• The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
    Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More
  • Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.

DHS Monster Inc Land Coming to Disney's Hollywood Studios

sedati

sedati

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
Look at the model…
Click to expand...
I actually did go back and look at the model and believe we have all been wrong about the gravity building. Guardians is one big box because it uses multiple launches and uses all the space. But look at Rock'n Roller:
1774119623051.png

The building is split to accommodate the two main heights of the ride. Now look at Tron:
1774119947882.png

They built a separate elevation just for the entry tunnel.
1.jpg

So I noticed this, a plexi box within the box. One that lays behind the main facade. I think the outer plexiglass box that we have all been focused on is mostly irrelevant. It doesn't even rise to the height of the main gravity box, shown as its own structure in the model. I think we're looking at multiple building elevations, something like this:
2.jpg

Notice the red box to the left. That is for the last run back to the load/unload station. It's very small and short. If you look at the area in green, there is no need to build up to the full height as it only uses a third of it. Orange is the load structure, which seems to be aligned with the main facade (though slightly off- this could be a flaw in the model as the alignment seems mostly intentional for it to be hidden. Purple is the run out and this seems the most colossal waste of space even if the height is trimmed. There's nothing below it- or perhaps there will be more queue space below or utilities/offices/etc. The big blue box is the main gravity building, which is both shown as its own structure, but also one higher than the outer plexi-border.

I'm thinking this makes more economical sense and will also be easier to theme/ hide using any of the many methods pointing out in this forum.

Thoughts?
 
sedati

sedati

Well-Known Member
sedati said:
View attachment 912763
They've been working by the MuppetVision exit for a while. Not sure for what.
Click to expand...
3.jpg


Actually, I just noticed that this construction is in the concept art. They're definitely trying to narrow our view of the Door Coaster structure from the main thoroughfare, especially on the right side, which, if I'm correct about the building being divided and not a single box, is the side that will have a higher elevation.
 
D

DrStarlander

Well-Known Member
sedati said:
I actually did go back and look at the model and believe we have all been wrong about the gravity building. Guardians is one big box because it uses multiple launches and uses all the space. But look at Rock'n Roller:
View attachment 912845
The building is split to accommodate the two main heights of the ride. Now look at Tron:
View attachment 912849
They built a separate elevation just for the entry tunnel.
View attachment 912850
So I noticed this, a plexi box within the box. One that lays behind the main facade. I think the outer plexiglass box that we have all been focused on is mostly irrelevant. It doesn't even rise to the height of the main gravity box, shown as its own structure in the model. I think we're looking at multiple building elevations, something like this:
View attachment 912851
Notice the red box to the left. That is for the last run back to the load/unload station. It's very small and short. If you look at the area in green, there is no need to build up to the full height as it only uses a third of it. Orange is the load structure, which seems to be aligned with the main facade (though slightly off- this could be a flaw in the model as the alignment seems mostly intentional for it to be hidden. Purple is the run out and this seems the most colossal waste of space even if the height is trimmed. There's nothing below it- or perhaps there will be more queue space below or utilities/offices/etc. The big blue box is the main gravity building, which is both shown as its own structure, but also one higher than the outer plexi-border.

I'm thinking this makes more economical sense and will also be easier to theme/ hide using any of the many methods pointing out in this forum.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I do think there's a taller section of show building at the back. I did not show scenic treatment on that because I don't think it will be visible from the ground.

As for your other theory, interesting. Does your theory require to some extent ignoring the plexiglass box as irrelevant? The reason I ask is that in the image below you'll see perhaps a ride maintenance/storage annex that has plexiglass around it in a somewhat finicky way, and to me suggests the plexiglass box is pretty literal as to the facility shape, or else if it's just a container for the model to keep it from getting dusty maybe they would have just built a bigger box around it? But who knows. I still think whether it's mostly one big symmetrical box or multiple box shapes, the scenic options above apply and in fact they become harder the more geometry/complexity of the structure (See Berk theater) due to all the corners and edges.
MonstersPlexi.png
 
sedati

sedati

Well-Known Member
DrStarlander said:
I do think there's a taller section of show building at the back. I did not show scenic treatment on that because I don't think it will be visible from the ground.

