Should Disney build a state of the art Hypercoaster????

[JimmyV]

source: i live next to magic mountain and got season passes for my daughter and i. it's pretty awful. some of the adrenaline junkie crowd can be seriously rough.

The point would be to entertain the guests that are already coming to WDW, not attract hoards of "awful, rough" newcomers. Do you really think adding one ride would alter the demographic? Did the addition or RnR change the crowd? Or EE?

Disney does immersive storytelling attractions (not "rides" as such) so an ugly pile of metal scaffolding designed solely to churn people's stomachs around would be the complete antithesis of what the Disney concept stands for.

Do you really think that theming is not part of the equation? Why would you think that EE can be so immersive while a more thrilling coaster would not be? There seems to be an assumption that any ride faster than RnR or with more inversions than EE would have to be unthemed and ugly?

 

[kmb584]

Do you really think that theming is not part of the equation? Why would you think that EE can be so immersive while a more thrilling coaster would not be? There seems to be an assumption that any ride faster than RnR or with more inversions than EE would have to be unthemed and ugly?

Yes, I do. I've seen a lot of mega/hypercoasters in various theme parks around the country and have yet to see one themed outside of the steel being of a certain color or colors. I believe the criteria is that a megacoaster has at least a 200' drop, so how can one expect that to be themed to Disney criteria unless a facade is built around it or it's an indoor coaster? One of that magnitude would soar above Spaceship Earth and it's quite honestly not something I want to see when walking into a Disney park.

 

[andrewilley]

Do you really think that theming is not part of the equation? Why would you think that EE can be so immersive while a more thrilling coaster would not be? There seems to be an assumption that any ride faster than RnR or with more inversions than EE would have to be unthemed and ugly?

EE is not a "hypercoaster", nor are any of the other Disney mountains, Tower of Terror, Test Track, etc.

As I said, what I'm against is a 200ft-tall pile of steel scaffolding painted in primary colours that serves no other purpose than to visibly throw people around at speed, with or without their lunch following the same trajectory.

Disney does not make "amusement parks", it creates theme parks.

Andre

 

[JimmyV]

EE is not a "hypercoaster", nor are any of the other Disney mountains, Tower of Terror, Test Track, etc.

One of that magnitude would soar above Spaceship Earth and it's quite honestly not something I want to see when walking into a Disney park.

No, they're not. But there is no logic in the premise that:
1. EE is themed.
2. EE is not a hypercoaster.
3. Ergo, a hypercoaster cannot be themed.

That sells the Imagineers short. Perhaps a small top portion of the single highest part of the coaster would have to peek (peak) out of the theming and give the riders an open air view. But that doesn't mean the balance of the steel structure could not be integrated into another mountain. And I think it is generally assumed that Epcot would not be home to such a ride. So appearing above Spaceship Earth would be a non-issue. If the ride replaced LMA and/or the Backlog Tour, it would not impair anything visually.

 

[RllngRckBrw]

I love big coasters. cedar Point is one of my favorite places on the planet, but I think it's a bad idea. This is not works for Disney, it would not fit and I don't think it would attract guests like family rides do.

 

[Planogirl]

EE is not a "hypercoaster", nor are any of the other Disney mountains, Tower of Terror, Test Track, etc.

As I said, what I'm against is a 200ft-tall pile of steel scaffolding painted in primary colours that serves no other purpose than to visibly throw people around at speed, with or without their lunch following the same trajectory.

Disney does not make "amusement parks", it creates theme parks.

Andre

Anything can be well themed. Or not as the case might be:

I bet that the purpose for this ride is to "to visibly throw people around at speed, with or without their lunch following the same trajectory".

 

[LBIJim]

less[/B] intense???? It must be because there are not that many people who want to ride thrilling coasters!!!! There is no way I would be looking to ride that after learning they removed one of the dips!! !!

No, it wasn't due to lack of ridership. I don't remember the exact reason, but I think it was due to some mechanical issue. It was still a very popular ride. It happened sometime in the mid to late 1990s, IIRC.

The past decade, however, showed a marked decrease in popularity. Maybe because it was getting old and creaky, and maybe because there were other, more thrilling coasters at the park, like "X" and Goliath.

Anything can be well themed. Or not as the case might be:

.

I'm probably the only one (or one of the very few) who thinks that Primeval Whirl is EXCELLENTLY themed. Paraphrasing Dolly Parton, it probably cost Disney a lot of money to make it look that cheap.

Jim

 

[bluwater]

I was just in a discussion about the with someone who said he doesn't like disneyn because there are no real thrill rides. Honetly, this guy is not one disney wants there. I say no mega coasters and keep out the thrill seekers!

 

[gericoronado]

Disney does not make "amusement parks", it creates theme parks.

Well said.

 

[mickeyluv'r]

I think the question was thoroughly answered in the previous thread.

And it got shut down for a reason.



The consensus in this thread sounds about the same as the last thread.

sigh.

 

[andrewilley]

I rest my case.

Anyone wish they'd bulldozed that instead for Avatar Land?

Andre

 

[JZCubed]

My issue is aesthetics.

If this hypothetical coaster is in MK, it will be an eyesore that could tower above Cindy's Castle.

Everest is the highest point in the world and at Disney World, so putting this coaster in AK is not possible.

EPCOT could use more rides, but dislocating the visual of the Spaceship Earth seems wrong too, but not impossible.

