New Costumes

Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
If they want to call them costumes, then they should put them costumes themed to the period of each country (like CW's), not bowling shirts.

And if you told a friend that you got a job as a "performer" at BG, do you think he would think you mean ride op?
 
ScoutN said:
doctormoneymd said:
Walt Disney did.
Click to expand...

Theming land for land there for Busch or any other cannot even be compared. The theming of the attractions, stores, and what not is not even in a comparable category. Take note of how employees carry themselves attraction wise with the theming at Disney vs elsewhere. They truly are in character and on stage. The level of uniqueness that is at Disney also requires that the "costume" term be maintained. They have an entire class for new employees on the term "costume."
Click to expand...

No doubt that Disney is in a league of it's own, BUT, Disney is the industry leader. They set a fine example for other parks to follow. Personally, I think of Busch Gardens as straddling a line between a coaster park and a Disney-park, but there's a reason Disney succeeded in making a billion dollars in an industry that had previously been pock-marked with carnies, criminals, and fall-apart organizations. They succeeded because they had the right idea: that the themed experience, the creation of an immersive world, is what attracts guests and want develops real admiration among the populace.

Every single solitary park employee that the guest encounters during the day MUST reinforce the illusion at some level, whether that is simply in creating the illusion that the park is happy to have you (which is a PERFORMANCE, especially after a long shift in 100+ heat) or if you're pretending to be a Pompeiian guide sending riders on a tour of the ruins.

Shafor said:
If they want to call them costumes, then they should put them costumes themed to the period of each country (like CW's), not bowling shirts.

And if you told a friend that you got a job as a "performer" at BG, do you think he would think you mean ride op?
Click to expand...

Question: are Hooters girls performers or waitresses?
 
Shafor said:
Do you guys consider the peanut vendor at a football stadium a professional athlete too? Just silly semantics.
Click to expand...

At a football game, the main attraction is the football team. Thus, the peanut guy doesn't really matter. At a theme park, however, the environment is the main attraction. Workers (no matter what their doing) help to make up said environment. If the environment is no longer the park's main focus, the park has become an amusement park.
 
Question: are Hooters girls performers or waitresses?
Click to expand...

They're waitresses. And if you think they are "performers" then let me ask you, who is NOT a performer? Aren't ALL employees of any job "performing" as task, or "performing" for the public when putting on a smile when they could be in a bad mood? I mean, that's why I think this is just silly semantics.

Does the color of someone's polo shirt really "immerse" you more in an experience? Like I said, if the cashiers in England were wearing Elizabethan gowns, then I would agree. But they're not. They're wearing polo shirts.

[Fixed quote. ~Swiftman]
 
Shafor said:
Question: are Hooters girls performers or waitresses?
Click to expand...

They're waitresses. And if you think they are "performers" then let me ask you, who is NOT a performer? Aren't ALL employees of any job "performing" as task, or "performing" for the public when putting on a smile when they could be in a bad mood? I mean, that's why I think this is just silly semantics.

Does the color of someone's polo shirt really "immerse" you more in an experience? Like I said, if the cashiers in England were wearing Elizabethan gowns, then I would agree. But they're not. They're wearing polo shirts.
Click to expand...

They are performers. They are there to CREATE an environment. If they were waitresses, it wouldn't matter if they were attractive or unattractive. They are cast to look a certain way to create a certain atmosphere for the audience. That is a fact.

The color of someone's shirt definitely COULD help to immerse you, depending on the overall environment. If there were a theme park that was supposed to evoke the idea of darkness, evil and despair, a guy walking around in a yellow t-shirt sure would destroy that.

And yes, if I had my way, they'd be wearing the garb in the shops. It's a THEME PARK, not a parking lot with roller coasters built on it.
 
The main attraction to Walmart is good prices. Who cares what the workers look like?
The main attraction to McDonald's is speed. Who cares what the workers look like?
The main attraction to King's Dominion is the rides. Who cares what the workers look like?
The main attraction to Colonial Williamsburg is the atmosphere. Workers are part of said atmosphere. It matters what they look like.
The main attraction to Theme Parks is the environment. Workers are part of said environment. It matters what they look like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarterGee
So a bouncer who is hired because he is 6'6, 300lbs and is hired to create an environment of orderly conduct is a...performer?

And yes, I agree with you, I'd prefer them cashiers and shop workers to wear ACTUAL costumes as opposed to uniforms that they just CALL costumes.

And yes, of course it matters what the workers look like. But ride ops and cashiers are wearing uniforms, not costumes. I don't care what they call them. If they started calling them spacesuits would you argue they are spacesuits?
 
Shafor said:
So a bouncer who is hired because he is 6'6, 300lbs and is hired to create an environment of orderly conduct is a...performer?

And yes, I agree with you, I'd prefer them cashiers and shop workers to wear ACTUAL costumes as opposed to uniforms that they just CALL costumes.

And yes, of course it matters what the workers look like. But ride ops and cashiers are wearing uniforms, not costumes. I don't care what they call them. If they started calling them spacesuits would you argue they are spacesuits?
Click to expand...

The bouncer is hired to intimidate and, if necessary, interdict. That's a form follows function type of thing.

Look, this is getting crazy. Everybody at work at a theme park is "on set" and they are there to enhance the guest experience. I happen to think that doesn't end at tking your money or pushing the "GO" button. I think it includes putting on a bit of a performance to make the atmosphere seem more real. In my mind, that makes them performers. Their outfits, in my opinion, should be form first, function second.

Busch Gardens CMs do a fine job, and I enjoy the park immensely. We all do. I just don't want to see them slide further away from attention to these kinds of details. Like I said, I won't even set foot in a Six Flags, and I've been to KD twice in the last 6 years. These kinds of things matter to me.
 
Do Six Flags and KD employees call their uniforms "costumes?" If they do, then my point is made.

Also, I personally don't think the park is sliding away from attention to detail. I'm there all the time and notice and appreciate all of the small things that I'm sure many don't. Also, the employees there have a special place in the hearts of my family for personal reasons. We don't have any family members or friends who work there, but consider many of them to be good friends to our family. I don't care what color polo shirt they're wearing on a given day. It's their spirit and attitude that make our BG experience special.

(Oh, and a friend of mine use to manage the Hooter's in Baltimore, so I practically lived there at the time. I'm going to say from personal experience, I would advise against referring to the girls as "performers" :) )
 
Shafor said:
Do Six Flags and KD employees call their uniforms "costumes?" If they do, then my point is made.

Also, I personally don't think the park is sliding away from attention to detail. I'm there all the time and notice and appreciate all of the small things that I'm sure many don't. Also, the employees there have a special place in the hearts of my family for personal reasons. We don't have any family members or friends who work there, but consider many of them to be good friends to our family. I don't care what color polo shirt they're wearing on a given day. It's their spirit and attitude that make our BG experience special.

(Oh, and a friend of mine use to manage the Hooter's in Baltimore, so I practically lived there at the time. I'm going to say from personal experience, I would advise against referring to the girls as "performers" :) )
Click to expand...

KD and SF shouldn't call their employees clothes costumes because THEY ARE NOT THEME PARKS.

Do you seriously not get this?

Also, my wife's best friend worked at Hooters, and definitely understood herself to be a performer.

Seriously, how can you sit here and deny that CMs at true theme parks are part of a show?
 
Because I don't consider strapping people into a roller coaster, sweeping up trash, and ringing a cash register to be a "show." (I know, I must just be insane.)

I want to know why they call me a "guest" and not and "audience member?" Thanks for killing my fantasy BG!
 
Shafor said:
Because I don't consider strapping people into a roller coaster, sweeping up trash, and ringing a cash register to be a "show." (I know, I must just be insane.)

I want to know why they call me a "guest" and not and "audience member?" Thanks for killing my fantasy BG!
Click to expand...

By your definition, it seems to me that they ought to just call you a customer.

Even if you don't think they are "performing", per say, they are at the very least part of a background aesthetic. Since that aesthetic is of a national/historic character, and it is a "theme park" their clothing ought to fit the dictionary definition of a costume:

costume
noun |ˈkäsˌt(y)oōm; -təm|
a set of clothes in a style typical of a particular country or historical period

If you are saying that their uniforms DON'T fit that definition, so they could appropriately be styled as uniforms, I can see that. But if you're saying their outfits SHOULDN'T fit that definition, I can't agree.

These bowling shirts move further away from costumes and more toward uniforms, and that, in my opinion, is not a favorable change.
 
I am a customer (I go there and spend money) and would have zero problem with them calling me that.

I am saying their uniforms don't fit the definition of costume you posted, so they shouldn't be called costumes.

I said in an earlier post that I would PREFER the employees to wear actual costumes germane to each country instead of just wearing uniforms and calling them costumes.

(I was also the first person in this thread to say I thought the new bowling shirts were ugly. Although, they do make me feel a little like I'm in a bowling alley...so maybe they are costumes! :) )
 
Shafor said:
I am a customer (I go there and spend money) and would have zero problem with them calling me that.

I am saying their uniforms don't fit the definition of costume you posted, so they shouldn't be called costumes.

I said in an earlier post that I would PREFER the employees to wear actual costumes germane to each country instead of just wearing uniforms and calling them costumes.

(I was also the first person in this thread to say I thought the new bowling shirts were ugly. Although, they do make me feel a little like I'm in a bowling alley...so maybe they are costumes! :) )
Click to expand...

Well that's that, I guess...
 
I thought of some examples:

The ladies in the gift shops in Germany wear German themed skirts and blouses. I could see considering those costumes. Their supervisors wear button up modern dress shirts. I would not consider that a costume.

The Curse of Darkastle ride ops wear black slacks, burgundy dress shirts, and black vests, like a servant in a possessed Gothic castle. Their outfits are themed to the ride. I can see calling them costumes. No other ride ops (that I can think of) wear clothing specifically themed to their ride anywhere close to the DK ops. I would not consider any of the others to be costumes.

But I wouldn't call any of them "performers" because their primary job is something other than "performing" or "entertaining" the customers. Yes, I understand their number one job is to give the customer an enjoyable experience, but they have a primary, or at least a secondary function (if you want to go that far.) The actual "performers," the people in the shows, have basically one job: to perform.

(BTW, I've forgotten the point of this discussion. This is like an argument with my wife :) )
 
Europe in the air, Pompeii, and DarKastle are the only rides that have specific costumes. They are dressed as pilots, tour guides, and castle keepers respectively. Any other ride has the same uniform as the rest of the country. They don't fit the definition of a costume because they aren't typical of a particular country. Try wearing Festa's shirt to Italy and you'll get looked at.

New perspective:
If you were invited to a costume party, which of the park's outfits would you wear? EiTA's, DK's, or Pompeii's. If you wore Festa's shirt, what would you say you were dressed as? What about Scotland's?

Yes there are some parts of the park where they wear legit costumes...but a blue, purple, and yellow shirt, or a white button up with plaid cuffs, and scrubs covered in sesame street characters aren't "costumes" in the literal sense.
 
ArrowWolf1984 said:
This is a little off topic but why are we calling these things "costumes"? Aren't they technically uniforms? Usually costumes are clothing that is made to make someone look/dress like something different. These are identical outfits used to identify the park workers and make them look uniform, a costume would be something more along the lines of a performer in Germany wearing lederhosen or someone in France dressed as a mime.
Click to expand...

Oh my God, what have I started!? :shocked:
 
I guess I would say that I look at it like this:

Remember when you were a kid, and at Halloween time there was always some friend or kid in the neighborhood who's "costume" was something you could not identify and were pretty sure was, in reality, just something thrown together from old clothes (and I apologize if this was any of you...for what i's worth, it was sometimes me, I was a pretty poor kid)? This kind of "costume" usually consisted of an old t-shirt, some form of flannel shirt without buttons, may or may not have included some sort of mask or "blood", and not much else? Now, this kid wasn't really dressed up as anything, but to me, regardless of the fact that this kid wasn't actually dressed up as anything in particular, it was still Halloween and as such, anything you would wear outside of your normal, everyday clothes constituted a costume in the loosest sense of the word. In other words, Halloween+Abnormal Clothes=Costume, no matter what. The quality, context and identifiable nature of said costume had no bearing on it being included as a costume.

In my mind, a similar formula exists for theme parks. Theme Park+Employee+Mandated Outfit=Costume, no matter what. It may be a terrible costume, like the Halloween "costume" mentioned above, but it is still a costume, to me, because it fits the contextual definition. So, when I look at this situation, I don't see it as a neutral "uniform change," I see it as taking bad costumes and making them worse.

All that said, after this long debate, I do see the other side of the semantic argument, though I am no less convinced that they OUGHT to be wearing what we would ALL define as "true costumes" throughout the park.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad