Imagineering Theory: Who is It For?

This question came up in the comments on my Niche Vs. Pastiche post, and I decided it deserved a post of its own. Who, when you get right down to it, is the target audience for Disneyland and other Disney theme parks? Is it the same for all of them? Should it be the same?

And of course, embedded in the is of the question is an implicit ought: Whom should the Imagineers attempt to court with their projects?

I suspect that for most people, the answer is so obvious that asking the question is a waste of time: Disneyland is for children. It's awash in cartoon characters, therefore it is designed for the pre-pubescent and that's all it needs to be. Sure, it's advertised as a family destination, but that's because kids can't go anywhere without their parents anyway.* The ones they need to worry about impressing are the rugrats.

As far as Disney is concerned, this is an awesome answer, because kids are easy to impress. To a child, a character meet-and-greet (read: a dressed stage staffed by low-wage employees) is just as enthralling an attraction as a state-of-the-art, high-maintenance thrill ride. Children are (usually) less critical of cheap design—they are especially susceptible to Space Mountain and Mickey Mouse thinking. And even the most discerning child hasn't been around long enough to notice if a theme park has embarked on a gradual downward slide.

So yeah...if Disney is primarily targeting the ten-and-unders with its theme parks, with older guests as a pleasant side effect, then that would explain a lot...

...but...

...it wouldn't explain everything.

It wouldn't explain why they do keep building state-of-the-art, high-maintenance thrill rides, and tying them in to IPs that—while they certainly have their adherents with single-digit ages—appeal most strongly to teens and adults. The stereotypical Star Wars geek is a thirtysomething, half the Avengers are pushing middle age, and even Pixar has done a lot to boost the reputation of theatrical animation with adults—more than Disney's in-house animation department.

So maybe the target audience isn't children per se, but fans of Disney and Disney-owned movies. This is an easy conclusion to reach, given how much of the recent development across the parks** has focused on cross-promotion with prominent films. From Disney's POV, this must be almost as good as shooting for the kid market—it's a demographic self-selected to be favorably disposed to material that no other theme park can offer.***

It can't be very much fun for Imagineering, however. When adapting a movie into a ride as straightforwardly as is the typical current practice, quite a lot of the creative work has already been done. The character designs already exist, the major story beats are often carved in stone, and you can only add your personal stamp to the extent that it doesn't clash with the Prime Directive: Make the ride just like the movie. So when they do get to work on a more original project, the temptation to throw in little inside jokes, references to other rides, and hints to worldbuilding you've been keeping on the backburner against the day they finally approve the budget you deserve, must be enormous. And as a bonus, when guests who are familiar with the parks notice these details, it makes their day.

Which brings me to the third, rarest, most personally compelling, and most dangerous answer to the question: Disney theme parks are, or should be, for...Disney theme park fans. People like me and other theme park bloggers and presumably most of our readers. People like the Imagineers themselves. People who get it.

We would sure like this to be true, wouldn't we? We'd love to believe that we are the ones who deserve Disney theme parks, that all the people who are just here for Space Mountain and Mickey Mouse are unworthy and...karma will make sure they get theirs? Or something? Dunno why we're so eager to believe that we're the ones the parks should “really” be for when that manifestly is not the direction the company is going to take in the foreseeable future. And I wasn't kidding when I called it a dangerous answer. Inside jokes can be extremely rewarding for those who get them, but they can also be a form of gatekeeping—of rescinding the welcome for anyone who doesn't get them. No entertainment product can afford to become too narrowly focused on its existing fans, and in this case especially, there aren't enough of us to be viable as the sole or even the main target.

So here's a radical proposal for you: Disneyland is for everyone. It should have things to offer everyone. Cuddly characters for the children, thrill rides for the teens, relaxing shows for the seniors. It should have carefully designed details for the sharp-eyed and obvious wonders for everyone else. It should have inside jokes to reward long-term, attentive fans, but not so many that others start to feel locked out. It should revel in Disney's films without being solely focused on them. It should have enough to do that people can spend a few days without getting bored, but be easy to sort through so that people with less time can prioritize.

Is that too much to ask? I don't think so.

* And because the higher-ups prefer vacationers over day-trippers. Good luck with that.

** i.e. basically all of it

*** Well...the Marvel stuff can get a little complicated.