I'm left with the idea that while many people love animals, it's hard for most folks to bring the same passion for animals in general, or even a specific species, that people can show for an individual character. Especially when Busch treats its "characters" with relative dignity, generally refusing to anthropomorphize them the way Disney and Universal do with their cartoon animals.
Plus, parents who are Disney fans welcome the chance to pass that love for Disney along to their kids at an early age. It's real tough, as a parent, to think about trying to hook your kid on a theme park run by a brewery. So, pretty much no parent tries.
Don’t get me wrong here, folks. I’m only being slightly cynical, but I’m right. Everything is so nice in the park, but if you’re going to have passion, you’ve got to have a little hate in there to go with the love. Every great novel or movie has a great bad guy or two. The same rule applies to theme park attractions. Snow White’s Adventures has the evil queen. Peter Pan has Capt Hook. Jurassic Park has the T-rex. American Idol has Simon Cowell. What ride or attraction at Sea World has a bad guy to boo? If anything, about the only bad guys you’ll see at Sea World is us and our depredations of the natural world, and personally speaking, I don’t need that guilt trip. I want to enjoy my filet-o-fish sandwich at Micky D’s.
If I go to a Disney park, I want my picture taken with Grumpy and Goofy. Why? Because they’re my boys! I identify with them. Every single day of my life I’m a little grumpy and goofy. I go to Universal and I’m looking for the Blues Brothers. Why? Because they’re cool in a slightly geeky way. That’s me! I’m there! So who do I want my picture taken with when I’m at Sea World? Shamu? Clyde and Seamore? The walrus? Oh yeah, I can just see the comments from family and friends, “So, Tim which one of you is the walrus in this here shot?” Uh huh, not going to happen, that’s for sure.
Sea World does fine being nice, but if they ever want to get near and dear to my heart they’ve got to change. Add a Shark Tale ride. Put in a Crocodile Hunter show. (I’m cheering for the snakes and crocodiles. Go get him, boys!) Now, there’s a picture and t-shirt opportunity right there! Add a Jungle Cruise type of ride where you can pretend you’re Greenpeace and you’re battling evil Japanese whalers. (Not in my lifetime, but I had to add something for you libs out there.) How about a motion simulator ride based on The Fish and Mr. Limpet? Now, Don Knotts is somebody I can identify with. (Not sure if I’d want to wear a t-shirt with Mr. Limpet on it though. People might get the wrong idea.)
See! It really isn’t that hard. (No pun intended.) Add a little attitude to the park, and you’d have the passion.
The SD City Council, which gave the lease to the first park group, did not want it to be a carnival ride park and placed restrictions of it to this day. Sea World had to fight just to get JTA approved. Reviews on it seem mixed.
Ride approval in Orlando was not a problem, but the company still wants rides as an extra added attraction, not the main reason for visiting. It is about marine life and real animals some in unique shows, not mechanical devices.
Not need to have a villains, it is not a movie, but if you need villains, see the shark exhibit. Real villains, at least in the publics mind.
Sea World is not Disneyland or Six Flags, so don't expect it to be. It was not based on beloved cartoon characters, but created its own just for the park. Shamu (the real one) is probably as well known as most Disney characters.
It is nice alternate experience, perhaps a little quiet for some, but if you want thrills or character-themed rides, go to another park.
Personally, I'm don't think every new ride at Disneyland has to have a cartoon character as part of the theme. Some of the best Disney rides do not.
For shows, exhibits, landscaping, etc, Sea World is just about as good quality as Disneyland. I'll give the edge to Disney for rides, but only because that is their focus, or at least is supposed to be.
Of course, as a journalist, I know that great storytellers can craft gripping nonfiction narratives. And SeaWorld's do a fine job -- but they typically fail to "stick" with you after you leave, they way Disney's and Universal's do.
As non-fiction parks, SeaWorld and Epcot (and, to a lesser extent, Animal Kingdom and BGT) need to freshen their stories on a more regular basis than the non-fiction parks must. They need to use technology aggressively to immerse vistors in narrative. Both could be doing better than they are (and if one showed the way by breaking ahead of the park, I suspect the others would soon follow), but it is a credit to the power of the stories they do tell how well these parks have performed over the years. People will respond to non-fiction storytelling, if it is presented well.
