Theme Park or Amusement Park

So I'm watching the Universal Parks in Orlando, and can't help but wonder if they are making a mistake. They've got a park with extreme roller coasters clearly featured, and then they've got a park where you're sucked into the world of movies. When considering new attractions and expansions, what do they do? They decide that they will add an extreme roller coaster with little theming into the park whose obvious purpose was to put people into the movies, and they add a giant themed area into the park which had traditionally been marketed toward "thrill seekers."

It really got me thinking about the difference between a Theme Park and an Amusement Park with theming, if that makes sense. I had always viewed the division of the two to be based solely on its primary focus. If the park seems focused solely on establishing and maintaining a theme, to me that park becomes a "Theme Park". They will go to great length to blend the rides into the context of the theme, making the theme supremely important. Disney's Animal Kingdom is a great example of this. They built an entire mountain in order to add a new exciting roller coaster. They designed a dinosaur section so craftily that they could really install any cheesy ride they could want with a couple of cartoon dino heads. Nothing detracts from the theme.

On the other hand, you have the parks who want you know up front that they have great rides. These are the ones with lift hills towering on the skyline. These parks show off their corkscrews, their loops, their drop towers. The rides (or the parks themselves) may have a bit of theming, but it is obvious that the rides supersede the theme. Thus, this park (to me, at least) is classified as an "Amusement Park."

Until the addition of HRRR at Universal Orlando, I would have considered that park a Theme Park. From the minute you walk in, you never see the "guts" of a ride. Everything was carefully constructed within show buildings, and everything is blended in with the surrounding scenery. To be honest, I never visited Universal's Islands of Adventure because I considered it an "Amusement Park," and while it certainly looked cool with the Hulk's loops looming on the skyline, my wife and I were gunning for a "theme" adventure.

One more set of examples from my "local" parks. Kansas City's Worlds of Fun is loosely based on "Around the World in 80 Days." It has different themed lands, and rides generally adhere to the theme of the land. You might think this is a theme park. However, the roller coasters are right out there in the open, and the park's focus is apparent. You see the Patriot (suspended steel) showing off its loops. You see the entire compact structure of Spinning Dragons (crazy mouse). Even the smaller rides are generally all within sight for the entire queue. To me, even though the park is well themed and fun, I would never call it a Theme Park in the same line as something like Disney. This, to me, is an Amusement Park. Nothing wrong with that. It just is what it is.

On the other hand, consider Silver Dollar City in Branson, MO. Themed after an Ozark settlement, SDC features craftsmen and an underground cave tour (around which the park was originally built) to support their theme. The Ozark trees and hills obscure most of the outdoor roller coasters. The visible rides are (generally) themed appropriately to help the suspension of disbelief. When they decided that they needed to add a children's ride area, they didn't turn to cartoon characters. Instead, they created a Missouri-style amusement-park-within-a-park with a classic 1900's feel. Here, rides with a campy theme could be out in the open without disrupting the overall theme of the park. It's very similar to Disney's treatment of the Dinosaur Park in Animal Kingdom. Every choice they make, every decision, shows that the theme is paramount. Thus, SDC to me is a Theme Park.

Don't get me wrong. If I want extreme rides, Worlds of Fun beats SDC hands down (especially with the new much-lauded Prowler which I have yet to ride). Going 70 mph on the Mamba will beat almost anything that SDC has to offer (although the first hill in Power Keg is pretty hardcore). If I want an escape, though, SDC will let me venture into a past gone by, while WoF keeps me firmly in 2009.

What are your thoughts on Theme and Amusement Parks? Is there perhaps a third category for parks like Universal's Island of Adventure that focus on both aspects- rides and theme? I'm also very curious to discover more "Theme Parks" like what I described.

Waldameer is an amusement park.

Disney (and all of its off-shoots) is a theme park. they have certain themes they go by.

Another example: Geauga lake before Six flags was an amusement park with no set theme. When six flags took over, they had Looney tunes themes.

Hope that helps.

I think you bring up good points. However, I hope you don't mind that I changed the Title and sub-title in an effort to draw more opinions and intelligent discussion. That was me speaking as a moderator.

As an enthusiast, I think a park has to carry a single theme throughout to be a theme park.

Worlds of Fun and SFoT to me are examples of amusement parks built on a theme that are more amusement park now than years ago.

