ABW

^Me too! ...When I was five.

^I bought it. I'm a very wealthy businessman from California who started a campaign called "Save The Boomerang." I've made national news stories. Please don't call me stupid or anything but does anybody have a pickup truck that I can borrow to haul the coaster to my house in the Bay Area? That's how it works, right??

My thoughts exactly! Like, WHAT!? Also, perfect GIF, 10/10.

Definitely, I also agree that it's a generational issue. The funny thing is it's not even a rights issue, but its so fervently framed as one. Further, just like you say, people in the said generation seem to not understand the concept of fact checking, either. It's really aggravating, yet should be to any genuine person who cares about seeing both sides of the issue, which is how any decently intelligent person should look. But no, we all just hate whales and dolphins, or whatever.

Well, this was fun to read... Credit where credit is due, most Six Flags parks now have "full day" fluffy bunny prices, so the "I DON'T WANNA PAY A DOLLAR EACH TIME!" argument has further just been proven to be stupid and short sighted. Also, I'm laughing at the people who come here just to be stupid, subsequently banned, and then go to Twitter posting "TPR must end." As if people outside the roller coaster community actually give a f**k!

I'll never understand the whole "let's go study at Disneyland" idea. Just my opinion, but I'm not going to go to The Great Wall of China, or Niagara Falls, or anywhere really encapsulating, and just study there. Not only would it not be effective, and hard to work ("hmmm, to study, or go get a FP for Indiana Jones...") but it also does, as someone else pointed out, seem to insult the atmosphere.

Screaming right now...

Not really. Riddler is smooth as glass in the front rows. Now, towards the back is where things start to get shaky. It's still an awesome ride though. Scream is on and off, but I don't like that I can never tell if it's going to be enjoyable or not until I ride it. When it's running well, I still enjoy it a lot.

I have no problem with the new names, any attempt to spruce up an area of the park should be taken as a positive, in my opinion. Especially in a park, such as KD, which needs more thematic consistency. (Who the hell thought putting I305 in the "Congo" section was a good idea??) P.S. Going after SJW's is like shooting fish in barrel. It's too easy. We know they're stupid. I don't need to be reminded they're stupid. That's kind of my take on it. I know nobody asked, but I kind of wish more people took that approach to it rather than a pissing contest. Those who've been on the internet long enough should know what I'm talking about.

^Try telling that to Elissa and the people who were lucky enough to try Insane! My bad! It's still definitely tighter on the turns though, you can tell just by watching the videos in comparison with Insane.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Robb! This ride and I go back a long way. Here's some of what I got. Love this ride!

Just to clarify, the reason Green Lantern sucks is not the model itself, but the way Six Flags takes care of it. When they added those HORRIBLE "ninja stars" in 2012 to keep it from spinning much, it simply did nothing but turn the experience into a hellish ride. I'm no expert, but in my relatively uneducated opinion, it makes ZERO SENSE to try and keep a spinning ride from spinning. Instead of making complete rotations, you might experience the full g force of the compact ride WHILE UPSIDE DOWN. That is NOT safe! When that happened to me in 2016, it felt like being in a car accident! The rides I had on Green Lantern prior to the 2012 changes were amazing and I can only hope that the experience is restored. But I guess I'm the .0001% minority here. (I also enjoy rough SLC's and the old Ninja at SFOG when it was called that, so I guess I'm just really messed up. )

At first I was wondering what looked wrong. Then I realized "Hurricane Harbor." Yeah, it'd make sense, I guess. Notwithstanding, I refuse to feel excited about this Six Flags re-purchase of the Concord water park (whatever they end up calling it,) until they actually invest in something worthwhile that the park didn't already have. Putting in another kids area doesn't sell it for me.

OMG, yes! Please!

^I agree completely. Um, I don't want to play mod here, but I've been on this site for a while now, and this is just inappropriate. The way you go after Jew just for posting his opinion and suggesting he shouldn't be a mod is, to put it lightly, unnecessary. By the way, Jew isn't going anywhere, so if you don't like hearing constructive criticism about this park, maybe you actually should leave.

I feel like it was more of a discussion of the value of re-branding CGA. The conclusion would be that it would do little to change the sentiments of the locals on either park. The criticism was less so of the present days CGA, but the slog that the park went through in the previous decade. We've grown up with these parks, so there's little value rebranding (as seen with Marine World-->SF:MW-->SF:DK | Marriott's-->Paramount-->CGA e.g. we've been through so many re-brandings in the Bay Area) versus actual improvements to the parks. That's all the point was. Oh don't worry! I'm not saying that's specifically what you were doing. I'm just saying if things were to start going in that direction of comparison, it wouldn't be worth it most likely. You're all good, and I'm glad you brought up the points that you did!

^Steel Vengence has been blessed.

I feel like the only people complaining about CGA are the ones who have not been in a while. Same goes for SFDK. It's also not wise to turn this very opinionated discussion of SFDK vs CGA into an argument over who is right and wrong. Both SFDK and CGA are enjoyable, in my mind, but both also have their problems. Arguing against the latter point is pointless. Both parks are far from the level of their respective owners flagship properties. Nonetheless, both have improved by leaps and bounds in the past couple years. Even this year saw noticeable improvements in these parks. I mean, I guess I'd give the slight edge to SFDK, but only slightly, and frankly, that may change after Railblazer. So yeah, I don't see either as being significantly better than the other.

^had no idea how much I made it sound like I didn’t understand why wildfires made the park close. Thank you! Lol!

Does anybody know what’s going on with Green Lantern? It has been closed since well before these horrible wildfires and still shows as “temporarily closed unlike the rest of the rides.

In all seriousness, yes that's what would make the most sense. In fact, I would support such a decision.

Good! I’m tired of California parks blandly themed to California in California.

^I take offense to the idea that I was even implying anyone was stupid. So I'll change that. Thank you very much.

Edit: Fixing the tone, my bad on this one.

^No, it's all good. I actually didn't realize that at all, but perhaps because of the vauge phrasing of the architectural review. I realize that adding inches in to the calculation would be prudent, so that makes sense, nonetheless. I hastily made that post without thinking about the context of the architectural review probably couldn't care less about the rail size, but to my credit, most roller coaster rails do consist of a diameter eerily close to several inches. You can appreciate if this architectural review said the height was 110 ft., 1.5 inches, I wouldn't waste a second thinking that 1.5 inches was referring to the track size because I'm spatially deft enough to the point that I realize a track is going to have a larger diameter than 1.5 inches. Thank you for your understanding. I'll edit that post now so nobody else gets confused.