Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

The Six Flags Magic Mountain (SFMM) Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

They would never remove colossus.. Think about the cost of removing it and the added cost of building from scratch. Why waste existing assets? Plus, its iconic and has brand equity. Keeping it around, even in a drastically different form, is good for business. Why would the park announce a final date to ride it with exclamation points all over the place if there wasnt a popular rumor to give it rmc treatment? Theyve done their market rssearch; they know what Mm fans have been asking for and they know they can get away with closing it for that one specific type of renovation. Look at the public campaign to fix revolution.. Some things become classics. Could you imagine the uproar of they closed it and at the end of august announced a wing coaster?? People would be picketing outside the gate and camping on the coaster to prevent bulldozers from moving in.

 

In other words, youre getting an rmc so deal with it. If the rumor wasnt credible enough, six flags would probably ask TPR to remove their RMC tag from the Facebook post that started this conversation. And rocky montain would be upset too if they werent involved in the project but were getting tagged in posts about it as if they were. They wouldnt want misinformation. Since its true, they are letting the talk spiral put of control. Free advertising ahead of an official announcement.

 

finally, omg, how fun would it be if there was a negative g float hill right inderneath a zero g stall, and the trains rode along together for a few seconds while riders tried to high five one another??? EPIC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, youre getting an rmc so deal with it. If the rumor wasnt credible enough, six flags would probably ask TPR to remove their RMC tag from the Facebook post that started this conversation.

 

Oh, my home park is Six Flags Great America, I'm already getting a Rocky Mountain startup.

 

The park industry enjoys speculation, and when they don't no harm seems to come from positive speculation. This isn't a game of guess who; park representatives are not going to tell us when we're wrong.

 

Why would the park announce a final date to ride it with exclamation points all over the place if there wasnt a popular rumor to give it rmc treatment?

 

That's just how every single Six Flags advertisement looks. It's a Photoshopped image of people having a ball on a roller coaster train with some text highlighted against a colorful background. I'm going to speculate that similar advertising was put up at Great Adventure announcing the closure of Rolling Thunder.

 

In the art of speculation people are blinded by what they want to happen. The advertisement is clear: Colossus is closing. Given a different perspective where we want the ride to simply be removed we would be looking forward to our new parking lot space, not speculating maneuvers like we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how fun would it be if there was a negative g float hill right inderneath a zero g stall, and the trains rode along together for a few seconds while riders tried to high five one another??? EPIC

That is the best idea I've heard all day for what to do with this coaster. That would absolutly be possibly the best dueling coaster element in the history of ever. And yes-even better than the high 5 element! WHERE'S RMC, THEY NEED TO HEAR THIS BRILLIANT IDEA!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, lets think about this. What stupid record will MM go after with this? First wooden Coaster with three lift hills? First wooden coaster with a launch? Largest loop on a wooden coaster to match their record for the loop on YOLO? This should be good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, youre getting an rmc so deal with it. If the rumor wasnt credible enough, six flags would probably ask TPR to remove their RMC tag from the Facebook post that started this conversation.

 

Oh, my home park is Six Flags Great America, I'm already getting a Rocky Mountain startup.

 

The park industry enjoys speculation, and when they don't no harm seems to come from positive speculation. This isn't a game of guess who; park representatives are not going to tell us when we're wrong.

 

Why would the park announce a final date to ride it with exclamation points all over the place if there wasnt a popular rumor to give it rmc treatment?

 

That's just how every single Six Flags advertisement looks. It's a Photoshopped image of people having a ball on a roller coaster train with some text highlighted against a colorful background. I'm going to speculate that similar advertising was put up at Great Adventure announcing the closure of Rolling Thunder.

 

In the art of speculation people are blinded by what they want to happen. The advertisement is clear: Colossus is closing. Given a different perspective where we want the ride to simply be removed we would be looking forward to our new parking lot space, not speculating maneuvers like we are.

 

I'm not blinded by anything. I'm using sound judgment. If they close Colossus and announce a wing coaster when everybody is anticipating an RMC, then the whole project will backfire. Run a cost benefit analysis and you will find that people would be happier with a broken down colossus than with a new ride, if that new ride is not the ride that the public is anticipating. In this scenario, why spend 10-25 million dollars if people are going to be upset? The answer is, you wouldn't. You wouldn't insulate yourself from your audience so blatantly. The fans and the public have approved of the closing of colossus under this one circumstance-that it is given the ibox treatment. Any other plan would be a huuuge risk and cause a public relations nightmare.

 

On top of that, why would Magic Mountain close a ride without a plan for replacement when they are so competitive with Cedar Point to have the most coasters in the world? It works against their marketing/advertising strategy. They wouldn't close it at the end of 2014 without announcing a replacement project to be online by 2016.

 

Given that it will be replaced in some way shape or form, the most likely project is an RMC based on recent trends. Lets look at patterns for evidence: New Texas Giant. Iron Rattler. Steel Medusa. Colossus is closing. No other project is really justifiable. With such a marketable and successful and attainable and popular option, to give it an Ibox treatment, why on earth would they tear down the existing structure and start over, building a steel coaster, for example? That is just.. not even worth talking about anymore.

 

When SFGAm announced the closing of wizzer, people were upset. The replacement wasn't worth it to the general public because it wasn't a comparable replacement. They were trying to replace a classic family coaster that induces lots of nostalgia for a flying coaster. So, the park changed plans.

 

Rolling Thunder was demolished, yes. The structure wasn't big enough to really open many design options for RMC, nor was the coaster iconic enough to keep. They likely have something in the planning phases for 2016 with that land, now that they have spent money on its demolition. Whether that's an Intamin or an RMC is another story; different park, different market, different set of circumstances. Based on Six Flags' successful working relationship with RMC, it could be getting a built-from-scratch one. On the other hand, they already have a successful new generation of wooden coaster with El Toro, so it might be worth it for them to diversify their coaster assets and build an Intamin steel coaster of some type.

Edited by Goooose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not blinded by anything. I'm using sound judgment. If they close Colossus and announce a wing coaster when everybody is anticipating an RMC, then the whole project will backfire. Run a cost benefit analysis and people would be happier with a broken down colossus than with an unexpected new ride, if that new ride is not the ride that the public is anticipating. In this scenario, why spend 10-25 million dollars if people are going to be upset? The answer is, you wouldn't. You wouldn't insulate yourself from your audience so blatantly.

 

I honestly think the audience that MM targets will eat wing coasters up. Remember, most of their customers are not coaster enthusiasts and are not aware of any potential this project can unleash. In fact, I'm willing to bet most of them don't even know what a Rocky Mountain conversion is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not blinded by anything. I'm using sound judgment. If they close Colossus and announce a wing coaster when everybody is anticipating an RMC, then the whole project will backfire. Run a cost benefit analysis and people would be happier with a broken down colossus than with an unexpected new ride, if that new ride is not the ride that the public is anticipating. In this scenario, why spend 10-25 million dollars if people are going to be upset? The answer is, you wouldn't. You wouldn't insulate yourself from your audience so blatantly.

 

I honestly think the audience that MM targets will eat wing coasters up. Remember, most of their customers are not coaster enthusiasts and are not aware of any potential this project can unleash. In fact, I'm willing to bet most of them don't even know what a Rocky Mountain conversion is.

 

That's fine. The general public in no market is more informed than another about ride types or manufacturers, but there is an enthusiast population that speaks on behalf of them, and whose voices are heard loud and clear by park planners, ride designers, etc. Look at all the FREE consulting advice we give parks on these message boards and other similar websites on a daily basis. Parks can look at this form of public opinion as well as toward previous cases to inform decision-making. The park knows that they can knock the ball out of the park with an RMC based on the success stories so far in Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence to show that RMC is converting Colossus is that both Rattler and Medusa closed in August while Rolling Thunder was open until the park closed at the end of the year. Why wouldn't SFMM keep Colossus open until the end up the busy season unless they wanted to get work started early?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not blinded by anything. I'm using sound judgment. If they close Colossus and announce a wing coaster when everybody is anticipating an RMC, then the whole project will backfire. Run a cost benefit analysis and people would be happier with a broken down colossus than with an unexpected new ride, if that new ride is not the ride that the public is anticipating. In this scenario, why spend 10-25 million dollars if people are going to be upset? The answer is, you wouldn't. You wouldn't insulate yourself from your audience so blatantly.

 

I honestly think the audience that MM targets will eat wing coasters up. Remember, most of their customers are not coaster enthusiasts and are not aware of any potential this project can unleash. In fact, I'm willing to bet most of them don't even know what a Rocky Mountain conversion is.

 

I agree with you here. Also, I don't understand the attitude that Goooose has where it's a Rocky Mountain conversion or a wing rider. Why not something else? The better part of me believes that a water park expansion is highly probable. Or, why not something totally outlandish? Here's some speculation of my own: Imagine the park building a new front entrance over that way. It's centrally located in the parking lot and there would be more then enough room for a massive renovation to build a whole new front entrance. Then, they take out the old front entrance to the park which is located way out of the way now, take down the old structures, and build a new major roller coaster over there, by the Full Throttle plaza. A serious park restructuring for the better, a larger water park, and a new roller coaster. That would be exciting to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Last year it was one of the last days of August.

 

Well we all saw it coming. Heck, they stopped running the one side ages ago. So heres my two cents about what they need to do to this. Make each side different. Different maneuvers and make them duel and race. Have the track do a barrel roll, flipping the track over to the other side. Have them intertwine. Have each side have different epic elements. To turn around, one side has an overbank, the other has a dive loop. Have one side do a vertical drop, the other has the Medusa: Steel Coaster drop. You get the point. Will all of that happen? Probably not. The other thing I'd like to see is a different color of track other than orange or red. I'd be interested in seeing how the color works with the white wood, since this would be the first RMC hybrid that doesn't have the traditional brown wood.

 

I personally think that SF should keep the sides somewhat similar, especially on the first drop, because two different drops just, for me, doesn't seem right. Find a way to integrate different elements into each track, but keep them essentially the same and not different enough for it to be weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not blinded by anything. I'm using sound judgment. If they close Colossus and announce a wing coaster when everybody is anticipating an RMC, then the whole project will backfire. Run a cost benefit analysis and people would be happier with a broken down colossus than with an unexpected new ride, if that new ride is not the ride that the public is anticipating. In this scenario, why spend 10-25 million dollars if people are going to be upset? The answer is, you wouldn't. You wouldn't insulate yourself from your audience so blatantly.

 

I honestly think the audience that MM targets will eat wing coasters up. Remember, most of their customers are not coaster enthusiasts and are not aware of any potential this project can unleash. In fact, I'm willing to bet most of them don't even know what a Rocky Mountain conversion is.

 

That's fine. The general public in no market is more informed than another about ride types or manufacturers, but there is an enthusiast population that speaks on behalf of them, and whose voices are heard loud and clear by park planners, ride designers, etc. Look at all the FREE consulting advice we give parks on these message boards and other similar websites on a daily basis. Parks can look at this form of public opinion as well as toward previous cases to inform decision-making. The park knows that they can knock the ball out of the park with an RMC based on the success stories so far in Texas.

 

Okay, I see where you're coming from. MM has a history of prefering quantity over quality and tends to build for the titles. Yes, there will be an out cry if our RMC theories are false (I highly doubt this though). But if they did went ahead and actually demolished Colossus for another gimmicky coaster, it will still attract their targeted crowd and in turn make a profit. Us enthusiasts can kick and squal all we want, but we will eventually head on out and try the new ride ourselves (well, most of us anyways ). Will this strategy accumulate more money than the RMC? Of course not. But it will pay well if the new addition was cheap enough. Not only that, two coasters can probably fit in Colossus' space with this stragtegy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not blinded by anything. I'm using sound judgment. If they close Colossus and announce a wing coaster when everybody is anticipating an RMC, then the whole project will backfire. Run a cost benefit analysis and people would be happier with a broken down colossus than with an unexpected new ride, if that new ride is not the ride that the public is anticipating. In this scenario, why spend 10-25 million dollars if people are going to be upset? The answer is, you wouldn't. You wouldn't insulate yourself from your audience so blatantly.

 

I honestly think the audience that MM targets will eat wing coasters up. Remember, most of their customers are not coaster enthusiasts and are not aware of any potential this project can unleash. In fact, I'm willing to bet most of them don't even know what a Rocky Mountain conversion is.

