Fast and Furious: Hollywood Drift coaster (Opening 2026)

[Freak]

Meh. There are worse things. You gonna complain that USH is FINALLY getting a world-class coaster?

Besides, you can clearly see the buildings from CityWalk from Hogsmede but there’s it much you can do about that

 

[Viator]

I'd also argue SNW has it *far* worse than Potter does, and that if it gets JK Rowling flustered, then that's a win by me.

 

[DarkMetroid567]

I told you guys this building looked worse than USF Supercharged’s building and no one listened!!

(But I actually like how Supercharged looks lol)

 

[Jake S]

I dunno, being able to see it on the way out of a land isn't all that jarring to me, especially in a park that has never particularly committed to solid sightlines (understandably!)

 

[Hello]

I told you guys this building looked worse than USF Supercharged’s building and no one listened!!

(But I actually like how Supercharged looks lol)

I want to be clear that I am genuinely curious, what makes the brick box in Orlando better?

 

[DrStarlander]

I think it's regrettable and weird. It doesn't enhance the experience in a theme park to intentionally undermine the feeling of immersion from any vantage point or angle a guest turns. When you are otherwise spending hundreds of millions of dollars building themed lands, it's hard to argue this is a "plus." So why do it? It's not like they didn't model it out and know.

And if a jumbled potpourri approach is what they're going for, why have some full immersion in the park and some potpourri, as either sets expectations the other fails. To me, the result is a feeling of haphazardness, lack of long-term vision, and a cheaper/weaker brand. Strong brands are made by having principles and delivering consistency, to form a bond with customer based on met expectations.

They so easily could have just had the entrance of this attraction, and signage, be on a different side. Oh well, I'm rooting for Universal but this is a disappointing choice.

 

[Jerroddragon]

I see it both way

But unless you do what SNW did then its going to be hard for most these lands to blend lands at USH

Like if they ever use Fall Lake for theme park space I hope they design it to be future proof but in this case when they build this land they had no idea what would go there year later

We all knew FF would be a building like this before they even built it and I do like the art on it but from a design perceptive its not the best and sucks they could not really do anything to hide this but here we are

I am hoping the coaster will draw in people and become a classic that makes it all worth it

 

[AvoidTIMtation]

Two things: 1. I'm curious as to what a Fast & Furious ride building should look like other than what we got? I think it fits. 2. The fact that USH wasn't originally intended to be a theme park, it should be exempt from sightline debates.

 

[DrStarlander]

sucks they could not really do anything to hide this but here we are

That F&F coaster project is huge, with a big area of land, and enough lattude that from Day 1 they could have rotated the building, oriented the entrance and signage toward French St. They could have created wider berth though the congested passage to Simpsons/escalator, and put a 15 foot wide buffer planter-island of pine trees outside Hogsmeade to get this:


Instead of this:

Two things: 1. I'm curious as to what a Fast & Furious ride building should look like other than what we got? I think it fits. 2. The fact that USH wasn't originally intended to be a theme park, it should be exempt from sightline debates.

1. Instead of a massive. monolithic 1982 Epcot-pavillion-scale building in the middle of the park, it could have looked like 2-3 side-by-side industrial buildings, with mixed heights/materials (some stucco, some corrugated metal), so it plays better with everything around it scale-wise AND establishes a themed "neighborhood" evocative of the industrial zone LA, home to F&F car culture. And a giant building that looks the same from all sides will make the park feel smaller while many smaller buildings that look different from different sides will make the park feel larger, which is important in the overall perception of the park's size/value proposition.

2. The issue is not the intellectual debate or the long-ago history of the land (tourists aren't on these forums and don't know or care), it's how does USH compete with California Adventure (which was a parking lot, if we're managing expectations based on land history...which I'm not; I'm relentless in critiquing DCA's power lines). The issue as I see it is that these two parks are head to head for "second theme park day" in So. Cal. for tourists. People will judge all the attraction offerings, convenience, food/bev, pricing, and "quality" of theming and some will perceive one park as better and another worse. For some, better means more immersive and transportive. I think USH is leaving some money on the table here, unnecessarily. Immersion and great sight-lines do not necessarily cost more money, they usually just require some strategy/creativity.