It's pretty much impossible to theme an outdoor coaster as well as an indoor ride, but I still consider Busch Gardens to be theme parks.

^^^ From everything you've written above and in the HP thread, it's clear that you think a theme park can only be a theme park if all their rides are inside and/or hidden, which is a point that I simply disagree with you on.

A park can theme everything perfectly and give a ride an intricate story line etc. but as far as you're concerned that illusion is suddenly broken every time you see some coaster track. I think that's a bit far to be honest, surely the illusion would be broken when you're surrounded by 20,000 guests taking photos of everything and having gift shops everywhere. For me that detracts from being transported to a far away and distant land than seeing something that is themed to fit in with the area.

It's pretty much impossible to theme an outdoor coaster as well as an indoor ride, but I still consider Busch Gardens to be theme parks.

What about BTMRR? Black Mamba? Crystal Wings? Manta? All are outdoor coasters and all are very nicely themed.

As an enthusiast, I think a park has to carry a single theme throughout to be a theme park.

Parks like MK and IOA don't really have a single overarching theme to them.

Now parks like WOF, SFOT, and both Great Americas were built as theme parks, but over time, rides were built out of place and the theming was generally ignored. Because there is less focus on theming, I classify these parks as amusement parks.

On the other hand, you have the parks who want you know up front that they have great rides. These are the ones with lift hills towering on the skyline. These parks show off their corkscrews, their loops, their drop towers. The rides (or the parks themselves) may have a bit of theming, but it is obvious that the rides supersede the theme. Thus, this park (to me, at least) is classified as an "Amusement Park."

There are plenty of well-themed parks with huge lifts towering over the skyline and massive drop towers and coasters surrounding the skyline. For example BGW has massive coasters dominating the skyline, but the park also concentrate on theming their coasters and trying to make them fit in with the surroundings (although I do think they cheaped out on theming Griffon). Parks like these spend an equal amount on theming and try to focus more on thrills. Another example is the Happy Valley chain... If you look at rides like Crystal Wings and Dream of Meditterranean, the rides clearly stand out, but are still heavily themed.

IOA is a theme park. Why? Because the park focuses on the theme overall along with the rides. The areas are heavily themed and the coasters no matter how large, fit in with the surroundings.

I will end on this note...

This is a theme park... Clearly the ride tries to blend in with the surroundings, but it still stands out.

This is an amusement park... There really isn't a clear theme throughout. Some of the rides may be themed, but overall the park isn't consistent with the theming.

And yes I made these myself... If you want to see more, click the link in my sig. I've got pages of stuff like this... [/shameless plug]

^ Great drawings!

It's pretty much impossible to theme an outdoor coaster as well as an indoor ride, but I still consider Busch Gardens to be theme parks.

What about BTMRR? Black Mamba? Crystal Wings? Manta? All are outdoor coasters and all are very nicely themed.

 

As an enthusiast, I think a park has to carry a single theme throughout to be a theme park.

Parks like MK and IOA don't really have a single overarching theme to them.

 

I should have worded my first comment differently. It is very costly and difficult to theme an intense outdoor coaster. Sure it can be done but not easily. The speed of a larger coaster and a rider's view play into this. Black Mamba looks great to people watching, but most of the theming is lost if you are not in the front row.

Mine trains are easier to theme based on the seating arrangement and speed of the trains. There are a lot of well themed mine trains.

I disagree that IOA is not based on an overarching theme. IOA individual "islands" may have different themes but the Port of Entry enables you entry into each of these islands and pulls it all together.

Magic Kingdom is certainly is an exception but the imagineers pull everything together in such a manner that no matter which Disneyland/World park you are in you know it is Disney.

I'm just curious on how you would have themed Griffon, or Apollo's Chariot for that manner? You can put it in writing or drawing, you appear fairly creative, so it would be nice to see/read your thoughts.

^ I'll try to draw my concepts and post them here later...

Griffon -- Add abandoned-looking buildings around the queue line. Talon-marks cover the outer walls and there are holes in the rooftops... The buildings both add to the theme and serve a functional purpose because it provides shade to those waiting. Inside the buildings, add some things strewn about to represent the chaos that the griffin caused to the French people living inside.

