"Theme Park" vs. "Amusement Park"

[reddude333]

So I was just wondering what all of you CFers think about the terms "theme park" and "amusement park". Do you think of them as being the same? Do you use them interchangeably? Strong opinions otherwise?

To me they are two distinct terms referring to different types of parks. Theme being more of a park like Disney or Universal where each attraction (and perhaps even section of the park) is clearly themed and even may have some sort of a back-story. Whereas I see amusement park as meaning something more like Six Flags where thrill rides and roller coasters reign supreme (theme is optional at best )

Should I add more options to the poll?

 

[SaiyanHajime]

They are the same thing, really. Distinguishing them is near impossible. And pointless.

Getting technical though... As a general rule of thumb, I'd say "amusement parks" are more about visceral and commercial experiences. "Theme parks" have elements of audio-visual story-telling. There's nothing to stop theme parks having big thrill rides, but an amusement park cannot have true theme park elements without becoming one. Amusement parks are more primitive. A lot of people describe theme parks as requiring an overarching theme and distinctive themed areas, or an arbitrary amount of physical fake scenery. Both are just definitions pulled out of nowhere and not based in any observation. It's a touch pretentious too, and leaves you with only Disney parks to define as "theme parks".

 

[davidx233]

0X 0X 0X 0X 0X 0X 0X They are the same in my opinion

 

[Idlewild]

"Theme Park" vs. "Amusement Park"

They are different things in my opinion, it's just that many parks are "hybrids" of both concepts.

A pure amusement park is about the rides and does not have any theme, story ect.

A pure theme park is about themed experiences and narrative and does not have any rides.

 

[Ian]

"Theme park" tends to be the term generally used to describe a place full of rides & rollercoasters.

There is a difference imo. A theme park has themed areas/rides, an amusement park has a collection of rides but no unique theme (unless you count concrete as themeing).

For example, I'd class Alton Towers and Busch Gardens as theme parks. Blackpool and Indiana Beach are amusement parks.

 

[Hixee]

"Theme park" tends to be the term generally used to describe a place full of rides & rollercoasters.

There is a difference imo. A theme park has themed areas/rides, an amusement park has a collection of rides but no unique theme (unless you count concrete as themeing).

For example, I'd class Alton Towers and Busch Gardens as theme parks. Blackpool and Indiana Beach are amusement parks.

Pretty much nailed how I think about it. There is a difference, but I'm never going to criticise someone who uses the 'wrong' term. It'd be pointless as most of the time everyone knows what you're talking about.

 

[nealbie]

They are the same thing, really. Distinguishing them is near impossible. And pointless.

Getting technical though... As a general rule of thumb, I'd say "amusement parks" are more about visceral and commercial experiences. "Theme parks" have elements of audio-visual story-telling. There's nothing to stop theme parks having big thrill rides, but an amusement park cannot have true theme park elements without becoming one. Amusement parks are more primitive. A lot of people describe theme parks as requiring an overarching theme and distinctive themed areas, or an arbitrary amount of physical fake scenery. Both are just definitions pulled out of nowhere and not based in any observation. It's a touch pretentious too, and leaves you with only Disney parks to define as "theme parks".

But all of these things are observations, silly Joey.

We'll discuss why you've gone mental at Thorpe next week because I can't be bothered to type and it's more fun to have proper discussion.

But essentially, Joey's right but has somehow come to a nonsensical conclusion that doesn't match his theory. xD

 

[reddude333]

Okay, I changed the first option as I now realize that it came off somewhat critical.

 

[Mysterious Sue]

Re: "Theme Park" vs. "Amusement Park"

I agree with what's been said already but wanted to add in the discussion of location. Amusement parks are typically found in traditional tourist areas such as seasides, where they take advantage of existing footfall. Theme parks by comparison, are the shopping malls to your local high street - built with all facilities on-site. The theming is an extra layer of attraction to encourage visitors from a much larger catchment area.

 

[Colossus]

I actually never use the term Amusement Park, I always use Theme Park, I don`t know why, I always seem to think of arcades whenever I hear the word amusement.
But still I understand why people may use the term Amusement Park, and I can fully understand peoples reasoning either way. Tit for tat really imo.

 

[reddude333]

^There, I added one for you...unfortunately I didn't realize it would wipe the previous poll responses. Shows how much I know about polling :?

 

[Colossus]

Ahh just for me? Thanks, I do feel privileged.

Note to self - Don`t ever go changing polls.

 

[furie]

"Theme park" tends to be the term generally used to describe a place full of rides & rollercoasters.

There is a difference imo. A theme park has themed areas/rides, an amusement park has a collection of rides but no unique theme (unless you count concrete as themeing).

For example, I'd class Alton Towers and Busch Gardens as theme parks. Blackpool and Indiana Beach are amusement parks.

Pretty much nailed how I think about it. There is a difference, but I'm never going to criticise someone who uses the 'wrong' term. It'd be pointless as most of the time everyone knows what you're talking about.

I think I agree, but then agree with Joey too :lol:

The problem is with parks like say Six Flags or Cedar Fair (particularly thinking about Kings Dominion here).

Both SF and CF are nothing more than a collection of rides, but the rides definitely have a very strong theme. Bizarro at SFNE for example has big signs outside, a "Supermanny" queue (with the queue line designed to go around in the Superman "S") and lots of Bizarro theming in the station (plus the added cardboard bits).

So when you go on a ride, it's very clear what the ride is. However (in most cases) that theming ends at the entrance/exit. How can you look at Volcano at KD though and say that it doesn't add a theming element to the park. It's just the ride, but it's huge and dominates the park.

So are these amusement parks with theme park elements? The issue (which I think is where Joey was going) is where do you stop? Blackpool is also an amusement park with theme park elements (The Ghost Train is a prominent piece of theming for example)? Then there's how neat and landscaped things are.

KD has some awful concrete/tarmac areas that connect the themed parts. It also has some lovely wooded areas and the kids are is quite "nice". Dorney Park though is all walkways and tarmac (sorry, asphalt) but it's very neat in a way that Tir Prince could never dream of - but there are still some "natural" areas too.

Thorpe is a "Theme Park", but how often does the theme extend beyond the ride area? Why is Saw considered better themed than The Ghost Train at Blackpool? It's at the end of a bland bit of concrete walkway too. The difference is that Thorpe is well landscaped as well. There are plenty of trees, bushes and water pools around the place and it dips and rises adding interest. The themes rarely (other than Amity Cove) leave the ride area, but the way the paths interact and greenery is in place, it fools the eye into thinking the place is much better themed than it really is; that there's extension where there really isn't.

It's just Dorney Park to the next step. Blackpool is also heading this way, with a consistent "look and feel" to the park slowly creeping in.

The lines between the two phrases are becoming more and more blurred.

No matter how much fake Disney/Lazy Town imaging are stolen on rides by places like Tir Prince on individual rides, they're an "Amusement Park" and always will be.

I wonder if the difference is much more subtle, as Ian and Joey both allude to. It's not about how much concrete you have, or how much you spend on plastic IP around a ride car, it's about attitude.

An amusement park is about getting you onto a ride. It's all fur coat, no knickers, wham, bam, thank you man/mam. You experience the ride and everything else (no matter how it's tarted up) is just a cattle queue to get you onto it.

A theme park tries to extend beyond that, to make you think more about the "experience" you're in. You don't feel like a cow being led to the slaughter through the cattle pens, because it's constantly trying to distract you. It's an escort service, all tidy suit and polite table manners but still a whore at the end of the day.

--------------------
TL;DR
Personally, I believe that if at any point you have to go through a turnstyle, it's an amusement park

 

[Martyn B]

Amusement Park's are just theme parks by the sea

 

[Hixee]

furie you can't put the TL;DR at the end... that's just unfair...

I do agree with you though.

 

[furie]

furie you can't put the TL;DR at the end... that's just unfair...

Feel free to set up a "charity" to help overthrow my evil ways with a really professional looking "furie is a nasty pasty" Youtube video to prove my guilt

 

[reddude333]

Furie, I like your explanation. And funny analogy at the end there...disturbing as it was. Looks like there is a lot of agreement overall. I'm liking the conversation (even if it is pretty uniform)

As for the YouTube video, I like YouTubing...let's put something together Hixee! Haha

 

[SaiyanHajime]

They are the same thing, really. Distinguishing them is near impossible. And pointless.

Getting technical though... As a general rule of thumb, I'd say "amusement parks" are more about visceral and commercial experiences. "Theme parks" have elements of audio-visual story-telling. There's nothing to stop theme parks having big thrill rides, but an amusement park cannot have true theme park elements without becoming one. Amusement parks are more primitive. A lot of people describe theme parks as requiring an overarching theme and distinctive themed areas, or an arbitrary amount of physical fake scenery. Both are just definitions pulled out of nowhere and not based in any observation. It's a touch pretentious too, and leaves you with only Disney parks to define as "theme parks".

But all of these things are observations, silly Joey.

We'll discuss why you've gone mental at Thorpe next week because I can't be bothered to type and it's more fun to have proper discussion.

But essentially, Joey's right but has somehow come to a nonsensical conclusion that doesn't match his theory. xD

My point, if anything, is that amusement parks don't exist because they pretty much all have theme park elements.

Check out Furie's post.

 

[Jake]

There are some obvious theme parks (Busch, Disney, Alton, Efteling etc) and some obvious Amusement Parks (Blackpool, Brean etc).

Then there are the parks which are somewhere inbetween, which is actually where the majority of big parks, IMO, are. These are parks like Six Flags and Cedar Fair parks, who call themselves theme parks but in reality only have a limited amount of themed rides/areas. However, theming IS present, if a bit patchy at times. I'd probably put Drayton and Thorpe in this category too. These are parks which are great fun, but lack the immersive properties of a true theme park.

That's how I think about it in my head, but I usually just say 'Theme Park'...

 

[TP Rich]

Amusement park is just the American way of saying it. Psh! They're theme parks!