 

I agree with you here. Also, I don't understand the attitude that Goooose has where it's a Rocky Mountain conversion or a wing rider. Why not something else? The better part of me believes that a water park expansion is highly probable. Or, why not something totally outlandish? Here's some speculation of my own: Imagine the park building a new front entrance over that way. It's centrally located in the parking lot and there would be more then enough room for a massive renovation to build a whole new front entrance. Then, they take out the old front entrance to the park which is located way out of the way now, take down the old structures, and build a new major roller coaster over there, by the YOLOcoaster plaza. A serious park restructuring for the better, a larger water park, and a new roller coaster. That would be exciting to me.

 

I think the wing coaster suggestion was merely an example of another cheap and gimmicky coaster. But, as much as I love the thought of Six Flags constructing a new entrance, I believe its very unlikely at the moment. I mean, they just recently installed those biometric finger scanners at the original entrance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not blinded by anything. I'm using sound judgment. If they close Colossus and announce a wing coaster when everybody is anticipating an RMC, then the whole project will backfire. Run a cost benefit analysis and people would be happier with a broken down colossus than with an unexpected new ride, if that new ride is not the ride that the public is anticipating. In this scenario, why spend 10-25 million dollars if people are going to be upset? The answer is, you wouldn't. You wouldn't insulate yourself from your audience so blatantly.

 

I honestly think the audience that MM targets will eat wing coasters up. Remember, most of their customers are not coaster enthusiasts and are not aware of any potential this project can unleash. In fact, I'm willing to bet most of them don't even know what a Rocky Mountain conversion is.

 

That's fine. The general public in no market is more informed than another about ride types or manufacturers, but there is an enthusiast population that speaks on behalf of them, and whose voices are heard loud and clear by park planners, ride designers, etc. Look at all the FREE consulting advice we give parks on these message boards and other similar websites on a daily basis. Parks can look at this form of public opinion as well as toward previous cases to inform decision-making. The park knows that they can knock the ball out of the park with an RMC based on the success stories so far in Texas.

 

Okay, I see where you're coming from. MM has a history of prefering quantity over quality and tends to build for the titles. Yes, there will be an out cry if our RMC theories are false (I highly doubt this though). But if they did went ahead and actually demolished Colossus for another gimmicky coaster, it will still attract their targeted crowd and in turn make a profit. Us enthusiasts can kick and squal all we want, but we will eventually head on out and try the new ride ourselves (well, most of us anyways ). Will this strategy accumulate more money than the RMC? Of course not. But it will pay well if the new addition was cheap enough. Not only that, two coasters can probably fit in Colossus' space with this stragtegy.

SFMM Park Managment: "This is a brilliant idea! Quick! Give RMC a call that we changed our minds about the Colossus redo! We We can get our 20th coaster in sooner than later. Give Togo and Vekoma a call!"

 

SFMM already has a wing coaster.

 

I expect this to be a Rocky Mountain coaster. But most definitely not a wing coaster.

A wing coaster would be incredibly pointless as X2 has that same feel.

 

I have a theory: Anyone notice the 'Win a trip to see GOLIATH at SFGAm" adverts around the park? Here's a theory.....what if we're getting a clone of that, but it's renamed...."SON of GOLIATH"

Edited by Someotherguyuser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A new entrance would be amazing over there, and an integration with the coaster's structure would be even more spectacular, a la Gatekeeper, but with a big, white wooden structure . I dig your ideas, but for me, it doesn't change the probability of what the make and model will be and the land use they are planning. New coasters, and steel coasters, are more expensive. Longer steel coasters with three train operation require mid course break runs usually and the projects are very expensive overall just to build short rides. Colossus was built at a time that, while it was a huge and expensive investment, it was easier to make. Commodities are so much more expensive now due to global demand for fewer resources, and money has lost its value/purchasing power. They would be smart to keep the structure and Ibox the whole thing. They would have two coasters with three-train operation on each, and a track length over 5000 feet on each, and the project is basically half finished because its already there! Remove the whole thing and replace it with two coasters and you are spending upwards of 40 million dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/