Lying at the base of the main drop, a large building is with a huge hole in the roof where the train can fit through and the queue line is placed underneath. Guests waiting can look up and see the train going through the hole in the roof. Another building is placed right behind the immelmann with large talon marks on the side facing the coaster, creating a near-miss effect.

The MCBR will remain unthemed, but the drop over the Rhine will be located in a large bell tower-like structure. The immelmann will remain unchanged. After the train exits the immelmann and goes up the hill, it will enter another building and exit through another hole into the splashdown. A final building sits at the end of the brake run where the random metal thingy is located (I'm not really sure what the metal structure over the final brake is). That one serves as a headchopper effect and is also part of the queue. I'll also place trees throughout the layout and some theming (like some of the old Le Man's cars) in certain parts of the ride area.

-----------------------------

Now AC is a bit more difficult to theme because the sheer size and length of the coaster and the fact that it is in an open area. First thing I would do is completely overhaul the station. Get rid of the not very Italian-looking colors and convert it into an Apollo-themed temple (I believe there really is a temple devoted to Apollo that I can base this off of). The entire area around the ride looks like a carnival, not Italy, so I'll probably overhaul that area to look more like Ancient Rome. The trains would be gold and white since those are the colors that come to mind when imagining the colors of the chariot itself.

The original story of Apollo's chariot involved his son wanting to control his father's chariot, but he had no idea how. When he took control the horses wouldn't listen to him. He would bring the sun too close to the earth and the people would burn to death. Then he would bring the sun too far away from the earth and the people would freeze to death, so the bottom of the hills would be painted a red color (to represent bringing the sun close to earth) and the top of the hills would be painted a blue color (to represent the sun moving away from earth and to match the color of the sky so the ride doesn't stand out as much). I would probably paint the supports a white color since it goes well with both red and blue.

Sorry for the long-winded post. I'll try to post a visual reference as soon as I can.

They designed a dinosaur section so craftily that they could really install any cheesy ride they could want with a couple of cartoon dino heads. Nothing detracts from the theme.

To be honest, I never visited Universal's Islands of Adventure because I considered it an "Amusement Park," and while it certainly looked cool with the Hulk's loops looming on the skyline, my wife and I were gunning for a "theme" adventure.

I'm sorry but I really disagree with your evaluation of these parks. I'm a passholder at both WDW and Universal, I really go to these parks all the time. The theme of the Dino area at AK is crap. They literally took an area of a beautiful park and threw in a bunch of cheap rides and made it look like tacky crap. There's no way that's more of a "theme park" than IOA. The only thing IOA is guilty of is having two exposed rides, but both Hulk and the Dragons have a theme and story. Disney built a POS carnival and you consider that great theming?

IOA is one of the best themed parks in the country. I think you should actually visit the park before you label it.

^^^ From everything you've written above and in the HP thread, it's clear that you think a theme park can only be a theme park if all their rides are inside and/or hidden, which is a point that I simply disagree with you on.

 

A park can theme everything perfectly and give a ride an intricate story line etc. but as far as you're concerned that illusion is suddenly broken every time you see some coaster track. I think that's a bit far to be honest, surely the illusion would be broken when you're surrounded by 20,000 guests taking photos of everything and having gift shops everywhere. For me that detracts from being transported to a far away and distant land than seeing something that is themed to fit in with the area.

The crowds are a necessary evil. Not much you can do to hide those... not and still turn a profit, of course. I just think you can do more for theming than paint the steel track green and call it "The Hulk." I think you can do more than just show a video at the beginning and call that a "theme."

I don't know. Coasters can be themed well during the ride, and I can easily ignore the coaster track if there's an attempt to blend it in. After all, I can ignore people in coaster cars zipping past holes in the Matterhorn due to theming. Netdvn's pictures are awesome, and that type of theming is even more attractive to me than most of what Disney does. After all, who builds ruins and buildings for a high speed steel coaster to fly through?

Let me ask this- what makes Space Mountain such a popular ride? It's certainly not the roller coaster, which on its own is rather average. It's the theming, the darkness, the allure, the mystery. Why wouldn't the same theming increase the allure of a high speed coaster? Oh wait, that's Disney's Rockin' Roller Coaster.