Therefore, I could see Hollywood Studios having a mega coaster. After all, HS needs something, ANYTHING, to keep people engaged for the day. Were it not for Toy Story, Beauty & Beast, and Fantasmic, my family could just as well skip HS. This is our least favored Park and it will be years before anything new is added.

 

[kbelle8995]

Personally I don't see Disney ever building a Hypercoaster or Megacoaster or anything like that.

1). Disney views itself as a THEME park of experiences.
2) Disney has never viewed itself a thrill-riders paradise.
3). Disney Has always felt it different from other amusement parks so they are not into the coaster competition.

And quite frankly there are other parks in Florida that are doing this quite well. Busch Gardens or even Universal.

 

[JoshuaShaw]

I didn't realize people who liked roller coasters were such monsters. I guess since we're generalizing it's fair to say that all children are loud and obnoxious and I hate it when they build family rides because it draws that undesired element.

Or, people who enjoy thrill rides are just like every other segment of the population. Every group draws from the same pool of humanity and there will always be a percentage of jerks. Lord knows I've met my fair share of awful parents, but that doesn't mean every family I encounter is full of horrible people.

 

[hakepb]

"Just" convert one of the elevators in TOT to a rotating inversion experience.

Of course it would need a proper shoulder harness. Car enters the shaft backwards. At the top, the car flips upside down.
Start dropping. By the bottom of the fall, you flip "back up"

 

[Luv2Run]

My issue is aesthetics.

If this hypothetical coaster is in MK, it will be an eyesore that could tower above Cindy's Castle.

Everest is the highest point in the world and at Disney World, so putting this coaster in AK is not possible.

EPCOT could use more rides, but dislocating the visual of the Spaceship Earth seems wrong too, but not impossible.

Therefore, I could see Hollywood Studios having a mega coaster. After all, HS needs something, ANYTHING, to keep people engaged for the day. Were it not for Toy Story, Beauty & Beast, and Fantasmic, my family could just as well skip HS. This is our least favored Park and it will be years before anything new is added.

I agree, it's about visual aesthetics and Disney takes into account the sight lines within each park, and WDW as a whole. A megacoaster standing tall above Cinderella's Castle/Spaceship Earth/Expedition Everest would be an eyesore, no matter if it's themed or not. For instance, they purposely painted the back side of ToT to match the facade of the Morocco pavilion at EPCOT, since you can clearly see ToT from EPCOT. Since it blends in, you really have to look in order to spot it, because they did such a good job making it match. You can't do that with a megacoaster. It would be too blantantly obvious and would stick out like a huge, sore thumb.

 

[JimmyV]

I rest my case.

Anyone wish they'd bulldozed that instead for Avatar Land?

Andre

The very existence of PW in AK and California Screamin' in DCA is proof that Disney is not adverse to adding barely themed coasters to its parks that look first and foremost like coasters. The only real issue is where to draw the line. Sort of like the joke that ends: "We've already established what you are. Now we're just negotiating the price."

 

[blackmamba10000]

No, they're not. But there is no logic in the premise that:
1. EE is themed.
2. EE is not a hypercoaster.
3. Ergo, a hypercoaster cannot be themed.

That sells the Imagineers short. Perhaps a small top portion of the single highest part of the coaster would have to peek (peak) out of the theming and give the riders an open air view. But that doesn't mean the balance of the steel structure could not be integrated into another mountain. And I think it is generally assumed that Epcot would not be home to such a ride. So appearing above Spaceship Earth would be a non-issue. If the ride replaced LMA and/or the Backlog Tour, it would not impair anything visually.

This. Agree completely. My only worry with adding a mega coaster, is where do you draw the line? I feel this might open the flood gates to more coasters. That mentality of building them taller, bigger, faster etc to keep up with technology.

 

[johde]

While I'd like to see Disney create more thrilling coasters, I'm not sure a hypercoaster is the right way to go. Even though, there current isn't one in central FL. For some of the reasons mentioned above, I think 200ft causes a problem. 200ft and above requires airplane warning lights. That's why ToT, the Castle, etc are 199ft; throw in 20 ft. for themeing above the highest track portions and I get at most 180ft as the highest point. Second, also from a Themeing point of view, launch to vertical first hill makes sense at that heights, That gives you a much smaller area up high to theme.

Something similar to Cheetah Hunt at Busch Gardens could fit the bill nicely https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPhb3O4vIvo. For example, you could make it part of Avatarland. Build a 2nd big tree or mountain to theme the central tower on the edge of current property. You could loosely theme it to riding the Banshees. The first part could be theme around the struggle to get the connection formed. Then, once you form the connection, after the initial tall tower, you could travel away from the current park flying around Pandora. This would minimize the impact of the track and ride on the rest of the park. You can see what Busch Gardens did we reusing the themeing from the old Rhino Rally water portion. If the track and supports were painted to blend into the surroundings instead of being bright green.

 

[JoshuaShaw]

My only worry with adding a mega coaster, is where do you draw the line? I feel this might open the flood gates to more coasters. That mentality of building them taller, bigger, faster etc to keep up with technology.

While I'm not in favor of building a giant roller coaster, I've seen this argument brought up several times and I don't understand it. After all, the advent of Rock 'n' Roller Coaster didn't usher in a dozen more inversion-heavy roller coasters. Not to mention, Disney doesn't have the space to build multiple large-scale coasters. The addition of one type of ride isn't going to suddenly change the entire vision of the parks.