Turning the question a little on its head, here, but does Britain really stand out in mediocrity?
The one thing that the UK excels in, is mediocrity
Hell, we're not even interesting enough to have a recognised national dish of rotted fish.
The thing is, I have no idea what kick started the coaster/theme park investments in the early 1990's. I
think it was Alton's success in the 80's and a surge of new technological innovations AND the US (probably more specifically Orlando). I remember around the time seeing the great coasters - record breakers and new designs - on the news regularly. Orlando suddenly seemed to be "a thing" for holiday makers. Oddly, it was like when in the 50's/60's/70's the Brits found cheap flights to beach resorts in Europe which killed the UK seaside resort. Only this time we discovered exotic, exciting theme parks that we just didn't have. So people flocked to the Costa del Sol because it was "like Blackpool only with sun and no tat", but wanted places like Orlando because "they're like nothing we have in Britain".
And so there was a clear market, which I have no doubt Tussauds spotted as the future way into profit.
I don't want to flog a dead horse here, but it was really down to one man though that actually did this stuff - and that's John Wardley. In a very British manner though, I'll bet you that wasn't in any way, shape or form by design.
We're really odd over here. We don't encourage people to excel. "It's the taking part that counts" which is a euphemism for "I'll go out and do the garden today - oh, no, it's raining again but at least I got up and thought about it". We live in a country of mediocrity and panic when it isn't. I personally believe it's all to do with the weather and you can match our core personality to the way we react to weather.
Always expect it to be overcast and drizzly. Like a bit of sun but not for too long and not too hot. Like a bit of snow for the excitement for five minutes, then hate it because it's inconvenient and wet.
Anyway, we wouldn't think of employing a company to consult on something like "theming". That's exuberant Yank thinking. We don't subscribe to all that capitalist clap-trap. Young Bob on the front desk does some quite nice drawings, I'm sure that if we give him a tenner to go to the local shop for some bin bags and buckets and spades, he can knock us up the next Disneyland. I think it was the mid 2000's before people in the UK could say the word "outsourcing"without spitting like they had **** in their mouths.
Yes, our attitude has changed over the years (we've seen sense to a degree - but there are definitely still Bob's doing the theming at some places), but back in the 80's? You'd rarely look outside of your business for people to do this kind of stuff. Tussauds and JW were a perfect match. JW had the big ideas Tussauds wanted AND he's an omni-talent. Getting JW attached to Tussauds as "in house" fitted the British way of doing things.
It's an unusual symbiosis which kind of sums us up. Right person in the right place at the right time with the right people. Nothing by design, just a happy accident.
Anyway, why is this important when it was clearly the desire to copy the US (and mainland Europe to a degree - thinking Blackpool's relationship with Mack and Europa Park here) and take advantage of the popularity of "Theme Parks" and the new ride technology.
It uplifted everything. It raised the bar for parks to reach. You couldn't just dump a Pinfari on a blank bit of ground and yell "NEW COASTER, COME VISIT US!" Tussauds looked beyond the ride and created immersive areas of the parks. The holistic, professional view of real theme parks. Yet... Still mediocrity.
1994 for instance:
PMBO is a record breaker, I'll give it that, but it never paved the way for an Intermin Hyper like the US saw. Why not? Probably planning limitations, but also because it proved we were happy with "OMG IT'S 3000 FEET TALL AND GOES AT 200MPH!!!" bollocks.
Shockwave is "interesting", but it's not very good objectively. What the hell is all that straight track about? Poorly designed, probably due to budgetary reasons. "You can have a brilliant coaster for £15 million, or we can make a mediocre one for £14,999,999". "We'll have the mediocre one please, a penny saved is a penny earned after all".
The Ultimate and Nemesis were both accidents of planning restrictions. Though (while they can be mediocre in their own ride type) I don't think anyone would ever describe an old school B&M Invert as mediocre.
It was a feed into itself though. Alton pushed us into a Theme Park era probably ahead of when it would have happened (like in places like Norway, etc.). Then Tussauds raised the bar and gave us "Orlando in the Midlands". All this raised the profile of places like Blackpool, DMP, LWV, etc which could then get the financial backing for 1994, which then raised the profile of the UK park industry that allowed for more investment, which... dried up. It reached a saturation point. Too many parks and diminishing returns on investment. We went back into "British mode" and stopped doing things because they were the right way of doing them, but instead doing "make do and mend" and keeping costs low.
We've touched on a lot of the stuff from the mid 2000's in the other thread, but in essence, we don't look at the long game. We look at what we can get away with, rather than what is a good investment. We can do that because as a race, we expect mediocrity. We don't like it and we complain about it, but we continue to queue for it and accept it. When visitor numbers fall (like at Alton), they don't look at the fact that they've cut costs as being any reason, they just continue to cut costs. Offer less for more - with a new ride every few years (it doesn't matter what the quality is like, it will increase visitor numbers that first year by 5% and who cares if they never return?) to keep the punters thinking they're getting value for money. And it works. We're a nation of mugs LOL
I'd be interested if there was statistics out there for how far English tourists travel for vacation vs. American, and if willingness to travel further distances correlates with fewer amusement parks "per capita" in country.
Anecdotally, the impression I get is that Americans are more willing to travel further within the US, but the British are more willing to go abroad, but less likely to travel far within the UK.
So we'd happily travel a thousand miles into mainland Europe for a week on a beach, but wouldn't drive 100 miles to a nice seaside resort in Wales. In both cases, we'd complain about the locals speaking a foreign language though - and wouldn't touch the food (Worcester sauce on cheese on toast? You what?!?)
In terms of traveling to parks, I know a huge number of people who will make a single, annual pilgrimage to Alton Towers from afar. So traveling for 2-3 hours. That's right, 2-3 hours is a LONG WAY in the UK. The same people wouldn't spend an hour going to their more local park, like Thorpe or Flamingoland. It's a once a year treat and they'll make the effort. Hell, very few people in Stafford visit Alton Towers and it's only 18 miles away (though piss poor public transport doesn't help - it's a 2 hour journey to get across those 18 miles by train and bus).
We do HUGE trips or no trips.