Since you mentioned the Harry Potter thread, can you imagine the best themed "Quidditch Coaster" queue and loading station... and then the ride is just a steel coaster on a flat piece of land? Wouldn't you feel slighted? Now imagine instead that as you go up the lift hill, you go up over a huge wall and realize the bulk of the coaster is inside of a huge Quidditch pitch. The track swoops above and below the pitch, reminiscent of the HP movie. The track winds around the towers of the field, and swoops down in front of the wall to the delight of the queue line. After a few more near misses zipping along the outside of the wall, the track swings back around to the station.

World class theming enhances a world class ride, and the same can be done for a world class park.

Any time when "theming" a roller coaster ends with paint color and a logo on the train car proves to me that the theme is not important.

Any time when "theming" a roller coaster ends with paint color and a logo on the train car proves to me that the theme is not important.

The Hulk does go a bit beyond that--the queue is quite elaborate (it winds through Bruce Banner's lab), and the whole ride is a gamma radiation experiment run amok. Dueling Dragons' queue is probably the most elaborate one you'll find at any theme park anywhere, and the dragon coasters do, indeed, "duel."

You're entitled to your opinion, but it isn't a very informed one. Visit IOA and report back. I'd be interested in hearing what you think.

I do think you have a point of Rip Ride Rockit. It's a spectacular-looking ride, but it does sitck out a bit at Universal. But I'll know more when I see and ride it for myself.

Your argument has less to do with what constitutes a theme park, and more to do with what makes a theme park good. The Hulk coaster does have a storyline. You are injected with gamma radiation despite Bruce Banner's warnings while visiting his lab, and you become the Incredible Hulk. The ride may just be a coaster, but it does have a theme. It may not be as well thought-out or complete as Animal Kingdom's theme, but IOA is still a theme park. So are the majority of the Six Flags parks, at least on a basic level. I would say places like Blackpool Pleasure Beach and Cedar Point are Amusement Parks (though one could argue that CP also has a themed area).

Your argument has less to do with what constitutes a theme park, and more to do with what makes a theme park good. The Hulk coaster does have a storyline. You are injected with gamma radiation despite Bruce Banner's warnings while visiting his lab, and you become the Incredible Hulk. The ride may just be a coaster, but it does have a theme. It may not be as well thought-out or complete as Animal Kingdom's theme, but IOA is still a theme park. So are the majority of the Six Flags parks, at least on a basic level. I would say places like Blackpool Pleasure Beach and Cedar Point are Amusement Parks (though one could argue that CP also has a themed area).

I guess my question for discussion is what distinguishes a "Theme" park from an "Amusement" park. Or perhaps it's just a gradient between the two.

With all due respect, it seems like you're spinning your wheels, and that you're less into definitions than value judgments.

I really have no problem with the USF coaster, in part because the park's exterior theming isn't all that impressive. Sure, it's supposed to be a movie studio with soundstages and all, but is the Shrek building anything more than a big, blocky lump? And why should MIB and the Simpsons be in the same "themed" area? What's that theme, again? Though you decry IOA as a rides park, in fact, much of it (especially Port of Entry, Seuss, JP, Lost Continent) is more consistently, immersively themed than any of the stuff next door.

In any case, the new USF coaster is in the very front of the park, with a location more visually linked to City Walk than the San Francisco area. And I bet that the vast majority of repeat USF visitors, like me, are thinking "Oh, goody," rather than "What a travesty!"

I'd hardly call IOA's coasters "extreme," but they are truly major coasters-as-coasters, and - for budgetary and engineering reasons - most indoor coasters, including the Rock 'n Rollercoaster, Flight of Fear, The Dark Knight, and Space Mountain, IMO simply aren't. (And since we're splitting hairs, I'd say The Mummy's less "a coaster" than a dark ride with coaster elements.) It's just not that easy to thoroughly wrap a 150-foot-high coaster in theming. Expedition Everest, yeah, but that's essentially a snazzier Matterhorn. And maybe Volcano. Big Bad Wolf's village section. And what else?

So we're left with the "suspension of disbelief" question. Does anyone, unless they're drunk on their butt, walk around EPCOT thinking, "Gosh, here I am in Paris?" For that matter, do visitors at Busch Gardens lament that the "illusion" of being in Europe is somehow shattered by the presence of the Loch Ness Monster?

It's safe to say that precious few actual parks totally fit your definition of "theme park." Most Disney parks, yeah, but even then...what's the Teacups but a repainted standard flat ride, or the Astro Orbiters but a tarted up carnival oldie?

