Jump to content
collin.klopfstein

Another long lost proposed Kings Island Wooden coaster!

Recommended Posts

 

1 hour ago, gforce1994 said:

Paramount had the rights, but charged the park to use those rights. That’s why Top Gun was found at most of the parks (nearly all), because the cost for the parks was relatively low.

I always thought it was interesting that Indiana Jones attractions could be found at Disney properties, meanwhile at Paramount's Kings Island—there were posters, one prop on display, and Adventure Express was Indiana Jones solely by association/it happened to have the theme playing in the queue (and that scam predated Paramount's ownership). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gforce1994 said:

Paramount had the rights, but charged the park to use those rights. That’s why Top Gun was found at most of the parks (nearly all), because the cost for the parks was relatively low.

Was that something that Viacom initiated or was that true before Viacom purchased Paramount in 1994? 

I've heard that before, but it just seems counter-productive. I'm not saying it's free, as I'm sure there are likeness rights and other contractual things to consider, but isn't the idea of using your own IP for theme parks that it's more cost effective? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Joshua said:

Was that something that Viacom initiated or was that true before Viacom purchased Paramount in 1994? 

I've heard that before, but it just seems counter-productive. I'm not saying it's free, as I'm sure there are likeness rights and other contractual things to consider, but isn't the idea of using your own IP for theme parks that it's more cost effective? 

The company as a whole consisted of several departments each working towards their own goals. There is a well known example where Paramount wanted TG at Carowinds themed to Godzilla, but the cost for the rights from a sister department were so high that the Parks brand balked at using it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gforce1994 said:

The company as a whole consisted of several departments each working towards their own goals. There is a well known example where Paramount wanted TG at Carowinds themed to Godzilla, but the cost for the rights from a sister department were so high that the Parks brand balked at using it.

Was it that the cost was high or the fact that the movie... you know... was pretty awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gordon Bombay said:

Was it that the cost was high or the fact that the movie... you know... was pretty awful.

True, but Paramount wanted their films to have rides, regardless of how it did at the box office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, gforce1994 said:

There is a well known example where Paramount wanted TG at Carowinds themed to Godzilla, but the cost for the rights from a sister department were so high that the Parks brand balked at using it.

There's never been a Godzilla film produced by Paramount.  The 1998 film was from Tristar Pictures/Sony and the original Japanese films were owned by Toho. So if this is true, they would be licensing a character from another studio altogether, which would account for why it was so costly. 

They did release some of the classic Godzilla films on VHS in the 80s, but this was before the Paramount Parks and this would only be home video distribution rights, not their IP. Either way, sometime in the 90s, the home video rights to these specific titles moved to Simitar.

Paramount did produce a King Kong film in the 70s, but this was the same Kong that Universal based Kongfrontation on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Joshua said:

There's never been a Godzilla film produced by Paramount.  The 1998 film was from Tristar Pictures/Sony and the original Japanese films were owned by Toho. So if this is true, they would be licensing a character from another studio altogether, which would account for why it was so costly. 

They did release some of the classic Godzilla films on VHS in the 80s, but this was before the Paramount Parks and this would only be home video distribution rights, not their IP. Either way, sometime in the 90s, the home video rights to these specific titles moved to Simitar.

Paramount did produce a King Kong film in the 70s, but this was the same Kong that Universal based Kongfrontation on. 

Even though Paramount did not produce or make the film, they apparently had the rights to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, gforce1994 said:

Even though Paramount did not produce or make the film, they apparently had the rights to it. 

I don't see how they could have. Toho owns the rights to the Japanese Godzilla. Additionally, Sony still owns the 1998 Matthew Broderick version to this day, and Tristar held the rights to and had tried to produce a Godzilla film in the very early 90s. The project lingered in development purgatory for years until the Roland Emmerich film was finally produced. Sony/Tristar then intended to make a pair of sequels and a script for a second film was written. Instead, they produced an animated series and then let the rights expire in the mid-2000s. At some point, Legendary Pictures and Warner Bros. acquired the rights and made their own version.

Paramount would have had to attained the rights from Toho and produce their own version of the character, for which would be considered their IP. But they couldn't do this at any time from the early 90s to the mid-2000s because Sony held the US rights to produce films based on the Godzilla property.

Paramount Parks may have tried to license either the classic Godzilla from Toho or the American Godzilla from Sony for the ride specifically. 

3 hours ago, Gordon Bombay said:

I always thought it was interesting that Indiana Jones attractions could be found at Disney properties, meanwhile at Paramount's Kings Island—there were posters, one prop on display, and Adventure Express was Indiana Jones solely by association/it happened to have the theme playing in the queue (and that scam predated Paramount's ownership). 

Indiana Jones is a bit more complicated. The first four films are distributed by Paramount, but Lucasfilm holds the copyright. This is because of the way George Lucas conducted business after the first Star Wars film. He wanted more control of his IP. So nearly every film he produced starting with The Empire Strikes Back, he had his hands on licensing rights, merchandising, the characters themselves, and so on. (The few exceptions include Howard the Duck, which he produced without Lucasfilm for some reason and of course, is a Marvel character; Labyrinth, which was a co-production with Jim Henson's company; and Tucker: A Man and His Dream, which was a co-production with Francis Ford Coppola's American Zoetrope.) I believe Paramount still retains home video distribution rights to the first four films, but the character moved over Disney with their purchase of Lucasfilm. 

So naturally, when George Lucas started doing business with Disney Parks, Indiana Jones was included. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Joshua said:

I don't see how they could have. Toho owns the rights to the Japanese Godzilla. Additionally, Sony still owns the 1998 Matthew Broderick version to this day, and Tristar held the rights to and had tried to produce a Godzilla film in the very early 90s. The project lingered in development purgatory for years until the Roland Emmerich film was finally produced. Sony/Tristar then intended to make a pair of sequels and a script for a second film was written. Instead, they produced an animated series and then let the rights expire in the mid-2000s. At some point, Legendary Pictures and Warner Bros. acquired the rights and made their own version.

Paramount would have had to attained the rights from Toho and produce their own version of the character, for which would be considered their IP. But they couldn't do this at any time from the early 90s to the mid-2000s because Sony held the US rights to produce films based on the Godzilla property.

Paramount Parks may have tried to license either the classic Godzilla from Toho or the American Godzilla from Sony for the ride specifically. 

Indiana Jones is a bit more complicated. The first four films are distributed by Paramount, but Lucasfilm holds the copyright. This is because of the way George Lucas conducted business after the first Star Wars film. He wanted more control of his IP. So nearly every film he produced starting with The Empire Strikes Back, he had his hands on licensing rights, merchandising, the characters themselves, and so on. (The few exceptions include Howard the Duck, which he produced without Lucasfilm for some reason and of course, is a Marvel character; Labyrinth, which was a co-production with Jim Henson's company; and Tucker: A Man and His Dream, which was a co-production with Francis Ford Coppola's American Zoetrope.) I believe Paramount still retains home video distribution rights to the first four films, but the character moved over Disney with their purchase of Lucasfilm. 

So naturally, when George Lucas started doing business with Disney Parks, Indiana Jones was included. 

Rights are really messy at times. Fox (possibly Disney) has the rights to the Adam West Batman, while everything else is through Warner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, gforce1994 said:

Rights are really messy at times.

The problem is I haven't found any evidence to suggest Paramount ever held the rights to produce their own version of Godzilla, which leads me to believe they attempted to get licensing rights only for the ride itself. If they intended to use the likeness of a pre-existing Godzilla, this is what they would have to do. (They never created their own version of the character, so they would've had to use somebody else's, which would account for why it was so expense.)

Note that this doesn't negate your original point about Paramount licensing their IP out to their subsidiaries. It just means this instance was even more costly -- and ultimately futile -- because they would've gone through an additional company (or two, if they were trying to use Sony's).

Quote

Fox (possibly Disney) has the rights to the Adam West Batman, while everything else is through Warner.

20th Century Fox Television obtained the rights to produce it in the 1960s, well before WB acquired DC. Because of this, the home video release was stuck in limbo for a really long time and it wasn't until a few years ago that it was finally allowed to happen.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joshua said:

The problem is I haven't found any evidence to suggest Paramount ever held the rights to produce their own version of Godzilla, which leads me to believe they attempted to get licensing rights only for the ride itself. If they intended to use the likeness of a pre-existing Godzilla, this is what they would have to do. (They never created their own version of the character, so they would've had to use somebody else's, which would account for why it was so expense.)

