www.themeparkinsider.com: The "IP vs. original theme" debate has been raging for years within the theme park fan community and probably won't fade anytime soon. Part of what can make this debate so heated is that individual parks open major new attractions so infrequently. That means the "original theme vs. IP" debate is driven more by hypothetical arguments than a steady stream of new attractions of both types that fans can judge, side-by-side.
4 comments:
The interesting thing about this entire IP vs. Original debate is that IP houses is that often the haunted houses that use IP (or Intellectual Property) do not have the correct rights to use them commercially, and if they were to try to get those rights would mostly likely be unable to afford to use them in the first place. In my un degrade a friend of mine owned and operated his own haunted house. He would spend the whole year developing, collecting and building ideas and parts of his house as much of their yearly income came from the succeed of their haunted house during the one month of the year it ran. He always said that his original ideas were often the ones that stuck with people the most in the end. I think that an original idea executed well is far better than relying on the notability of an IP idea to be successful and carry you through.
First off, at no point in this article is “IP” defined. Someone reading this might not know what it means. I assumed it meant Intellectual Property but still decided to do a little research to make sure it wasn’t some theme park lingo I am unfamiliar with. The context that the term “IP” is being used in is slightly confusing because it is being contrasted with original themes, which in many contexts are the same thing. Because of this confusion, it is really hard for me to understand what this article is talking about in the first place. Using my best analytical skills I think I can determine that the article is contrasting franchise characters and themes with classic holiday themes. Do you have a scary Jurassic Park haunted house, or one with generic ghosts and jack-o-lanterns. My answer is a good combo, so I guess that isn’t helpful. But as the author points out, keep it to one franchise per attraction. Unless of course, the point is to mix them...
Is it really a great theme park IP debate?
Ultimately, as the author states, "it all depends on what you do with it." Of course it is fantastic to have original stories. It's new and exciting and can make it easier on the designers to keep consistent theming through each maze. You've created an experience that people can only get at your event, which makes it very appealing for both tourists and locals. On the other hand, IP attractions bring guests into a world they have only ever seen onscreen. They are able to see, hear, touch, smell, and walk through the things of their nightmares, which (to some people) is extremely appealing. These guests get to experience the thrill of recognizing the faces they see, and feel the suspense when they know what is coming next. When the designers and storytellers start jamming too many things into each maze (such as in American Horror Story, which tried to put three seasons in one space...), that is an overwhelming and dissatisfying choice. Just as if there were an original maze that fell short, and did not have strong theming or a strong story. It all comes back to "it depends on what you do with it." You can do a great job with an IP and a terrible job with an original story, and the reverse. It doesn't need to be a debate.
Having worked at Universal Studios Orlando for almost five years I have seen several years of Horror Nights pass through the park. In fact, my first job out of high school was as Bloody Mary in that year's signature house by the same name. I watched the park shift from original ideas to IP over the next six years and I have to say I agree for the most part with the article that it can depend "on what you do with it." However, in the years when a central theme was the focus of the park instead of the latest and most popular IP, it seemed that the designers of the houses enjoyed more freedom in taking a park guest on a journey rather than trying to regurgitate parts of the IP in a way that audiences related to. The latter could sometimes be woven into a good house with a great walk through (the Cabin in the Woods house was one of the best houses I had ever seen there), but often it can come off as pandering and forced if not crafted correctly.
Post a Comment