I can't find the post now, but are you the same guy who decided not to go to IOA because it was insufficiently themed? Ah well, if so, your loss.

This really comes down to semantics, the dictionary definition of theme:

"a unifying or dominant idea, motif, etc., as in a work of art."

To me, most parks are themed (mostly with a number of areas with different themes), it's just the degree of theming that varies.

I tend to think of parks that focus more on thrills or at least rides with little or no theming as amusement parks. And parks that focus more on heavily themed rides as theme parks, and I find those "theme" parks (like Disneyland) tend to be less thrill orientated. The line blurs with IOA because that has good thrill rides and heavy theming. Just my opinion, not a definitive answer.

In the end I don't really mind what you class a park as, I either enjoy it or I don't and that's what matters to me.

I think the idea that a roller coaster needs to be basically concealed in order to be well-themed is absolutely absurd. This is why I have a little bit of an issue with Disney; they think they need to build a mountain in order to build a coaster. Are they not confident enough in their theming to be able to build something a little more out-in-the-open? And besides, the mountain isn't concealing anything; people know what is going on inside it.

I think Islands of Adventure demonstrates perfectly how to have a roller coaster right in the middle of a very immersive theme park. When you go to a theme park, you expect a roller coaster to be there. I don't feel like Hulk or Dueling Dragons are out of place in the least in this theme park.

I think Universal and Busch are masters at theme parks; they know how to blend thrills and rides perfectly (although I agree that the theming on Griffon was a little skimpy, but that's neither here nor there). I think Cedar Fair and Six Flags are great examples of not-theme parks.

Here's one though: When Rita was installed, it really made me question Alton Towers's status as a theme park.

To be honest, I think your definition of a theme park is a bit too narrow. I mean if IOA, one of the best themed parks in the world is supposedly not a theme park then that literally only leaves a few of the Disney parks, and surely they can't be the only ones that fit the definition?

I mean, I get what you are saying about the ride portion of Hulk and DD being fairly unthemed, but they both have themed queues that establish a story.

I'ts a bit much to use this definition though because it doesn't take the whole park into account. It's like you are saying that fully themed rides like Spiderman, Jurrassic Park, Dudley Do Rights, Popeye, Cat in the Hat, and the themed areas in general count for nothing because a couple of the coasters have bare sections, and therefore the whole park is demoted to the same level as a Six Flags park.

What about Europa Park? The whole place has an overriding concept of having different European country themed zones. The whole place has exceptional theming, but again, according to your definition it is only an amusement park because of exposed coasters like Silver Star and Blue Fire.

I never visited Universal's Islands of Adventure because I considered it an "Amusement Park," and while it certainly looked cool with the Hulk's loops looming on the skyline, my wife and I were gunning for a "theme" adventure.

But hadn't you seen photos of the rest of the park?

This thread is becoming far more negative than I had hoped or expected. I was hoping the negativity toward some of my previous posts on this subject were simply because I was hijacking another thread. Apparently this is coming across as a personal attack against some of your favorite parks. So let me restate what I'd like to achieve:

I would like to talk about what constitutes a "Theme Park" as opposed to an "Amusement Park." How much "theme" can give you the designation? To me (and this is only my opinion), the theme has to feel like the top design priority, and not the showing off of the extreme rides. That's not to say that the rides cannot be visible, just that they should be second in priority to the theming.

Due to my midwest location, I don't get the chance to visit a great variety of parks (maybe 1-3 a year, and it's usually the same ones). Thus, I'm also trying to find more highly themed immersive parks like Silver Dollar City or the Disney parks. Why do I want to differentiate? Because the SF/CF parks are easy to find. The Disney/Universal/Busch types are a little more rare.

^I understand where you're coming from, but I think you chose the wrong park to make your initial point. IOA is one of the most immersive parks out there. Starting with one of the Busch parks would've, perhaps, been best (Girffon is a good example of what you're talking about).

Not everybody is going to agree with you. But I will caution everyone in this thread to be respectful in their comments (even though I don't think it's gotten out of hand yet).

I think the main reason you are seeing negativity in this thread is that you once again included Islands of Adventure as the basis of your argument. To me, it just seemed like you wanted to prove that you were right from the Harry Potter thread, so you started a whole different thread so you can argue about it some more.

