DirkFunk

It's a ride with the same theoretical capacity as a Vekoma Boomerang being run by Six Flags crews. I mean, OK. It could be worse.

Theme parks are like professional wrestling. Pro wrestling is outrageously fake. People see real hand to hand combat in the UFC, kickboxing, boxing, etc., and they can't even pretend that they don't know what it looks like. It doesn't resemble pro wrestling. And yet, pro wrestling has an internal rule set ("ring psychology" is the preferred term) within the insular world of fake fights. The fake fights must adhere to this logic in order to get the audience as emotionally involved and disbelief tossed away as much as possible. Those rules still utterly ignore actual realities of hand-to-hand combat, but within the space of that artform, it is accepted and expected. Still, if you don't care about the art form and all you want to do is laugh about how ridiculous it all is, you can. Analyzed really at all, it is stupid. Amusement and theme parks are the same way. "Thematic integrity" arguments are the same as hearing a couple weird dudes with enormous VHS and action figure collections discuss "selling the leg." People who don't like the artform have crapped on it for ages and there will always be people who do. Maybe they have a point? Truthfully, most people don't know why they necessarily like something, but primarily they like to go on rides, play games, and be entertained by singers/dancers/acrobats/whatever and that's what amusement/theme parks, carnivals, FECs, etc. provide. I guess what I'm saying here is that I don't think people are demanding thematic experiences at the local level: if they were, Six Flags and Cedar Fair attendance would have plummeted and we wouldn't be talking about indoor water parks and FECs in this thread. They just want to be entertained. The extension of communication only really makes it easier to share the experiences (positive and negative); I don't think that if people had cell phones in the 20s that they'd be like "oh man Dreamland's buildings are primarily plaster on wood frame?"

The dry side can pull some beastly lines on weekends, but I think for the most part, they don't really care about capacity (lol look at how many coasters have 2 trains!) and I would expect this eventually be a freebie at the park. If they charge for it, they'll find few if any takers.

That's absolutely true. Lots of people might notice that seasonal theme parks in Europe often run seven days a week or close to it starting in April and ending sometimes not until December. But people in Europe also have far more vacation time than Americans, which means they can afford to leave the house. Americans: not so much.

You're not going to find me disagreeing with trying to port over the idea of the urban amusement experience a la Tivoli and Prater here to the states. I think coaster enthusiasts don't often look outside the box of major corporately owned parks, and I think we miss a lot of things that fall under this kind of place as a result. Prater's a great example: big city park located in the middle of Vienna with a ton of rides, all owned by independent showmen, in addition to restaurants, a casino, and other attractions. If you really do the research, you'll realize that there's a ton of places in the United States that follow this ideal everywhere from Bartlesville, OK to Pueblo, CO, and even Central Park in NYC. We just don't talk about them or how they operate. For reasons that I think are distinctly American with our relationship to our own government, I think this sort of analysis is almost desired to be swept under the rug. But I digress. By and large, most of the discussion of amusement and theme park operations/design is dominated by people interested first and foremost by the Disney parks and that which was influenced by them. Look: I would love to see more rides in the middle of big cities. I can think of several that have discussed the idea and abandoned it for whom I think it would be awesome to see. I recognize that those sorts of park are essentially the antithesis of what it is Walt was attempting to do with Disneyland, and I believe that a goodly number of those whom dominate this discussion loathe the idea of urban amusement parks of any kind in the US. I also sense that there is still a level of discomfort among the citizenry to be in many major cities after dark due to fear. And that until that issue is met and actually dealt with, I think the idea of something more like Prater or Tivoli being grown out of the fallout of postwar urban decay will stay an idea and not so much a reality. That doesn't mean that new urbanism is all a complete failure, but I'm reticent to call mixed use developments amusement parks of any kind.

That's why it's important to create a different experience. It's all about creating a truly entertaining space to all guests, regardless of what sort of entertainment options are contained within. I feel like the only way for a new park to stand out in the current super-competitive landscape is to go beyond the coasters, rides and occasional show. I have my own personal vision for "the perfect new amusement park", but that's another story. If you do create a "different experience", that probably comes with increased costs of development, design, construction, and ultimately upkeep while all the other rules that have played in the industry still ultimately work against you. You're better off buying off the shelf Proslide products and putting them in a 60,000 square foot building than you'll ever be building amusement rides. And that's what you see playing out.

Apex can't do any worse. I've heard rumblings that something could happen here for awhile and I'm just happy ANYTHING did. I'm ecstatic.

It has nothing to do with the idea that people don't want to go on amusement rides in and of themselves: carnival industry is reasonably strong with NAME just getting bought by a publicly traded company and FECs still popping up and appearing to be a viable option with all sorts of different rides. The difficulty has everything to do with the startup costs of building new rides and infrastructure vs. return on investment over the short term. The market, as it is presently structured, values immediately quarter-to-quarter revenue jumps. A new theme park can easily take a more than a decade to pay off for just the basic items, all of which will lose value over time, required continued maintenance to operate, and will need to be endlessly supplemented by capital expenditures forever and ever amen to see increases in the user base. Look around at some of the emerging parks; they aren't corporate places. They're owned by families or heavily involve the public sphere. Zippin Pippin makes no obvious business sense except as an item of civic pride, but it exists because of donors and city funding from the taxpayers of Green Bay. Maybe it makes its cost back in 20 years. Maybe that doesn't matter so much in that instance?

