SteveJ

The more that is revealed about this project the more soul-suckingly mediocre it becomes. If it were included in the ticket I'd gladly give it a try with an open mind, but I can't even do that. Not going to play Merlin's brainwashing game by paying extra for something I've done many times before anyway.

The Dungeon "brand" has been watered down year on year until it's become just another easy to reproduce tourist trap. You could have the same kind of horror/humour experience far better for less price elsewhere. This was the last thing the park needed.

The more that is revealed about this project the more soul-suckingly mediocre it becomes. If it were included in the ticket I'd gladly give it a try with an open mind, but I can't even do that. Not going to play Merlin's brainwashing game by paying extra for something I've done many times before anyway.

The Dungeon "brand" has been watered down year on year until it's become just another easy to reproduce tourist trap. You could have the same kind of horror/humour experience far better for less price elsewhere. This was the last thing the park needed.

Great post. Although this point about making sure people turn up, it depends on what part of creating entertainment you mean I suppose.

I learnt a lot from designers of well-known attractions who spoke about their experiences creating rides in the UK. These are people who spend over a year on projects, it becomes they're daily life. But  they don't think 'we've bothered to spend so long on this that we'll use an IP to make sure people turn up'. The only people who think along those lines are the senior board (if its a company the size of Merlin), who have no involvement in attractions other than satisfying shareholders with no-risk growth. However, Merlin acted like this even before they were a public company.

It's absolutely understandable that a business will want assured return when it spends millions of pounds. But there are so many great strategies to ensure a good idea with the right potential becomes a successful attraction, without just buying the popularity of an existing IP.

I've also been involved in building small attractions and events (as part of wider teams, I wouldnt claim credit), but plenty of people turned up and enjoyed what we'd made regardless of no IP.  I found the popularity of the event was based on past reputation, growing big success over the years. These were attractions that took months of hard work to create, but made a lot of money and were entertaining. To be honest, people's responses were a far cry from Thorpe Park's no-budget IP Fright Nights events of recent times.

It's always very interesting to see what people react to and what they don't, and see how reputations build over certain attractions we made. Where I thought mistakes had been made, sure enough guests reacted poorer. Or where a great idea just hadn't been realised properly, the word spread it wasn't so good. I find the same goes for most attractions if you look in enough places and hear/see their reactions first hand.

I guess what I'm getting at is, people do turn up in big numbers for good entertainment, and they do still react badly to bad entertainment or missed opportunity. It just takes time and effort and word of mouth over repeat years to grow an event into a big success.  So far more worth the effort of creating good entertainment to accumulate success.

Some original attractions have lasted decades and the public love them, because they were entertaining and grew word of mouth. While most cheapo IP attractions in this country have lasted 5 years max and died a quick death.

Also I think fairytales and well-known themes, like 'space', 'haunted', 'egyptian', etc, are a great way to attract guests. You can use that as the hook to attract guests and put your own spin on it from there. It's different from IPs, because no brand deal is involved and you're still basing your business on the entertainment of guests. Original concepts can still be simple and work well.

They're not responding to a natural change. They are constructing a change to suit their business model best, or at least following the commercialism started by other entertainment giants. It's the McDonalds 'clone and conquer' model that has been around for decades, only now it's happening to theme parks outside of Disney.

Merlin and others have systematically changed the theme park industry to be what suits their business model best. This includes running a monopoly in the UK, so that they can squeezing people's salaries, strip out value for money, charge higher, and give unfair contracts to attraction industry contractors who have few other businesses to work for in the UK.

All I "liked the theme park industry to be" is entertaining and something unique, not just a commercial extension of pre-existing franchises and a highly marketed tourist trap machine. This is exactly the same as how I feel about the movie industry and music industry today, the only difference with those being that there is far more selection to chose from and great music/movies can still be made on low-medium budgets (even of kinds I don't have a taste for, it doesn't matter, as long as they can still be made). But you can't make a theme park on a budget smaller than several million.

In their quest for massive growth in the shortest time possible, the only thing that suits Merlin's model is growing a quota of IPs. Then pumping huge amounts into marketing manipulation, to get people to pay more for less and go for brand over value. That's really all there is behind their decisions.

It's a negative on the whole industry, not just my personal preference. You say all parks are adapting towards this, but many hugely successful parks around the world show the enormous benefits of going for long-term value than short term fads.

Take a look at one of the most successful 'new' franchises in the last 25 years, Pirates of the Caribbean. The original movie was an idea that people were trying to get off the ground for years, but Disney actively tried to stop it being made, citing market research "the public don't like pirate movies" because they had some previous adventure movie flops. When the board at Disney were persuaded to fund it (which included tieing it in with the ride), they tried to shut down production a couple times and even suggesting firing Johnny Depp because his character was 'too strange'.

Of course, when the movie got made, everyone loved it because it was great fun and unexpected. What about that market research that said it would be a huge failure? The moment it became a success, it was 'well done' to the board that was determined to stop it getting made. The next thing you know, it gets turned into another never-ending franchise until it too has run out of steam. If the original movie was a rare case of an original idea slipping through the net, imagine how many other potential successes were cancelled?
 
The reason these don't get made by big companies is because, like all good ideas, it carries a degree of risk. Inflated business at the level Merlin has grown to requires ALL risk to be removed. IPs have little to do with trying to entertain people more, more to do with this no-risk, short term growth. I'm not against good business, I want the whole UK industry to make good business (which it certainly isn't doing with Merlin's dominance), but taking healthy risk is a fundamental part of good business.

