What's new

Phantasialand | F. L. Y. | Vekoma Launched Flying Coaster | 2020

owentaylor121

Active Member
Once inside the area it might completely blow us away... Phantasialand is hardly known for looking nice from outside of the park, I’m not sure why this case is any different.

They’ve spent years on this area, I’m confident it will look amazing once inside it, have faith in the park that’s brought us incredibly themed areas multiple times.
 

Ethan

Well-Known Member
Once inside the area it might completely blow us away... Phantasialand is hardly known for looking nice from outside of the park, I’m not sure why this case is any different.
Because a lot of the infrastructure visible from the road is old, and back then they weren't exactly known for world-class theming. The back of the TOTNH building and Wuze Town? Those buildings are almost 20 years old, and older in Temple's case! The entrance? Literally ancient.

But why make a new structure this ugly, when you have the opportunity to design from scratch and make it fabulous?
 

roff

New Member
It's not just old stuff.
The backside of Klugheim, visible from one of the main parking lots and the mystery entrance, is a huge wall of grey sheet metal and bare concrete.
Not very inviting at all.
 

HarmL98

New Member
Because a lot of the infrastructure visible from the road is old, and back then they weren't exactly known for world-class theming. The back of the TOTNH building and Wuze Town? Those buildings are almost 20 years old, and older in Temple's case! The entrance? Literally ancient.

But why make a new structure this ugly, when you have the opportunity to design from scratch and make it fabulous?
Money? It's not finished yet? I mean this stuff costs a lot of money. And i have no clue where that money comes from... But for sure they have to cut some parts out of the budget. So yea why not?
 

Ethan

Well-Known Member
I'm not excusing the back wall of the basalt cliffs, either. It's hideous, and more importantly, you can see some of it from inside the park. Again, this is why it's so frustrating. Glad you also think it's gross, though.

Money? It's not finished yet? I mean this stuff costs a lot of money. And i have no clue where that money comes from... But for sure they have to cut some parts out of the budget. So yea why not?
Possibly money, but who knows. The Löffelhardt family who own the park aren't exactly broke, although I don't know what their situation is like, given the current situation and the amount of investment they've made in a short time.

If it's not finished yet, and it ends up looking like a totally different building, I'll eat my words. But let's be honest, that won't happen. And it doesn't change how flat the interior facing walls look so far. Again, just my opinion, it doesn't make your opinions less valid.
 
Last edited:

DocLa

New Member
I'm not excusing the back wall of the basalt cliffs, either. It's hideous, and more importantly, you can see some of it from inside the park. Again, this is why it's so frustrating. Glad you also think it's gross, though.



Possibly money, but who knows. The Löffelhardt family who own the park aren't exactly broke, although I don't know what their situation is like, given the current situation and the amount of investment they've made in a short time.

If it's not finished yet, and it ends up looking like a totally different building, I'll eat my words. But let's be honest, that won't happen. And it doesn't change how flat the interior facing walls look so far. Again, just my opinion, it doesn't make your opinions less valid.
Please don’t take it to personally, but you annoy me.

It’s not about if I’m agreeing with you or not. You’re allowed to think what ever you want. But what from the inside area do we actually see from outside?

This:


It’s just the upper half of maybe 1/10 of the whole area. As I said it’s your god given right to judge about it as you like. But what frustrates me is that you don’t mention by yourself, that none of us could even imagine how the area appears from a visitors perspective.

It’s like seeing the upper half of the basalt wall at Klugheim and saying „Yeah, I know it’s not finished yet. But from what I see the area ist just a rocky desert“


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
 

Ethan

Well-Known Member
Please don’t take it to personally, but you annoy me.
That's fine, I'm not going anywhere.

I'm not the only person to think what I think, so I know I'm not alone in this. Others have voiced the same opinions about the interior walls earlier in the thread. Sorry, but if a wall looks ugly to me, it's going to look ugly from most perspectives to me, also.. I can see where you're coming from, and I understand your point, but I just don't think any of what we've seen so far is pleasing to look at, so why do I think everything will be magically different from inside? As I've said before, I'll eat my words if it turns out different once completed, but I doubt it will.

