Thematics and its role in Amusement Attractions:

[Mike T]

This past week, I had the pleasure of visiting the IAAPA Trade conference with a few of my friends and I noticed a big emphasis on thematics while I was there. It seems to me that there is a larger focus on making attractions an experience, rather than just a roller coaster, or just a flat ride. Companies like Huss have decided to branch off into thematics with concepts such as their new King Kong product that they were marketing off at the trade show. So my question to you is:

How large of a roll do thematics play in the conception of a new attraction? Are there instances where a theme can be left behind, and are there certain rides that absolutely need it to succeed? Dick Kinzel obviously would prefer to invest in more track, while Universal constantly puts the majority of their capital spending into facades, effects and different environmental aspects of their parks and attractions. With two big Amusement Industry players saying two completely opposite things, what is your stance on this idea?

[jolash]

This is where the theme park vs. amusement park thing comes into play.

Is this park a theme park? Are we transporting guests to a magical world of fairies and giant green muscle monsters? Or is this an amusement park; a place simply intending to offer a wide variety of rides and other amusements, giving guests some wild rides, good laughs, and an overall good time?

While I agree that at least a background story to a ride is interesting, there is no need for Disney/Universal-esque scenery to make a ride a good ride.

[Arez]

In my opinion, thematics play a huge roll in the overall enjoyment of an attraction.
I think the goal of building a themed attraction, is to allow guest to enter a portal, and have them exit the real world for a few minutes. Themed rides create a unique experience, where the guests actually feel like they're a part of the ride. Rather it be tomb robbing in the deserts of Egypt, or embarking on a deep space mission, themed attractions create a memorable experience that guest will remember for years to come. Something that un-themed rides just can't offer.

-Alex

[jolash]

I agree. A themed attraction is a chance to slip away from the real world for a minute, if you haven't already from just being in the park.

But that's not to say that a themed ride is necessarily better than another ride, simply because of the theme. I mean, I did enjoy Raptor more than I did either of the Dueling Dragons.

[FX-1]

Sir L is about right. I would say most major rollercoasters can go without major themeing and particularly original ride ideas don't need it either unless the theme is what makes it so original. Most flats, however, can benefit from becoming dark rides, like Disney attractions. Open-aired, carnival/fair flats don't really need any theming.

[Jake]

As most of you know I am pretty big on themed attractions. For the most part, that can make or break a ride for me. Not to say that I wont like a ride that doesn't have theming, but lets face it. If Millennium Force had Disney theming it would beat Maverick with ease, in my book. this is one of the reasons I'm not a big Cedar Fair fan. It's obvious their interest lies in building giant steel beats on large concrete slabs. If that's what works for them, fine, but I have a feeling that in a good ten years, that mentality just isn't going to work anymore.

Time will tell I suppose.

[theRock-steel]

I think that it all depends on what the park set out to do. SF Great Adventure set out to have the tallest fastest coaster in the world. While Kingda Ka is not my favorite ride, it did meet it's goals. No themeing necessary. Millennium Force doesn't have themeing either, but what a great ride ! Would some kind of special effects, signs, or elaborate story make it better ? I suppose so. Is that stuff necessary ? For that ride, I don't think so.
Ok, let's go the other way. Let's put Expedition Everest alone in the middle of a dirt field. There is no mountain, no snow, no darkness, no Yeti. Guess what, you would have a ride that's only a little bit better than average. But, put in those things all in the middle of WDW, and you have the most popular coaster that Vekoma ever laid a track for.
My thinking, if you're going to have themeing, go all out. If you only do it half baked, it kind of sucks. You just wasted your money.


I'm not a big Cedar Fair fan. It's obvious their interest lies in building giant steel beats on large concrete slabs. If that's what works for them, fine, but I have a feeling that in a good ten years, that mentality just isn't going to work anymore.


I believe that themed parks are more popular than others, but there are people who just don't care. I think Cedar Point appeals to those teenagers and young adults of that group. Like I alluded too in my statement just above your quote, I'm not sure that themeing is something that Cedar Fair can do well. As for the future, non of us can predict it.

