[202X] Project Horizon (SW9?): Planning Approved

[Benjsh]

Can’t see a space theme personally unless they re-theme Galactica (which would be welcome).

Would be a bit weird having it in two separate places.

That's a fair point but then I'd say that only leaves another dark / horror theme.

I don't see this being a happy family friendly attraction. This is surely going to be aimed more towards thrill seekers.

 

[Matt N]

I don't see this being a happy family friendly attraction. This is surely going to be aimed more towards thrill seekers.

I disagree. I think it could very well be a family attraction, particularly if it’s a coaster, given the ground space.

The height, ground space and lack of digging don’t open up much scope for an SW-calibre coaster, in my view.

Also, I’d argue that a family coaster (or non-coaster family ride) would fill a greater gap in the lineup than an SW-calibre thrill coaster.

 

[Benjsh]

I disagree. I think it could very well be a family attraction, particularly if it’s a coaster, given the ground space.

The height, ground space and lack of digging don’t open up much scope for an SW-calibre coaster, in my view.

Also, I’d argue that a family coaster (or non-coaster family ride) would fill a greater gap in the lineup than an SW-calibre thrill coaster.

Doesn't have to be really tall to be thrilling though when it's indoors as you lose perspective of height and speed in the dark. Revenge of the Mummy for example is just 44ft high but feels much taller on the ride.

It might well be another 1.2m coaster like Wickerman but I think it will be aimed at a similar audience.

 

[tayspru]

The building suggests flight or space, but we already have a flying / space themed coaster so we can rule that out. What other themes would work for this building design?

Could also be a flight themed non-coaster

 

[The Big Mack]

I think we're all expecting way too much. It's clearly a new Madame Tussauds!

 

[Shaggy_Dog_]

The building suggests flight or space, but we already have a flying / space themed coaster so we can rule that out.

Actually I don’t think you can rule anything out with regards to theming at this point, we know very little at this point about this attraction. Besides, the space theme of Galactica really isn’t that strong anyway now that the VR aspect of it is long gone. Apart from the portal and some videos playing in the station it’s barely themed at all.

 

[Jb85]

Why should the height be an issue if its a coaster. Surely a launch would remove this issue

 

[Godscrasher]

I think the queue line gives a small hint of what this ride could potentially be themed to with how it has many straight lines in comparison to how other queues are laid out.

I also think the entrance arch is for theming purposes and will be completely hidden once constructed.

 

[Skyscraper]

I think the queue line gives a small hint of what this ride could potentially be themed to with how it has many straight lines in comparison to how other queues are laid out.

 

[Josh555]

That's a fair point but then I'd say that only leaves another dark / horror theme.

I don't see this being a happy family friendly attraction. This is surely going to be aimed more towards thrill seekers.

There’s loads of things they can do to appeal to that market - people keep referencing it but DarKoaster is an example of that.

Personally I hope they continue along the ideology behind Wickerman - essentially create your own IP (I know it was a movie etc but they’ve created their version of it) and build the coaster, story and world surrounding it around that.

I think there’s a difference between a horror theme (like, for example, Saw) and creating a feeling of jeopardy within a more family friendly subject matter (which Disney and Universal are masters at).

 

[Jb85]

I think the queue line gives a small hint of what this ride could potentially be themed to with how it has many straight lines in comparison to how other queues are laid out.

I also think the entrance arch is for theming purposes and will be completely hidden once constructed.

Please do share your ideas

 

[Cryptocoaster]

I haven’t read all the posts here so apologies if this has been said but I’d thought I’d throw my two pennies worth in. My first thoughts when I saw the plans were that it looks like an arena. So I’m thinking this could have a music theme. If they can get the rights to some of the best British music of the last 60 years for on board soundtracks this could be a great indoor family thrill coaster.

I also want to add I’m really disappointed that there’s no flat ride & the dungeons building isn’t involved in the plans. I was hoping for a whole package development like Jumanji World but it seems it’ll be a stand alone ride.

 

[Matt N]

I also want to add I’m really disappointed that there’s no flat ride & the dungeons building isn’t involved in the plans. I was hoping for a whole package development like Jumanji World but it seems it’ll be a stand alone ride.

One thing I'd say there is that Adventureland 4-11 (the bottom part of the area near to the Dungeons building) is GDO land where installations below a certain size don't require planning permission. Therefore, we may well see an additional flat or two, as well as shops, restaurants etc alongside this main ride that simply didn't require planning permission due to the GDO rights at the bottom of the area.

 

[Cryptocoaster]

One thing I'd say there is that Adventureland 4-11 (the bottom part of the area near to the Dungeons building) is GDO land where installations below a certain size don't require planning permission. Therefore, we may well see an additional flat or two, as well as shops, restaurants etc alongside this main ride that simply didn't require planning permission due to the GDO rights at the bottom of the area.

I really hope that is the case.

 

[Jb85]

One thing I'd say there is that Adventureland 4-11 (the bottom part of the area near to the Dungeons building) is GDO land where installations below a certain size don't require planning permission. Therefore, we may well see an additional flat or two, as well as shops, restaurants etc alongside this main ride that simply didn't require planning permission due to the GDO rights at the bottom of the area.

I'm reasonably confident your right. This needs to be an area not a ride

 

[pluk]

Honestly mate. I really like you. But, just stop giving the same message over and over again in multiple posts. It's just not necessary. Everyone is fully aware of what your feelings are about any potential attraction. It's 97% going to be a roller-coaster and there is a very small chance that it won't be. What's more to discuss? Why the need to make your point over and over again. Don't apologise after making another 400 word argument, just don't make it in the first place. We know, there's a small chance it won't be a coaster.

To defend Matt for a moment here, he is only responding to repeated posts that 'over and over again' do not have either the grace or understanding to acknowledge or comprehend the real possibility that this is something other than a coaster. That is what is unnecessary. If people weren't so bent on belittling the valid considerations of others rather than simply having their own opinion this whole tediousness would stop.

It feels worth repeating...

Whatever side of this absolute jizz fest of a conversation you sit on, if you sit on it with absolute certainty you are a buffoon, if you are trying to persuade others that you are correct rather than just having your opinion then thats even more true.

While a coaster looks most likely, and a flying theatre specifically of all the dark ride options looks very unlikely, the actual knowns are slim pickings. Some people putting waaaay too much emphasis on what are largely third party contributions to planning documentation for a building, when the actual contents have very little relevance to planning application. It is, primarily, an application for a building, not its contents. To many a lay person a ride that moves is a roller coaster, for many weird and wonderful rides types I'm sure many of us wouldn't even agree where the boundary lies for what is or isn't a cred...

We don't know for certain what will be in the building. The end.

Here's a couple of thoughts. DBGTROTDetcetc ride vehicle does actually spend a small amount of time rolling and coasting along. You could then call it a roller coaster and not be legally wrong. Many many ride types that you wouldn't traditionally call a roller coaster do this.
AT themselves have history of submitting inaccurate (but legal) planning to hide what they are doing, including creating undisclosed elements at high points likely to induce screaming at a place in the park where screaming at high points has been a specific issue requiring intervention.
AT have submitted plans for a building with a certain use type. What's actually inside isn't particularly important to the application.
JWs comments were all but meaningless in the context of the question put to him and his current position in Merlin.

I think thats most of the things that people are throwing around as irrefutable proof...

Maybe some posters here have some 'insider knowledge' and as a result do actually know the ride type coming. If so, well done? But the way to make use of that is not to tag it òn to other things that alone do not 100% confirm anything and pretend that it does.

The building suggests flight or space, but we already have a flying / space themed coaster so we can rule that out. What other themes would work for this building design?

Could also be a flight themed non-coaster

We don't, we have a flight named coaster with no discernable theme. Flight/space themes can absolutely not be rulled out.

 

[Willemgorman1]

I was thinking could we be seeing a duelling coaster go in here. 3 doors at the entrance one for 1 coaster 1 for the other and another for fast track.

 

[Dave]

To defend Matt for a moment here, he is only responding to repeated posts that 'over and over again' do not have either the grace or understanding to acknowledge or comprehend the real possibility that this is something other than a coaster. That is what is unnecessary. If people weren't so bent on belittling the valid considerations of others rather than simply having their own opinion this whole tediousness would stop.

It feels worth repeating...


Here's a couple of thoughts. DBGTROTDetcetc ride vehicle does actually spend a small amount of time rolling and coasting along. You could then call it a roller coaster and not be legally wrong. Many many ride types that you wouldn't traditionally call a roller coaster do this.
AT themselves have history of submitting inaccurate (but legal) planning to hide what they are doing, including creating undisclosed elements at high points likely to induce screaming at a place in the park where screaming at high points has been a specific issue requiring intervention.
AT have submitted plans for a building with a certain use type. What's actually inside isn't particularly important to the application.
JWs comments were all but meaningless in the context of the question put to him and his current position in Merlin.

I think thats most of the things that people are throwing around as irrefutable proof...

Maybe some posters here have some 'insider knowledge' and as a result do actually know the ride type coming. If so, well done? But the way to make use of that is not to tag it òn to other things that alone do not 100% confirm anything and pretend that it does.



We don't, we have a flight named coaster with no discernable theme. Flight/space themes can absolutely not be rulled out.

That would all be nice and true if some of the the references where not related to the noise impact assessment.

I personally think it’s a sad sign of the times when people question facts, the application says roller coaster, the idea the assessment was riddled with errors is frankly not helpful.

I think it’s also worth repeating that being open minded doesn’t mean giving equal weight to every idea presented to you, it means that you are open minded to evidence given and don’t apply your own bias to it.

 

[Nick🎢]

That would all be nice and true if some of the the references where not related to the noise impact assessment.

I personally think it’s a sad sign of the times when people question facts, the application says roller coaster, the idea the assessment was riddled with errors is frankly not helpful.

I think it’s also worth repeating that being open minded doesn’t mean giving equal weight to every idea presented to you, it means that you are open minded to evidence given and don’t apply your own bias to it.

Would you make the argument then that, although they have been very purposeful in using the term "indoor attraction" for the majority of the documentation, they decided to let the cat out of the bag on the travel impact document? What would be the rationale for that?

 

[Adam H]

I think they wanted to say what it was but also mention that it's an indoor attraction due to the location and the noise concerns. They should just say "Indoor rollercoaster" but the word rollercoaster to the locals in that location could get them triggered. So maybe there's some psychology going on here in the plans and mention roller coaster but refer to it as indoor attraction in most cases.