (as does Eliot), and describes events similarly.
But what drew me (as is usually the case) was the chapters on the planning and building of Disneyland. As I read through the chapter devoted to the initial impetus and planning of that park, I was again struck by the cost of that place. Not that it was that expensive in today's dollars - if someone told you that you could build that park for 17 million dollars, you'd probably start lining up investors and bankers. Of course, 17 million wasn't chump change in the 1950's. Without doing the math, it's probably in the billions today.
So here was Walt, pretty much on his own, and he's spending hundreds of thousands out of his pocket to fund the planning, the concept art, the model work, and some basic "research" into building and/or buying the attractions, and he hasn't spent a dime on construction. The initial estimates were around 5 million, but I don't know if that includes the purchase of the land. The project clocked in at something around 17 million by opening day. With Walt's attitude of "accept nothing but perfection" in the construction, it was bound to go up.
So here is me, sitting in my fantasy world and thinking of some day trying to spearhead development of some sort of theme park. I can't draw the concept art (not really, anyway...not to the level of quality and detail that's needed) and I don't have contacts in industry or in banking who could help back it. Not to mention that I don't have the equivalent of hundreds of thousands to pump into it. Just another reminder of how unrealistic this pipe dream is.
And it is also a testament to Walt Disney and his vision and drive that he COULD get the thing built, on a deadline and with no real plan (unless you count Copenhagen's Tivoli Gardens) for how to do it or what to put where.
*****
But what drew me (as is usually the case) was the chapters on the planning and building of Disneyland. As I read through the chapter devoted to the initial impetus and planning of that park, I was again struck by the cost of that place. Not that it was that expensive in today's dollars - if someone told you that you could build that park for 17 million dollars, you'd probably start lining up investors and bankers. Of course, 17 million wasn't chump change in the 1950's. Without doing the math, it's probably in the billions today.
So here was Walt, pretty much on his own, and he's spending hundreds of thousands out of his pocket to fund the planning, the concept art, the model work, and some basic "research" into building and/or buying the attractions, and he hasn't spent a dime on construction. The initial estimates were around 5 million, but I don't know if that includes the purchase of the land. The project clocked in at something around 17 million by opening day. With Walt's attitude of "accept nothing but perfection" in the construction, it was bound to go up.
So here is me, sitting in my fantasy world and thinking of some day trying to spearhead development of some sort of theme park. I can't draw the concept art (not really, anyway...not to the level of quality and detail that's needed) and I don't have contacts in industry or in banking who could help back it. Not to mention that I don't have the equivalent of hundreds of thousands to pump into it. Just another reminder of how unrealistic this pipe dream is.
And it is also a testament to Walt Disney and his vision and drive that he COULD get the thing built, on a deadline and with no real plan (unless you count Copenhagen's Tivoli Gardens) for how to do it or what to put where.
*****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