Also, the main thing that working in UK attractions over the years and visiting more parks abroad has shown me, it's that people still do respond the same to good entertainment as they did when I was young, they don't actively ask for it, but give them a surprise or pull off a good idea well and they do enjoy really it. This is worth so much more than a patchwork park of IPs, which they will be drawn to in bigger numbers in a shorter space of time, but ultimately isn't sustainable and is just part of the franchise game.

Great post. Although this point about making sure people turn up, it depends on what part of creating entertainment you mean I suppose.

I learnt a lot from designers of well-known attractions who spoke about their experiences creating rides in the UK. These are people who spend over a year on projects, it becomes they're daily life. But  they don't think 'we've bothered to spend so long on this that we'll use an IP to make sure people turn up'. The only people who think along those lines are the senior board (if its a company the size of Merlin), who have no involvement in attractions other than satisfying shareholders with no-risk growth. However, Merlin acted like this even before they were a public company.

It's absolutely understandable that a business will want assured return when it spends millions of pounds. But there are so many great strategies to ensure a good idea with the right potential becomes a successful attraction, without just buying the popularity of an existing IP.

I've also been involved in building small attractions and events (as part of wider teams, I wouldnt claim credit), but plenty of people turned up and enjoyed what we'd made regardless of no IP.  I found the popularity of the event was based on past reputation, growing big success over the years. These were attractions that took months of hard work to create, but made a lot of money and were entertaining. To be honest, people's responses were a far cry from Thorpe Park's no-budget IP Fright Nights events of recent times.

It's always very interesting to see what people react to and what they don't, and see how reputations build over certain attractions we made. Where I thought mistakes had been made, sure enough guests reacted poorer. Or where a great idea just hadn't been realised properly, the word spread it wasn't so good. I find the same goes for most attractions if you look in enough places and hear/see their reactions first hand.

I guess what I'm getting at is, people do turn up in big numbers for good entertainment, and they do still react badly to bad entertainment or missed opportunity. It just takes time and effort and word of mouth over repeat years to grow an event into a big success.  So far more worth the effort of creating good entertainment to accumulate success.

Some original attractions have lasted decades and the public love them, because they were entertaining and grew word of mouth. While most cheapo IP attractions in this country have lasted 5 years max and died a quick death.

Also I think fairytales and well-known themes, like 'space', 'haunted', 'egyptian', etc, are a great way to attract guests. You can use that as the hook to attract guests and put your own spin on it from there. It's different from IPs, because no brand deal is involved and you're still basing your business on the entertainment of guests. Original concepts can still be simple and work well.

Successful parks with no or minimal IP :- Efteling, Europa (has some carefully considered and integrated IPs), Toverland, Phantasialand, Hansa Park, Tivoli Gardens, Grona Lund, Lisberg to name a few
 
I have nothing against IPs in theme parks in theory - I mean I love Disney parks which are one giant IP BUT there is a Balance, and I don't think the future is or has to be IP based just in the same way virtual reality isn't becoming the way forward in theme parks either. 
 
IP's work well when they are considered and integrated and carefully chosen - such as Arthur at Europa - I haven't even seen the movie its based off - yet it's one of my all time favourite rides - because the IP is so visually strong, and had huge scope for immersion. 
 
I personally feel Merlin are taking many missteps because they are concentrating on throw-away IPs, with everything done from a marketing perspective as apposed to a design perspective, nothings done for the long-haul.
They are also letting old areas and rides rot, with minimal spending to maintain the rest of the parks to create a Value WHOLE experience for its guests, they are constantly removing value as apposed to adding to it (theming, detail, quality signage, planting etc etc). 
 
Also where has the distinct themed 'lands' concept gone? - Gruffalo in 'Transalvania' (dark forest I know, I know) and DBGT next to I'm a celebrity next to Walking dead at Thorpe. Chessington is loosing it's 'ADVENTURE' in its namesake!
 
And I know originality and Imagination isn't dead - because all you have to do is look to Europe, Even Parc Asterix, which is one huge IP Integrates original ideas INTO its IP! I still experience the same sense of magic visiting certain parks that I did as a kid at Chessington in the 90's, it really has nothing to do with age! That's what I feel is lost - any sense of magic at Merlin parks. 
 
Theme parks used to be places to Excite and inspire the imagination - not have it spelled out for you in very generic, Homogenised ways, they were there to be an alternative to television and media - not an extension of them! 
 
However at the end of the day I can UNDERSTAND Merlin, because they are a different type of business to say Hansa park which is Family owned. Merlin is a money making machine I get that, however I can state how disappointed I am with Merlins product, and still believe they would still thrive if they where run under differing management perspectives with a more design and quality based ethos! but they have their ethos that must be working for them ££ wise so.........
 
 
                                                                           
 

Analysts sifted through more than 550,000 customer reviews of around 100 Merlin attractions. They also examined a monitor that tracks average queue times at theme parks.

They found a continued decline in average reviews across Merlin’s Midway Attractions brands, which include the Blackpool Tower and Sea Life Centres.

Merlin also operates Legoland and resort theme parks including Alton Towers, Chessington and Thorpe Park.

UBS raised the alarm six months after it first expressed concern about increasingly negative reviews at the company’s city centre sites.

“We now have greater concerns that this trend could be the result of poor investment and operational decisions, with cost-cutting and a focus on new business development potentially leaving the core profit drivers of Midway under resourced,” the analysts said, as they hung a “sell” sign over the stock.

