I honestly don't believe this but...

[UncleKyle]

I thought I'd share this with you guys. I had a old manager of mine at MGM tells me that they are tearing down Hunchback to build a rollercoaster. Now I've worked at MGM and I honestly doubt they could fit a coaster back there. It's too close to the service road. But I thought I'd throw this one out there.

 

[Bob O]

Considering what type of coaster it is you can build a decent roller coaster on a smalle piece of land, escpecially if not contained in a building. Some of the newer coasters that launch from any where from 0mph up to 80 mph in a very short time can take up little room. You can also build over the service road which wouldnt affect it, though disney isnt known for doing this like a SF's park would.

 

[Another Voice]

There was/is a plan at the corporate level of Attractions management to "re-purpose" Disney/MGM into a thrill park. Given the success of 'Tower' and 'Rock-n-Roll' the suits thought they could keep the 11-29 year old demographic that's now going to Universal Studios and Islands of Adventure.

And by "coaster", don't think of some massive MegaCoaster soon to be featured on the Discovery Channel. The largest coaster was to be a clone of California Adventure's 'Screaming' (complete with the steel/wood "themeing"). The rest of the attractions, and probably what would go into the 'Hunchback' location, would have been nothing but a wild mouse coaster along the lines of Dino-Rama's or 'Mulhulland Madness'.

This plan had a very low probablilty of ever being put into place and it's even more remote today. Whenever executives at the top change, the first thing they do is to cancel all the plans created by they guy they just shoved out the window. And more importantly Disney isn't going to spend a dime on the parks unless they're forced to. Considering the attendance problems at DCA, Epcot and Animal Kingdom, the Studios are well at the back of the line.

P.S. A very similar plan has been created for Epcot as well: mall rides in World Showcase.

 

[Bob O]

AV, if you are right then the idea of turning MGM into a thrill park would be a failure as all of the coasters would havent been up to the standards of Hulk/DD and to add a thrill park the new rides would have to be more thrilling than those at IOA. Now if they put in a 300" coaster like Cedar Point then that would have been a great start.
And AV why make a fake wooden coaster like CS when they could have actually made a real wooden coaster??? My guess is that a wooden coaster is more expensive to operate due to the maintence involved but maybe you have a better answer.

 

[KNWVIKING]

Last year we were on the TTA and as it was going into Space Mountain the lights inside SM suddenly came on.There was some kind of mechanical failure. First we were shocked to actually see the lights come,then disappointed we didn't have our camera with us,then amazed that the two coasters actually took up so little space. The SM structure is HUGE compared to the size of the actual coaster. I think they can fit a heckuva coaster in the area Hunch Back could provide.

 

[grinningghost]

My question is: why build a coaster at MGM? Rock n Roller Coaster isn't that old, and MK REALLY needs to do something with the old 20K spot. A coaster there would make alot more sense to me.

 

[raidermatt]

Bob, a legitimate reason for building a steel coaster that looks wooden, rather than a wooden one, is that they can do more things with the steel coaster. Screamin' has a loop and a launch system. I'm not sure its practical or possible to do a launch with a wooden coaster, but I'm pretty sure a loop is not.

That's not to say maintenance and other cost factors definitely didn't play a part, but I do think that given the choice between Screamin' and a wooden coaster, Disney made the right choice.

 

[hopemax]

I'm not sure its practical or possible to do a launch with a wooden coaster, but I'm pretty sure a loop is not.

Well, Son of Beast is a woodie and it has a loop.

People have said that Disney's is steel because of noise issues. I don't know what the real story is, I'm sure there are many factors.

 

[EUROPA]

...oh its definately a maintainance issue too. With a steal coaster they don't have to walk every foot of track each morning.

 

[cindyfan]

Don't hate me ..........but........why do they need another coaster anyway!
We all loved the Hunchback show and really want to see another "show" go in !!!
I get my fill of "rides" at WDW and at Cedar Point (season pass holder there too).

I want to see more shows that are of the same quality as Festival of the Lion King or Beauty and the Beast!!!!
Just IMHO!