As for your other theory, interesting. Does your theory require to some extent ignoring the plexiglass box as irrelevant? The reason I ask is that in the image below you'll see perhaps a ride maintenance/storage annex that has plexiglass around it in a somewhat finicky way, and to me suggests the plexiglass box is pretty literal as to the facility shape, or else if it's just a container for the model to keep it from getting dusty maybe they would have just built a bigger box around it? But who knows. I still think whether it's mostly one big symmetrical box or multiple box shapes, the scenic options above apply and in fact they become harder the more geometry/complexity of the structure (See Berk theater) due to all the corners and edges.
View attachment 912857
Click to expand...
That section you circled is the last run before the unload section and probably a show-scene. Note how low the plexiglass box is for that bit. This being a suspended coaster means the track mostly hangs off the ceiling. This shows how low the clearance needs to be and why it would be a tremendous waste of space to go full height for the left front side as all of that only uses about 1/3rd of the height as I mentioned. That said, you do bring up an interesting point about where the maintenance spur would be located. My guess is it could be below the area on the left as I mentioned there's a tremendous about of space below the track, though the area on the right has some room along with an existing track switch.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
DrStarlander said:
I do think there's a taller section of show building at the back. I did not show scenic treatment on that because I don't think it will be visible from the ground.

As for your other theory, interesting. Does your theory require to some extent ignoring the plexiglass box as irrelevant? The reason I ask is that in the image below you'll see perhaps a ride maintenance/storage annex that has plexiglass around it in a somewhat finicky way, and to me suggests the plexiglass box is pretty literal as to the facility shape, or else if it's just a container for the model to keep it from getting dusty maybe they would have just built a bigger box around it? But who knows. I still think whether it's mostly one big symmetrical box or multiple box shapes, the scenic options above apply and in fact they become harder the more geometry/complexity of the structure (See Berk theater) due to all the corners and edges.
View attachment 912857
Click to expand...
This little appendage is exactly the sort of thing to add under the Worry column. It’s poor design. It requires a not insignificant expense all for a little area.
 
co10064

co10064

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I realize this is not what the concept art shows, but I could very well see a situation where the whole warehouse is just left as a giant white/tan box with a Monsters Inc. logo slapped on it (almost like the soundstage method).

The building is supposed to be industrial looking, so painting it blue to blend in with the sky doesn’t seem needed IMO.
 
sedati

sedati

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
This little appendage is exactly the sort of thing to add under the Worry column. It’s poor design. It requires a not insignificant expense all for a little area.
Click to expand...
What? It's economy. Look at the back of Tron:
1774129498252.png

The whole thing is built around the needs of the ride with odd shapes, angles and irregularities. Less wasted space also means less A/C.
 
Last edited:
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
sedati said:
What? It's economy. Look at the back of Tron: View attachment 912871
The whole thing is build around the needs of the ride with odd shapes, angles and irregularities. Less wasted space also means less A/C.
Click to expand...
It is not economical by default, especially when it is such a small space. What would be economical is designing the space to be within the larger volume instead of as a protrusion.

There’s a reason the cheapest buildings are just plain rectangles, and that really is the ideal form for a show building to maximize funds for the show. Corners and various roof levels aren’t hard per se but they still introduce additional costs and work to a design. There’s a lot of little things that just get added. Just look at that photo of TRON (which isn’t really an example of good design). Every type of corner, whether just wall corners or a change from wall to roof, has to be detailed. Each roof has to have a different structural design, so there’s separate details and calculations. Every roof has to have access and you can see several of the stairs in the photo. Even something as mundane as draining rainwater from the roof requires more work to slope each individual roof and do additional calculations to size the drains. Good design is about balancing a variety of competing interests and just doing different masses is not inherently the more economic choice.
 
sedati

sedati

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
It is not economical by default, especially when it is such a small space. What would be economical is designing the space to be within the larger volume instead of as a protrusion.

