The Alton Towers Dungeon

[Sauron97]

@evilcod The original Haunting was designed to a top standard not only by Mark Golding's team at Space Leisure, but also by a team at DMP themselves, who were responsible for designing and filming the 'Institute of Metaphysical research' pre-show inside the truck positioned to the side of the Vicarage structure. The facade also fits perfectly within the area it currently sits in. I don't see why being in 'plain view' matters, scenic artistry and positioning is critical when it comes to making these kinds of buildings look eerie, menacing or mysterious. Credit to them for doing a brilliant job and creating a fantastic looking attraction

This Dungeon (which will most likely be a mockery of an attraction) and the original 1996 Haunting cannot be compared. Heck, I don't even think these travelling ghost trains can compare, they might not be particularly high budget (relative comparison of course), but they deliver on what what they do in a far better way and meet all the expectations you'd have from looking at them from a distance. Even the section in the middle of the Dungeon entrance is creatively unoriginal, which features two clay monks to the left and right of the doorway just like the County Hall one. Sure, the logo is the brand, but at least give the rest of the entrance some originality.

 

[evilcod]

@evilcod The original Haunting was designed to a top standard not only by Mark Golding's team at Space Leisure, but also by a team at DMP themselves, who were responsible for designing and filming the 'Institute of Metaphysical research' pre-show inside the truck positioned to the side of the Vicarage structure.

Well we shall have to disagree on that as I think the haunting in every past guise is terrible attraction and that truck....don't get me started. But this is beside the point so I will continue.

The facade also fits perfectly within the area it currently sits in. I don't see why being in 'plain view' matters, scenic artistry and positioning is critical when it comes to making these kinds of buildings look eerie, menacing or mysterious. Credit to them for doing a brilliant job and creating a fantastic looking attraction

Exactly my point when you say "area it sits in" and "positioning"; with the Dungeons AT have not had the luxury of choosing positioning with it using an existing building and with it sitting downhill within a large pretty open area out front landscaping to hide it would have been way too expensive on what is a "small" project for the park. Drayton were starting fresh so could hide the main warehouse out the way without the cost of theming the bulk of it (same as AT did with Haunted house and most other new build dark rides choose), the facade of The Haunting is tiny compared to what AT have had to deal with here. Hiding the bulk is a smart design choice and I'm not knocking it; Disney, Universal etc tend to do the same but it is not an option AT had in this situation.

This Dungeon (which will most likely be a mockery of an attraction) and the original 1996 Haunting cannot be compared. Heck, I don't even think these travelling ghost trains can compare, they might not be particularly high budget (relative comparison of course), but they deliver on what what they do in a far better way and meet all the expectations you'd have from looking at them from a distance. Even the section in the middle of the Dungeon entrance is creatively unoriginal, which features two clay monks to the left and right of the doorway just like the County Hall one. Sure, the logo is the brand, but at least give the rest of the entrance some originality.

Mockery without any knowledge of it...OK and I know which I would rather go on but again...not the point.
The dungeons may be a bit plain but for the attraction (all other dungeons have next to no external themeing they are just lucky not to be located in a metal warehouse) its fine, it does the job and looks far better than anything else in that area of the park (apart from Hex, oh look built from scratch...hid the shed) on a low budget in the existing building I really don't see what else they could have done and it seems no one else does either.

 

[ChristmasPud]

with it sitting downhill within a large pretty open area out front landscaping to hide it would have been way too expensive on what is a "small" project for the park.

Why is this a 'small' project when it is the park's new dark ride?

When the same headline dark ride was in need of a refurbishment in the past, we got Toyland Tours and even Charlie was much better than this. The only thing that's making it a 'small' project this time is the inadequate amount Merlin are spending on it and the lack of a proper concept. That's the problem. So this is a moot point really.

There's ways the whole facade and its surrounding could have been designed to look complete and much better. First get a more fitting theme unless you properly redesign all Cloud Cuckoo Land to suit a dungeon. Secondly, they did an entire length of the building in 1981, 1994 and 2006, why not today? The answer is Merlin wont invest in that.

Also, got to say Haunting's facade looks much better even without the trees in front. Regardless of the attraction inside or who made it (which is kinda irrelevant to this point!)

All this 'it looks fine' argument just seems to stem from people having issue with other enthusiasts' posts and seeing them as miserable, rather than because anyone actually likes this project. I get that, it can feel tiresome with constant negativitiy online, but there's a valid point being made. And I dont feel the need to defend trash just because of some posts online.

The attraction inside might be alright for what it is, but anyone can see it doesnt show great prospects for the park's future under Merlin when this is their solution.

 

[AT86]

Also worth noting that Toyland Tours was a secondary attraction in its opening year, behind Nemesis. And still had more effort put into it than what is the headline attraction for 2019.

 

[Sauron97]

Also, got to say Haunting's facade looks much better even without the trees in front. Regardless of the attraction inside or who made it (which is kinda irrelevant to this point!)
.

I know it wasn't about the Haunting facade directly, but I personally feel that many attraction designers do not get they deserve so I did take an opportunity to give them credit where due. That was mostly a side comment anyway, just as an opportunity to be informative about something I am passionate about. The guy was also clearly dismissing the creativity of talented attraction designers and instead fawning over a rushed and ill thought corporate money grab and the flaw in his logic should be highlighted to him. The key point is that the Dungeons were ill thought out, and smaller parks have, all budget sizes considered, produced higher quality facades than the ATD.

Completely agree with all of your other points though, and also with the post below. I think people looking at what they perceive as overly negative posts should take a wider perspective in to why we are saying the things we are saying, rather than jumping to the conclusion that we are just trying to be edgy/stand out.

 

[Croftybaby]

Calm down everyone. I got to view the Concept models today and it does look like at least we'll get some flame torches to spruce the Dungeons up a bit

 

[ChristmasPud]

The guy was also clearly dismissing the creativity of talented attraction designers

Yeah it's interesting, I agree a lot of talent doesnt get recognised by enthusiasts but then these people dont court that kind of attention really and I respect that. It's much the same as the film and music industry I imagine.

Also it's worth saying, you could get amazing talent and still end up with a rubbish result because of the way Merlin procures most their projects, where they prioritise investment and other areas where they just don't care.

 

[Matt.GC]

Also to all the people posting the likes of "fairgrounds have made better" and "small local parks have made more impressive facades"; prove it. Please find me a building facade (without the warehouse being positioned especially to hide it) that looks better at anything but a world-class park.

Grand Pier, Weston-super-Mare.

 

[MakoMania]

^I much prefer the Alton Towers one.

 

[Matt.GC]

^I much prefer the Alton Towers one.

I prefer @Croftybaby's one myself complete with Surf box and all.

 

[ChristmasPud]

Do all the travelling dark rides at Winter Wonderland count? Probably, theyre not even permanent and have no surrounding landscaping, but are way better than most permanent Merlin dark ride exteriors!

But we already know this really, it's not that Merlin arent good at creating it, it's that they dont want it because they dont want to spend on it.

And you can bet the only reason it will have flame torches is because of brand uniformity. This goes back to the first Dungeon which don't forget, they bought out it was already successful and proceded to cheapen & copy it into just another tourist trap 'brand'.

Look at Wicker Man for when a little bit more money is allowed to be spend and ideas less formulated!

 

[Error]

A+ for effort there Crofty love you man.

 

[Spark]

Suppose if this facade is temporary like the dungeons then comparing it to a travelling fair is wrong as these are permanent rides just that move around. They arent a temporary ride

 

[ChristmasPud]

This is going to be here for at least a few years, I'd call it short term rather than temporary. That'll see millions of visitors through it in that time. So it's still a significant project and a major attraction at the park.

 

[evilcod]

Oh for god's sake.

Well your rude and I'm not sure Wardley had anything to do with this but okay

Purely subjective. etc etc

Yes but you started referencing the attraction as a whole so I gave my opinion on it. The facade is nice but only looks good as they had the ablility within budget to hide it. The attraction past the facade is terrible.

Alton Towers did not choose or design anything related to the Dungeon building. Have you not read previous posts? Merlin allocated the budget themselves top down (pooled out of the midway budget apparently) and had all the choice in the world to make it a sizable investment, and it is the MMM studios which are responsible for the full build. Yes, I agree, it's in a poor location. That's the point. I don't care if more finances were needed, and I don't care that they weren't starting afresh. And Merlin definitely would have the finances to conceal it as you describe. It looks poor and doesn't fit in with the surrounding area. Full stop.

Read my post. I said It will most likely be a mockery of an attraction. This can be confirmed (or disproved) when it opens.

Why is this a 'small' project when it is the park's new dark ride?

When the same headline dark ride was in need of a refurbishment in the past, we got Toyland Tours and even Charlie was much better than this. The only thing that's making it a 'small' project this time is the inadequate amount Merlin are spending on it and the lack of a proper concept. That's the problem. So this is a moot point really.