 

[scooby-the-doo]

Originally posted by Bob O
Now if they put in a 300" coaster like Cedar Point then that would have been a great start.

Correct me if I am wrong, but MGM is not Six Flags. It is a park that supposidly contains state-of-the-art movie-themed rides and attractions. A new rollercoaster is simply a cheap way to put in another feature while appleasing the teen crowd (and the bean counters).

 

[Tik Tok]

Originally posted by Another Voice
P.S. A very similar plan has been created for Epcot as well: mall rides in World Showcase.

Oh that's just peachy. I swear, sometimes I feel like Disney is doing everything possible to ruin what used to be my favorite Disney park of all. They are slowly but surely destroying everything I loved about EPCOT Center.

I really hope this plan doesn't get put into effect. Yes, Epcot needs more rides -- but they need new and unique attractions - not rides you can find in every mall in America.

 

[Bob O]

Raidermatt-As posted earlier, wooden coasters do have inversions. And alot people who like coasters would perfer to ride a real wooden coaster than get on a coaster made to appear to be a wooden coaster but it is steel. Wooden coasters are just as popular as steel coasters but are more expensive due to maintence issues. When you go on world class coasters, be it Ghostrider out in CA, or the Raven in the midwest as examples you get rides that cant be equalled on a steel coaster.
Hopemax-If disney wanted to re-create the old era ala coney island or old time carnivals then putting in awooden coaster would have made much more sense and would have been more realistic.
Scooby-doo A well themed world class coaster isnt cheap as evidenced by the costs of Hulk and DD at IOA. And i would be appeased by one and im not part of any teen crowd!! But i would keep Hunchback and put the coaster somewhere else if not mgm then AK or MK.

 

[EUROPA]

It is true that some woddies have loops. I really only know of one (son of beast). The fact is that you can do stuff with steal that you can never do with wood. Which makes the fact that Disney built a steel coaster and only put one loop in it a mind-boggler really. They wasted a coaster; the whole point of making it steel to begin with is so that you can do the really cool inversions. Wooden coasters are popular for the unique feel they give the rider. Almost if the train could come off the track at anytime. By making a steel coaster that looks like a wooden one they struck out with fans of both kinds. That's why most coaster fans don't even rank RNRC or California Screaming on their list of favorites and you do see Hulk and Dueling Dragons on those list.

 

[Jeff in BigD]

I know some purists are gonna freak about this, but I think woodies are rarely done well. A cracked rib isn't really my idea of a great ride. I've ridden on a fair share of wooden coasters & it's not my cup of tea. Steel makes for a smoother ride. I think if you ask both camps what the thrill of their respective rides are the woodies will mention perspective of low beams & feeling like flying off the track & the steels will mention the sensation of flying. Hmm, flying or trying to not be decapitated & dying? LOL.

I think completely exposed coasters are usually eyesores. CA Screamin' is one of the few exceptionsas they did a decent job of making it look like it belongs & not just thrown in there. I don't even mind when the ride does have some open-air parts (Matterhorn is one of my favorite rides), but when you go to a park & all you see is mountains of steel & wood, it's kind of tacky IMO. Now I'm sure the coaster freaks will have a hate-on for me now.


Anyway, I wouldn't have an issue with a couple rides thrown into WS (provided there's a theme...I mean a real one, not Primeval Whirl) to add a little more life to the park. While I do like the laid back atmosphere of Epcot, I do think a little more vibrance would be good. I don't agree with the FW pavillion ones that have been replaced, but I guess as long as sponsors like Met Life keeps paying the bills those other pavillions will remain untouched.

 

[grinningghost]

I have to agree with Jeff. Wooden coasters are way too hard on the body. I wouldn't even need a chiropractor if I could ride a wooden coaster everyday. Every bone in my body cracks when I ride those stupid things. If it's gotta be, put in a steel one, and theme it to death. Preferably a DISNEY theme. What things like Aerosmith ever had to do with Disney is still a mystery to me.

