DHS Monster Inc Land Coming to Disney's Hollywood Studios

[JackCH]

The flats is my biggest issue. We're going to have the TA carousel soon (DLP is getting Rapunzel's Tangled Spin & Disneyland getting Stark Flight Lab) but why has Disney stopped making well-themed flat rides?

I presume the second Cars attraction is also a flat ride, but yeah, that was one area of weakness.

 

[RosR9]

The flats is my biggest issue. We're going to have the TA carousel soon (DLP is getting Rapunzel's Tangled Spin & Disneyland getting Stark Flight Lab) but why has Disney stopped making well-themed flat rides?

I am the weirdo that prefers flat rides to all others, literally a well themed flat ride would enhance every land.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I'm not sure why the topic of WDW leaning towards coasters and no more dark rides with storytelling continues to come up in these forums over and over and over and over again... maybe because there's such a loud voice of posters spreading misinformation all the time, but......

Just looking back at the last ten years... WDW has given us:

6 Dark rides (Frozen, Na'vi river, Rise, Mickey, Remy, Tiana [is Tiana a dark or thrill? Not sure, but put it here] )
3 Simulation type rides (Soarin' Around the World, Flight of Passage, Smuggler's Run)
3 Coasters (Slinky, Tron, Cosmic Rewind [which is WDW dipping their toes into coaster/dark/storytelling] )

And based on what's coming the next 5 years we have announced:
4 Dark rides (rumored Villains dark ride, Indy, Encanto, Test Track 3.0 [is Test Track a dark or thrill? Not sure, but put it here] )
2 Coasters (Monsters door, and rumored Villains Coaster [I hope Disney goes all in on coaster/dark ride/storytelling here] )
And whatever you consider those 2 Cars rides to be, but they are definitely not coasters.

Disney World is not leaning towards coasters. They are still opening a healthy amount of Dark rides.

COASTERZ!! is the new SCREENZ!!

 

[Streetway Again]

COASTERZ!! is the new SCREENZ!!

Don’t even get started lol

 

[Professortango1]

Villains Land is to have a dark ride too, but if it is too scary for little kids doesn't really help

Luckily, Disney has never made a ride that was too scary for kids. I grew up on Snow White's Scary Adventures and the screaming pop-ups in Haunted Mansion. Visited Alien Encounter and Tower of Terror in Elementary School. And I am a wuss.

 

[Professortango1]

The flats is my biggest issue. We're going to have the TA carousel soon (DLP is getting Rapunzel's Tangled Spin & Disneyland getting Stark Flight Lab) but why has Disney stopped making well-themed flat rides?

Because they rarely fit with modern theme park design. Dumbo wouldn't be built today. They are not continuously loading, meaning you need queue space for 3-5 cycles of guests. The ride vehicles are typically limited to a family and they don't add single riders to increase capacity.

I do like a well-done flat ride to add movement to a land, but I would love for Disney to figure out how to create flat rides which load continuously with the ride vehicles moving from a loading area into the ride position while the previous riders find their vehicles moving to the unload. It looks like we are getting a touch of this with the upcoming Avengers flat ride. I'd love to see Disney explore this more. I would love to ride a darkride that became the Pixar Pal-Around for the middle portion or finale rather than sitting on the Ferris wheel as they load/unload car by car.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Luckily, Disney has never made a ride that was too scary for kids. I grew up on Snow White's Scary Adventures and the screaming pop-ups in Haunted Mansion. Visited Alien Encounter and Tower of Terror in Elementary School. And I am a wuss.

Guess my kids are bigger wusses then you as they won't do Tower of Terror (well, got them to do it each once and they said never again). Definitely know lots of kids scared of Haunted Mansion too

 

[lazyboy97o]

Because they rarely fit with modern theme park design. Dumbo wouldn't be built today. They are not continuously loading, meaning you need queue space for 3-5 cycles of guests. The ride vehicles are typically limited to a family and they don't add single riders to increase capacity.

They’re adding a carousel to Disney’s Animal Kingdom. The issue for Disney is more that they spend way too much. The reason other parks love flat rides is because even a Zamperla is in the low seven figures. Disney somehow spent multiples of that on Emotional Whirlwind at Disney’s California Adventure and they already owned that ride mechanism.

 

[TheDisneyParksfanC8]

Depends on IP, scope, and budget.

I'm aware some buildings are absolute no-gos due to being needed for daily operations that can't be moved easily.

Attraction Ideas on YT said he thinks with the SW starcruiser being converted into office space, more acreage could become available for the AC replacement.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I would much rather have a well done Door Coaster than a dark ride with this particular IP.

I agree DHS needs another traditional family dark ride though, I just think Monsters is more suited for the DC.

I find this take utterly baffling. The entire point of Monsters, the IPs hook, is putting extraordinary creatures in an utterly familiar, banal workaday world. The franchise’s setting is uninteresting ON PURPOSE. An attraction that emphasizes the setting over the characters - like, say, a coaster with few show scenes - is uniquely unsuited to the property. In fact, it’s not an exaggeration to say there are few properties that are more of a mismatch for a thrill coaster - one that springs to mind, of course, is Muppets. Both IPs need a ride type that emphasizes the characters and the gags that spring from their personalities - say a show or a dark ride. The Tokyo dark ride is a great showcase for the essential qualities of Monsters.

The fan obsession with the Door Coaster is a perfect example of people not understanding what works in a film and what works in a theme park attraction. Viewers watch the film’s door sequence, which uses editing, camerawork, and music to create kinetic excitement, and assume it’s perfect for a ride - but those properties don’t translate. Take another spectacular action sequence that seems perfect for a ride - the troop carrier escape from the reactor after the first encounter with xenomorphs in Aliens. It’s one of the most exhilarating sequences in all of film and seems ideally suited for an immersive ride. Actually translating it into a ride, however, would create an attraction set in empty industrial hallways, where the points of interest are almost entirely behind guests, and the ride vehicle dramatically restricts riders vision.

Perhaps an even more vital point is that the door sequence is so exciting because it functions as the climax of the characters’ emotional arcs - it worked because we had spent over an hour coming to care about these characters and there relationship. The early Pixar films excelled at these late-film action sequences that worked because they served as the climax of the films themes and the characters development. Think of the moving truck chase in Toy Story or the luggage room sequence in Toy Story 2. Both action sequences are masterpieces, and both would make awful rides. The emotional and thematic elements that make them work won’t translate. Movie viewers are generally very bad at understanding HOW a movie is making them feel things and attribute their excitement at these sequences only to the kinetic elements, which are of strictly secondary importance - hence the foolish obsession with building a door coaster.

 

[Agent H]

I find this take utterly baffling. The entire point of Monsters, the IPs hook, is putting extraordinary creatures in an utterly familiar, banal workaday world. The franchise’s setting is uninteresting ON PURPOSE. An attraction that emphasizes the setting over the characters - like, say, a coaster with few show scenes - is uniquely unsuited to the property. In fact, it’s not an exaggeration to say there are few properties that are more of a mismatch for a thrill coaster - one that springs to mind, of course, is Muppets. Both IPs need a ride type that emphasizes the characters and the gags that spring from their personalities - say a show or a dark ride. The Tokyo dark ride is a great showcase for the essential qualities of Monsters.

The fan obsession with the Door Coaster is a perfect example of people not understanding what works in a film and what works in a theme park attraction. Viewers watch the film’s door sequence, which uses editing, camerawork, and music to create kinetic excitement, and assume it’s perfect for a ride - but those properties don’t translate. Take another spectacular action sequence that seems perfect for a ride - the troop carrier escape from the reactor after the first encounter with xenomorphs in Aliens. It’s one of the most exhilarating sequences in all of film and seems ideally suited for an immersive ride. Actually translating it into a ride, however, would create an attraction set in empty industrial hallways, where the points of interest are almost entirely behind guests, and the ride vehicle dramatically restricts riders vision.

Perhaps an even more vital point is that the door sequence is so exciting because it functions as the climax of the characters’ emotional arcs - it worked because we had spent over an hour coming to care about these characters and there relationship. The early Pixar films excelled at these late-film action sequences that worked because they served as the climax of the films themes and the characters development. Think of the moving truck chase in Toy Story or the luggage room sequence in Toy Story 2. Both action sequences are masterpieces, and both would make awful rides. The emotional and thematic elements that make them work won’t translate. Movie viewers are generally very bad at understanding HOW a movie is making them feel things and attribute their excitement at these sequences only to the kinetic elements, which are of strictly secondary importance - hence the foolish obsession with building a door coaster.

I understand your point of view (I don’t agree however) the original test track was set in a wharehouse too and that was good so maybe this will be too didn’t someone say we could end up going through some of the doors

 

[Casper Gutman]

I understand your point of view (I don’t agree however) the original test track was set in a wharehouse too and that was good so maybe this will be too didn’t someone say we could end up going through some of the doors

We’ve seen an official model of the track. It doesn’t go through any doors. We actually have a shocking amount of detail about this ride and none of it is exciting.

The first Test Track was comically dull except for the brief exterior portion. There’s a reason the ride’s aesthetic has been completely overhauled more often and extensively than any other Disney World attraction. The sets were particularly awful when compared to WoM.

 

[ᗩLᘿᑕ ֊ᗩζᗩᗰ]

COASTERZ!! is the new SCREENZ!!

COASTERZ with SCREENZ in WAREHOUSEZ!!!

 

[Agent H]

We’ve seen an official model of the track. It doesn’t go through any doors. We actually have a shocking amount of detail about this ride and none of it is exciting.