[jolash]

I think that it all depends on what the park set out to do. SF Great Adventure set out to have the tallest fastest coaster in the world. While Kingda Ka is not my favorite ride, it did meet it's goals. No themeing necessary. Millennium Force doesn't have themeing either, but what a great ride ! Would some kind of special effects, signs, or elaborate story make it better ? I suppose so. Is that stuff necessary ? For that ride, I don't think so.
Ok, let's go the other way. Let's put Expedition Everest alone in the middle of a dirt field. There is no mountain, no snow, no darkness, no Yeti. Guess what, you would have a ride that's only a little bit better than average. But, put in those things all in the middle of WDW, and you have the most popular coaster that Vekoma ever laid a track for.
My thinking, if you're going to have themeing go all out. If you only do it half baked, it kind of sucks. You just wasted your money.


But you often build half-*** track layouts because it, ironically, improves the ride experience. You wouldn't throw an Expedition Everest, Revenge of The Mummy, or Space Mountain out in a field by itself, no theming. It'd just be a lame ride. These coasters all feature special effects, including movie scenes, that require a less-than-amazing ride layout to get the full effect.

[theRock-steel]

You wouldn't throw an Expedition Everest, Revenge of The Mummy, or Space Mountain out in a field by itself, no theming. It'd just be a lame ride. These coasters all feature special effects, including movie scenes, that require a less-than-amazing ride layout to get the full effect.

That was my point, those rides need special themeing. It all depends on what they are trying to do though. Disney rides tell a story. They are good at that. SF and Cedar Fair rides just try to scare you out of your mind. They are normally good at that. Busch's parks have rides that do a little bit of both.

[rollercoasterfreak91]

Each company has its specialty, either huge thrilling rides with little or no theme, or small boring rides with a theme that makes it all worth it. What bugs me is when SF wants to do a Disney. It just seems almost the same as DL putting a hyper into the park. It doesn't work.
Anyway, theming definetely makes a ride better, but I think it's more important for the line.

[jolash]

Agreed. You can do without the 3D Yeti's and Mummy's eating your soul, but the decoration of the queue is a huge factor in the overall experience. An experience can be killed by a long, boring wait for a ride. No better way to improve that wait than some entertainment in the queue.

I also think the disappointment of a bad theme comes from not the lack of theme a ride might have, but when it comes up less than expected, ie, Maverick. Nobody would have said a word if how it looks now, is how it was planned to be. But, in reality, Maverick's theming is far less than what was planned, and that's what puts people up-in-arms.

[Jake]

Each company has its specialty, either huge thrilling rides with little or no theme, or small boring rides with a theme that makes it all worth it.

I disagree with this statement.

There is absolutely no reason that Cedar Fair couldn't do theming to the likes of Big Thunder, or the Matterhorn. If Cedar Fair went out and "stole" the up and coming Disney employees, they could really bring some killer themes to the market. To make a great themed coaster, all you need is the capital - or the willing to spend the money, I should say. And people who know what the heck they're doing!

[FX-1]

The track layouts of heavilly themed coasters aren't necessarilly half-a**. They may not be as elaborate as bear-bones rides but they took just as much effort to lay out. For a rollercoasster, if the bear track isn't good to start, no amount of scenery will make it so.

[jolash]

If a ride does not have a good layout to start, then no amount scenery will make it so, eh?

Revenge of the Mummy is a fairly highly regarded ride. But this layout doesn't look all that exciting if it had no scenery.


http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/920/mummyxu3.gif

[FX-1]

Well, depending on how fast it's going and how tall that first drop is, that might actually be enjoyable.

[rollercoasterfreak91]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rollercoasterfreak91 http://www.rollercoasterpro.com/community/images/styles/blackyellow/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.rollercoasterpro.com/community/showthread.php?p=4635#post4635)
Each company has its specialty, either huge thrilling rides with little or no theme, or small boring rides with a theme that makes it all worth it.

I disagree with this statement.

There is absolutely no reason that Cedar Fair couldn't do theming to the likes of Big Thunder, or the Matterhorn. If Cedar Fair went out and "stole" the up and coming Disney employees, they could really bring some killer themes to the market. To make a great themed coaster, all you need is the capital - or the willing to spend the money, I should say. And people who know what the heck they're doing!

I'm not saying that CF and SF can't do great theming, it's just that 95% of the time they choose not to.

