But just as there are multiple systems to power rides, many ways of staging a show, a wide variety of approaches to decorating a land, there are countless narratives to drive stories in any medium — from books to movies to theme park attractions. So why are so many storytellers today focusing on the same type of narrative — a fight between fictional characters?
That's the question that I ask in my Orange County Register column this week: Do all theme park rides have to be battles with an evil empire?
We often joke here on Theme Park Insider about the common device on theme park rides that, at some point, something will go terribly wrong. As Universal Creative's Thierry Coup once told us, "It has to. It gives us a chance to be heroes, and to try to save the day."
But we can save the day by many different ways that jumping into the middle of a fight between "good guys" and "bad guys." Challenges abound in science, in history, and in the ongoing discovery of the natural world around and above us. Even in the world of fiction, strategy and guile can provide satisfying resolutions to conflicts, too. The answer doesn't always have to require a physical fight.
In my column, I look at the example of the changes Disney has made in transforming Space Mountain into Hyperspace Mountain for the Star Wars-themed Season of the Force at Disneyland. While I love Hyperspace Mountain, it illustrates the evolving nature of narrative in theme park attractions. What once was driven by a spirit of discovery now simply reflects another firefight between the good team and the bad one.
Sure, fight-drive narratives are fun. But in an industry that chasing record box office receipts and theme park revenue, couldn't there be more room for other types of narrative as well?
Read Robert's Column:
Tweet
I Respond: More Disney bashing from TPI. Consider Universal Studios Florida. 'Terminator,' 'Men In Black: Alien Attack,' 'Escape from Gringotts,' 'Revenge of the Mummy,' Transformers. In other words a parade of battle scenes but once again TPI's critical eye turns toward Disney.
Shocker.
I imagine Slinky Dog roller coaster and Frozen will be less battle hardened when they open.
Since Disney generally aims at a younger audience, the story in most of its rides doesn't depend on this as much, whereas Universal's does. Avatar doesn't have to rely on this as much, particularly since they seem to be planning to focus more on the "environment" of Pandora, rather than the people.
(1) Marc Davis and Walt said this, and probably lots of people did before them (they didn't invent themed attractions) and lots of people did afterwards too. Even if you believe intrinsically that they could do more, theme parks are, in essence amusement parks (:GASP: :HORROR:) and people pay money to be entertained, not think about their own mortality or the problems of the world.
(2) The obvious retort most would provide is "WHUT BOUT EPCOT????" which I would cruelly dismiss as corporate shill/pap in place of substance even in its prime. The attractions of Future World, like classic Tomorrowland which is effectively was a duplication of, did nothing but suggest to us that we could change and fix the world by never changing a thing about our habits. Few greater lies have ever been told.
The only battle at Disney is for the dollars out of my pocket.... hahahhahaahaha...
I Respond: Sixties-schmixties, the battle of skippers vs. hippos broke out a decade earlier.
The "something goes wrong" theory also quickly creates a story in a ride. Quite honestly, the only thrill ride that I can really think is not some kind of conflict is Rock N Rollercoaster
-IP. Most IP used for major attractions comes from an action franchise, and most action franchises are at least partially about combat.
-Rider Role. In a lot of older attractions, the rider is an observer, but many modern attractions portray the rider as a main character.
-Narrative Structure. This goes along with the point above. In a passive story (rider in the observer role), riders only need to see individual scenes and a continuous story is not critical, allowing for a collection of short stories with the same theme. In an active story, however, the attraction needs a setup, conflict, and resolution, and without these elements it will feel like something is missing.
-Thrill Factor. As technology has improved, the thrill level of attractions has risen. For a thrill-based attraction to work, some degree of action is required, and combat situations are an easy way to do this.
-Interactivity. Interactive attractions encourage combat as riders are usually armed with a blaster (or equivalent).
-3D Attractions. For the most part, action sequences are what get the benefit of 3D film, so it is no surprise combat is featured.
As for the classic "something goes terribly wrong," if you think about it almost every linear continuous story is about something going wrong. If something didn't go wrong, there wouldn't be a story. However, "something goes terribly wrong" does not require a fight to resolve. In fact, escapes are probably far more common among theme park rides than fights.
I guess people today want Thrill rides and to do that without just sticking a 300 ft tall roller coaster with a large footprint, they create high tech dark rides with thrilling narratives.
The marvel of just being an observer rather than part of the action doesn't hold well with audiences today. sure us theme park fans would love another ride like pirates or Haunted Mansion but I guess those aren't what draw guests into the park and money always talks with theme park owners.
This article has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.
I enjoyed Terminator 3D when you feel like you're part of the action, but many people didn't like the break in the narrative. They just wanted to watch the 3D movie as if you're in the audience and away from the action. Oh well. What can you do? People are not that open to new ideas.