 

[Another Voice]

The rides for World Showcase are the same ones at Flik’s Fun Faire at California Adventure – rides that were truly designed for shopping malls and all with a sub 90 seconds cycle time. One plan has them scattered throughout the pavilions (each appropriately decorated), another is to lump four or five into a “Kidcot” area. There are rumors that Disney is desperately after British Airways again to sponsor a Ferris wheel (a take-off on the London Eye) for the U.K. pavilion.

The steel-for-wood roller coaster was done strictly for cost. Way back in the days when Paradise Pier was supposed to be part of WDW’s Boardwalk, it was going to be a real wooden coaster. But as the budget for the project was continually cut, the coaster became steel. Finally all of the rides were axed, but only to rise from the dead to terrorize Disneyland. And since everything at California Adventure is strictly about cost, there was never any consideration given to building a real wooden coaster in Anaheim.

I also recall a vague memory of one proposal way, way back of making a wooden coaster part of the Norway pavilion at Epcot. The company was desperate to put a thrill ride in the park and tried to sell all the sponsors some type of coaster.

 

[WEDWAY100]

Originally posted by Another Voice
The rides for World Showcase are the same ones at Flik’s Fun Faire at California Adventure – rides that were truly designed for shopping malls and all with a sub 90 seconds cycle time. One plan has them scattered throughout the pavilions (each appropriately decorated), another is to lump four or five into a “Kidcot” area. There are rumors that Disney is desperately after British Airways again to sponsor a Ferris wheel (a take-off on the London Eye) for the U.K. pavilion.

I always thought they should “re-purpose” Toad and Pinocchio (From DL) and implement them in World Showcase. Toad would be in England, with a façade similar to DL’s, and made to fit completely within that environment. The Pinocchio dark ride would go in Germany and the façade would be well done there too. It’s basically the same idea as it’s a small world “re-purposed” for the Mexican pavilion. It would reduce or eliminate the need for those coloring book Kidcot stops.

But of course they want to do that type of concept on the cheap. Let’s buy some more carnival rides. People like carnivals and carnivals have rides.

 

[Jeff in BigD]

Geez, whatever happened to family rides? Kiddie rides? Wasn't the point of the parks so that Mom & Dad could ride with the kids (& vice-versa) & they wouldn't have to sit on a park bench waiting for them?

WEDWAY brings up a good point. I think WDI tried to make sure people knew Epcot wasn't MK 2.0, but I think most people would like to see some more (quality) rides in Epcot. I think they'd be hesitant to put in Mr. Toad (though I would love it), but Alice in Wonderland might be an easier sell. I don't know if space would allow, but theme-wise you could probably put one in about every pavillion (anyone who mentions Hunchback for France instead of Beauty & The Beast or Sleeping Beauty needs to be beaten with a rubber hose ). I know it's cheesy, but Rio De Tiempo is one of my favorites at Epcot. I highly doubt it would be as enjoyable if it were a glorified Kiddie coaster (ala Gadget's Go-coaster) with no theming.

I think the Norway ride is much better than any wooden coaster would have been & it feels like a Disney quality ride. I'm sure they would have given the coaster the name of a Norse god & claimed that was theming. IMO it's almost impossible to have any theming with a completely exposed coaster.

 

[Bob O]

Europa-You are so right!!!! Disney had a option of building a great wooden coaster to go with the theming of that area but instead put in a steel coaster, and then compounded the problem by putting in few elements that can make a steel coaster great!!!
Wooden coasters are the original idea in roller coasters and when done well are great rides that can rival any steel coaster. And wooden coasters are GREAT FAMILY RIDES!!!! Most only have 42" height limits like TMRR and unless the kids are real small, under 5 the whole family can enjoy a great experience. As for them beating you up, thats totally over-rated!!! You can hit potholes inthe road that will give a rougher ride, but nothing beats the air time on a great woodie!!!.
And AV is right!!! Its all about cost rather than theming and accuracy!!!! Its cehaper to put in a steel coaster when the maintinece issues are involved!!! And few coasters look as good as a magnificent wooden coaster!!!! Thats real nostaglia that should have been added to PP.