A few weeks ago, the much-talked-about, much-longed-for Harry Potter-themed amusement park opened in Orlando. It was probably the most anticipated movie-theme park crossover since Santa Claus: The Movie: The Ride back in the 1980s.
But is it any good? Can visitors imagine themselves strolling down the streets of Hogsmeade, munching chocolate frogs and saying things like "But Harry, if Dumbledore is right and the Hufflepuff goblet is Voldemort's sixth Horcrux, than will the Callyndor crystal be sufficient to defeat the Vurburbins of Moxmarto?"
The answer depends on who you ask. Slate disses it as "the park that should not be visited." They even hate the taste of the park's butterbeer.
The Daily Beast doesn't think much of the park either. A visit to Potterland gives the author a chance to reflect on how "experience" has shouldered aside "story" as the most important element in a theme park.
Don't despair, Potterphiles. The Washington Post (specifically a reporter for KidsPost its kids-only section) visited the park and found it quite nice.
My take? Eh. I'm not a theme park guy. Colonial Williamsburg was too intense for me. Anyway, even if I did enjoy theme parks, I'd probably choose to wait a few years, when virtual reality headsets will allow us to wander around Hogwarts from the comfort of our own techno-couches.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment