jzarley

Yeah--it certainly worked great for Six Flags taking on Cedar Point by buying Geauga Lake, huh? Considering SF's financial condition, Americana might be a better choice

Maybe the wind coming in off the lake makes the difference Also, a ride's theoretical capacity never seems to quite translate into actual RPH once the thing is installed and opened. (What was the original RPH for FoF supposed to be? Some unbelievable number like 1600 RPH if I remember correctly...) I think a shorter ride cycle on Max Air would be a big mistake. I think the ride cycle for Delirium is about perfect for it.

I agree with everyone who says that Face Off is a good coaster...just with terrible capacity. It will never be a headliner...and to be honest, I don't think they ever intended it to be. (That's why it was introduced as a package with DZ...) But, I'm sure it helps with crowd management at the "headliners." When you get right down to it, it's really still just a Boomerang... A suspended and fun one, yes--but still just a Boomerang. Joel

Yeah, I'd heard that rumor about the Indy stunt show at Disney-MGM as well... Did you see the feature on jimhillmedia.com that showed how originally there was supposed to be pretty much a "mini-Indiana Jones Land" at MGM? Pretty cool... Keep in mind that when Lucas decided to grant theme park rights to Disney for IJ and Star Wars Paramount Parks didn't even exist then. Not that it would really have mattered...CoastersRZ is right--Disney has the resources to make sure they're done right. (Not only that, but you reach a much larger audience through Disney than any other park chain...) Regardless of the source of AE's theme, I'm still a big fan of the ride. I still think it's the second best mine train ever built (the first being Big Thunder Mountain Railroad at DL and MK!). I ride it everytime I'm at the park, which is something I can't say for all the coasters (Vortex & TG). It's funny that I always think of the years during Carl Linder's ownership as the "dark years" (and in terms of maintenance, cleanliness, etc., it was...), but two of the best attractions ever came during that time...AE and PT! Joel

Paramount produced and distributed the Indy movies...they don't own the rights to them (or have they ever). George Lucas maintains ownership of ALL rights to the Indy series as well as Star Wars. Lucas licensed the rights to use both for theme park attractions to Disney for a few reasons. First and foremost, he was a big fan of the Disney parks--having been a lifelong fan of Disneyland. Secondly, he had a pretty good friendship with Michael Eisner going back to when Eisner was in charge of Paramount when Indy was filmed. Intellectual property rights are a complicated business. Unfortunately, just because a studio films and distributes a movie doesn't mean they "own" it. And, negotiating "theme park rights" as part of a package is a fairly new practice (within the last ten years or so...) Joel

My favorite is International Street...I have so many good memories of sitting at a table by the fountain near dusk and eating a slice (or two!) of La Rosa's. It's one of my favorite times of day at the park!

I got the link to this article off of Screamscape. It sounds like planning for the park in Japan is going forward... http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=3&id=334955 Joel

To be honest, the parks have been passed around with each corporate reorganization. While right now they're part of the Nickelodeon mangement group, they've also been part of Blockbuster (as part of the "Retail & Recreation" group), and Paramount Pictures. So, if nothing else--park management is certainly used to management change Right now I think they ultimately report up to Tom Freston, but that will change to Les Moonves in the new company. (Although, they've probably reported to him at some point in the past too...) The good news is that Paramount Parks will have greater importance in the "Value" company than it currently has in Viacom as a whole, since they'll make up a greater portion of the overall revenue in that part of the split company. Ultimately that should be good for the parks... Joel

Nick (and Nick at Night) is part of MTV Networks, which also includes VH1, Sci Fi, Spike, MTV (of course), and a few others that I'm sure I'm forgetting. By TV stations they mean the actual local affiliates themselves. (For example, WCMH channel 4--the local NBC affiliate in Columbus--is actually owned and operated by NBC/Universal.) CBS owns local TV stations as well. (And, a lot of them are owned by independent media groups.) And, sure, I'm sure they'll continue to promote synergies where they can between the "growth" and "value" companies (I like that description that Vortex used to distiguish them...). Both companies will still be spawn of Viacom. This is simply a way to get the maximum value possibility for their assets out of the stock market. Joel