There's ways the whole facade and its surrounding could have been designed to look complete and much better. First get a more fitting theme unless you properly redesign all Cloud Cuckoo Land to suit a dungeon. Secondly, they did an entire length of the building in 1981, 1994 and 2006, why not today? The answer is Merlin wont invest in that.

Don't worry I understand how financing attractions within the chain goes, yes the point is this is a low budget year for towers, Merlin are not giving them much for this project as its not a major project for the park. I would assume they are gaining a little extra than usual for this budget year by making it upcharge. But for the year it is I think we have done alright out of it.

If we compare this year to the other similar years after the last few secret weapon coasters:
1999 (after Oblivion) - Frog Hopper and Ugland placemaking (no new attractions in Ugland)
2003 (after Air) - Berry Bish Bash and Duel retheme
2011 (after Th13teen) - Spidercrabs in SEALIFE (yes really)
2014 (after Smiler) - CBeebies land (probably the best of these low seasons but still done to a low budget remembering that Octonaughts, Furchester and GOJetters came later)
2019 (after Wickerman) - The Dungeons & Peter Rabbit ride

All this 'it looks fine' argument just seems to stem from people having issue with other enthusiasts' posts and seeing them as miserable, rather than because anyone actually likes this project. I get that, it can feel tiresome with constant negativitiy online, but there's a valid point being made. And I dont feel the need to defend trash just because of some posts online.

The attraction inside might be alright for what it is, but anyone can see it doesn't show great prospects for the park's future under Merlin when this is their solution.

My argument is for what they have done with the building they have on the budget they have it looks good. Would I like Merlin to finance a high budget dark ride? Yes obviously but we were never going to get that on a low budget year and I would much rather this than Charlie continuing to rot in place. It looks good,again with a super high budget it could of course be better (what couldn't?) but it is nowhere near as bad as you lot are making out.

 

[Stuie]

My argument is for what they have done with the building they have on the budget they have it looks good.

That's your subjective perspective. One that the majority of people seem to disagree with, on here and all other channels. In my opinion, it looks like a pile of cheap shit.

 

[ChristmasPud]

My argument is for what they have done with the building they have on the budget they have it looks good. Would I like Merlin to finance a high budget dark ride? Yes obviously but we were never going to get that on a low budget year

Ok, this is much more reasonable and I guess I agree.

But then the question is, why has the refurbishment of Charlie been given to a low capex year then? It's a major ride and the park is really thin on good all-rounder attractions at the moment. This used to be the biggest family ride on park a few decades back and the surrounding kids area was desperate for a new major draw.

They had plenty of years knowing Charlie was not going to return. If they didnt see it coming before it shut, they shoud have, its even common knowledge among enthusiasts that Roald Dahl Foundation hated the ride and probably wouldnt renew. They wasted all that time, let it sit abandoned only to replace it with this?

The low capex year could have far better been spent on filling the park's lack of flat rides and B-rides.

Now that we have the towers Dungeons, it takes away the opportunity for the next mid/major year to give the park the proper family headliner it needs

 

[Rob]

That's your subjective perspective. One that the majority of people seem to disagree with, on here and all other channels. In my opinion, it looks like a pile of cheap ****.

Is it not the case that everyone's opinion is a subjective perspective? A majority opinion does not turn that opinion in to fact. Discussion forums would be boring places if we all held the same opinions and agreed with each other all of the time!

 

[Sauron97]

Ok. Now that you’ve explained yourself more, I can understand some of your points. You did not make these points clear in your earlier points and as such gave off a completely different impression. I also apologize if you interpreted what I said as rude. I feel strongly about the issue and I felt you were dismissing my points without acknowledging my core arguments. But I am glad you have clarified some of your points.

I disagree that this was a wise investment in any way shape or form, though I respect your opinion. I don’t think the fact it’s a low CAPEX year matters. If the right investment was being given to the park, a ‘low CAPEX year’ would be seeing far more investment than this, and it would be enough to spread across the entire park, be it from RTP budget, Midway, whatever. However, if you agree that the overall investment in to the park is terrible then I guess I can agree more with what you are saying. There are indeed individuals who WANT to be creatively challenged who are being restricted through budget and other limiting factors too. If this is what is being produced, how low and restrictive could that budget be?

 

[Stuie]

Is it not the case that everyone's opinion is a subjective perspective? A majority opinion does not turn that opinion in to fact. Discussion forums would be boring places if we all held the same opinions and agreed with each other all of the time!

That's a fair point! Perhaps I should have worded it differently. I guess I meant, if the majority of people this it's poor then it probably is.