[mayoki]

While I agree that at least a background story to a ride is interesting, there is no need for Disney/Universal-esque scenery to make a ride a good ride.


Uhm, what would Tower of Terror be without theming? An extremely ugly mass of twisted metal standing on a hill.
It would destroy the ride experience and a lot of the psychological fear would be lost. It really depends on the ride. I agree that a ride does not have to be themed to be a good ride. It would greatly enhance the experience, however. Theming makes a ride an experience. A storyline gets the rider curious, and little hints along the way get the rider excited. If you took the layout of Expedition Everest and put it in the middle of nowhere, it would be a disaster for Disney. People expect theming at Disney and other similar parks because it captures the imagination of the rider and makes it seem that anything is possible, for example: Chased by the yeti, going on a safari, dropped down 13 stories in a cursed hotel, cruising down the highway in a limo with Aerosmith, flying through space... Now try to imagine all this without theming. Disney would not be the entertainment mecca it is today.

Theming is not necessary, especially on bigger rides, but it greatly enhances the experience and makes the ride feel complete.

[FX-1]

I wouldn't call smaller heavilly themed rides "boring" necessarilly. That sort of mentality really bugs me. Take Space and Thunder Mountains at Disney, they're themed a lot but not to the extent of Fantasyland rides that actually tell a story. And they'd be reasonably enjoyable without their themeing, they just look really out-of-place without it. Now Fantasyland rides are all in the theming, and I think that's more what you were referencing to. Very few people would find those fun without scenery but also remember they're not rollercoasters. They're completely different beasts. Disneyland darkrides don't have intricate track designs but at the same time they don't claim to be coasters so it's difficult to compare.

[rollercoasterfreak91]

^ I'd have to disagree and say that BTR, at least at DL, would be quite boring if it was a parking lot coaster. If a ride has either good theming, or a good actual ride, or both, it isn't boring. If it has neither, it is.(IMO)

[FX-1]

Well, I think it'd still be fun, based entirely on the WDW version of course (I don't think it varies from WDW to DL but I don't know). It might still need certain tunnels just like Space Mountain would need to stay enclosed, but I don't really consider that scenery exactly.

[sirloin]

Theming can completely make an attraction. Is it necessary for a good attraction? Certainly not. Millennium Force, Mantis, Steel Force, and Talon are all excellent attractions.

However, theming can greatly enhance the overall experience, and in some cases (see Revenge of the Mummy, Space Mountain at WDW, and Scooby Doo and the Haunted Mansion) can even make the attraction what it is. Those rides are dead without theming. Another good example would be the Tower of Terror. As a drop ride, it's totally lame, but that theme is one of the most epic and legendary themes out there, and Disney goes all out. I ride the Tower of Terror in Orlando merely for the theming, because it is straight-up excellent.

I believe that there are several heavy advantages to theming. To start, as mentioned above, it can compensate for what would otherwise be an extremely dull attraction. Another advantage of theming is name recognition. Now theming it to a particular name is not necessary (see any of Disney's Haunted Mansions, Big Thunder Mountain Railroads, Space Mountains, etc.), but it does help to create a sort of attachment to the ride, and it does enhance the experience, in my opinion. After all, if you asked someone what Tatsu was like, it's quite possible that they'd just say, "You get to fly through the air and it's amazing. iT roXorZ teh big111111!111!!!!!" (OK, so you'd only see the last part on RCPro, but you get the idea). Now if you were to ask someone what Superman Ultimate Flight was like, they'd be likely to say, "You get to fly through the air like Superman." Note the italicized part. That feeling of being like Superman is just one example of the bonus of name recognition. Something about feeling like Superman as I soar through the air is cooler than just feeling like me flying through the air. If nothing else, it's because Superman's often off to save attractive women. ;)

Another bonus is the extension of a ride's life. Space Mountain is nearly 30 years old and it has barely changed theming-wise. People still line up like crazy to ride it. Now how popular will Millennium Force be in 2030? If it's even around, it'll quite possibly be overshadowed by something else. Mind you, I'd take a MF lap over Space Mountain any day of the week, but it's replaceable. Space Mountain at WDW is not replaceable. You'd need another Space Mountain, implying that all you can really do is update the theming to make it look a little more modern, but that's about it. And then you have Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, which will likely run until the mountain crumbles, and then Disney would probably just build another one in its place.