They have also turned bearish on Legoland. While conceding its strong brand and potential for roll-out in markets such as China, they cited weak like-for-like growth in 2018 and a significant decline in average reviews at Legoland Windsor. Dampening investors’ hopes of a recovery, the note sent Merlin shares down 17¼p, or 5 per cent, to 327¼p.
 
another similar article here:-
https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/212322/merlin-entertainments-skids-lower-as-ubs-cuts-its-rating-target-and-estimates-on-concerns-over-midway-customer-review-data-212322.html?fbclid=IwAR2H2CX85q7Ibz-JiHGDh0b_kKiFG1NICaVsjTuHhVLub4vPW3h6I9e4MNA

relevant too:-
 
 
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/merlin-dips-amid-concern-it-could-be-losing-its-spell-pggwtqk5j

They're not responding to a natural change. They are constructing a change to suit their business model best, or at least following the commercialism started by other entertainment giants. It's the McDonalds 'clone and conquer' model that has been around for decades, only now it's happening to theme parks outside of Disney.

Merlin and others have systematically changed the theme park industry to be what suits their business model best. This includes running a monopoly in the UK, so that they can squeezing people's salaries, strip out value for money, charge higher, and give unfair contracts to attraction industry contractors who have few other businesses to work for in the UK.

All I "liked the theme park industry to be" is entertaining and something unique, not just a commercial extension of pre-existing franchises and a highly marketed tourist trap machine. This is exactly the same as how I feel about the movie industry and music industry today, the only difference with those being that there is far more selection to chose from and great music/movies can still be made on low-medium budgets (even of kinds I don't have a taste for, it doesn't matter, as long as they can still be made). But you can't make a theme park on a budget smaller than several million.

In their quest for massive growth in the shortest time possible, the only thing that suits Merlin's model is growing a quota of IPs. Then pumping huge amounts into marketing manipulation, to get people to pay more for less and go for brand over value. That's really all there is behind their decisions.

It's a negative on the whole industry, not just my personal preference. You say all parks are adapting towards this, but many hugely successful parks around the world show the enormous benefits of going for long-term value than short term fads.

Take a look at one of the most successful 'new' franchises in the last 25 years, Pirates of the Caribbean. The original movie was an idea that people were trying to get off the ground for years, but Disney actively tried to stop it being made, citing market research "the public don't like pirate movies" because they had some previous adventure movie flops. When the board at Disney were persuaded to fund it (which included tieing it in with the ride), they tried to shut down production a couple times and even suggesting firing Johnny Depp because his character was 'too strange'.

Of course, when the movie got made, everyone loved it because it was great fun and unexpected. What about that market research that said it would be a huge failure? The moment it became a success, it was 'well done' to the board that was determined to stop it getting made. The next thing you know, it gets turned into another never-ending franchise until it too has run out of steam. If the original movie was a rare case of an original idea slipping through the net, imagine how many other potential successes were cancelled?
 
The reason these don't get made by big companies is because, like all good ideas, it carries a degree of risk. Inflated business at the level Merlin has grown to requires ALL risk to be removed. IPs have little to do with trying to entertain people more, more to do with this no-risk, short term growth. I'm not against good business, I want the whole UK industry to make good business (which it certainly isn't doing with Merlin's dominance), but taking healthy risk is a fundamental part of good business.

Also, the main thing that working in UK attractions over the years and visiting more parks abroad has shown me, it's that people still do respond the same to good entertainment as they did when I was young, they don't actively ask for it, but give them a surprise or pull off a good idea well and they do enjoy really it. This is worth so much more than a patchwork park of IPs, which they will be drawn to in bigger numbers in a shorter space of time, but ultimately isn't sustainable and is just part of the franchise game.

"Merlin still about originality" With respect, this couldnt be further from Merlin's real intentions and procedures. Sorry for the looong post!

Merlin started off buying already-successful attractions and turning them into formualted  'IPs' (The Dungeons brand, the Sea Life brand, the 'Eye' brand, etc) so that they could be cheaply copied all over the world. So it makes sense that now they are trying to seek other brands too. They now stipulate dark rides have IPs and that they grow their "IP portfolio" every year. Merlin – the parent company, not their parks (much to Merlin's annoyance) – were never about originality or entertainment.
Nick Varney has never stopped talking about brands and IPs in this way since Merlin began. So not the death of originality, but we've already a huge decline in creativity, entertainment and value for money. In his own words, "IPs are the future of theme parks", and if you don't think so, you're wrong, he says. Therefore, so long as this is belived, I do see the death of (most) originality at Merlin owned parks.
 
When you licence an IP, you are bound to design only within the parameters given by those who own the IP. It's a fundamentally different process to creating an attraction for the sake of entertainment business. You're no longer creating business out of how good your entertainment offering is. Instead you're making a deal – I'll use your already successful 'brand' to guarantee my own success regardless of what I make, while I pay you money for it.

So the entertainment is completely secondary, and that's what the entertainment industry is understandably irked by.

It's dark rides that suffer the most from this model, the (completely wrong) assumption that any dark ride 'WILL fail' if it doesn't have an IP, based completely on assumption by people who have no experience with entertaining people whatsoever. We already have a public who are more easily beguiled by massive global marketing, which isn't actually interested in entertaining people at all.

Whenever parks appear in conversation with people I chat to, it's an expectation that theme parks are just based off movies and TV shows, that they're just an extension of 'franchises'. This wasn't the case when I was young and the families I used to visit parks with. There are always exceptions, but honestly I don't like the expectation that kids should just respond to the biggest brands they see on TV, rather than be surprised and imaginative.

Also, there's no identity if a park like Chessington becomes a patchwork of fad IPs and declined (once fantastic) old rides. It just becomes a competition of whose brands are bigger, which is why Legoland Windsor wins, despite being currently the worst value family park in the UK.