I also don't buy into the argument that Sea World and Epcot have to be non-fiction parks. Why? Why not an entertaining mixture of the real world and the fantasy world? Is there some hard and fast rule that says that if your attractions are themed to animals or technology they have to be realistic? I don't think so, and Disney seems to be following the path of blending fiction and non-fiction in Animal Kingdom. (Now if they would only open up the purse strings and spend some significant money on the park.)
I'm just proposing that Sea World adds some leavening to the batter. Who wants crackers when they can have bread?
(Yeesh! All the analogies involving food! I've got to get off this diet.)
The rides seem to be an afterthought.
Seaworld isn't a theme park or a ride park. The primary point is education and conservation, of both marine animals an the environment as a whole. The main goal will always be this, while they may have gone to a more all encompassing area the primaries will never be lost. Mainly because A-B believes in the parks as companies and the good they do on a whole, thus when you got a multi-billion dollar backer you can keep your main goal. Seaworld is above all, a zoo for water creatures. No one expects or should expect a zoo to put in huge coasters and rides to entertain the public when that's not even close to the goal.
While SWO has added a few rides I think they deserve much more credit for not selling out to the money lure of big rides and huge attractions. They've kept they're original purpose and I can't see this changing anytime in the future. I also congratulate them for adding JTA and Kraken to the park, both are great additions. In coming years I'm sure with other exhibits and shows we will also see new rides, rides which will complement rather then subtract from the overall environment of the park.
Someone made the comment that because a beer company owns Seaworld that it's a big turn off to parents in regards to inspiring they're children to have a passion about the park. I find that somewhat wrong considering they also own Sesame Place, which is based off a children's show. I don't think inspiring your kids to find passion in animals or in a park devoted to them has squat to do with the parent company, Budwieser isn't very prevalent in SWO except for two Bud merchandise stores and the Hospitality House. Besides, I don't think many kids give a care about beer or who owns what.. they are far more interested in the shows and fuzzy animals.
I really don't even think SWO should be lumped into the class as Disney or Universal because it's just to radically different and probably always will be. :)
As for new things coming to the park, yes there are things are the drawing board that will be popping up in coming years. Realize these things run on a trend, you get Manitee and Wild Artic.. JTA and then Ports of Call. Kraken then the Waterfont.. now going on this cycle what do you think is going to come next? ;) When I left the park there where some mighty interesting things on the proposal board, the question is what will be next?
The most common one talked about is adding the Clydesdale hitch to the park, so you can watch as they ready the hitch for the daily trips around the park.
There is also one flying around about another ride going up in the next two years or so, thought it hasn't been confirmed yet. I heard this threw the grapevine of employees I'm still friend with that this is the common gossip right now. The guess is another simulator but some have talked about a thrill ride or coaster. Common thought is if not a simulator it'll be something smaller but a coaster. If your familair with Dorney Park in PA I'd guess the size would be similar to Talon (a small but awesome coaster).
Thats all I've heard lately, but it's nice to contemplate!
I believe their later acquisition by Busch was a Good Thing overall, but I still have plenty of issues with them, primarily on their habit of wanting to push their view of what Nature is rather than letting real truths about the animals leak out.
I'll make the same suggestion here that I made in my trip report. Anyone who's planning to visit Sea World, or anyone who has visited and come away with a nagging sense that something Just Isn't Right about the place, go and pick up a copy of "Spectacular Nature: Corporate Culture and the Sea World Experience" by Susan Davis, University of California Press.
Although a bit dry in places (remember, this is a university professor who wrote it), it provides a heck of a lot of insight as to why Sea World behaves as they do. I found it to be quite the eye-opener.
I do want to make one other thing clear: I'm not "against" Sea World, nor am I out to "bash" them. I have a lot of respect for their physical facilities, and for the people that take care of the animals. All I'm saying is don't look at the parks through rose-colored glasses. Keep an analytical (and slightly cynical) eye on the place, and don't let them snow you with propaganda.
Keep the peace(es).