Also, timelessness implies a lack of desire to alter anything. Really, what could you do to BTMR to really make it significantly more enjoyable? Or Splash Mountain for that matter? Nothing. Just whip some technology in there to make the animatronics or whatever look a little more realistic than they were able to look in 1979, but you'd have to keep the theme the same or people would throw a hissy fit.

I think the timlessness is the hardest aspect for me to describe. It's just something you have to notice. Words don't always do the best job of showcasing the timeless effect.

Timelessness sort of ties in with my next point, and perhaps the most noticeable effect of theming. Theming defines an attraction. It might not be the most impressive aspect of the attraction, but it still defines it. Alpengeist is not just a big invert. It's a big invert themed to a mountain ghost. After all, if I were to take out the theming, I could give it a name like Big Under-Track Happy Fun Coaster (my salute to the coasters of Japan). The ride has no definition without theming. Once you give it a theme, voila, now you have the ride defined. Having a ride defined makes it far easier to remember by name, and as I mentioned above in the name recognition, you either consciously or subconsciously place yourself in the "world" created by that theme. I'm not a passenger on an inverted coaster on Alpengeist. I'm a passenger on a doomed ski lift that's under attack from a nasty mountain spectre. On Batman-The Ride, I'm the caped crusader off to kick butt in Gotham. On Millennium Force, I'm just a passenger in a very big train and I get to go real high and real fast. Guess what? I could do that in Agawam, Jackson, Williamsburg, Gurnee, Valencia, Arlington, etc., etc. In the end, it's really nothing more than a very entertaining credit.

As I've said many times before, theming turns a ride into an experience, and it gives it a story. Now that story doesn't need to be as elaborate as those on Disney attractions, nor does the theming need to be the equivalent of that on Space Mountain. However, I think every attraction deserves a theme. After all, where would Montu be without all those Egyptian ruins? Wait! I know! It'd be painted green and it would fly over the midways at Sandusky's favorite hotspot. Theming takes generic and makes it something special, and that's why I support it.

[FX-1]

Well, I'm a huge proponant of themeing, trust me, but I also believe that rides can stand out without it so I think that last comment is a little much.

Also, Space Mountain is NOT dead without themeing. Haunted Mansion, yes, that ride was build for scenery, but Space Mountain is still a coaster and offers some enjoyment in itself. And I never ride a ride just for scenery as you put it with ToT. I might get on a thrill ride at Disney and think "The scenery here is amazing", but I still wouldn't ride it if that's all it was for. ToT may not be the tallest freefall in the world but it's still exciting. But those rides are very well defined by their theme, I'll give you that.


Agawam, Jackson, Williamsburg, Gurnee, Valencia, Arlington,
Tampa, and Orlando. :) Sorry, I just had to add that. I'm done now.

[sirloin]

Trust me, Space Mountain's layout is awful. It's the world's dullest wild mouse. The theming is the only thing that impresses me about that ride.

And Tampa and Orlando don't have your standard hypercoasters, which is what I was thinking about when I used those city names. There were plenty that were left off, though. I just didn't see the need to list everything, because I'd have bored myself to death getting the list fully compiled.

[FX-1]

Wild Mice get plenty duller. I'm not saying it would be as fun without the theme. But I also think the fact that it's in the dark contributes a lot more to the ride itself than the theme. The theme, which is more located in the queue at WDW is still amazing though but contributes more to the experience than the actual ride.

[Exceller]

Okay, we all know that theming makes a ride timeless. We all know that placing a ride on a slab of concrete does not make a ride timeless. But what does this all mean with the general public.

As sirloin pointed out, theming makes a ride timeless. You can look at any Disney themed ride and say it will stay forever. Look at Matterhorn, an attraction that has not been pointed out. Matterhorn is still one of the most popular rides at Disneyland. You come in and there is this giant mountain with a roller coaster in it. Who dosen't want to ride this. Every time I go to Disneyland there is always a line for it. Let's face it, without theming Disney is not the company it is.

Now look at Scream from SFMM. Its put on a parking lot! The ride isn't a bad ride, but just imagine it with theming. It would be a great ride, one of the most popular in the park. Evrytime I go, the line is always empty. Yes, location has something to do with it, but maybe not as much as you think. I've never had to wait on the stairs for this ride. I've waited maybe 5 min. top for the ride.

Overall, my point is that look at the ride that attracts millions even though its not extremely exciting and has been around since the 1960's. Then there is a ride that has no theming and gets no attention. See the difference, the GP are just more attracted to a ride that has more theming. Right now, most companies are switching to more themed rides, even if its on roller coasters. And one more thing, you can make this argument with most rides of their types (themed or not themed). Very few exceptions to this.

[FX-1]

Ok, without themeing, the current Disney parks are nothing. But if they didn't theme, Disney wouldn't continue to put out the kinds of rides they do now. They wouldn't build darkrides without theme, they'd build carnival flats, thrill coasters, or both. The company wouldn't be what it is, but it wouldn't diminish, which is what you seem to be implying.

[Youhow2]

I know this is off-topic, but what if disney built a thrill-park?


Anyway, I believe the ride expereince depends on what the ride is supposed to do... If ROTM was supposed to be just thrilling(no themeing), I think I'd skip out on it. If it's supposed to be a movie -themed dark ride roller coaster, with just station/queue themeing, I'd ride it more than once. But if It is actually trying to be thrilling, adventerous and scary, and delivers, I'm sure I'd ride it every visit to orlando I can get...or hollywood for that matter...

[FX-1]

Disney won't builld a thrill park. They'd build a park with as many or close to as many thrill rides as a thrill park but it would have a mass of other rides to balance out a proper park because they are a family friendly company. And for those of you going "Oooh! Family friendly? Yuck!", the phrase "family friendly" does NOT mean kiddy or childish or boring, it means a perfect balance of kiddish and adult and some things that trancend ages so that EVERYONE can enjoy them. If family friendly things don't do the job for you, then quite frankly, nothing will.

[R.C.]

Besides, Disney already attempted a "Thrill" park (DCA), look at how successful it has been, they are having to re-theme the whole entry area. Thrill parks just don't really work with Disney guests because thrill rides don't offer the same experience as the less intense rides are able to offer.

[theRock-steel]

I think that CF doesn't theme because they don't know how. They would have to hire people that know how. SF tries to theme but they do only a so-so job at it. They should try to find experts for that as well rather than keep doing it with the people they have.
---------------------------------------------

Thrill parks just don't really work with Disney guests because thrill rides don't offer the same experience as the less intense rides are able to offer.

I believe that a thrill park wouldn't work for Disney because the type of guests that have already been there wouldn't expect that from them.

[Youhow2]

I think It would work, but it would have to be balanced between family and thrill. and it would have to be in a new location, instead of smacking it right infront of "the happiest place on earth" for people to compare it to...

[p0tat0]

I can live without thematics, but when it's mixed with an already exciting ride, it just makes it even better

[GeorgeBC]

Personally, thematics plays a huge part in making a ride for me, like what's already been said it can make a ride an experience, making what is an average ride a great one as thematics makes it an experience. It's something I like to see, I'm not saying rides that are not themed aren't good, of course not but it can make great rides out of this world and there are a fair few examples of this.

It's one of those things, I think the majority of parks would theme their rides more but money is always an issue as it does not come cheaply, so most parks will have the view of wanting the ride in itself to be better, while other parks want the ride to be an experience, it's mainly down to the parks intended audience for the ride. Obviously if it's aimed at thrill seekers then thematics will not be as much of a focus compared to a ride that will be aimed at families. But of courses there are always exceptions such as the likes of Black Mamba, as for some parks thematics is a key element no matter what the audience or budget.

I think thematics is also quite a statement in the Amusement Industry, it's one of those things that can set a bar that other parks will look at and inspire to beat, it's something that can really put a ride out there so I'm sure a lot of parks would certainly want to theme their rides more and I think we will start seeing more themed rides now as thematics is really something that's catching on as I think parks are finally realizing it's potential and effects.

[Comet]

I think a good example about how thematics change a ride is...look at MaliBoomer and then at Tower of Terror. You can look at the them as the same ride type, but due to Tower's thematics, it is obviously more popular for the park.