I'm only grateful that so far it's turned out alright, with IPs that suit. Gruffalo is charming for a British family park, not like the other IPs that were considered for it...  This is the work of the people having to deal with the stipulation to use IPs, in finding the least-worst option, or designing the most creative solution around the limitations. Cbeebies Land is the cheapest, nastiest, falling-apart IP refurb I have ever known in a UK park. But even then, the designers tried their best with what they got.

Personally I like the look of the new Hocus Pocus plans so far. It seems like this IP is less restricting to design than usual, so really it could be any walkaround but just has the Gruffalo name and characters slapped on top. But again, we almost got a different IP refurb this year, which thankfully was persuaded against.

Tiger Rock had a cool station overlay and new drop, but the rest was the last thing the ride needed. It had been in a shocking state for years, but no money was allowed to be granted until the "zoo brand" quota could be ticked. This isn't how you properly develop a great zoo or a great park. And if not zoo theme, then it must have an IP! Nothing else will get approved.

Scorpion Express was done with a tiny budget and is not nearly as entertaining as the original ride. A tarmac queue, dead scorpions, a standard coaster on flat ground, a cool theme but much less of it than before. The Swarm is drab and a very stingy realisation of what could have been a great area. I don't think any one is actually that entertained by the theme, but enthusiasts like it because it had that enthusiast appeal, so fair enough to them. The ambulance on its nose is the best moment, something memorable and not just a scrap vehicle parked on a pavement with some cheap water effects.

Wicker Man was great, very entertaining, surprising and made for a great themed coaster. Fantastic! Everyone loves it and the public really get into it with the build-up to the ride. A great turn for the better. But then Merlin immediately hand the park "Alton Towers Dungeons" the next year.

"Merlin still about originality" With respect, this couldnt be further from Merlin's real intentions and procedures. Sorry for the looong post!

Merlin started off buying already-successful attractions and turning them into formualted  'IPs' (The Dungeons brand, the Sea Life brand, the 'Eye' brand, etc) so that they could be cheaply copied all over the world. So it makes sense that now they are trying to seek other brands too. They now stipulate dark rides have IPs and that they grow their "IP portfolio" every year. Merlin – the parent company, not their parks (much to Merlin's annoyance) – were never about originality or entertainment.
Nick Varney has never stopped talking about brands and IPs in this way since Merlin began. So not the death of originality, but we've already a huge decline in creativity, entertainment and value for money. In his own words, "IPs are the future of theme parks", and if you don't think so, you're wrong, he says. Therefore, so long as this is belived, I do see the death of (most) originality at Merlin owned parks.
 
When you licence an IP, you are bound to design only within the parameters given by those who own the IP. It's a fundamentally different process to creating an attraction for the sake of entertainment business. You're no longer creating business out of how good your entertainment offering is. Instead you're making a deal – I'll use your already successful 'brand' to guarantee my own success regardless of what I make, while I pay you money for it.

So the entertainment is completely secondary, and that's what the entertainment industry is understandably irked by.

It's dark rides that suffer the most from this model, the (completely wrong) assumption that any dark ride 'WILL fail' if it doesn't have an IP, based completely on assumption by people who have no experience with entertaining people whatsoever. We already have a public who are more easily beguiled by massive global marketing, which isn't actually interested in entertaining people at all.

Whenever parks appear in conversation with people I chat to, it's an expectation that theme parks are just based off movies and TV shows, that they're just an extension of 'franchises'. This wasn't the case when I was young and the families I used to visit parks with. There are always exceptions, but honestly I don't like the expectation that kids should just respond to the biggest brands they see on TV, rather than be surprised and imaginative.

Also, there's no identity if a park like Chessington becomes a patchwork of fad IPs and declined (once fantastic) old rides. It just becomes a competition of whose brands are bigger, which is why Legoland Windsor wins, despite being currently the worst value family park in the UK.

I'm only grateful that so far it's turned out alright, with IPs that suit. Gruffalo is charming for a British family park, not like the other IPs that were considered for it...  This is the work of the people having to deal with the stipulation to use IPs, in finding the least-worst option, or designing the most creative solution around the limitations. Cbeebies Land is the cheapest, nastiest, falling-apart IP refurb I have ever known in a UK park. But even then, the designers tried their best with what they got.

Personally I like the look of the new Hocus Pocus plans so far. It seems like this IP is less restricting to design than usual, so really it could be any walkaround but just has the Gruffalo name and characters slapped on top. But again, we almost got a different IP refurb this year, which thankfully was persuaded against.

Tiger Rock had a cool station overlay and new drop, but the rest was the last thing the ride needed. It had been in a shocking state for years, but no money was allowed to be granted until the "zoo brand" quota could be ticked. This isn't how you properly develop a great zoo or a great park. And if not zoo theme, then it must have an IP! Nothing else will get approved.

Scorpion Express was done with a tiny budget and is not nearly as entertaining as the original ride. A tarmac queue, dead scorpions, a standard coaster on flat ground, a cool theme but much less of it than before. The Swarm is drab and a very stingy realisation of what could have been a great area. I don't think any one is actually that entertained by the theme, but enthusiasts like it because it had that enthusiast appeal, so fair enough to them. The ambulance on its nose is the best moment, something memorable and not just a scrap vehicle parked on a pavement with some cheap water effects.

Wicker Man was great, very entertaining, surprising and made for a great themed coaster. Fantastic! Everyone loves it and the public really get into it with the build-up to the ride. A great turn for the better. But then Merlin immediately hand the park "Alton Towers Dungeons" the next year.

