Rotura Violenta

Again, it really comes down to what you're looking to do. If you want to take good, quick images with little concern over technical control, then totally go with the point and shoot. DSLR's can actually operate as P&S's too, as many of them have settings that limit the aperture control and automatically adjust exposure just like P&S's. I'm not familiar with "advanced" P&S's, but would imagine they allow for greater control of ISO, shutter speed, higher zoom etc. But if they don't have the mirror mechanics of the SLR, then you don't have the aperture control that the SLR offers. In the courses we teach we use a lot of advanced techniques, so students are required to use SLR's (we supply them) simply because the P&S doesn't function with f-stop calculation, or allow for DOF control -- both critical to a certain styles of artistic shooting. P&S cameras have limited aperture settings, so in one sense you don't have to worry about "setting up the image," but you're limited to flat, single-dimensional shooting. In no way is it about one being better than the other (I use both myself, SLR for pro work and P&S for fun stuff), they're just very different beasts. It's not hard to learn how to tell the difference as it's very apparent in images with controlled DOF. Most pro situations (weddings especially) require this effect, hence the use of SLR's and not P&S's by wedding photographers. Same with all commercial shooting. However, most of the students I work with treat photography as a hobby, so such is image control isn't always essential. Other than viewing the visual difference (again, I'd invite you to look at Hanno's zoom work and DOF shots), the big turn around is when student's actually use an SLR for the first time and are blown away by the control they now have over their work. The SLR is a major step up, creativity-wise, but not essential for everyone. Have fun on your research, Yamez!

Glad to know you think you're right! I actually teach photography at a university and so having an iota of professional knowledge, I would have to respectfully disagree. I think what the above poster is trying to emphasize is that having an eye for the subject is most important -- which is true to a degree; you can have a $10,000 camera and still lop people's heads off. Similarly, you could potentially capture incredible and prize-winning shots with a webcam! However, the limitations of a point and shoot is unmistakeably apparent when placed next to an SLR. It would be like Robb showing up to a theme park gig to do professional b-roll footage with iPod nano. You can take great shots with a point and shoot (or a phone), but you sacrifice a lot of the aperture control which is the key element to good, professional photography. If you just want to take solid, hi-resolution images like you'll see on the majority of the trip reports here, a good point and shoot with a decent megapixel will do that -- and fit in your pocket. You'll be able to have a lot of fun with it, and you don't have to worry about setting exposure etc., as it's all automatic -- hence the name point and shoot. However, if you're looking to do more creative shots that emphasize selective depth of field (where the subject is in focus and everything else is blurred), or require extensive zooming (the kind of on-ride facial expression stuff that Hanno posts), you can really only do that with an SLR with interchangeable lenses. They are bulky, for sure -- but if photography is a hobby you can see yourself really getting into -- and the funds are there, it would be the best way to go. So again, it depends on what you want. A point and shoot will get you great images, but you'll have limited artistic control. An SLR will be bulky, but will transgress simple images and function as more of a creative tool. You might want to go to a local camera store and try out a few models so you can see just how different they are. Some places will even rent the equipment out -- which might be wise, too. Good luck!

Really? Colossus Backwards doesn't seem too popular. The past 4 years I've gone to Fright Fest the forward side always had a longer line. I could be wrong, but it seems like it would really add a lot to the ride -- which the GP may or may not figure out depending on how MM promotes it. Knowing them, they'll stick a flamethrower and some speakers on it somewhere and pimp it out as a whole new experience etc. Although I've never ridden Colossus backwards, I think I'd probably opt for the front-facing train as well because that just doesn't seem like a ride that would lend itself well to running backwards. I would imagine it'd be kind of like riding in the back seat of a car and looking out of the back window the whole time. But again, I haven't ridden it that way so I'm not sure. To me, Superman is kind of dull ride because when you're up the tower, all you see is the sky and you really don't get a sense of just how high you are. But if you're up there facing straight down, I would think that the experience would be radically different. Even though it doesn't get anywhere near the top anymore, that thing is still pretty high -- and seeing the ground drop away from you, followed by a face-first plummet, would be enough to get me to wait in a line that stretches outside of the ice-station. Although I don't go to MM very often (once every two or three years is good enough for me) when I'm there I never see too much of a line for it -- which I assume is because people just know it's not a very thrilling ride. But I remember when it first opened just how long the wait was; and it seems that by exponentially ramping up the thrill factor, it would receive a new lease of life and potentially become just as popular as it once was before it got neutered. I could be completely wrong about all of this. I'm often completely wrong about things.

Never been a fan over Superman, but I could see how a backwards ride would improve it. As it stands, you have to crane your neck out of the side of the car to get a sense of how high you are. The forced POV of the reverse launch would definitely improve that. Be interesting if they were to add some brake-induced hang-time onto the ride so that you fall into those new restraints!

^ I was thinking of Bad Taste. Classic film.

What happened to the rest of Peter Jackson? * * Whose first film is still his best, imho.

That Botton's ghost train has been there forever. There used to be another one down the street on an old pier as well... however, that was like 25 years ago. There also used to be a great old-school fun house too at "Scaggy Skeggy" as it was affectionately known, complete with slides, mirrors and moving floors. I also seem to remember a crappy old jungle ride below where the old Zyklon coaster used to stand. So good to see all these places again -- feeling like an old man now! Plus, I think that's the first time I've ever seen that beach looking like an actual beach!

Any footage of the inside of the new Raptor ride at Lightwater? I'm sure it's darker than a.s.s. in there but I'd sure love to see what they did with the place . There's a nightvision POV on youtube that's hard to see, but it looks like there's a bunch of animatronics that jump out in there now. I used to love the old Rat Ride, but from what I remember the only "effects" were bit of string hanging from above the lift hill and some sort of prop right before the first drop. Awesomely cheesy! What have they done with that old Devil's Cascade ride -- the dumpster-into-a-swamp flume thing? I don't suppose the Hellslide is there anymore either, right? That thing was a lawsuit waiting to happen. Loving the reports! Making me homesick!

I'll third that. I grew up going to Blackpool and that was one of my first ever coasters. Little did I know that, even today, it is probably the most terrifying ride in the park. Grand National is a great ride, but nothing really comes close to the Mouse. Plus, it looks so tame! (shudder)

Is there a projection in there? All I remember is taking a smoke machine to the face.

Thanks for posting the photos and video footage. Great interior shots of the Mummy; I've been curious to see exactly what is going on in there for a while. That warehouse is much bigger than I thought as the last time I visited the park (15 years prior), it was the E.T. ride. Were you able to watch the cars navigate the track from inside the "arena?" I took my visiting family to Universal last year and was sent onto the ride as the guinea pig to gauge how intense it would be for the rest of them who collectively found the Simpsons to be "too much." Even though it was short, I was surprised by its force. And considering the general paucity of airtime in California, I remember being lifted out of my seat more than once. Maybe it's because I grew up in England, and my early roller coaster riding experiences were informed by such 1980s classics as The Black Hole, The Rat Ride, and Space Invader, but I'll take modest, enclosed, and themed over towering 300' drops with 35 inversions any day.

Well it's all just a fad that will be over in a few years anyway, right? Something new will come along and the same names will be re-attributed with new significance. I've never read Twilight, simply because I have no use for it. For me, mainstream mass-marketed entertainment has always suffered a Faustian fate as credibility is traded for commercial viability. But the bottom line is, it maybe crap to many of us, but it's crap that lots of people truly enjoy -- and if it makes people happy, then keep the crap flowing. Low-art might not say much about the state of our standards or artistic requirements, but happiness is in somewhat short supply these days. Albini says it well here, in a great interview with Ian Svenonius: http://www.vbs.tv/watch/soft-focus-season-3/steve-albini at around the 9:00 minute mark. I still think that Zappa deserves the medal of honor w/r/t naming offspring. Not only was he a musical enigma, but he stuck his daughter with the name "Moon Unit" -- which, IMHO, is nothing short of genius.

