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

Six Flags Great Adventure (SFGAdv) Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

This counts as a coaster??? it looks like an oversized Ring of Fire you see at carnivals and county fairs. And Six Flags is getting four of these? I can understand Six Flags America getting one of these, but SF Great Adventure? One of Six Flags crown jewel parks? I guess Six Flags needs to balance out the awesome rides some parks are getting next year. Great Adventure didn't really need to add anything though - look at all they have!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This counts as a coaster??? it looks like an oversized Ring of Fire you see at carnivals and county fairs. And Six Flags is getting four of these? I can understand Six Flags America getting one of these, but SF Great Adventure? One of Six Flags crown jewel parks? I guess Six Flags needs to balance out the awesome rides some parks are getting next year. Great Adventure didn't really need to add anything though - look at all they have!

 

 

I told ya man, I'm glad you had a great experience, like I did at SF:MM but trust the yearly goer...park sucks.

 

I really am a bit miffed this is the sorry excuse for a new ride we are getting, but can't even be surprised.

Also, I had a horrific thought: What would the waits be like for this?? Unless it just does like 2 or 3 loops..oi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Maybe. They actually aren't that bed, but I don't think they need four. As well as it has good theming (looks like it's surrounded by water in that remdering - or maybe it's just concrete), I think it can actually be not half bad.

 

I know Great Adventure is a larger park and has priority over the smaller parks, but I really think we should count our blessings. Just think of Great Escape - I feel bad for those that have that as their home park. It seems like they NEVER get anything good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been about an entire year since the park announced that they were removing their beloved, 30+ year old Rolling Thunder. Since then, I've been hoping since then that they would have enough common sense to eventually let us have a new wooden coaster to fill in the gap (metaphorically AND literally) left by Rolling Thunder. Maybe just a compact GCI-esque thing that could appeal to children and adults alike, that's all. Instead, sitting in RT's old spot next year is something that isn't even widely considered as a legit roller coaster at all.

 

I suppose I shouldn't be TOO picky, however. I find it interesting that the ride we're getting is a very unique not usually seen outside of carnivals. The fact that people are debating whether or not this is a real coaster certainly shows how unique it is. I'll still be willing to ride this when it does open, which by the way, has absolutely no reason NOT to be running by opening day. If the same park could get a hyper coaster like Nitro running in time for an April opening, there's no excuse why this little carnival ride shouldn't be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^That's right. It BETTER be running on opening day. I mean it's like four track segments right? If a carnival can get it up in about a day (probably less, actually), they should be able to get it up with the time of the off-season.

 

On a side point, the construction actually seems to be going smoothly and starting early - think Cyclone (they are installing track today), so that gives me hope that they will get all or most of their rides running early.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Larson Fireball ride is a good fit for parks like SFA and SFDK. It's an okay fit for SFOG. However, I really think SFGAdv drew the short straw with this year's additions, as they deserved something better. Perhaps not a full size coaster, but at least something more noteworthy than a carnival ride. I do like that Six Flags tries to add something new to each park every year, but if it results in additions like this I wonder if it is truly worth it.

 

Honestly, I think something like the GCI Big Fun concept, but modified for higher capacity, would have been perfect for SFGAdv. It would give them a traditional wooden coaster, a good bridge coaster, and probably would be under $5 million (I'm guessing closer to $3 million). Plus, they could stick that in Rolling Thunder's spot and name it El Torito or something relevant like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think Six Flags may be over-extending themselves by having to manage so many parks. I imagine that is a large reason for their bankruptcy issues back in 2009 (recession and other issues didn't help). I imagine they do revenue-sharing amongst the parks (meaning they don't just use revenues from one park to expand that one park); however, with so many parks to deal with, it is bound to happen that some parks get ignored in favor of the bigger parks that can support growth due to popularity and a larger consumer base.

 

Magic Mountain might get more attention because, although there are a good number of parks in Southern California, there really aren't any major competitors to its thrill-park status in the Western third of the U.S. (Knott's and DK being the closest). Plus I'm sure SF doesn't want its "coaster capital" title taken away. Here in the NE, a lot of parks are clustered in a much tighter sector, ones that are much more comparable, so Great Adventure has a lot more competition to deal with. If people want to ride a bunch of roller coasters, they have a lot more options in the NE U.S. as compared to the Western U.S.