"Merlin still about originality" With respect, this couldnt be further from Merlin's real intentions and procedures. Sorry for the looong post!

Merlin started off buying already-successful attractions and turning them into formualted  'IPs' (The Dungeons brand, the Sea Life brand, the 'Eye' brand, etc) so that they could be cheaply copied all over the world. So it makes sense that now they are trying to seek other brands too. They now stipulate dark rides have IPs and that they grow their "IP portfolio" every year. Merlin – the parent company, not their parks (much to Merlin's annoyance) – were never about originality or entertainment.
Nick Varney has never stopped talking about brands and IPs in this way since Merlin began. So not the death of originality, but we've already a huge decline in creativity, entertainment and value for money. In his own words, "IPs are the future of theme parks", and if you don't think so, you're wrong, he says. Therefore, so long as this is belived, I do see the death of (most) originality at Merlin owned parks.
 
When you licence an IP, you are bound to design only within the parameters given by those who own the IP. It's a fundamentally different process to creating an attraction for the sake of entertainment business. You're no longer creating business out of how good your entertainment offering is. Instead you're making a deal – I'll use your already successful 'brand' to guarantee my own success regardless of what I make, while I pay you money for it.

So the entertainment is completely secondary, and that's what the entertainment industry is understandably irked by.

It's dark rides that suffer the most from this model, the (completely wrong) assumption that any dark ride 'WILL fail' if it doesn't have an IP, based completely on assumption by people who have no experience with entertaining people whatsoever. We already have a public who are more easily beguiled by massive global marketing, which isn't actually interested in entertaining people at all.

Whenever parks appear in conversation with people I chat to, it's an expectation that theme parks are just based off movies and TV shows, that they're just an extension of 'franchises'. This wasn't the case when I was young and the families I used to visit parks with. There are always exceptions, but honestly I don't like the expectation that kids should just respond to the biggest brands they see on TV, rather than be surprised and imaginative.

Also, there's no identity if a park like Chessington becomes a patchwork of fad IPs and declined (once fantastic) old rides. It just becomes a competition of whose brands are bigger, which is why Legoland Windsor wins, despite being currently the worst value family park in the UK.

I'm only grateful that so far it's turned out alright, with IPs that suit. Gruffalo is charming for a British family park, not like the other IPs that were considered for it...  This is the work of the people having to deal with the stipulation to use IPs, in finding the least-worst option, or designing the most creative solution around the limitations. Cbeebies Land is the cheapest, nastiest, falling-apart IP refurb I have ever known in a UK park. But even then, the designers tried their best with what they got.

Personally I like the look of the new Hocus Pocus plans so far. It seems like this IP is less restricting to design than usual, so really it could be any walkaround but just has the Gruffalo name and characters slapped on top. But again, we almost got a different IP refurb this year, which thankfully was persuaded against.

Tiger Rock had a cool station overlay and new drop, but the rest was the last thing the ride needed. It had been in a shocking state for years, but no money was allowed to be granted until the "zoo brand" quota could be ticked. This isn't how you properly develop a great zoo or a great park. And if not zoo theme, then it must have an IP! Nothing else will get approved.

Scorpion Express was done with a tiny budget and is not nearly as entertaining as the original ride. A tarmac queue, dead scorpions, a standard coaster on flat ground, a cool theme but much less of it than before. The Swarm is drab and a very stingy realisation of what could have been a great area. I don't think any one is actually that entertained by the theme, but enthusiasts like it because it had that enthusiast appeal, so fair enough to them. The ambulance on its nose is the best moment, something memorable and not just a scrap vehicle parked on a pavement with some cheap water effects.

Wicker Man was great, very entertaining, surprising and made for a great themed coaster. Fantastic! Everyone loves it and the public really get into it with the build-up to the ride. A great turn for the better. But then Merlin immediately hand the park "Alton Towers Dungeons" the next year.

"Merlin still about originality" With respect, this couldnt be further from Merlin's real intentions and procedures. Sorry for the looong post!

Merlin started off buying already-successful attractions and turning them into formualted  'IPs' (The Dungeons brand, the Sea Life brand, the 'Eye' brand, etc) so that they could be cheaply copied all over the world. So it makes sense that now they are trying to seek other brands too. They now stipulate dark rides have IPs and that they grow their "IP portfolio" every year. Merlin – the parent company, not their parks (much to Merlin's annoyance) – were never about originality or entertainment.
Nick Varney has never stopped talking about brands and IPs in this way since Merlin began. So not the death of originality, but we've already a huge decline in creativity, entertainment and value for money. In his own words, "IPs are the future of theme parks", and if you don't think so, you're wrong, he says. Therefore, so long as this is belived, I do see the death of (most) originality at Merlin owned parks.
 
When you licence an IP, you are bound to design only within the parameters given by those who own the IP. It's a fundamentally different process to creating an attraction for the sake of entertainment business. You're no longer creating business out of how good your entertainment offering is. Instead you're making a deal – I'll use your already successful 'brand' to guarantee my own success regardless of what I make, while I pay you money for it.

So the entertainment is completely secondary, and that's what the entertainment industry is understandably irked by.

It's dark rides that suffer the most from this model, the (completely wrong) assumption that any dark ride 'WILL fail' if it doesn't have an IP, based completely on assumption by people who have no experience with entertaining people whatsoever. We already have a public who are more easily beguiled by massive global marketing, which isn't actually interested in entertaining people at all.