The first Test Track was comically dull except for the brief exterior portion. There’s a reason the ride’s aesthetic has been completely overhauled more often and extensively than any other Disney World attraction. The sets were particularly awful when compared to WoM.

forget about the model sorry

 

[Incomudro]

I am the weirdo that prefers flat rides to all others, literally a well themed flat ride would enhance every land.

I've never been on a single flat ride at a Disney park.
Even when my son's (twins) were 6 years old on their first trip.
There is just so much more to see and do, that I consider flat rides a waste of time - as I can find them at any fairground.

 

[Agent H]

I've never been on a single flat ride at a WDW parks.
Even when my son's (twins) were 6 years old on their first trip.
There is just so much more to see and do, that I consider flat rides a waste of time - as I can find them at any fairground.

Not even dumbo?!

 

[Incomudro]

Not even dumbo?!

No.
And you know what? My first trip to WDW was the year it opened, and I was only in third grade.
I didn't want to ride Dumbo even back then.
My second trip, was to Disneyland and for that one I was ten.
No Dumbo for me then either.
I do however like to see Dumbo and the Tea Cups there, as I consider them classic Disney.
The things I saw on the Wonderful World of Disney tv show before I ever went to a park.

 

[JackCH]

We’ve seen an official model of the track. It doesn’t go through any doors. We actually have a shocking amount of detail about this ride and none of it is exciting.

There is a part of the model where it could potentially be entering a door and coming back.

 

[Fox&Hound]

I'm not sure why the topic of WDW leaning towards coasters and no more dark rides with storytelling continues to come up in these forums over and over and over and over again... maybe because there's such a loud voice of posters spreading misinformation all the time, but......

Just looking back at the last ten years... WDW has given us:

6 Dark rides (Frozen, Na'vi river, Rise, Mickey, Remy, Tiana [is Tiana a dark or thrill? Not sure, but put it here] )
3 Simulation type rides (Soarin' Around the World, Flight of Passage, Smuggler's Run)
3 Coasters (Slinky, Tron, Cosmic Rewind [which is WDW dipping their toes into coaster/dark/storytelling] )

And based on what's coming the next 5 years we have announced:
4 Dark rides (rumored Villains dark ride, Indy, Encanto, Test Track 3.0 [is Test Track a dark or thrill? Not sure, but put it here] )
2 Coasters (Monsters door, and rumored Villains Coaster [I hope Disney goes all in on coaster/dark ride/storytelling here] )
And whatever you consider those 2 Cars rides to be, but they are definitely not coasters.

Disney World is not leaning towards coasters. They are still opening a healthy amount of Dark rides.

I like you!

 

[Fox&Hound]

I find this take utterly baffling. The entire point of Monsters, the IPs hook, is putting extraordinary creatures in an utterly familiar, banal workaday world. The franchise’s setting is uninteresting ON PURPOSE. An attraction that emphasizes the setting over the characters - like, say, a coaster with few show scenes - is uniquely unsuited to the property. In fact, it’s not an exaggeration to say there are few properties that are more of a mismatch for a thrill coaster - one that springs to mind, of course, is Muppets. Both IPs need a ride type that emphasizes the characters and the gags that spring from their personalities - say a show or a dark ride. The Tokyo dark ride is a great showcase for the essential qualities of Monsters.

The fan obsession with the Door Coaster is a perfect example of people not understanding what works in a film and what works in a theme park attraction. Viewers watch the film’s door sequence, which uses editing, camerawork, and music to create kinetic excitement, and assume it’s perfect for a ride - but those properties don’t translate. Take another spectacular action sequence that seems perfect for a ride - the troop carrier escape from the reactor after the first encounter with xenomorphs in Aliens. It’s one of the most exhilarating sequences in all of film and seems ideally suited for an immersive ride. Actually translating it into a ride, however, would create an attraction set in empty industrial hallways, where the points of interest are almost entirely behind guests, and the ride vehicle dramatically restricts riders vision.

Perhaps an even more vital point is that the door sequence is so exciting because it functions as the climax of the characters’ emotional arcs - it worked because we had spent over an hour coming to care about these characters and there relationship. The early Pixar films excelled at these late-film action sequences that worked because they served as the climax of the films themes and the characters development. Think of the moving truck chase in Toy Story or the luggage room sequence in Toy Story 2. Both action sequences are masterpieces, and both would make awful rides. The emotional and thematic elements that make them work won’t translate. Movie viewers are generally very bad at understanding HOW a movie is making them feel things and attribute their excitement at these sequences only to the kinetic elements, which are of strictly secondary importance - hence the foolish obsession with building a door coaster.

I don’t fully agree with you (I think there are a lot of ways for this to work), but this is so well-written. Do you write as a profession? I always find your writing so eloquent.