In
my ongoing quest to figure out just what makes the themes of theme
parks tick, I've started to think that maybe the specificity
of a given theme plays a big role in how well it's received. Is it
better for a themed area to mimic a defined time and place, with
accurate details, or does it work better when it plays things
loosey-goosey?
Ultimately
the answer is probably highly subjective. Some people need a high
degree of verisimilitude to feel immersed in the fictional world of a
theme park, while others are fine with a rough interpretation that
engages their imagination to fill the gaps. Heck with it...some
settings work better
with a high degree of verisimilitude, while others work better rough.
Let's call the two approaches niche
and pastiche—the
perfect specific fit vs. the patchwork. Plus they rhyme with each
other!
Both approaches are very much in evidence in the Disneyland Resort.
The ultimate niche area is surely Cars Land, which mimics its source
material basically to perfection. Shall I post the two images again?
I'm gonna post the two images again.
Meanwhile, the best example of pastiche is probably Frontierland,*
which combines elements as disparate as a Mississippi River
paddleboat, a saloon decorated with Texas longhorn racks, a Mexican
town square, and a Gold Rush mining operation, yet makes it work
because it all fits within the continuum of the “Old West” as
understood by guests. Historical accuracy is not the point;
Disneyland is not Colonial Williamsburg. The object is to get across
a general idea, and Frontierland succeeds very well—none of its
attractions feel like they don't belong to the overall area theme,
which is more than you can say for some themed lands.