In theory, it should really affect very little relating to park operations. The whole rationale for selling the parks (and the theater chain, Simon & Schuster, Blockbuster, etc.) was that these business are so low growth that they held down the value of the stock of the entire company. That doesn't mean that they weren't good or profitable businesses, just that their industries were mature enough that they couldn't provide double-digit revenue growth that Wall St. expects for "growth" stocks. The idea was that by selling the low growth units, that would leave only the high growth businesses, which in turn would allow the Viacom stock to surge. They then could acquire additional businesses with the inflated stock, show more growth, and so on, and so on... However, the problem with this line of thinking is that most of the "hard asset", low growth divisions are profitable, stable contributers to Viacom's overall performance. So, it may not make a lot of sense to sell off your well performing, but slow growing assets in order to chase increased value in your near term stock price. That's why splitting the company into two separate (and publicly traded) entities is a great compromise position. Sort of a "eating your cake and having it too" scenario. Joel

Yep, and all-in-all I think this is a win/win situation for investors. I had posted some additional detail about the conference call/quarterly earnings report in a post yesterday... http://www.pkicentral.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5255 Joel

Very impressive! I had no idea that you could do detailed scenery/themeing like that in "NoLimits".

Actually...that might not be so bad. I hate paying $10 for a pack of razor blade refills!! (I always just end up buying the new razor with the three blade starter pack...) But seriously...I agree about the themeing element. If the "commercial" can't be logically introduced as part of the theme, then it should be left out or limited to advertising not part of the ride (i.e., on the guide map).

I think there is a lot of nostalga for a time that never really existed... Corporate sponsorship of theme park services/attractions has been around every since Walt sold the first concession to help pay for Disneyland in 1955. Kings Island has ALWAYS had it's share of corporate sponsors. Keep in mind that the whole reason HB characters were such an important part of the early history of the park is because Taft Broadcasting owned HB, and was promoting their media property through their theme park business. (Just like Viacom is doing now...) Looking at my 1982 Kings Island "Fun Guide" there's a list of corporate sponsors and attractions/services that have their name on them: Chevrolet: "Celebration" and "City Rhythm" stage shows. Coca-Cola: "Salt Water Circus" dolphin and sea lion show Encyclopedia Britannica: "Wild Animal Safari" (it had a corporate sponsor and it still was a $1 upcharge attraction ) Firestone: "Wacky Wheels" ride in HB land Sohio (now better known as "BP"): Sponsored the parking lot trams Orange Crush: "Enchanted Voyage" ride in HB land. There's always been no shortage of companies that want to pay for the right to be part of the park. Joel

Viacom announced 2005 Q1 results this morning, and conducted the quarterly conference call. Long story short…it was a good quarter. Overall revenue was up 5% to $5.6B, and operating income was up 7% to $1.1B. By far, cable was the starâ€â€contributing 19% growth in revenue and 20% growth in operating income. The biggest part of the conference call was Sumner Redstone selling their plan to split the company into two separate companies. The first would be considered the “high growth†company, and would be led by Tom Freston. It would include: •MTV Networks (which includes Nick, Nick at Night, Spike, Sci Fi, VH1, etc.) •BET •Paramount Pictures •Paramount Home Entertainment •Internet/Online This would be considered the “content†side of the company, and would focus on the media brands. In the business world, this company would be considered “asset lightâ€Â, and as such would be able to spur rapid growth and be nimble to market conditions. (In other wordsâ€â€this would be the high growth stock.) The second company would consist of all the “hard assetsâ€Â, in businesses that are stable, but not necessarily high growth. (More of a steady, “income†stock…). This company would be led by Les Moonves and would include: •CBS & UPN networks •Television stations •Outdoor advertising •Infinity (radio stations) •Showtime •Simon & Schuster •Paramount Parks •Theater operations Other than the mention of Paramount Parks as being part of the “CBS companyâ€Â, nothing was mentioned regarding the future of Paramount Parks… Joel

My worst wait would have to be Indiana Jones at Disneyland during Spring Break its opening year--just over four hours. The worst at PKI would be FoF right after it opened...3.0 hours. Believe it or not, I actually waited 2.5 hours to ride Top Gun during it's opening season! The entire queue was filled (including the "bottom" of the air craft carrier), and they had temporary queues wrapping out and around Congo Falls (or Amazon Falls as it was called then) and Cafe Kiliminjaro. (But, at least there was some themeing to look at in line then <G>) Joel