Now, having read your opening points, (which I didn't at first because I stopped reading as soon as I saw Islands of Adventure used) I can buy into what you are saying a little bit. But, like Brent (downunder) said, it is all about how you specifically define the differences between theme park and amusement park. To me, what matters is if I can go to this park and feel like I am getting my money's worth. If I can completely submerse myself in the environment of a park, and forget all about the problems of the real world, than I can forgive a park if it only qualifies being 85% of someone's definition of a theme park.

As for Islands of Adventure, a lot of previous posters have done a great job defending the park, so there is no need for me to as well. I guess you just need to have been to the park before you can get it. Each park has different levels of theming, with Disney being the leader, and only a few have the resources to execute a theme to its fullest. The most important thing to the development of a park, is will the design bring people through the turnstiles? When you are smack dab in the middle of Disney country, sometimes you need to show off some coaster skyline to entice people to buy a ticket. This is a business after all.

Theme parks are basically upgraded amusement parks, for example, Holiday World is a perfect example of a basic theme park. It WAS truly the world's first theme park after all . The entire park is divided into sections which have a specific theme (holidays). The rides fit in with the surroundings (Raven and Legend are Halloween themed coasters in the Halloween section, Voyage and Pilgrim's Plunge are Thanksgiving-themed rides in the Thanksgiving section). The theming is FAR from the level of theming that Disney/Universal parks have, but all the rides/attractions suit the area they are placed in. Even though the rides are priority, there is still a basic theme overall.

The Six Flags parks are borderline theme parks/amusement parks. Most SF parks started as theme parks, but over time, the theme still remained, but there was more focus on the rides/attractions then the theme. Now more recently, there has been a bit more focus on the theme with the ride upgrades, the Dark Knight coasters, Terminator, and Buccaneer Battle.

CF is a chain of amusement parks. There is some theme (Maverick, Renegade, Prowler) but there is a much larger focus on concrete, trash cans, and coasters than SF has. They plop coasters where there is any space with disregard to the theme of the area (if the theming is still there).

World class theming will enhance ANY ride regardless of being world-class or not. Space Mountain without the dome is merely a Whizzer-sized coaster. Being in the dark adds to the thrill and the theming provides a basic storyline to the ride. The coaster itself remains popular after all these years because...

1. Its a family coaster that children, teens, and adults can enjoy.

2. Nostalgia factor - Space is often considered the "first big coaster" for many.

3. Its the biggest ride at MK. If there were a bigger ride there, that one would be more popular.

4. Its dark so it provides a great way to cool off.

5. Space Mountain is practically the first thing you see when riding to MK. The structure is very big and very imposing. The structure adds to the anticipation making the coaster inside seem bigger than it really is.

I think the main reason you are seeing negativity in this thread is that you once again included Islands of Adventure as the basis of your argument. To me, it just seemed like you wanted to prove that you were right from the Harry Potter thread, so you started a whole different thread so you can argue about it some more.

 

Now, having read your opening points, (which I didn't at first because I stopped reading as soon as I saw Islands of Adventure used) I can buy into what you are saying a little bit. But, like Brent (downunder) said, it is all about how you specifically define the differences between theme park and amusement park. To me, what matters is if I can go to this park and feel like I am getting my money's worth. If I can completely submerse myself in the environment of a park, and forget all about the problems of the real world, than I can forgive a park if it only qualifies being 85% of someone's definition of a theme park.

 

As for Islands of Adventure, a lot of previous posters have done a great job defending the park, so there is no need for me to as well. I guess you just need to have been to the park before you can get it. Each park has different levels of theming, with Disney being the leader, and only a few have the resources to execute a theme to its fullest. The most important thing to the development of a park, is will the design bring people through the turnstiles? When you are smack dab in the middle of Disney country, sometimes you need to show off some coaster skyline to entice people to buy a ticket. This is a business after all.

I will have to admit my lack of experience with a lot of parks. I think I can only boast about 12 (6 Disney, 2 Universal, Worlds of Fun, Silver Dollar City, Elitch Gardens (while it was Six Flags), and Jazzland (before it became Six Flags New Orleans). I've also been in that mini-park in the Mall of America, but I don't really count that (except on my coaster count).