There’s a reason the cheapest buildings are just plain rectangles, and that really is the ideal form for a show building to maximize funds for the show. Corners and various roof levels aren’t hard per se but they still introduce additional costs and work to a design. There’s a lot of little things that just get added. Just look at that photo of TRON (which isn’t really an example of good design). Every type of corner, whether just wall corners or a change from wall to roof, has to be detailed. Each roof has to have a different structural design, so there’s separate details and calculations. Every roof has to have access and you can see several of the stairs in the photo. Even something as mundane as draining rainwater from the roof requires more work to slope each individual roof and do additional calculations to size the drains. Good design is about balancing a variety of competing interests and just doing different masses is not inherently the more economic choice.
Click to expand...
I do understand your points about the economics of fitting everything into a nice box, but they're not building Walmarts. With all the restrictions placed on Imagineers, I'd hate each project to start with "make it all fit into a simple box."

In regards to this project, you seem to be assuming that element could simply fit in the existing structure, and I'm assuming it could not, thus adding a very constrained extra bit is more economical that expanding the whole thing just so it does fit. They mock these things up and it's because they sculpt these structures so precisely that I don't believe they're prone to wasting expensive square footage.

Out of curiosity, I just flew over all the parks with Maps to see which buildings adhere to your edict of good sense design.

Ratatouille (minus queue) and Guardians of the Galaxy (gravity building only)

That's it. Even Small World has an odd notch cut out of it.

The rest are all the oddest looking buildings with mismatched heights, odd angles, little offshoots, etc. How have they been so wasteful and misguided since day one?
 
danlb_2000

danlb_2000

Premium Member
sedati said:
I do understand your points about the economics of fitting everything into a nice box, but they're not building Walmarts. With all the restrictions placed on Imagineers, I'd hate each project to start with "make it all fit into a simple box."

In regards to this project, you seem to be assuming that element could simply fit in the existing structure, and I'm assuming it could not, thus adding a very constrained extra bit is more economical that expanding the whole thing just so it does fit. They mock these things up and it's because they sculpt these structures so precisely that I don't believe they're prone to wasting expensive square footage.

Out of curiosity, I just flew over all the parks with Maps to see which buildings adhere to your edict of good sense design.

Ratatouille (minus queue) and Guardians of the Galaxy (gravity building only)

That's it. Even Small World has an odd notch cut out of it.

The rest are all the oddest looking buildings with mismatched heights, odd angles, little offshoots, etc. How have they been so wasteful and misguided since day one?
Click to expand...

Now I want to know why that notch is there on Small World.

1774176511687.png
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
sedati said:
I do understand your points about the economics of fitting everything into a nice box, but they're not building Walmarts. With all the restrictions placed on Imagineers, I'd hate each project to start with "make it all fit into a simple box."

In regards to this project, you seem to be assuming that element could simply fit in the existing structure, and I'm assuming it could not, thus adding a very constrained extra bit is more economical that expanding the whole thing just so it does fit. They mock these things up and it's because they sculpt these structures so precisely that I don't believe they're prone to wasting expensive square footage.

Out of curiosity, I just flew over all the parks with Maps to see which buildings adhere to your edict of good sense design.

Ratatouille (minus queue) and Guardians of the Galaxy (gravity building only)

That's it. Even Small World has an odd notch cut out of it.

The rest are all the oddest looking buildings with mismatched heights, odd angles, little offshoots, etc. How have they been so wasteful and misguided since day one?
Click to expand...
There’s a reason I wrote that last sentence about good design being a compromise between competing interests. Simplicity of form competes with things like difference in use. Once again, Rise of the Resistance right next door is an example with its show space being inside a big rectangle. “It’s a small world” has the notch but it defines different uses and carries over a common roof. Things like Pirates of the Caribbean and Tiana’s Bayou Adventure both have simple forms used for their major show building spaces. The backside of the various World Showcase pavilions all become rectangular with the Mexico Pavilion being a big rectangular form.

There’s a reason I called out the little side appendage as poor design, and not the potential massing differences you initially identified. Because major differences in use are part of the balancing of competing interests. This is a green field project. It doesn’t have weird site constraints. That space “cannot” fit within a larger mass because of design choices that are entirely within the control of the design team.

And again, good design is a balance, a push and pull. A restriction can also offer greater freedoms. Having a more regular form to the show building means more money available to put towards what guests actually see and experience. A more regular form means you can take advantage of a more regular structure and greater clear spans, which offers more freedom to the layout of the guest spaces.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom