Imagineering Theory: The Third Gate Solution

As construction on Star Wars Land continues, shutting down much of Frontierland (and leaving us long-time fans with a nagging sense of dread over whether it will be satisfying when it re-opens), I've been thinking about the commonly proposed “third gate” solution to all this Star Wars and Marvel and Pixar nonsense. Most of us agree that these IPs don't sit well alongside most of the existing themes in Disneyland and California Adventure, but their profitability is too great for Management to resist. A third park, designed from the get-go to include them, seems like the perfect compromise—fans of these franchises get to play with them and the company gets the money, while the rest of us don't have to cringe at the awkward mismatches with the rest of the parks.

Here's the main problem with that idea, though:

What would be the theme of this third theme park?

Theming in Disney parks works on three levels. Most people notice the first two quite easily: each attraction or close group of related attractions has a theme, which fits, to a greater or lesser extent, into the larger theme of a land or area. What isn't always as evident is that ideally each park also has an overall theme. This is easier to identify in some cases (California Adventure, Animal Kingdom) than others (Epcot, pretty much any “kingdom” park*), and some parks have a better track record than others of sticking to their guiding principles. But it's always there, tying the lands/areas together the same way each land ties together its individual rides and attractions.

Another thing to note here is that theming works best when approached from the top down. Decide you want a New Orleans-style district first, and then realize it would be a good place for a pirate musuem and a haunted house. Some of the least satisfying major developments in the Disney parks have been because the Powers That Be wanted a particular ride and had a new land built just to accommodate it. Imagine how much worse it would be to do this with an entire park—planning everything around one or two tentpole attractions whose concepts may or may not be expandable to the surrounding area.

Now, if you have several ideas for attractions, and you can draw lines of commonality between them, then you might have the basis for a themed area, and if you can do that more than once, you potentially have the basis for a park. This is what I think a lot of people are trying to do when they attempt to plan a third gate for Disney's acquired IPs. Unfortunately, these franchises don't really have anything in common beyond being movies that are fun to watch. That's not enough for a Disney-caliber theme park experience. Universal, sure—it's basically the premise of Islands of Adventure—but not Disney.

Another issue with the third-gate-as-dumping-ground idea is that those who propose it rarely offer any ideas beyond the attractions based on misfit IPs. I cannot emphasize enough that there is more to a good theme park than just the pre-existing brands it has access to. Disneyland didn't soar to success in its early years because it repeated movies people liked, but because it allowed them to visit fantastic worlds (including, in some cases, the worlds of movies they liked) and have experiences that literally could not be had anywhere else. This approach was so powerful that many Disney theme park originals have become recognizable brands in their own right. I think if more Armchair Imagineers were ambitious enough to try imagining the next Haunted Mansion or Journey Into Imagination,** they would not be so quick to assign the purchased IPs to a hypothetical third gate and leave it at that.

So is this concept—by which I mean using a third park to house popular IPs, not the third park idea in itself—unsalvageable? I don't think so, as long as the top-down principle is observed and plenty of attention is paid to the environments and atmospheric elements, not just the big attractions. Here are some specific points I've arrived at during my ponderings:

• Of the three big “redheaded stepchild” franchises (Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar), Star Wars is probably the most promising as theme park material—it comprises, after all, not just a unique world but an entire distinctive universe. It could probably provide the basis for an entire park all on its own...but that would be a bad business move for Disney since people who aren't Star Wars fans would have little incentive to attend. I'm not sure I, for example, would ever set foot in such a park past the initial curiosity visit.
• One of the unnecessarily limiting things people tend to do with this template is propose a bunch of single-IP lands—keep things nice and tidy by giving a wedge to Marvel, one to Toy Story, one to the Incredibles, etc. The trouble with this, apart from the inherent trouble of single-IP lands in the first place, is that other than Star Wars, the redheaded stepchild franchises mostly take place in settings very familiar to our own real world. “Here and now, plus characters” is never going to be as rewarding to visit as an unfamiliar world, and even if the draw is supposed to be the fantastic things that can happen (as represented by the recreation of beloved film plots), the mere fact that the guests have presumably seen the movie before undermines the potential for surprise.

This is where the top-down methodology works wonders. Instead of thinking about movies that need to have rides even though they don't fit in Disneyland, think about types of experiences Disneyland's area themes cannot address. One of those, for sure, is modern urban superhero adventures. So instead of “Marvel Land,” consider something like...oh, let's call it...Super City, an ultra-modern (not quite futuristic) city where advanced technology prototypes and people with superpowers exist. Which people? Well, it would have room for the Avengers, and the Incredibles, and Big Hero 6...and maybe superhero stories that don't exist yet, such as one where you test out a machine that gives you powers for the duration of a ride?

And that's just one example.

• Another thing people often don't think about is that a third gate could also potentially accommodate some of Disney's in-house franchises that don't have a good natural home so far. Consider how many of their animated classics could be described as “pets have an adventure” and how rarely they mesh well with any of the existing park themes. Even Animal Kingdom doesn't, to the best of my knowledge, pay much attention to pets. This is another reason not to think of a third gate as primarily a dumping ground for the acquired stuff.
• Every new park Disney builds is an opportunity to re-define what “theme park” means, exactly. Disneyland started the trend by introducing the very concept of the theme park to the world, and hence became the definitive version. But obviously not every Disney park has gone the “genre fiction setting with rides” route. Epcot is more like the World's Fair, divided between technological and cultural exhibits. Animal Kingdom is an enhanced zoo. A third gate in Anaheim could be just as experimental in its own way: another reason to favor the top-down approach to theming.

I think the reason third gate solutions often seem lackluster is because they come from a place of negativity—i.e. it's not about what the person proposing it wants from Disney, but what they don't want (the redheaded stepchildren in Disneyland). I've been known to fall into this trap myself, not really caring what Disney does with its purchased IPs as long as they aren't cluttering up the “real” theme park. Better by far to approach it as a creative exercise in its own right.

There's no telling when—if ever—the Disneyland Resort will get a third park, or what it will look like in the event that it does. It probably won't include Star Wars, that's for sure. Depending on what they manage to do in the existing parks with the Avengers, it might not get much Marvel either. But Pixar is as prolific as ever, and Disney's own animation studio seems to have found its new groove.*** At least there's bound to be plenty of cinematic material to work with.

Let's just hope their brains are in the right place when the time comes.

* For the record, the theme of most of the “kingdom parks” is “Disneyland, but bigger.” The theme of Disneyland itself is “stuff Walt thought was cool.”

** I invoke the original ride here, not the more recent versions, which I have not experienced in person but which apparently range from lackluster to insulting.

*** Seriously, go see Moana.