If they had been successful, which is making money, they would still be there. Opryland was successful. It is gone entirely due to the incompetence of the company that ran it, which has since gone in the toilet having made numerous incredibly stupid moves. Their current CEO is on record as having called the decision to liquidate the park "a bad idea" and seen his company be forced to sell most of its core assets. There's an outstanding historical piece that I believe the Tennessean did a couple of years ago about how Gaylord had no long term plans for the park or set budgets at any point in it's existence and yet it was consistently profitable. No surprise then that Gaylord sold every asset that has turned out to be wildly profitable to competent individuals and corporations. Six Flags New Orleans is a different story. That park showed flashes of potential at point's in its existence, but the reality was that the park was pretty much obliterated by a gigantic storm and the cost of rebuilding it was left to a nearly bankrupt Six Flags. They abandoned it because, well, it was Six Flags.

Guys, it is time to come clean. I have purchased Darien Lake. I don't want to jinx it either, but I think I might be close to a deal for licensing of some of the greatest intellectual properties of all time: Krush Groove, Roadhouse, and the California Raisins.

The cost of building a park from scratch is exorbitant. History says that the majority of entities who construct these parks fail at turning a profit and sell them. Not just Hard Rock Park: Everybody. With the exception of perhaps the Houston area projects, if we get one, it is because someone organically grew out and became bigger. There's plenty of smaller "FEC" type facilities who've added large coasters and are continuing to do so, and from those, perhaps 10% of them might become full size amusement parks one day.

No one is saying that there isn't the expectation of markup with food sold at entertainment venues. The reason why no one is listing Boathouse or Victoria and Albert's on this list and is listing Six Flags' pizza and Cedar Fair burgers is *because* there is the belief that with VERY high pricing for a meal, there is value in the quality and presentation of the items. Also the very low season pass prices exist in tandem with the high pricing of low quality food as a strategy to make money by drawing you in as many times as possible and hoping per cap spending increases accordingly once you're inside. None of these parks is hoping to become mass low cost daycare to which a family of four buying burgers pays for the kid who's mom buys them a pass and all season dining plan.

Much like how Arrow survived for so long, the parts/refurbishment business will keep them around as long as they want to be in business. Didn't they try a newer style train awhile back? Or at least market one? I think I remember seeing one at IAAPA? IIRC by the time they did that, Timberliners were already well underway in design and possibly shown on the floor.

PTC could literally do nothing more than provide service for existing trains and probably get by until Tom Rebbie is dead. And it looks increasingly like that's what will happen, since most of the major existing wood coaster manufacturers have designed their own trains to go on their rides. No one to blame but themselves.

Wands and bag searches at the entrance today. I assume that was a dry run for Halloweekends or something, but still not a thing I was totally stoked about. If they do roll forward with it, they're gonna need a lot more than four or five people to wand 30-40,000 efficiently.

Their list price for admission is $45. They're selling tickets for $5. That's 88% off the price of "regular admission", which of course you cannot buy anywhere. If someone wanted, they could probably take them to court for this kind of manipulative selling, but I'm sure the actual family is insulated by concentric rings of shell companies and you would see exactly 0.00 back from the endeavor. I've also heard the exclusive resort person ERT may include some rides or just one ride or whatever it is the park feels like running that day.

Yeah, I personally don't care. If Cedar Fair decides a park should get a ride like Maverick, hey, it looks like Gerstlauer and Mack will build you basically the same kinda ride. They might even do a better job of it too. Big crazy wood coasters? Well, RMC is already tops in the game, so why go anywhere else? There really isn't anything Intamin does that you can't get somewhere else.

Manufacturers build the rides their customers want. If Cedar Fair wanted Intamin coasters that rode more like Thunder Dolphin or Millennium Force than I305, I'm sure Intamin would do that given that they clearly have in the past. I just don't think they want anything that Intamin themselves designs and fabricates, at least for the time being.

That ain't bad. A lot of these off the grid rides turn out to be boring or terrible, so for it to even be in the same breath as some of what you listed makes me pretty happy to hear. They're also an arid desert climate at high altitude; if they can keep their coaster running well, there isn't any excuse for parks like Busch Gardens, Magic Mountain, or Knotts to do the same with much larger overall budgets.

How would you place it? Like, second tier kinda thing with a pile of other old CCIs like Funtown's Excalibur?

Any wood coaster that isn't top 15 but is "good" usually gets thrown in this distinction. When people actually sit down and do their lists (if they bother), they usually find out that, hey Viper at Great America isn't really a top ten ride after all. So I'm ignoring wood for this. Among steel: Vilda Musen at Grona Lund is *outstanding* and is easily overlooked in favor of the frankly inferior Jetline at the same park due to the vintage and designer name attached. Adventureland's Hurricane with the T-Bars, now in Panama City, FL, is another one. The layout of those rides is tremendous, but was hampered by poor restraint design. Those trains got it right.

The only healthy way to "count" is just to record things you do so that you can recall what you've done. I can't remember every single ride I've ever been on in my life, and unless I wrote about 'em, I'm generally guessing if I had been on something 15-20 years ago or not. Unless you're Rainman, I don't believe anyone can instantly go back and say any of that stuff with confidence. But to go ride garbage just to write it on a list and brag to people?

Tickets online are down to $5 apiece for POP. If you have more than a couple people to share the parking fee, great. If not, park down the street at one of the other attractions that doesn't have warnings in the lots and set yourself in the back. Arrive early to try and get frontish of the line on something.

I saw this thread and immediately thought "Paul Bunyan Land". I think there's a weird walk through attraction out there too. The mysterious amusement places of the midwest...always full of surprises.

That sucks to hear about the rink - I remember my wife and I went up there very early in our relationship and it was like this magical, perfectly polished throwback to a by-gone era. Figures its been closed for 8-9 years now and we had no idea.