I saw this link to a Motley Fool article that mentioned (it's near the bottom of the article) that the rumor was now that Viacom had changed their mind about selling the parks. While I very seldom put a lot of faith into internet "gossip", this is a financial column written by an analyst who specializes in the theme park industry, so maybe it holds a little more weight... http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2005/mft05041401.htm Viacom did get a lot of bad press from the financial community (of all people), who seemed to think selling the parks was short-sighted, so maybe they've rethought it. (Of course, maybe the plan to split the company into two parts took care of the "park problem" as well...) On a totally unrelated note...does anyone remember PKI having such great weather on weekends in the early season? Hopefully this is a sign of a good weather Summer to come! (We deserve one!!) Joel

Hauntguy-- While the cost of doing these changes all at once would be prohibitive, this is certainly one of the best thought-out "what if" scenarios I've seen posted! Joel

I didn't realize that the Chippery wouldn't be back...

I'll have to agree with the concensus and say "no"... Staffing would also be a major issue. Keep in mind how many staff members are students, and wouldn't be available all year. Having ridden the coaster at New York, New York in Vegas in the dead of Winter (January), let me just say that it can be a miserable experience. It was in the high 30s and on the coaster it felt like it was -10! I'd be hard pressed to relive that experience. If PKI brings back Winterfest, that will only leave five months or so (total) that the park is closed each year. That's a pretty good season for an Ohio park. Plus, I think the anticipation of waiting for opening day during the off season really adds to the excitement. Joel

I don't disagree with you about the continued popularity of HB characters. I imagine that's especially true of my (Gen X) age group. And, if a lack of popularity is the reason given by Paramount Parks, then yeah, that's a pretty lame argument. (Although, while I've read that explanation here and on other fan sites, I've never actually seen the company's "official" statement to that.) But, from a business standpoint, what is the bottom line value of HB's popularity? Does the presence (or lack of a presence) of HB characters significantly impact revenue and/or profitability of the parks? Particularly at the expense of showcasing another media company's franchises over your own? (And, again, that assumes TW is even willing or able to renegotiate an extended agreement...) I really believe that if PKI announced tomorrow that HB land would be replaced with a "fantastic, unbelievable, lushly landscaped, Hollywood-ized" (and whatever other adjectives the marketing dept. could come up with ) brand new Nick Toons area, attendance & revenue would not be negatively affected. In fact, they'd probably get a boost from the hype it would be given. Would some people complain and be upset? Most definitely! There are an entire group of Disney-philes who complain everytime they make the slightest change at Disneyland. But like Disney learned a long time ago, the reason people complain about things like that is due to a love of the park and its history. However, that love keeps on compelling them to come back (no matter how po'd they might be about someting). The greatest threats to an operation like PKI are recessions, war, high unemployment, and terrorism--not removing a beloved ride or group of characters. Believe me, I'm not saying this is a good thing from the park enthusiast's standpoint. Like I said earlier, the Enchanted Voyage was quite honestly a life-altering experience for me. Personally, I hate to see HB characters go. But, I'm also a business person, and realize that first and foremost the parks are a business, and as such things change. Joel

Does anyone think attendance/revenue at PKI will fall off this year due to a lack of HB characters or merchandise in the park? Nah, me either... Keep in mind--it's a business. Why pay for licensing rights if you've determined that the license isn't really needed for the health of your business? Also, we're all assuming that it's Paramount Parks' fault...it is possible that TW isn't willing to extend the licenses, or perhaps doing so violates a provision in their long term agreement with SF. That's for a bunch of lawyers to sort out... Look at it this way...maybe they'll put the million$ it would take to license TW's intellectual property into that B&M we've all been wanting Joel

Yeah, I read this too. I just hope that PKI's PR/hype machine hasn't gotten so out of hand that a repaint job now classifies as a "Hollywood makeover." <G> Sorry...I really don't mean to sound cynical. But, I guess I'm still a little bitter about all the "lush, tropical vegitation" that inhabits CDBB

I think Enchanted Voyage was the attraction that sparked my lifelong fascination with theme parks. I thought it was the most amazing thing I had ever seen! (Granted, I was five or six at the time...) But, to this day I can still remember how that one ride affected me. I understand why Paramount Parks would phase out HB characters due to the licensing issues. However, I don't understand why Time-Warner isn't working to keep these characters around. They've done a pretty good job with keeping "Loony Toons" in the mainstream, why not HB? Joel

My guess would be that Taft Broadcasting owned a lot of affiliate stations that carried the Brady Bunch and Partridge Family. I'd imagine it was somewhat of a quid pro quo... Joel