I think the biggest thing IoA lacks are 2 rides like HM and Pirates. Big, long dark rides that eat a lot of people and slow the day down.
Universal's New Park/Site B Blue Sky Thread
- Thread starter OrlandoGuy
- Start date
-
Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
- Status
I think the biggest thing IoA lacks are 2 rides like HM and Pirates. Big, long dark rides that eat a lot of people and slow the day down.
And Flying Unicorn and Storm Force didn't open with the park either, so there was barely any kid-friendly attractions other than one dark ride and two flat rides in Seuss Landing. (And they removed most of the spinning from Cat in the Hat, and slowed down the couple full spins they left in.)
This is very true. DreamWorks properties will be perfect to fill these voids at the new park.
I think Park 3 has a bunch of potential for rides like that in Nintendo, DreamWorks, and even Classic Monsters.
Comcast/Uni doesn't own Singapore, so I wouldn't be worried.
- Jul 27, 2015
- 10,034
- 50,461
And for reference on how much space that is, he is Hulk overlaid on that foot print. On here, there's one spot that goes over the path (and the launch goes way out into the water, but Hulk isn't really "compact" until the back half.
But here is how I see it essentially working. I suspect the highest part of the ride will go over the Discovery Center, then dive at the water. I suspect some sort of signature inversion above the water (maybe just an overbanked curve), before cutting back into the woods. Something to note though, the queue space I give is MASSIVE compared to other rides. So they can really fit something along the lines of Hulk in there... without ever going over a guest area.
Last edited:
And for reference on how much space that is, he is Hulk overlaid on that foot print. On here, there's one spot that goes over the path (and the launch goes way out into the water, but Hulk isn't really "compact" until the back half.
But here is how I see it essentially working. I suspect the highest part of the ride will go over the Discovery Center, then dive at the water. I suspect some sort of signature inversion above the water (maybe just an overbanked curve), before cutting back into the woods. Something to note though, the queue space I give is MASSIVE compared to other rides. So they can really fit something along the lines of Hulk in there... without ever going over a guest area.
Damn, I never looked at it that way. Personally, I’m hoping for a zero-G stall, or that weird double zero-G roll from the T-Rex concept video.
Sorry to go off-topic a bit, but could the JP coaster delay have anything to do with the fact that the RMC T-Rex models won’t go into production until 2020?
If it was, I'd be laughing my rear over the fact that Gonzales would get a family thrill coaster like West Coast Racers.
I would argue Singapore does the best with what they have in space. It could be a lot better, but they're attention to detail is great, and is different in tone than the others IMO.
That said, Orlando won't be as hindered to space, so I don't have much to be concerned of in the scope of how they want to do this.
__
Going back to the potential resort for Site B, I think a great option would be to see if they can salvage an old concept like the Royal Egyptian Resort; as that had a lot of potential if I'm honest.
What about some interactive resorts like the Star Wars hotel, but not based around an IP? An adventure-themed hotel could be awesome, if done right.
Also, are we sure that the DreamWorks properties will get mini-lands, instead of full-fledged worlds? I ask because KFP is getting a full land in Beijing, so it’d make sense to replicate that formula here.
Also, are we sure that the DreamWorks properties will get mini-lands, instead of full-fledged worlds? I ask because KFP is getting a full land in Beijing, so it’d make sense to replicate that formula here.
"Mini-Lands" is not really the correct term to phrase it with... more of like decent sized lands creating the overall DreamWorks area. Think of how Fantasyland has the castle courtyard, forest and then the circus.
But why couldn’t each individual property be its own land? It’d make more sense that way, and allow for more fleshed-out areas.
Who's to say that they can't be fleshed out, even in a smaller space?
For the crap I give to Motiongate, I would consider those great examples of having intimate yet highly themed experiences for DWA's material.
You can’t really get lost in a smaller land. It has to be 6+ acres to have a chance, unless you go vertical like SNW. Also, it makes sense for a larger park to have larger lands. As of right now, the probable maximum acreage count (assuming that the lands are SNW-expanded [probably around 15], DreamWorks [probably 20 if they don’t split it up], Jurassic World [15], Classic Monsters [10], and Fantastic Beasts [less than ten], plus a fifteen-acre hub. That’s less than 90 acres. That doesn’t sound like the monster park everyone seems to think we’re going to get.
It's not about how large of a space might be, but how you use it.
You can easily make a land feel like you are getting lost, in a smaller area, if they handle space management to max-potential.
You don't need acres to make something immersive. Diagon and Hogsmeade are way smaller than most theme park lands and are the most immersive. Now, if a land requires extensive rockwork and such, then yes it needs acreage but to say that a land can't work because its not 10+ acres is ridiculous.
I’m not saying 10+, I’m saying six. And Shrek/Berk require quite a bit of rockwork/theming, especially Berk. But Berk wouldn’t get the land it needs if it’s made into a smaller land, probably with a single attraction. I want it to be like Avatar, not Simpsons.
- Status
Book with our Travel Partners
Latest posts
-
-
Halloween Horror Nights 33 (UOR) - News & Information
- Latest: Midnight Detective
-
-