Both Florida and Southern California are interesting microcosms in regards to theme parks. Disney sort of set the trend in each case, and others are left trying to figure out how to capitalize and compete with the mouse. Some of the finest thrill rides on the planet can be found there within a short drive of Mickey, as well as some of the best shows and atmospheres. Some parks decide to go head to head with Disney, and I think Universal has done a fine job. 9 times out of 10, I would prefer Universal Studios (on either coast) to Disney's Hollywood Studios.

Other parks decide to flank the tourists and come at their dollars from another angle, something Disney didn't really offer- thrill rides. So all of a sudden we have 100-mph Superman: The Escape at Magic Mountain in Cali. Busch and Seaworld in Florida all have 60+ mph offerings, with drops that dwarf the "Mountains" that the Mouse built. In fact, these more thrilling attractions were enough to get Mickey's attention, and soon Disney was adding Expedition Everest, Rockin' Roller Coaster, and California Screamin to compete.

I'd like to set forward the theory that if you want to compete with Disney (which is arguably the ultimate in theme-based amusement parks), there are two mindsets: Attack head-on with world class theming, which is as good or better than Walt's ideas; or go after the bread and butter thrill crowd (which Disney often leaves cold) by building rides that blow the tamer Disney rides out of the water.

This is not to say that it is impossible to build an exciting thrill ride within the confines of world class theming (Revenge of the Mummy is a fantastic example of this), nor that one cannot do excellent theming in a park whose primary focus is to drop you, roll you, flip you over upside down, and make you want to do it again. I'm simply postulating that a cohesive park often has one primary mindset- theme or thrill- and that while the other is often present, it is usually secondary.

For what it's worth, it's incredibly difficult to decide on an itinerary in California or Florida. My wife doesn't really care for "extreme" rides. Heck, prior to our first trip together to Orlando, she had never even ridden a roller coaster (Mummy was her first, and Rockin Roller Coaster was her second- what an introduction). So we seek out parks that offer what we both love: Exciting rides for me, immersive atmosphere for her. I then get to enjoy the atmosphere while she (generally) enjoys the rides.

Of course, we'll both cater exclusively to what the other wants sometimes- we'll do museums and zoos for her atmosphere, and we'll go to Worlds of Fun and such for my thrills- but the park that can give both will get us as return customers. Thus, we bypassed the SeaWorlds and the Legolands and the Six Flags and went to the Disneys and the Universals. Anything with coasters on the skyline was pretty generally eliminated as there was too much to do and see. We also bypassed the museums and zoos for the most part (although the San Diego Zoo was pretty amazing, even for a guy that doesn't care for zoos). I don't doubt that we missed out on a lot of great stuff, but you can only fit so much in, you know? One of these days, I'll convince her to do a tour of several parks in the summer (we should really try to tag along on one of these TPR tours). I'd probably have to repay her by going to art galleries and botanical gardens, but hey, it'd be worth it.

Of course, we'll both cater exclusively to what the other wants sometimes- we'll do museums and zoos for her atmosphere, and we'll go to Worlds of Fun and such for my thrills- but the park that can give both will get us as return customers. Thus, we bypassed the SeaWorlds and the Legolands and the Six Flags and went to the Disneys and the Universals. Anything with coasters on the skyline was pretty generally eliminated as there was too much to do and see. We also bypassed the museums and zoos for the most part (although the San Diego Zoo was pretty amazing, even for a guy that doesn't care for zoos). I don't doubt that we missed out on a lot of great stuff, but you can only fit so much in, you know? One of these days, I'll convince her to do a tour of several parks in the summer (we should really try to tag along on one of these TPR tours). I'd probably have to repay her by going to art galleries and botanical gardens, but hey, it'd be worth it.

In that case, you might want to check out Busch Gardens Williamsburg. Not only do you get an excellent theme park (and water park), but there's all the historical offerings of Colonial Williamsburg, Jamestown, and Yorktown. The Mariners Museum in Newport News is worth a visit, as is the Chrysler Museum of Art in Norfolk.

^^ I was getting the impression that you were less of a roller coaster coaster fan, and more of a general rides/attractions fan. Your compromise with your wife helps me understand where you are coming from more. It sounds like you are in a more unique position than most of us enthusiasts. When I approach a park and see the coasters and other rides towering off in the distance, I get a burst of adrenaline. That is what draws me in. In your case, it sounds like you have to avoid parks with the visible coaster skylines because your wife does not care for these type of rides.

I just call them all either "parks," or their name.