Note that this doesn't negate your original point about Paramount licensing their IP out to their subsidiaries. It just means this instance was even more costly -- and ultimately futile -- because they would've gone through an additional company (or two, if they were trying to use Sony's).

20th Century Fox Television obtained the rights to produce it in the 1960s, well before WB acquired DC. Because of this, the home video release was stuck in limbo for a really long time and it wasn't until a few years ago that it was finally allowed to happen.  

 

 

One of the marketing bosses at Paramount at the time told enthusiasts that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, gforce1994 said:

One of the marketing bosses at Paramount at the time told enthusiasts that.

That doesn't mean they didn't have to license it. They would've had to do it that way. Toho owns the trademark outright, as well as the likeness of "classic" Godzilla while Sony had the film and television rights and owned the likeness of their Godzilla. (Toho appears to also own the Hanna-Barbera as well. They have a copyright on it from 1978 and 1979.) 

Now, Paramount did have home video distribution rights for a selection of Showa-Era Godzilla films (1954 to 1975) in the 80s and early 90s, but that was for VHS and laserdisc. (Those titles went to a company called Simitar in the mid-to-late 90s, around the time of Sony's Godzilla.) They would've still had to go through Toho to use Godzilla (as well as Mothra, Ghidorah Mechagodzilla, etc.) because Toho owns the trademark and the characters. (Even the American films all have Toho's name listed with in the copyrights. They own the trademark, so you have to seek their permission to do anything with the Godzilla name.)

This would explain why it was so costly in this particular instance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would make sense. Would Tomb Raider be as costly since they had to pay for licenses from the studio and video game developers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2020 at 1:08 PM, TombraiderTy said:

Also does anyone remember that Paramount survey years ago that included the pixelated concept art for the Mrs. Puff's Boating School and the Addams Family Reunion Coaster? I would have loved to have seen either of those built, but I don't think their theming would have held up... especially after the IPs would have likely been removed.

Someone on another site brought up another situation that could tie into it, and it’s an interesting point. As many know Paramount almost moved KD’s FOF to Carowinds, with the ride replacing the Carolina Cyclone. If you play with satellite imagery, you can get it to fit, if you remove Ricochet as well. Would KI be receiving CW’s Ricochet?

Ironically, few coasters of the same model as Ricochet were built, and one of them is themed to Sponge-Bob. Would the ride look something like this?F4998847-35C3-479C-A74B-C078E2B92064.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gforce1994 said:

That would make sense. Would Tomb Raider be as costly since they had to pay for licenses from the studio and video game developers?

Perhaps. Paramount owns the two Angelina Jolie films (the reboot was Warner Bros.) and any assets specific to them (design elements, props, sets, logo, etc.).  However, both "Tomb Raider" and "Lara Croft" were trademarked by Core Design, Ltd. (I believe Square Enix/Crystal Dynamics now owns the trademark.) If the subsidiaries were indeed being charged simply to use assets owned by the parent company while also having to go through the necessary channels with Core Design, I can see where that could be pretty costly. 

But at the time, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider was a fairly recent hit. It was one of the most successful films of 2001 and the sequel was in the works. So the cost may have seemed like a worthy brand investment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joshua said:

Perhaps. Paramount owns the two Angelina Jolie films (the reboot was Warner Bros.) and any assets specific to them (design elements, props, sets, logo, etc.).  However, both "Tomb Raider" and "Lara Croft" were trademarked by Core Design, Ltd. (I believe Square Enix/Crystal Dynamics now owns the trademark.) If the subsidiaries were indeed being charged simply to use assets owned by the parent company while also having to go through the necessary channels with Core Design, I can see where that could be pretty costly. 

But at the time, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider was a fairly recent hit. It was one of the most successful films of 2001 and the sequel was in the works. So the cost may have seemed like a worthy brand investment.

True and we’ve also seen what happens with rides that were themed after series taken off the air. I’m guessing the costs for the rights for The Outer Limits were too costly considering it was going off air, so they removed the references to save money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a SIX example I know of on the whole naming rides to failed movies.  There was supposed to be a Nick Cage led Superman movie in the late 90's, and they got SIX in on it by naming SFMM's 400 ft coaster Superman: The Escape when it (eventually) debuted.   

That Superman movie never happened BTW. ;) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, silver2005 said:

There's a SIX example I know of on the whole naming rides to failed movies.  There was supposed to be a Nick Cage led Superman movie in the late 90's, and they got SIX in on it by naming SFMM's 400 ft coaster Superman: The Escape when it (eventually) debuted.   

That Superman movie never happened BTW. ;) 

Thank goodness...did we need a mullet Superman LOL...

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gforce1994 said:

True and we’ve also seen what happens with rides that were themed after series taken off the air. I’m guessing the costs for the rights for The Outer Limits were too costly considering it was going off air, so they removed the references to save money.

That would be a situation closer to Godzilla. Paramount didn't own The Outer Limits, so they licensed it and when that license expired, they removed that part of the theming. 

51 minutes ago, silver2005 said:

There's a SIX example I know of on the whole naming rides to failed movies.  There was supposed to be a Nick Cage led Superman movie in the late 90's, and they got SIX in on it by naming SFMM's 400 ft coaster Superman: The Escape when it (eventually) debuted.   

That Superman movie never happened BTW. ;) 

WB also had the rights to make that Superman film and had design work to show for it. (They were close to filming it too, but WB reconsidered after Batman & Robin's failure.)  Paramount didn't have the rights to make a Godzilla film and it wasn't their intellectual property. (If that's what you're trying to say :) )

Does anyone know if it was to be themed with the Japanese Godzilla or the Matthew Broderick film? EDIT: Looks like it was supposed to be the latter and Carowinds was considering it around the time the film came out. Which means they were going to license a then-current/major summer film from Sony, which explains the cost factor.  Some are suggesting the audience perception of the film also played a part in changing their minds. Good call.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2020 at 6:03 PM, Joshua said:

That would be a situation closer to Godzilla. Paramount didn't own The Outer Limits, so they licensed it and when that license expired, they removed that part of the theming. 

WB also had the rights to make that Superman film and had design work to show for it. (They were close to filming it too, but WB reconsidered after Batman & Robin's failure.)  Paramount didn't have the rights to make a Godzilla film and it wasn't their intellectual property. (If that's what you're trying to say :) )

Does anyone know if it was to be themed with the Japanese Godzilla or the Matthew Broderick film? EDIT: Looks like it was supposed to be the latter and Carowinds was considering it around the time the film came out. Which means they were going to license a then-current/major summer film from Sony, which explains the cost factor.  Some are suggesting the audience perception of the film also played a part in changing their minds. Good call.

I’m shocked they didn’t just originally stay with Top Gun considering how many rides they had named that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, gforce1994 said:

I’m shocked they didn’t just originally stay with Top Gun considering how many rides they had named that.

I'm also curious why they were going to capitalize on (and subsequently promote) another studio's film when the parent company (Paramount) had their own major blockbuster they needed to sell, Deep Impact.

Both films came out in May that year. 

Also, the first Mission: Impossible and Star Trek: First Contact were still fresh in the public eye and ripe for theming.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Joshua said:

I'm also curious why they were going to capitalize on (and subsequently promote) another studio's film when the parent company (Paramount) had their own major blockbuster they needed to sell, Deep Impact.

Both films came out in May that year. 

Also, the first Mission: Impossible and Star Trek: First Contact were still fresh in the public eye and ripe for theming.

Absolutely. Its strange why they would do that. It looks like the studio and chain weren’t on the same page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gforce1994 said:

Absolutely. Its strange why they would do that. It looks like the studio and chain weren’t on the same page.

That's what I'm sensing.

I really enjoyed walking into the park, hearing the soundtracks as they greet you on I-Street, seeing the posters and movie props all throughout, and at the time, I was really amazed by Top Gun's theming. But Paramount's approach to the park left a lot to be desired. It took them over a decade to start promoting their major currents as rides and they were really inconsistent when it came to branding/theming. For example, they dove right in and went all out for Tomb Raider but merely slapped the titles of Drop Zone and Face/Off on attraction with little to nothing to hint that guests were embarking on a ride named after a movie. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Joshua said:

That's what I'm sensing.

I really enjoyed walking into the park, hearing the soundtracks as they greet you on I-Street, seeing the posters and movie props all throughout, and at the time, I was really amazed by Top Gun's theming. But Paramount's approach to the park left a lot to be desired. It took them over a decade to start promoting their major currents as rides and they were really inconsistent when it came to branding/theming. For example, they dove right in and went all out for Tomb Raider but merely slapped the titles of Drop Zone and Face/Off on attraction with little to nothing to hint that guests were embarking on a ride named after a movie. 

 

Absolutely. They had no theming for Face Off or Invertigo, which had they placed some would have resulted in better guest satisfaction. They were well received, but ironically the movie themed section in the park owned by a major movie studio was the weakest section of the park.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, gforce1994 said:

Absolutely. They had no theming for Face Off or Invertigo, which had they placed some would have resulted in better guest satisfaction. They were well received, but ironically the movie themed section in the park owned by a major movie studio was the weakest section of the park.

They didn't even use the movie's font for the logo. Granted, in retrospect, they could've easily as themed the ride to Breakdown or Friday the 13th. :D 

They really could've benefited from patterning themselves after Universal more, and who knows, maybe that was Paramount's idea in purchasing the parks before being bought out by Viacom a year or so later. But also knowing how things went, I'm glad they didn't go too wild. Imagine if they installed a bunch of rides more akin to Tomb Raider, where the movie's theming is not just a part of the experience, it is the experience. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Joshua said:

They didn't even use the movie's font for the logo. Granted, in retrospect, they could've easily as themed the ride to Breakdown or Friday the 13th. :D 

They really could've benefited from patterning themselves after Universal more, and who knows, maybe that was Paramount's idea in purchasing the parks before being bought out by Viacom a year or so later. But also knowing how things went, I'm glad they didn't go too wild. Imagine if they installed a bunch of rides more akin to Tomb Raider, where the movie's theming is not just a part of the experience, it is the experience. 

I mean the Invertigo ride name of Face-Off is a great name for that style of coaster lol...but yeah nothing related to the movie at all!

I think that was the original intent of the Paramount purchase, but then changing owners had different ideas and direction, but it really did have the potential to be something comparable to the Universal type park, at least as close as one could get with a seasonal type park.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Joshua said:

They didn't even use the movie's font for the logo. Granted, in retrospect, they could've easily as themed the ride to Breakdown or Friday the 13th. :D 

They really could've benefited from patterning themselves after Universal more, and who knows, maybe that was Paramount's idea in purchasing the parks before being bought out by Viacom a year or so later. But also knowing how things went, I'm glad they didn't go too wild. Imagine if they installed a bunch of rides more akin to Tomb Raider, where the movie's theming is not just a part of the experience, it is the experience. 

They really did mostly keep their promise from the beginning though. They said they would keep the core of Kings Island intact. They left the more original parts of Kings Island intact, while creating Action Zone to promote themselves. Honestly, Kings Island changing hands so many times has been a blessing and a curse. While it has caused problems with theming and other rides, one of the great things is that each owner has brought something different to the park. Taft build the amazing infrastructure and backbone of the park. They created the dream, and really went out of their way with I-Street, and all the other areas. Then KECO stayed mostly the same, but focused on slightly other things, helping diversify the park. They also created some of the most beloved rides in KI history. Then Paramount brought their theming, shows, and they really helped focus on the only side of the park, not just big thrills, but an immersive experience. Then Cedar Fair has taken the park, and added more extreme thrills. The park is pretty unique, along with the other KECO parks that they've had many different people focus on different parks of the park. While all the changes have left some problems, they've also helped create such a wide range of attractions and offereings at the park. It's one of the reasons the history is so rich. Not many other parks outside of Disney & universal have B&M coasters, indoor coasters, themed coasters, and so many different unique areas of the park.

While, yes, I did wish they themed more things, and really created the universal of the Mid-West, I'm also glad they did stay in the middle of the road, helping preserve the past.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, disco2000 said:

I mean the Invertigo ride name of Face-Off is a great name for that style of coaster lol...but yeah nothing related to the movie at all!

Actually, the wall of the Paramount Theater - for at least a while- had a large billboard-sized Face/Off movie poster facing the ride.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shaggy said:

Actually, the wall of the Paramount Theater - for at least a while- had a large billboard-sized Face/Off movie poster facing the ride.

 

Oh yea, forgot about that.

I could be wrong, but wasn't Titanic the longest run poster on the theater wall?  It is certainly the one I remember!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...