 

I think if SF would sell off some of their properties, all the properties would be better off in the long run. I'm just speculating, of course. It could be that the smaller sell-offs could die due to lack of funding (again assuming SF does revenue-sharing amongst all its parks). Plus it would be a matter of finding buyers. Personally, I'd love to buy an amusement park - time to hit a crowdfunding site!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Larson Fireball ride is a good fit for parks like SFA and SFDK. It's an okay fit for SFOG. However, I really think SFGAdv drew the short straw with this year's additions, as they deserved something better. Perhaps not a full size coaster, but at least something more noteworthy than a carnival ride.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I 100% agree with this. It would've been nice to see an expansion to Hurricane Harbor, or like a frisbee style ride that we saw great escape get last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Larson Fireball ride is a good fit for parks like SFA and SFDK. It's an okay fit for SFOG. However, I really think SFGAdv drew the short straw with this year's additions, as they deserved something better. Perhaps not a full size coaster, but at least something more noteworthy than a carnival ride.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I 100% agree with this. It would've been nice to see an expansion to Hurricane Harbor, or like a frisbee style ride that we saw great escape get last year.

 

I would have loved to see a HH update! Not super impressed overall with this addition, but if they are able to couple it with improvements and maintenance upgrades throughout the park...I'm ok with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very, very concerned they ditched Namtab last second. I still haven't tried that experience and it would be enough to satisfy my new coaster craving for another year. I rode a Ring of Fire a few weeks ago...still can't believe that's our new "coaster" that will be ready to go "late spring!"

 

Here's to hoping 2016 is the year we been waiting 10 years for...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if SF would sell off some of their properties, all the properties would be better off in the long run. I'm just speculating, of course. It could be that the smaller sell-offs could die due to lack of funding (again assuming SF does revenue-sharing amongst all its parks). Plus it would be a matter of finding buyers. Personally, I'd love to buy an amusement park - time to hit a crowdfunding site!

 

FYI, unless I'm horribly mistaken, this already happened. Early on, SF only owned a few parks. They expanded a bit, then they expanded a lot, buying a whole bunch of parks (including parks like La Ronde, Canada's Wonderland, and so on). They ran into MASSIVE problems having so many parks, so they sold off the less profitable ones. That's how you end up with today. Allegedly this is the leaner, more profitable Six Flags.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Flags

 

OK, so reading this, I have it a little backwards, but the essentials are there. Six Flags started out with a few parks, then bought a few parks (including Great Adventure). Along the same time a smaller group Premier Parks was creating and acquiring some regional parks. Premier bought Six Flags, then went on an extended buying binge. Eventually they had too much debt, and a shareholder revolt ensued, and they started selling off parks, first one at a time, then more aggressively.

 

I do in some ways agree with you though. Great Escape is certainly more of a regional park and I can't imagine that it generates that much in the way of revenue. The other smaller revenue parks, like La Ronde, SF America, SF DK, SF FT, SF Mexico, SFNE are still quite prominent for the given region, even if they are not the major park in their major area like SFMM, SFOT, SFOG, SFStL, SFGAm, SFGAdv.

 

You could probably make an argument that concentrating on the big six would result in more revenue... but conversely, those smaller parks might help keep SF as a worldwide brand, as opposed to something that is more specific to certain markets.

 

At the end of the day, SF is a public company, and there's a lot of analysis and effort that goes into their decisions. I realize that when you spend time in the parks riding the rides that it might not seem like they have multiple full time people who just look at things like financing and debt vs return, but they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing the cries of "we didn't get anything" from a park that since 2000 as built a B&M Mega, flying, and stand up coaster, a waterpark with several additions, a prefab wooden coaster, multiple flat and family rides, the world's highest drop ride, and completely redesigned safari included in the park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing the cries of "we didn't get anything" from a park that since 2000 as built a B&M Mega, flying, and stand up coaster, a waterpark with several additions, a prefab wooden coaster, multiple flat and family rides, the world's highest drop ride, and completely redesigned safari included in the park.

Who said 2000? 2006 was the last major year for the park

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/