DirkFunk

If you spend money, you should expect return on investment. If the team you're looking to spend money through isn't delivering results, maybe you start looking at the team?

I'm wrong then. I thought I had read otherwise and I think it must have been a misunderstanding on my part from the news that Morrow was released or bad info given. That being said: Is Antarctica really their best effort as an attraction? Being honest.

I know for a fact the ride manufacturer sets the height restrictions. You are right that a park *could* negotiate with them to create a solution for a lower height restriction, but it's up to the ride manufacturer to decide if that's something they are willing to do or not. And yes, I do blame the park somewhat as well, as they could have gone with another ride to deliver a 42" ride, but they chose not to. More reasons why I feel this ride just makes no sense to me. Even BGT has a much better balance of coasters in their collection with rides for 38", 42", 46", 48", and 54". Ride manufacturers do what the park wants, right? Within bounds, of course....no one is going to GCI to contract building a huge multilaunch steel coaster. But those bars on GCI trains go all the way to the seat, and I'm sure if Busch wanted to argue it out or even pay money for some sort of ridiculously minor change that would please the lawyers GCI pays to try and indemnify them, it could have happened. Shorter height restrictions = younger guests, and restraining younger guests who are tougher to reason with means more expense. This is more my thought process. Building coasters is a cheap option to move the needle and so they're gonna push that rather than "themed" attractions of some sort or shows. I love that Mako is being built but I also have no idea how it makes sense at a park where there's never been a line for Kraken, even on New Years Eve.

SeaWorld laid off their creative staff a few years ago, and while there was some gnashing of teeth on the internet about that, the best thing they had managed to come up with in the the past 5-6 years was Turtle Trek. If that isn't a brutal indictment, what is?

It looks like a splash pad with a dump bucket. I suppose it is high capacity in that they'll expect to squeeze hundreds of tourists into a small space.

Emotional connections, truthfully, are worth just about nothing. For all the grandstanding about what these places mean, I've never met anyone who actually considered changing their diets or consumption habits after visiting a zoo or aquarium for any serious length of time. We can't buy our way out of these problems and save these animals. If the scenario is that killer whales are so endangered that SeaWorld becomes their last hope for species survival, then we have far greater issues in our world than whether or not Shamu Rocks! will be happening 4 times a day.

Says who? It's perfectly coherent to suggest that SeaWorld's orcas can't be returned to the wild or else they will most likely die (fact), and that presenting these animals to the public is of enormous benefit to the cause of conservation. Both are absolutely true. Direct species survival and re-population vis-a-vis breeding programs is all but impossible for wild orcas. "Education," although meaningful and certainly helpful, doesn't guarantee survival at all. All the Zoobooks in the world aren't gonna stop poachers armed with .50 machine guns and night vision goggles.

I'll agree with that. Great post, all around. With regards to VW, a great deal of what's happening there certainly does involve how different (re: bat feces insane) the American market is with regards to the rest of the world. Even during lean times, we tend to like bigger cars and SUVs, and that makes it difficult for a global automaker to find a strategic solution to this market difference. Difficult, but not impossible. Ford, for example, is basically making the same car in many different forms, all to keep costs down and to deliver the vehicles to the markets that want them. The Escape is basically the Focus jacked up a half-a-foot off the ground, and the Escape is the B-Max Hybrid identically, but with a gas engine and at a normal height. VW just didn't find these solutions to their product mix in the US, and what's worse, made some insane bets we all knew weren't going to pay off (the new Passat? Seriously.) At the same time, due to globalization of the manufacture of automobiles, it's really only a matter of time before we're all driving Euro-Asian small(er) cars in the form of the Golf or the Focus, and while you can never underestimate the stupidity of the American Public, eventually they catch up and they'll realize they're paying a 25% premium over the car variant. Or that SUVs aren't "cooler" than wagons: THEY ARE WAGONS! (Sorry! Off topic!) Nah, there's some applicability here. VW was attempting to use the high cost of fuel as a method to further penetrate the US market via exploiting an inefficiency which the major US automakers were infamously slow to adapt to. The Big 3 didn't make small cars because profit margins weren't as good, and whoosh - two of them ended up bankrupt and one is now a quasi-Italian company now. But I digress: VW in this relationship saw their blue ocean product being the TDI line, which provided seemingly magical solutions to a litany of issues - noise, emissions, fuel efficiency, and engine reliability. And it worked! Until it turned out that some of those solutions were in fact smoke (pun!) and mirrors. Exacerbating this is that the illusory properties of the engine are the ones that allow it to be sold in the United States and in other emissions sensitive regions, which is crushingly bad for resale and makes their cars even more of a liability than automobiles already are. Even under the best conditions, sales weren't going to benefit from this. (FWIW I would suggest that increasing income disparity, particularly in the US, is going to lead to record low numbers of car sales among future generations as public transport as produced by the private sector becomes more and more accepted and expected. For those still buying, they'll be the sorts who are still believers in the suburban & rural housing dream, and those people will still love them some trucks but may want them to be gas/electric hybrids. We're literally just a couple years away from combis/collectivos filled via ride sharing technology appearing in US streets. It will happen. I guarantee it. If you can code, we should work on it and get rich.) SeaWorld is not a radical company in this sense looking to see immense growth following tremendous risk. They're a deeply conservative company, and not just because Lynyrd Skynyrd and Kid Rock are the kind of acts they haul in for Blues, Brews, and BBQ (I'm on fire today w/these btw). When Blackstone spun the company off into the private sector and saddled them with a butt ton of debt, the plan as best I can tell was the usual cut costs/increase prices method of revenue growth in a mature industry and build semi-occasionally. Orlando got a pair of rides, San Antonio's log flume closed and is rotting (but they got a water park), and San Diego got Manta and, uhhh, I guess it kinda got a water park? So yeah, they made crappy capital investments, cut operating costs at precisely the wrong time, and they might have gotten away with all of it if not for that pesky documentary film. Damn kids.

I get your argument here (Autoextremist much?) but the core problem is that until recently, there was no reason to believe that either VW or SeaWorld had a product that the market lacked interest in. This isn't like Knott's having 20 years of largely stagnant or reducing attendance until the Ouimet Era. Let's use VW for a moment: the obvious force leading to VW's decline in sales if we assume your position is correct is an external cause: reduction in fuel costs that came with the oil bubble finally bursting. Fundamentally then, the purchasers of vehicles wanted larger cars in the United States, and went to manufacturers that provided them. F-150s for all, right? SeaWorld, on the other hand, also has an external force playing part in the difficulties it had in your model: Harry Potter. Thus, since neither Harry Potter nor the oil bubble are things caused internally at SeaWorld, they are comparable. But they aren't. And here's why: the car market didn't fundamentally change. Buyers gravitate towards smaller or more efficient vehicles when oil spikes in price; it was like that in the 70s, it is like that now. As such, trucks will always be popular in the US. There is an image with trucks that is unbreakable with the American working class. For that reason, none of the manufacturers would ever abandon trucks or suggest a future without them. It would be foolhardy to do so, and so trucks are altered in order to better fit the needs of the external market forces that would otherwise make them undesirable (made more efficient, lighter, etc). SeaWorld, as suggested, has always had Orcas as a base. Even if they added nothing, a "floor" number of guests would come to see the orcas. And you're right; they would have fought like mad if they believed that they were so utterly important and irreplaceable to their brand as that. Where you err here is that they did fight like mad, and in doing so, they saw that floor lower itself and the support they believed they always had vanish when the fighting only made them look worse in the public eye. The only reason they'd come to the conclusion that they did is that the theme park market, the one they are a part of, changed and that they needed to change with it. This is unlike the VW situation; SeaWorld blamed the weather and the economy, but ultimately was forced to blame themselves by not bringing a product to market that the public wanted, and that was because the public was beginning to reject the orca shows - their mid size truck. VW made a gamble their market was changing and lost out at least in the short term (at minimum, assuming you don't believe in brand damage). SeaWorld, on the other hand, stuck to the 2 back formation into the era of the 4 WR spread then blamed the game for its own obsolescence.

You can't argue that SeaWorld's orcas are incapable of ever being returned to the wild and then in the same breath suggest that such presentation as their's is required for conservation. It isn't a coherent viewpoint. Some animals simply aren't going to benefit from the Species Survival Plan; right now aquatic ones of all sorts seem to be in that situation.

FWIW laying blame on GCI for the height requirement sounds bogus to me. If BGW wanted to pay extra for insurance, I'm sure they could get it worked down to 42". Disney's low height requirements have more to do with a willingness for more spend on guests than magic restraints.

Exactly right. It's like folks who want to rant and rave and create laws against pollution in the US because of all the damage it's doing to the environment. But all you have to do is look across the ocean and see, it doesn't matter how much regulation or effort we put into fixing the pollution problems in America, if other countries around the globe are going to keep on doing what they're doing. These activists have a hard time looking at the big picture. And instead of looking at the big picture, like to think they're making a difference by hurting the people and companies who really are very humane compared to what is going on around the rest of the globe. Does shutting down Sea World stop the slaughter of Orcas, Dolphins, and marine environments around the world? NO. Does it prevent pollution and plastic from entering the oceans? NO. So why don't you focus on that, PETA, actually making a difference instead of constantly ripping farts and making everyone who's trying to do good smell them. Usually activists who promote a number of similar messages will be branded as extremists regardless of how seemingly moderate any of those individual opinions might be. If you're against whaling and dolphin hunts, overfishing, poaching, and burning down the rainforest for farming, the average SeaWorld fan who keeps complaining that a multi-ton animal jumping in synchronicity with music isn't stimulating enough without someone riding them like a bronco or being launched 40 feet in the air will consider them some sort of crazy treehugger anyhow. Let's face it: either you want to see performing animals or you have some moral consternation about it. Forget the arguments for ecology here for a moment: no one arguing on behalf of SeaWorld is even slightly trying to take that tact in this thread, at least not in any seriously measured way. It comes down to that simple question about animal performance and nothing else. Always has, always will.

It'll be 30 years before there are no orcas at the parks. In the meantime, they'll be presented improved enclosures and won't largely be seen just as props in a show. Half the people here will be dead before the orcas at Sea World are no more. I'm alright with this, definitely.

None of the other coasters that are outside have any theming either... ...and there is a very good reason for that. You'll actually find that the larger coasters in the Middle East (including the bigger coasters at the upcoming IMG and DPR theme parks) don't have trees planted close to the structure. What is the good reason for not planting trees around the coasters? You mean aside from the fact that all the trees would die and any theming outdoors would be scorched in the sun?

The one suggestion in this that hasn't come up are zoos. Off the top of my head: -Toledo Zoo has two carousels and a CP Huntington Train -Cleveland Metroparks Zoo has a carousel and CP Huntington -Detroit has a set of trains built by Chrysler in the 50s, carousel, 4D theater, and simulator attraction -Cincinnati has a train, carousel, and 4D theater/simulator. -Balboa Park and the San Diego Zoo have a train, 4D theater, and Von Roll skyride -Dallas Zoo has a weird one of a kind monorail and a carousel

I didn't know the Oculus actually has a lower resolution. I wonder if they've found a way around the "screen door" problem. Not with the early versions. That's a typical complaint re: them.

I'd respond by saying that the Sky Coaster training process is far more rigorous than any roller coaster training I've ever seen. And with good reason, given the potential for serious injury and death if done improperly. For that same reason, there's only one standing SCAD tower in the United States. The odds being debatable as to whether or not the operator will secure a loose item in superior fashion doesn't change the fact that they're still putting loose articles on riders after years of demonizing them in the name of monetizing safety.

I wouldn't go that far. There is a difference between a kid trying to film on a ride holding his cell phone (or even his own go pro harness for that matter that the park has no way of verifying is secure) and a properly secured headset with their equipment. Anyone who has ever worked at a theme park will tell you that every guest THINKS there stuff is safe, only to have it end up in the middle of the ride track.... The reality is that you're training 18 and 19 year olds to supposedly secure these things in such a manner that they don't come off someone's head on a ride forceful enough to launch a human body against its will. I'm not saying it can't work, but I think arguing that it is significantly safer that rider's own loose articles (especially those placed in secured pockets) puts way more faith in the capabilities of staff than is reasonable. After all, if the argument is that there isn't anything intrinsically wrong about the old restraints, and that body shape combined with the poor decision making crews effectively no different from the one working this year was the culprit in multiple rider deaths, what rational reason is there to believe that this will be foolproof?

1) LOLOLOLOL at anyone who ever argued on behalf of the parks and the "loose article policies" input as revenue generators being about safety. They're literally having teenagers strap cell phones to people's heads on rides with serious negative Gs. You can't be more transparent about what's going on than that. 2) I bolded the above because that's the real issue. Dispatches will be glacial on these rides.

And the scare actors in the queue. Those too.

Wanda expanding their tentacles to Paris. http://variety.com/2016/film/news/wanda-group-confirms-3-billion-investment-in-entertainment-complex-near-paris-1201715903/

I think we broke him, guys. Does anyone know where the reset button is on this model? I AM REBORN. FLYING ACES. YES.

Guys I need to offer a HOT TAKE on this ride on the other side of the world that I won't ride for at least a calendar year; maybe more. RED HOT TAKES. Your retinas will burn, embedded with fire emojis. THE LAPBARS LOOK SOFT. THE WHITE COLOR OF TRACK TOO EASILY BLENDS IN WITH THE HAZE PRESENT IN THE AREA FROM SAND AND ALUMINUM PROCESSING, IT SHOULD BE BLUE. DOES THE PROPELLOR SPIN IF NOT FAIIIIIILLLLLLLLLL aogagskanhyraoFORCEZZZZZZZZZZZ

I don't think there are "shuttles". What you're likely to find are local bus companies offering one day trips to the parks with tickets as part of the pricing. They aren't likely to be every day. You might be able to take Amtrak to Williamsburg, then connect via taxi or bus (???) there, but I have no idea what the schedule looks like. EDIT: To echo what others have said, are you looking at neighborhood rental locations rather than the airports?

If by "preshow" you mean "it is now just a component to a longer ride," then yes. It's a bit like calling Formula Rossa and Dragster the same but that Rossa just has some additional post-show before the kiosk selling onride photos.