Whenever parks appear in conversation with people I chat to, it's an expectation that theme parks are just based off movies and TV shows, that they're just an extension of 'franchises'. This wasn't the case when I was young and the families I used to visit parks with. There are always exceptions, but honestly I don't like the expectation that kids should just respond to the biggest brands they see on TV, rather than be surprised and imaginative.

Also, there's no identity if a park like Chessington becomes a patchwork of fad IPs and declined (once fantastic) old rides. It just becomes a competition of whose brands are bigger, which is why Legoland Windsor wins, despite being currently the worst value family park in the UK.

I'm only grateful that so far it's turned out alright, with IPs that suit. Gruffalo is charming for a British family park, not like the other IPs that were considered for it...  This is the work of the people having to deal with the stipulation to use IPs, in finding the least-worst option, or designing the most creative solution around the limitations. Cbeebies Land is the cheapest, nastiest, falling-apart IP refurb I have ever known in a UK park. But even then, the designers tried their best with what they got.

Personally I like the look of the new Hocus Pocus plans so far. It seems like this IP is less restricting to design than usual, so really it could be any walkaround but just has the Gruffalo name and characters slapped on top. But again, we almost got a different IP refurb this year, which thankfully was persuaded against.

Tiger Rock had a cool station overlay and new drop, but the rest was the last thing the ride needed. It had been in a shocking state for years, but no money was allowed to be granted until the "zoo brand" quota could be ticked. This isn't how you properly develop a great zoo or a great park. And if not zoo theme, then it must have an IP! Nothing else will get approved.

Scorpion Express was done with a tiny budget and is not nearly as entertaining as the original ride. A tarmac queue, dead scorpions, a standard coaster on flat ground, a cool theme but much less of it than before. The Swarm is drab and a very stingy realisation of what could have been a great area. I don't think any one is actually that entertained by the theme, but enthusiasts like it because it had that enthusiast appeal, so fair enough to them. The ambulance on its nose is the best moment, something memorable and not just a scrap vehicle parked on a pavement with some cheap water effects.

Wicker Man was great, very entertaining, surprising and made for a great themed coaster. Fantastic! Everyone loves it and the public really get into it with the build-up to the ride. A great turn for the better. But then Merlin immediately hand the park "Alton Towers Dungeons" the next year.

Think you're getting a very skew impression of enthusiasts online from a relatively small representation, or online exaggerations. Enthusiasts on the whole don't hate theme parks, unless they're very confused and getting themselves wound up. It's because these parks could be fantastic today and so much more than the way Merlin develop/run them.

In the wider picture, I think it's clear that a park made up of a patchwork of IPs and underwhelming attractions will make for a very commercial feeling, mediocre day out. Merlin do it because they don't care about parks long term or even mid term. They just want whatever cheapest option can be used to boost sales that year.

If guests respond better to cheap attractions cloaked by a well-known IP slapped on top, then that only makes a case for the decline of the theme park industry. Been shown over and over again that there's much greater value in originality for parks and guests in the long term.

The Merlin parks are fast becoming quite esoteric in terms of actual entertainment, relying on growing a 'Merlin brand' following with the beguiled public, rather than simply entertaining guests and giving them a good experience.

Europa's IPs you mention are either very self-contained areas (Arthur) that actually live up to the IP, or are very minor attractions. They don't make up sizeable parts of the park or replace classic attractions with IPs at every opportunity.

Also I think in the bigger picture, enthusiasts were glad to see IL Bubbleworks go and had actually been wanting a replacement for years. It was appauling that IL Bubbleworks ever happened to Prof Burp's in the first place. And that thank god Gruffalo was a good ride in the end, if dull for what a family dark ride could be. Room On The Broom will probably be similar.

"Merlin still about originality" With respect, this couldnt be further from Merlin's real intentions and procedures. Sorry for the looong post!

Merlin started off buying already-successful attractions and turning them into formualted  'IPs' (The Dungeons brand, the Sea Life brand, the 'Eye' brand, etc) so that they could be cheaply copied all over the world. So it makes sense that now they are trying to seek other brands too. They now stipulate dark rides have IPs and that they grow their "IP portfolio" every year. Merlin – the parent company, not their parks (much to Merlin's annoyance) – were never about originality or entertainment.
Nick Varney has never stopped talking about brands and IPs in this way since Merlin began. So not the death of originality, but we've already a huge decline in creativity, entertainment and value for money. In his own words, "IPs are the future of theme parks", and if you don't think so, you're wrong, he says. Therefore, so long as this is belived, I do see the death of (most) originality at Merlin owned parks.
 
When you licence an IP, you are bound to design only within the parameters given by those who own the IP. It's a fundamentally different process to creating an attraction for the sake of entertainment business. You're no longer creating business out of how good your entertainment offering is. Instead you're making a deal – I'll use your already successful 'brand' to guarantee my own success regardless of what I make, while I pay you money for it.

So the entertainment is completely secondary, and that's what the entertainment industry is understandably irked by.

It's dark rides that suffer the most from this model, the (completely wrong) assumption that any dark ride 'WILL fail' if it doesn't have an IP, based completely on assumption by people who have no experience with entertaining people whatsoever. We already have a public who are more easily beguiled by massive global marketing, which isn't actually interested in entertaining people at all.

Whenever parks appear in conversation with people I chat to, it's an expectation that theme parks are just based off movies and TV shows, that they're just an extension of 'franchises'. This wasn't the case when I was young and the families I used to visit parks with. There are always exceptions, but honestly I don't like the expectation that kids should just respond to the biggest brands they see on TV, rather than be surprised and imaginative.

Also, there's no identity if a park like Chessington becomes a patchwork of fad IPs and declined (once fantastic) old rides. It just becomes a competition of whose brands are bigger, which is why Legoland Windsor wins, despite being currently the worst value family park in the UK.

I'm only grateful that so far it's turned out alright, with IPs that suit. Gruffalo is charming for a British family park, not like the other IPs that were considered for it...  This is the work of the people having to deal with the stipulation to use IPs, in finding the least-worst option, or designing the most creative solution around the limitations. Cbeebies Land is the cheapest, nastiest, falling-apart IP refurb I have ever known in a UK park. But even then, the designers tried their best with what they got.

Personally I like the look of the new Hocus Pocus plans so far. It seems like this IP is less restricting to design than usual, so really it could be any walkaround but just has the Gruffalo name and characters slapped on top. But again, we almost got a different IP refurb this year, which thankfully was persuaded against.

Tiger Rock had a cool station overlay and new drop, but the rest was the last thing the ride needed. It had been in a shocking state for years, but no money was allowed to be granted until the "zoo brand" quota could be ticked. This isn't how you properly develop a great zoo or a great park. And if not zoo theme, then it must have an IP! Nothing else will get approved.

Scorpion Express was done with a tiny budget and is not nearly as entertaining as the original ride. A tarmac queue, dead scorpions, a standard coaster on flat ground, a cool theme but much less of it than before. The Swarm is drab and a very stingy realisation of what could have been a great area. I don't think any one is actually that entertained by the theme, but enthusiasts like it because it had that enthusiast appeal, so fair enough to them. The ambulance on its nose is the best moment, something memorable and not just a scrap vehicle parked on a pavement with some cheap water effects.

Wicker Man was great, very entertaining, surprising and made for a great themed coaster. Fantastic! Everyone loves it and the public really get into it with the build-up to the ride. A great turn for the better. But then Merlin immediately hand the park "Alton Towers Dungeons" the next year.

Fair enough that you were replying to a post about money and resources rather than entertainment value, but when bad attractions need to be justified by fastrack sales you know somethings wrong. Fastrack is a scam that shouldnt need to even exist. Attractions should make good business out of good entertainment (I'm sure you agree, but just saying)

A genuine question, have you visited this winter? The original soundtrack has been restored and the bad cassette recording is finally gone.

Not to its orginal 1990 state with the corridor audio and zoned organ, but definitely to how it was at the time that video clip was recorded, the way it was in the 2000s.
If you have visited this month and think it still sounds bad, it may be more to do with the aging state of the sound system, or that it needs tweaking now that the original audio is back.
 
Although I still think having the same music outdoors on those PA speakers numbs the impact of hearing it the first time in the station, hopefully they will change this to an ambient track outdoors.
 
IPs are purely for business purposes and really nothing to do with thematic storytelling. The motorway service station type ads in Chessington's queue are super tacky, gives a really commercial impression about the park. Yuck!

Colossus is not a nice ride experience but it's a thrilling coaster, best enjoyed with gritted teeth. I can see why people hate it, but if you go in knowing what to expect it's still a fun ride.

Some new trains are much needed in the future, the faff and lack of room seriously slows down loading and is very uncomfortable, but this was a design oversight from the start really. Would be very wise of Thorpe Park to commission new trains, even if it cost a lot to prototype them, if they want the ride to continue for decades to come.

Or would the ride have had its day in 15-20 years anyway? Since it was only really designed to break the record and shift Thorpe Park to a thrill park, which it's well known for now and could maybe use the space for a better looping coaster? It's worth a few more years though I'm sure!

Colossus is not a nice ride experience but it's a thrilling coaster, best enjoyed with gritted teeth. I can see why people hate it, but if you go in knowing what to expect it's still a fun ride.

Some new trains are much needed in the future, the faff and lack of room seriously slows down loading and is very uncomfortable, but this was a design oversight from the start really. Would be very wise of Thorpe Park to commission new trains, even if it cost a lot to prototype them, if they want the ride to continue for decades to come.

Or would the ride have had its day in 15-20 years anyway? Since it was only really designed to break the record and shift Thorpe Park to a thrill park, which it's well known for now and could maybe use the space for a better looping coaster? It's worth a few more years though I'm sure!

It'll be winter maintenance. One train will have been serviced now / in the weekdays during the event, and the train that's been running for the event will be serviced over the next couple of months. 
 
It will be running two trains come the main season, although only time will tell if the extra pressure of having it open over Christmas causes a delay to the operating of it. If it's been planned and thought through properly, though, it'll be fine.

It's true all major new attractions need to see a decent return, because of their huge cost if anything. But I suppose the difference is Merlin invest only for instant hits, they never invest in the value of the actual park, beyond basic maintenance.

Big money gets invested in headline rides, anything else is sidelined. So other than new rides, the state of their parks is pretty poor, including not investing in proper operations to keep queues down and generally not creating a place to be. Then their new rides are also left to decline once they've stopped serving that instant return. Even when new land is added like the Swarm's island expansion, it's just a minimal dead-end, when it had opportunity to add much needed value to the park and create more throughfare.
 
This stuff all has an impact on guests experience. But Merlin's marketing depts still think yet another quick 'rebrand' with new signs, music and logos will do the trick, instead of proper long term investment.

Icon at Blackpool was more beneficial to the park's overall value I feel, as well as a headline attraction for that year. It should have been advertised more (beyond the previs videos on BBC that made it look boring!), but it adds a modern element to the park's offering, making the Pleasure Beach a much more rounded day out.

I hope BPB sees increasing appeal from here on and gets back on track, but it won't if it lets the momentum die.

Looking at parks abroad that began the same way as Thorpe Park in the 70s/80s, you can see how they've taken a much more holistic approach over their history and today are altogether much better places to visit. But Thorpe Park has become so confused by cheap rehashes and short term investments, that I feel it doesnt deliver a solid appeal with many people anymore.  Other than Derren Brown, which was probably intended to be a long term investment in the park, but because of its bad development it ended up so esoteric, with costs so out of proportion to its actual entertainment factor.

I agree that stronger focus on good events would really help the park. Fright Nights still excites a lot of people in the region, but then why is it getting worse each year? Why is it advertised so much, but then so minimal in reality? You could have a far better Halloween event almost anywhere else, like the brilliant events at farm parks as mentioned earlier. You actually need to put the focus on entertainment for once, instead of the lazy minimal approach currently.

A genuine question, have you visited this winter? The original soundtrack has been restored and the bad cassette recording is finally gone.

Not to its orginal 1990 state with the corridor audio and zoned organ, but definitely to how it was at the time that video clip was recorded, the way it was in the 2000s.
If you have visited this month and think it still sounds bad, it may be more to do with the aging state of the sound system, or that it needs tweaking now that the original audio is back.
 
Although I still think having the same music outdoors on those PA speakers numbs the impact of hearing it the first time in the station, hopefully they will change this to an ambient track outdoors.
 
IPs are purely for business purposes and really nothing to do with thematic storytelling. The motorway service station type ads in Chessington's queue are super tacky, gives a really commercial impression about the park. Yuck!

It's true all major new attractions need to see a decent return, because of their huge cost if anything. But I suppose the difference is Merlin invest only for instant hits, they never invest in the value of the actual park, beyond basic maintenance.

Big money gets invested in headline rides, anything else is sidelined. So other than new rides, the state of their parks is pretty poor, including not investing in proper operations to keep queues down and generally not creating a place to be. Then their new rides are also left to decline once they've stopped serving that instant return. Even when new land is added like the Swarm's island expansion, it's just a minimal dead-end, when it had opportunity to add much needed value to the park and create more throughfare.
 
This stuff all has an impact on guests experience. But Merlin's marketing depts still think yet another quick 'rebrand' with new signs, music and logos will do the trick, instead of proper long term investment.

Icon at Blackpool was more beneficial to the park's overall value I feel, as well as a headline attraction for that year. It should have been advertised more (beyond the previs videos on BBC that made it look boring!), but it adds a modern element to the park's offering, making the Pleasure Beach a much more rounded day out.

I hope BPB sees increasing appeal from here on and gets back on track, but it won't if it lets the momentum die.

Looking at parks abroad that began the same way as Thorpe Park in the 70s/80s, you can see how they've taken a much more holistic approach over their history and today are altogether much better places to visit. But Thorpe Park has become so confused by cheap rehashes and short term investments, that I feel it doesnt deliver a solid appeal with many people anymore.  Other than Derren Brown, which was probably intended to be a long term investment in the park, but because of its bad development it ended up so esoteric, with costs so out of proportion to its actual entertainment factor.

I agree that stronger focus on good events would really help the park. Fright Nights still excites a lot of people in the region, but then why is it getting worse each year? Why is it advertised so much, but then so minimal in reality? You could have a far better Halloween event almost anywhere else, like the brilliant events at farm parks as mentioned earlier. You actually need to put the focus on entertainment for once, instead of the lazy minimal approach currently.

The unprofessionalism all round from Thorpe Park is shocking. And no offence but it's pretty embarassing to see a self-appointed theme park 'personality' seemingly using their job at Thorpe Park as self validation for their inflated enthusiast opions.
 
I know many enthusiasts (in the real sense of the word, not this enthusiast "community" cult  ideology) who are extremely hard working and have been in the attraction industry for years. They make it all happen to entertain others, they dont get any wider recognition and they dont seek it either. Whereas this Jordan character trying to get PR attention at any opportunity, the tweets, that dumb enthusiast awards thing and many other enthusiast cliques, seem to be far more interested in themselves than working in entertainment. Or getting their enthusiast friends 'in' behind the scenes so they can boast about themselves too.

Thorpe Park needs to get back to basics, get back in touch with the public (especially if it's wanting to go for families more like it says it does) and offer a good value day out. Not a day in a tarmac car park sponsored by a hundred fads, with signs constantly reminding you you're on "the island" (whoops, you built over most views of the water years ago!), and then getting egotists to tell others why they're wrong online.
 
Theme parks are really just about having a laugh out with friends, with a day of fun.  Isn't that what we all got into it for?
People behind the scenes need to be open minded, less self congratulatory and sort the park out properly. But I guess massively glamorising the 'brand' to the point that it bears no resemblance to the park is what they're better at and all they're interested in currently.

I dont want to sound like an angry vox pop but I feel like it's justified here after the continued unprofessional attitude from Thorpe Park
 
Absolutely ridiculous that park doesnt just come out and say "Loggers Leap is closed". How hard is that? The moment Loggers Leap closed it got glossed over by people either too over-optimistic on what to expect from Merlin, or who were doing it to save bad press. While it probably could have been refurbished as necessary and reopened (like any other park would), this just isn't Merlin's track record.
 
No surprise to everybody that it's sat there for years seizing up and much is now probably beyond reasonable repair. So just tell your customers Thorpe Park, the ride is closed. It's the least you could do! You've only created far, far worse response by trying to shove your biggest family attraction under the carpet.

And now this tweet, probably because the park is such a joke at the moment that its own staff find it funny (I would). It needs a proper sort out this place.