Seems like getting from one park to the other will be the pain. I'd be surprised if you can do that in an hour. Hopefully Knotts will be empty because there is quite a lot to do there, even with Xcelerator down. I was at universal in October and the place was packed, but the lines were still fairly short. Jurassic and Mummy were walk-ons, and any other wait we had was due to (I assume) trimmed-back operations. Getting in was a nightmare -- that took 45 minutes to move about 30 feet from the big globe to the gates, but I think that's because we arrived at rush hour! The advantage is that the place is very small and there isn't a whole lot there -- we were done in about 4 hours including lunch, shopping, and about 7,000 bathroom breaks (big group). Don't forget the haunted walk-through thing -- that was kind of fun!

Retraction: Freefall had awesome airtime. (sigh).

Can't say I ever got airtime on it. Hang-time, yes; but I don't think I've ever experienced any notable airtime on a ride at SFMM. I'm sure I'll get crucified for saying this but personally I'm just not into a lot of MM's massive coasters -- I find them quite boring. I'd rather go small, compact, and intense -- all things that Flashback definitely had going for it! Although I'm not a fan of Disneyland, to me, Space Mountain kicks major coaster a.s.s. compared to some towering B&M snooze-fest.

I don't remember the forces being that crazy on it, but it would tip you out of your seat and slam you into the restraints before each dive. Once it got lower to the ground and picked up speed, that's when the serious ear bashing would begin. Although the trains were uncomfortable and you could barely see over the front, the layout was really cool and unusual. I always loved riding it and you could guarantee there would never be a line.

Is Shutter Island a movie based on that crappy Dennis Lehane novel? About an asylum or something? I read it when it first came out a few years back and didn't think much of it.

^ It's REALLY bad -- My GF ended up at the chiropractor the next day! But it's still a great ride! I mean if it was rough with a slow, boring layout it would truly suck; the way it stands right now, the crazy violence kind of adds to the thrill. The Wild Mouse at Blackpool is the same way. To me, a woodie like Terminator is so smooth that's it's actually kind of boring. This thing is fast, rough, long and gnarly in a "Holy crap! How is it still standing?" kind of way. As long as you brace yourself after the two bigger drops, should be okay.

I remember riding Viper in its first season when the lines were massive. It had some pretty crazy air in the front seat, right before the MCBR. But even back then it was a rough ride. Like Colossus, Revolution and Goliath, the brakes have been cranked WAY up over the years, presumably to relieve some mechanical stress on the trains. I've got some video footage somewhere of it flying through that MCBR and hammering down into the boomerang and corkscrews. There was always hang-time on that last cork, but now it crawls through. They should totally stick a flamethrower right there. I still ride it if there is no line. I think it's one of the better drops in the park. But like Revolution, it's a balancing act to keep your ears from getting bashed-in between the restraints. Speaking of ear-bashing, I was a big fan of Flashback -- I always found that layout to be super-weird and really fun. I know everyone hated it, but there was really nothing like else like trying to peer over the top of the train to prepare yourself for the next dive and ensuing head-bashing.

Ha! Yeah! It's from www.crappytaxidermy.com -- some real log-ride treasures to be found there.

^^^ Yeah, I think you're right. Maybe it's that the trains feel like they're moving slower around the track than what they were originally designed to do? Even that turn-around after the first drop feels much slower than I remember it being in the past. It's like "come on, you can make it!" I don't ride it that often anymore, but every time I do, that MCBR is on super-harsh -- like rib-breakingly harsh. It's still a beast however, just in its own neutered and elderly way.

I always loved freefall at SFMM, so I'd gladly ride it at Knott's. With that said, I totally understand the anachronistic criticism regarding another drop ride in the same park as Supreme Scream; and if it's better business to place it somewhere else, then so be it. But I have to say that for me, the drop on SS does feel less intense than on the old-school freefall rides. Maybe it's something about the watchwork-clunkiness of the car ascending the tower and getting pushed off the edge that adds to the anticipation?

New here, hi! Nope, no airtime on Colossus for me either no matter where I sit. It's cool if it's walk-on, but it's way slower than when I first rode it in the late '80s. It's got some nasty brakes all over it now (presumably to reduce wear and tear) and it barely even makes it around the last turn -- I mean we're talking like 10mph tops! It's rattly and shaky in an awesome old-school kind of way, though! Never noticed the rattle on Scream -- I actually like that ride more than the other B&M's at the park.