DirkFunk

No. Not that I was aware of, but then again, I don't know what "Google Cardboard Technology" is. The units and devices were supplied by Samsung. Poor man's OculusRift. Take a smart phone, put it in this cardboard thing you wear on your head like a goggle, use the phone's sensing functionality to react to your movement, BOOM, VR for $8. It is actually shockingly effective.

The area around BGT is basically like Buena Park around Knott's. Strip malls and post-war ranches as far as the eye can see. It isn't exactly the most appealing thing. Might as well not even have rooms that look out to the city.

This article seems to suggest the park is in a state of foreclosure. Oops. http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2015/11/07/cinecitta-world-pignorata-larea-del-parco-di-abete-della-valle-e-de-laurentiis/2199328/

The first Wild Wind coaster was bought by Rye Playland something like 15 years ago, fully assembled, and tested. The ride was so bad in testing that they tore it down, stored it on site, and eventually sold it to some park in Europe or Jordan or something like that. I think it's in the Philippines right now. Rye happily opened a Volare. That's all you need to know.

They basically fired all the people responsible for that in their creative department, so it'll be someone else from who knows where doing it.

Reading between the lines, I'd guess that the claim that they're the "worst coaster trains ever" wasn't invented by the poster, but by a maintenance person at Six Flags Great America. Working front line/crap jobs at theme parks, I heard stuff like that frequently. I remember one gentleman telling me how lousy of a designer he thought Larry Bill was while working on a consistently top ranked wood coaster. Doesn't mean Larry Bill is indeed the worst wooden coaster designer of a generation, just someone's take on having to fix up his ride. With that in mind, there's actually really interesting analysis of the trains and how they operate on the RMC rides located in this and what the operational differences are between them, even if you disagree with the poster's conclusions. Realistically, given that RMC is a relatively new manufacturer doing a lot of generally new stuff, you have to anticipate that they will probably make lots of changes to the train/track/support structures as time goes forward and some trial and error takes place. Another wise man once pointed out to me that if you look at all the steel coasters Hopkins built, they basically all have different trains, track, and support designs indicating that they were constantly attempting to improve. Obviously with their rides being much lower cost and being constructed over a much longer period of time, those improvements were comparably glacial to what something like RMC will be doing given a slate of 3 or more new coasters each year.

Any person / activist group / corporation / what have you with a vested interest in any side of a debate or issue will manipulate in order to gain support. That goes as much for Seaworld's PR department and any other group decrying the film as 'propaganda' as it goes for the actual film itself. My point is more that people have been questioning the treatment of animals used for entertainment purposes for a longtime now, well before Blackfish came out. I feel like most people would be uncomfortable seeing an elephant or a bear in a circus in 2015, irrespective of how well looked after the circus can claim them to be. What I can't comprehend is how that's not the same for an Orca or any other large sea mammal. But I could be completely wrong about attitudes to circus animals to begin with. From scrolling through this thread its pretty clear my opinion is in the minority, so i'll butt-out. I came to have a look because a mate asked me what rollercoaster fans thought of the whole thing so I've got my answer for him now. But it's been an intriguing read nonetheless. One important thing to understand is that Americans are taught to believe in the ideal of unbiased journalism. It is a suggestion repeated over and over and over again. The issue with this is that any journalistic piece that comes to a conclusion, no matter how obvious that conclusion may be, is going to have inherent bias. This crosses over into the arts as well. It is a frankly impossible and, in practice, largely undesirable standard, but we tell ourselves it is important to keep anyhow. Ergo: people complain a documentary film has an agenda when that is the entire purpose of documentary film.

This. If it turns out better and isn't Thunder Dolphin, that means what? The bulk of the good work Mako needs to do is in year one drawing people, and the best way it can draw people is by reliably working and providing a quality ride. It'll probably be the best coaster in Florida: that's OK with me. No dude, I talked to so many people that totally said "to hell with SWO" the second they found out Mako was a B&M. My next door neighbor got tickets for the whole family in anticipation of Mako being a Not B&M (Not B&M is his favorite manufacturer by far), so when he found out that this wasn't the case, he walked around looking for homeless people to give the tickets to but they wouldn't take them; not even as fuel for their garbage fires when it gets cold. One of them even chased him off with a shopping cart. My other neighbor is a PETA member and her favorite movie is Blackfish (she tried to run me over once after she found out that I had a pet goldfish when I was like 8). She still loved Seaworld and went there once a month. Until Mako was a B&M. So really, the only thing SWO is marketing by Mako being a B&M is a 10+ hour road trip to the nearest Intamin Hyper 750 miles away, something that every reasonable tourist in Orlando will do the moment they walk up to SWO's gates and see that Mako is a B&M. :applause and fire emojis:

This. If it turns out better and isn't Thunder Dolphin, that means what? The bulk of the good work Mako needs to do is in year one drawing people, and the best way it can draw people is by reliably working and providing a quality ride. It'll probably be the best coaster in Florida: that's OK with me.

What is going to be the argument? "I demand animals perform shows for me!" I doubt you're gonna get tons of people behind that.

Ethically (IMO) it was the right thing to do, and I think even if you don't necessarily agree with me, it is clear that for the California market it is most certainly an appropriate business measure. Now the obvious question: When do they start moving orcas to Texas? Given Texas' stance on exotic animals, I have to imagine they're looking at it.

This 100%. I used to be so eager to book my next Universal trip to check out their new attractions, but with everything becoming just a different version of sitting in front of a screen while being shaken, I'm more hesitant. Maybe I'll be wrong, in fact I hope I am wrong, but if this current trend continues, I don't see myself going back for a few years. Although it's more popular in some countries than others (we have so many here in Korea) with 4D cinemas increasing in numbers at cineplexes, I just can't see the theme parks continuing with it as a trend. They would have to up their game to offer something that can't be found at multiplexes around the country. Multiplexes can't show films in tandem with large animatronics, roller coasters, or suspended seating, which are examples of what everyone in theme parks is doing. Theme parks either can't afford the alternative or there isn't one for all practical intents and purposes for the IPs people want put into the parks.

The worst announcement specifically for 2016 was that Disney Hollywood Studios was gonna be mostly shuttered up with a whopping 5 mechanical rides available to visitors going there. It'll be a lot better in subsequent years. but visits to the park in 2016 won't really improved over the park in 2013 or 2014. Everyone who got a ride and didn't have an superior attraction removed to get it is doing just fine.

When I say "simulator" I'm referring to the attractions that shake you around but stay in one place. Simpsons and Despicable Me come to mind on Universal's property. I'm not saying that every themed attraction should be an animatronic-heavy attraction, because they shouldn't. Each park has a need, each crop of designers comes up with a story, system and implementation to address the need. Fine. But my problem with -most- (not all) media-based attractions is that they try to tell too much story in too little time. Everything moves so fast and you don't even have time to think about what's going on because by the time you do the ride is over. The balance between taking the time to tell your story and making sure guests keep flowing through the attraction is a very difficult one to achieve. I'm also slightly biased because I can't ride those rides with the glasses on without getting motion sick. You can't win 'em all. Rides are a lousy medium to tell stories, but the push to do so has been a focus of the industry now for longer than projection/3D projection has been merged with dark rides. That's not a problem of projection technology. It isn't even really the fault of designers. Designers create based on the demands of executives. Now those executives now more than any other time in memory are dictating what parks build based on IP crossover and are also actively choosing to produce films and TV programs with the intent of merchandising them and building theme park attractions based on their success. See as relevant: every article about there being a much reduced mid point for film budgets between independent film and summer blockbusters. But returning to rides here since that's what is relevant - it is an effect, like any other effect on a ride. The only bearing it has is "Does it work best for the application?" For many applications in which it is used, video projection is the only realistic option.

It is absolutely at a "sustainable" size, but the argument that the only states in which the park can be are decline, stasis, or unsustainable growth is also a fallacy.

I can pretty much guarantee this won't be a Kuka arm ride as much as anyone who doesn't directly pull a check from Universal.

Well, that's not entirely the case with me. I still enjoy Curse of DarKastle at BGW, and (as I said earlier), I think Spider-man is still the best attraction at Universal,followed by Mummy and Men in Black. I can ride these attractions multiple times and still enjoy them. But simulators along the lines of Despicable Me (and what the Fallon ride will probably be) are usually "one and done"--never need to ride them again. Fallon is gonna be a Soarin' copycat that's basically the equivalent of a C-D ticket replacing a totally irrelevant attraction. If it's as good as some of the other Soarin' clones, that's still a huge improvement over Twister. And looking at Soarin', that thing constantly manages a huge line at Epcot. People LOVE IT. But it also doesn't really isn't much like what Universal has otherwise built in the last 10 years, as none of their new build attractions are classic stationary simulator based attractions.

"Media based" exist and are being actively pursued because what can be done with CGI and 3D video effects is dramatically better than 30-40-50 years ago. Animatronics are basically at a standstill in general development because the cost of building bigger or more advanced in terms of movement and doing so reliably beyond what presently exists is exorbitantly expensive. Spiderman can leap on the car because he's a video effect. There are very few robots anywhere in the world capable of leaving their feet to make a jump, and if they exist, they sure as hell aren't bipedal and capable of imitating a human. If video screens on rides makes them simulators, then the only "true" rides you're probably gonna get in the next 5 years in Orlando will be Slinky Dog Coaster and coasters/flats built at the SeaWorld parks.

From the guest's perspective, it makes everything seem to be the same. I'd be incredibly bored if Universal kept putting simulators in. Most of these rides aren't simulators though any more than any themed ride is a simulator. They're rides utilizing projections as effects. It seems to me that there's a generation bothered by this. Seeing people complain is kinda like watching at old school wood coaster enthusiasts coping with the technological progression of the 90s-2000s to me. Instead of complaining about buzz bars and inversions all being alike, they're upset that there aren't more big clunky animatronics.

This is why I'm a bit more curious about Kong at IOA, as it looks like it'll be more of a dark ride (using 3D projections). I like to see a good mix of physical and digital sets and effects as part of a dark ride, but I'm not a big fan of sitting in a theater while my chair moves around. Spider-man, which is still the Universal resort's best attraction, is a good example of what I mean. I get what you're saying, but meanwhile, I look at the anchor for Avatar, Soarin' Over The World, Iron Man @ HKDL, and what I expect for at least one of the Star Wars rides, and it just seems like they're running at the forefront of the trend in the industry.

The old Universal was filled with simulator rides and static experiences in which standing or sitting groups of people watched something happen and pretended to be impressed. I'd rather "ride the movies" if that means I get more rides like Spiderman, Mummy, and Potter, I'm way more excited about that than I am the halcyon days of Backdraft and Nick Studios. And besides *EVERY* park is going to be focusing on rides with projection and synch'ed video. Nobody here really thinks the Star Wars stuff is gonna feature hundreds of clunky animatronics, do they?

Profitability =/= increases in stock price OR proof of a better product. Profit is merely what is left in the revenue minus expense equation should it turn out to be in the black. Jim Reid Anderson can make a hundred million dollars off stock options and give himself another hundred million in bonuses during his CEO tenure, leave, and the company still turns out to be a house of cards and collapses. That's how a pump and dump works. SIX stock is sold by executives on the market, usually to mutual funds, hedge funds, and investment firms relying on computer algorithms that monitor fluctuations, which will probably use it in an array of products sold to the general public. I may be invested in SIX right now via my retirement plan even though I am also alternately thinking of taking my own money to short the stock. What I'm getting at is that the free market is highly imperfect; belief that it is perfect is no different than a form of religion. And like many forms of religion, if you believe in it too strongly, you've got a great chance of winding up broke and applying for WalMart greeter positions in your advanced age.

I disagree that a crappy product is profitable. The execs know this and they have dumped more than 4.7 million shares this year. They don't necessarily need to raise wages or get better employees to improve service. Here's the Six Flags stock chart over the last 5 years. Stock was reissued in 2010. Jim Reid-Anderson was given stock as part of his deal to come to the company. The same goes for other executives. Those executives are offloading stock because their stock in the company is worth a fortune. Six Flags split twice in 2011 and 2013, and on top of that, it is worth more than it ever had been. A position of 1,000,000 shares at $32.25 a share on the day Anderson started would now be worth 4,000,000 shares at $51.71 a share. That means that position would go from being worth ~$32 million to almost $207 million dollars.

People's love of WoC is directly related to their relationship with the Disney movies they pump during the program in clip form. I'm not a Disney guy; I don't wear fursuits and get hardons for Robin Hood, I don't get misty eyed at every single Pixar film, I don't caress my pirate copy of Song of The South, I don't pay attention to how much money their animated stuff is making or how much it is supposed to make. I don't really give a crap about what Walt wanted; apparently he desired picnic tables before coasters, but he was forced to listen to the public on that. I watch it and it feels like the most expensive display of a Youtube montage ever. Some people feel different. That's cool.

It might be precisely why it gets done, a continued diversifiction of the economy where oil isn't the end all, be all. Correct me if I'm wrong but outside of the Universal and the Seaworld/Busch Gardens/Aquatica Island most everything that was a a stand still has started back up again on the theme park front. I would not be surprised if those two come back around. There's a clear strategy being played out, you see it via their airlines(Emirates and Eithad) and the massive hubs that continue to grow. Bring folks in as part of an extended layover or offer enough to have them stay a few days there as well. I think they are hot and heavy after biopharm and other start ups as well. There were numerous projects (Six Flags Dubai, F1-X) that all got cancelled. Some even had rides delivered and are still sitting today in the desert. The truth is there's been far more announcements than actual openings. To this day, the only significant non-water park to actually make it to opening is Ferrari World, a place I hear is totally dead Sunday through Thursday. It sure as hell was a couple weeks ago when I was there. When it comes to things like research, I know they'd like to diversify. Their issue is that high level researchers have no interest in going to work there. They could even build a Weizmann Institute of Science type facility, but they're still going to have a deeply difficult time luring elite Western researchers there because those people attract excellent paying private sector jobs in the West or tenure track faculty positions in Academia. They, the Saudis, the Qatari, etc. are going to have to settle for people ending postdocs and not distinguished professors. But that's neither here nor there. The last time those park projects all crashed and burned was in the 2008 recession when oil prices fell through the floor when speculators realized the imagined demand wasn't there. Even with the Burj Khalifa, the Dubai government had to go to the more conservative Abu Dhabi pursestrings and beg for the cash to finish it.