You find me annoying now, but I haven't even bragged about my first class honours in set design, you know... A relevant topic. So I like to think I know what looks good when I see it. I know saying that makes me sound like a massive arsehole, but I annoy you anyway, so... ;)

As Crazycoaster said...
A big rusty plain wall doesn’t make any sense thematically. Like, what is it supposed to be?
And we've seen that same texture on the interior walls already. What we've seen of the interior walls doesn't look like real buildings, in terms of texture, depth and some of the details. Even if you argue "They don't have to look real, it's a theme park", I have to disagree on this one. The rocks in Klugheim look real, so why not this. I know I haven't seen them from ground view inside Rookburgh, but that doesn't change my opinion.
 

JoshC.

Active Member
A big rusty plain wall doesn’t make any sense thematically. Like, what is it supposed to be?
I find this an interesting comment to make, since we don't fully know what the theme is. How can we say something doesn't make sense thematically if we don't know what the theme is.

Sure, we know it's Berlin 1920s / steampunk theme (of which a big rusty colour wall can make sense thematically), but outside that, do we actually know much else? I don't think so? Given wider context, it could make sense.


For me personally, I'm still not 100% sold on the idea. But when I visited in January, the wall was certainly striking, and I didn't think it was ugly / looked bad. So it's good in that sense.
 

Ethan

Well-Known Member
Sure, we know it's Berlin 1920s / steampunk theme (of which a big rusty colour wall can make sense thematically), but outside that, do we actually know much else? I don't think so? Given wider context, it could make sense.
I do completely understand your point and I do sort of agree with you tbh.

I still stand by his original comment though, as unless the theme of Rookburgh is 'large rusty shapes', it doesn't make sense thematically. However as you said, we don't know the backstory yet, assuming there is one. For me personally though, even a cute storyline to back up the horrific look of the wall can't save it for me, but you know... it's subjective!
 

DocLa

New Member
That's fine, I'm not going anywhere.

You find me annoying now, but I haven't even bragged about my first class honours in set design, you know... A relevant topic. So I like to think I know what looks good when I see it. I know saying that makes me sound like a massive arsehole, but I annoy you anyway, so... ;)
Well.. Actually you did :D

Talking about the Wall of doom I’m totally with you. I don’t like it either.

But regarding the actual area you didn’t really get my point I think. Yes, what we’ve seen yet might not look as good as it could. But until now there’s just not much to see. You said the walls look flat und not like real buildings. Well, more then half of the are ARE real buildings. The hotel towers, restaurants, shops and stuff are all things nobody has seen from inside. I mean you can clearly see on the (outdated) satellite picture above that the corner we see from outside is one of the few places build pretty flat.

To be honest what annoys me the most is that we watch the same little spot since 2016 and the only information we get about the rest of the area comes from google earth and shady drone videos
 

Ethan

Well-Known Member
@DocLa That's my point though, I'm just not sold on the whole thing yet. I'm not counting the whole thing off, I bloody love Phannyland and I go twice a year most years recently! It's not that I don't want to like it, it's that everything we've seen so far, in my opinion, looks shoddy, so why would I think the parts I haven't seen look fantastic?

You're right in that the other buildings might look great, the inside parts of the queue line could be amazing, who knows. But what concerns me is that in the same project, we have things like the ugly rust wall and the flat facades of the rear sound barrier (which are all the same height for some reason). I'm aware these parts could be unsightly due to budget cuts or something, but the fact remains, they're not the prettiest of structures.

I'm some of the smaller finishes we've seen so far too. Some things look a bit "stuck on" to other parts, a lot of the textures are questionable etc. Again, I'm hoping that this thing opens when planned, 23 years from now, and it blows us all away. I'm hoping everything is detailed and wonderful and pleasing to look at, but my point is that what we've seen so far is ugly in my opinion, so I have no reason to think what I haven't seen yet will be any different. I'd love to be proved wrong by the park, though.
 

Trax

Member
The issue many of us have, is that the walls lack depth.
If you played PlanCo, you may have noticed that the default walls look kind of bare if placed, even though a real building from the same materials does. You have to place ridicoulus amounts of details on a single building to give it some character and get rid of that bare look. And Rookburgh seems to suffer from the same problems (please keep in mind that there are more pictures floating around than just the ones from outside).
It's surrounded by huge walls, but those walls tend to look kind of blend. Yes, the bricks give them a little bit, but it is not enough to make such a big wall feel natural. Klugheim and Chiapas were able to avoid this issue with their rockwork, especially Klugheim features an enormous amount of depths due to the shape and size of the rocks. You don't have this in Rookburgh, but only Brickwalls. They tried with some buildings on ground level, but those are quite small compared to the walls.

In addition, the basic shape of the walls feels unnatural. If you imagine a factory, you imagine a simple rectangular building with some smaller ones next to it - but only simple shapes for maximum use of space. No "fancy" 30° angles in the same building, or extentions for more than a staircase. What they could have done to solve this issue - we do know that the footprint of the walls was necessary the way it is, would be to make it look like it were multiple buildings, cramped together.

Parts of the wall look good, especially the glass "tower" in one part - it looks really good in person, and adds so much to the whole structure. But that's only one part of this encasement. The area around the hotel should be fine as well, as the buildings of the hotel add lots of depths to the area; if the back of the rusty wall is not as ugly as the front.

Ah yes, the rusty wall. I think that most people have the same issues with it as I do. It is neither good looking, nor inconspicous. What do I mean with it? If you build a wall which is visible from the outside, you basicly have 2 choices what to make it look like. Either make it inconspicious, so quite blend and boring, so no one will look at it for longer than a second. That's what the outside walls of most parks I've been too look like, and Phantasialand did the same in many places. Even the back of Klugheim is quite boring, and we are talking of a height of nearly 30m (~90ft). You won't overlook it, but you are not particulary drawn to it either - even though I'd given it a paintjob to make it stand out less.
The other option would be to make it look good and impressive, like parts of the hotel look like, or the area with the furnace next to the rusty wall. The rusty wall is meant to be seen, hence why the plantings, the signs and the lighting. They want you to look at it. And I don't know about you, but if I'd been asked to design an entrance for a highly detailed hotel inside a highly detailed area, I would have gone with more than a blank rusty wall with a pimple on it. It does not look inviting at all. The whole situation is made worse by the buildings next door. On the left handside, the good looking wall with it's furnace, and to it's right, the old building with an ugly "rusty" paintjob.

One more thing: One thing I noticed when standing in front of the "pretty wall" next to the rusty one: It also manages to look blend and unnatural if you stand in front of it. The reason is quite simple:
a) the windows are glass, but there is nothing behind it. It looks like a pane of glass in front of a blank wall. You instantly see, that those are not real
b) the metal strips on the wall and furnance are made of concrete - and that is quite obvious. They do not look like metal at all. You can see the red paint shining through in places, in addition to the concrete texture. Phantasialand tends to cut corners in places, and this is one of those situations. I don't think that real metal strips would have been much more expensive, but they would make the whole thing feel realistic. If you stand next to it, it just looks fake, which is a shame, because the bricks themselves look amazing.

Of course, in the end the inside of this area is what counts. But compared to Klugheim with it's handcrafted wooden buildings, highly detailed rock- and brickwork, it appears to be quite blend as of now. And that's the only thing we can judge right now: It's current state. And that raises some concerns in my mind.
 

Frisbee

New Member
While reading all the discussion about "quality" we have to keep in mind, that Phantasialand does not build that area for us.

They build it, as they want to earn money. And making "this and that" more nice, more realistic and adding details here and there is expanding costs. I mean, the calculation is: if better theming costs 20% more - are people willing to pay 20% for that? Do they even realize the difference?

Guests won't eat 20% more. Neither they will come 20% more often just because of a super fancy detail hidden in the last corner. But they will complain if price is rising 5 or 10 Euro. This is Germany. Familys will complain that they can not spend so much money, children do not have enough budget,.... and so on. Even the small price adjustments due to Klugheim were highly discussed.

At the end, I'd like to compare with Universal. The theming in on a similar level but Universal charges 119 - 128 USD a day + VAT. I don't know how much VAT is in US but Phantasialand charges only 52,50 € for an adult day ticket which is 44,11 € / 47,99 $ without VAT. In other words: Universal charges 3 times more for a similar product while Universal pushes much more visitors into the park.
 

Trax

Member
I have to disagree. Phantasialand has a very interesting mentality, where they try to be world class (and probably are in many points), but are loosing focus at some points and delivering some kind of unpolished, or even unfinished looking results.

For example: The village square in Klugheim is imo world class. But on the other hand, the underside of the entrance bridge from the mexico side is bare concrete, you can see some concrete pillars directly next to the Taron queue below the rocks, as well as some ugly plastic pipes. Did I mention the (at least) painted concrete in the queue? It just feels like they ran out of budget at some point and had to cut corners in some areas.
On the other hand, they not only handcrafted all the wood in the village, but they also themed the sides of the station BELOW the track, were no sane person would ever look at. But yes, the walls below the track inside the station are indeed 100% themed. On the other hand, the track of the brake run rests on a red block of concrete.

What I am trying to say: They want to be worldclass. They want to do the extra few % for a world class result. They show people that they are not only willing to, but capable off. But they don't manage to make a whole area like that. I hope that Rookburgh proofs me wrong, but currently it appears like this as well. Chiapas is (visually) the closest they have gotten to perfection, but even there, the third lift is completely blank.
If you have such spots at parks with less theming, they won't be so easy to spot, as the whole area does not invite you to look at it's details. In addition, with less details, you have a smaller difference, e.g. from "nice" to "ugly". But if you build world class, every "ugly" spot will kind of pop out, as you see that it should not be there. That's the main issue I have with the park. They do 90% world class, 8% good-very good and 2% is just ugly.

Of course, the GP probably won't notice the ugly parts as much as an enthusiast does, but they won't really apreciate world class either. To please the GP, "very good"+consistent is the way to go to immerse them. Going the extra mile for world class is great, and I appreciate every park trying to get there, but if you want to go this path, make sure to not sacrifice other areas for this.
 
Last edited:

ImagineerTim

Gamesmaster 2016
Maybe there will be a small flat ride like "Flug des Ikarus"(Europapark) only in a smaller scale infront of Rookburgh at the Wuze entrance.
(where now the model showcase is) There is a round space. Thematically it would fit to "Der Lustige Papagei" and the other kid-flatrides...
What do you guys think?
 

Trax

Member
Sounds logical to me. That space is not needed for anything else, and another children flat ride won't hurt either.
 

JoshC.

Active Member
Seeing some comments about the area being a bit flat / bland / lacking depth reminded me on the Chiapas construction thread, specifically just before it opened: http://coasterforce.com/forums/threads/phantasialand-chiapas-water-ride.34462/page-9

Any concerns people had about Chiapas were exactly the same. Now I may be a bit biased since Chiapas is my number 1 ride, but I genuinely haven't heard many - if any - complaints about Chiapas years after its opening. Indeed, I haven't really heard anyone complain about it's lack of depth or being a bit flat, because when you're in the area, it all just works.

Now I'm not saying there aren't those complaints about Chiapas. Nor am I saying that Rookburgh will be fine. But it's interesting that the same concerns came up for another Phantasialand project and, in my opinion at least, were unfounded..
 
Top