Army Theme Park?

The Washington Post reports the flap underway regarding a proposal for a military-themed amusement park on land controlled by an Army military base near DC. The proposed park would be built near a future Army museum at Fort Belvoir, and would help fund the museum through the Army's partnership with a private company.

A Florida developer has submitted an unsolicited proposal for a military theme park that would include the "Chateau Belvoir" hotel and an entertainment district with bars like the "1st Division Lounge" and several "4D" rides. "You can command the latest M-1 tank, feel the rush of a paratrooper freefall, fly a Cobra Gunship or defend your B-17 as a waist gunner," according to the proposal by Universal City Property Management III of Orlando.

Today, the Post reports that the Army is distancing itself from the proposal, though it may explore entertainment opportunities that it would consider  "appropriate and tasteful."

The comments represented a shift, coming a day after the Army declined to disavow the theme-park-like proposal it received in 2004 from Universal City Property Management. They also differed somewhat from an account of the museum discussions given yesterday by Marc A. Watson, Universal City's president, who has vast experience in the theme park industry.

Watson said Army officials approached him at Universal Studios in Orlando in 2003 for ideas on how to use simulation technology to attract more visitors to a planned museum. He continued to discuss the museum with the Army, which gave him a tour of Fort Belvoir in 2004 to inspect sites for what he was proposing, he said. Watson said he has not been told that his plan has been rejected.

"They said, 'What would you all do to the museum to make it more relevant to today's audiences? How would you breathe life into it?' " Watson said, describing the Army's visit to Orlando.

Army spokesman Dave Foster said yesterday that the Army did approach Universal Studios, but only for information about using "so-called 4-D experiences" within the museum. The subsequent proposal from Universal City was "grander in scope than what the Army thought appropriate," Foster said. Universal was welcome to submit a future proposal, but "in no event would any proposal containing what might be characterized as an 'amusement park' be . . . seriously considered," he said.

[...]

Watson, an engineer with expertise in simulation technology, objected to the "theme park" label, saying his proposal is a serious attempt to acquaint those of all ages with the experience of the U.S. soldier.

"What's important is to engage guests . . . so they can get a real feel for what the life of a soldier is like," he said.

I'm not surprised, really, that this is all linked back to Orlando. As I note in the book, there's a great deal of synergy going on there between the military simulation sector and the videogame / theme park / entertainment sector. In some cases the same companies developing simulation technologies for training are big names in the business of virtual reality rides for theme parks.

And the "real feel" for soldier life hearkens back to the mission of America's Army, ("accurate" portrayal=positive) not to mention the deals done between Hollywood studios and different branches of the military.

Link: Army Ponders Amusement Venue, Hotel At Ft. Belvoir.
Link: Army Shuns 'Theme Park' Proposal.

Comments

[ed]

Hey Darius

Yeah, I heard similar stories from the folks I have talked to: there is definitely a disconnect between the need for accurate modeling and the desire for a compelling (ie entertaining) experience. However, that hasn't stopped some folks from trying to merge the two, in some useful way, on some level. Full Spectrum Warrior, for example, which has gotten flak from people in the military for being too far on the entertainment end and not usefully designed for training. And the way in which the Army is now trying to build training systems on top of the America's Army architecture--the idea being there may be some things that can be trained using that system, if modified properly. The whole ideas of The Institute for Creative Technologies is that this synergy will be useful to all parties--military and entertainment--though this initiative remains "experimental."

And there are also failed projects in this regard. I can't remember the name of the companies right now, but there were at least a couple companies that are primarily defense contractors, creating simulation systems for the military, that tried unsuccessfully to develop commercial games based on their technologies. The games came out clunky and really only appealed to the crunchiest military enthusiasts.

[Darius K.]

(Warning: tangential story to follow.)

One of the most interesting things I ever heard at the Serious Games Summit in D.C. was a comment by an old-time military simulation programmer. Years ago, he was looking at a modern first person shooter and was very impressed with the technology. He contacted the game developers, who gave him a tour of their studios. While he was there, he would ask questions like, "How do you model bullet trajectories?" And the answer was always, "We don't. We fake it." And this guy's conclusion was that simulations are accountable for human life and death, so they can't fake anything, while video games are entertainment, entirely about the illusion.

Now that was coming from a military simulation point of view. Granted, all simulations have bias inherent in their systems and certainly do not model some kind of "objective" reality. But at least simulations attempt to model some form of empirical consensus reality ("let's simulate this system by using Model A from this study, combined with data that the Army has collected over the last 20 years").

On the other hand, projects like America's Army are far, far from simulation. They are propaganda: their purpose is to paint a picture of a reality that does not exist by any empirical measure. Which is what video games do!

So I guess my point is that the entertainment industry is not working so much hand-in-hand with the "military simulation" sector as you say, but rather is working with the military propagandists.