Browntggrr

But is it the people that are going to these great lengths, or is the park looking to make a buck by not having people wait in line and walk the midways promoting themselves with food shops, games, merchandising etc.? People waiting in lines don't spend much money. And the ERT events are usually a paid event, thus the park will make money at times they usually would not.

So, how long was the wait for that ride?

No, we do have the information, but unlike you, I am not willing to throw people's opinions away just becasue they gave it online. And you can try and throw as much useless data around, but that information is also online, so it can be discarded just like people's opinions. And yes, having an opinion and backing it up is our job. Welcome to the glorious World of a forum.

edit

No, I understand the point quite well. Yet, you have to form a general consensus from the information given, and the information is not just from enthusiast sites: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...07210931AAcZxeY http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM1ZVK_...Kings_Island_OH http://www.epinions.com/reviews/trvl-Famil...ts_Kings_Island http://www.faqs.org/qa/qa-14784.html http://www.oxfordpress.com/news/oxford-new...ers-186193.html http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton...son-243002.html http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/spr...owComments=true And the list can go on. Now, just take a look at the comments made. It is quite easy to see who is an enthusiast, and who is not. And even then, the comments made by the non-enthusiast are extremely similar to enthusiast sites. I have a difficult time believing that all the comments are just a coincidence and should be discarded because you believe that it is just an enthusiast's opinion. And even then, how often do enthusiasts actually agree upon ANYTHING? Yet the majority agrees that SoB is terrible? You are letting your own opinion cloud your education for sound reasoning.

There is nothing psychological about people's opinions. The opinions are documented for the public to view. If the ride was well liked, it would receive good reviews, since it is not well liked, the majority of the reviews are negative. We can only go upon the information provided and found, and in that information, it is clear where the majority stands.

I don't have to pick anyone. Choose any coaster, travel, or information site and read the comments on SoB. It's clear where the majority stands.

Really? Show me where the majority does not believe this....

And which group means more to the park?

^ Paramount was going green. I like that!

While I'm not looking for comfort, I'm not looking for pain either. I'm looking for a fun time. SoB was not fun at all. Like I've said before; SoB was the only coaster after I rode it, I needed a break. Many others? Really? Do you mean members of KIC, or the majority of park goers?

http://hosted2.ap.org/PAERI/33e9b34a8efc43...3a7077f36ce4297

^ It was new last year? I thought it was new due to the 2009 release date in the information, but perhaps DirectTV had their info wrong. And they were: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1292569/

^ So it would be cheaper to put more money into *improving* the ride that has already been *improved* numerous times, than to throw in the towel and proclaim SoB is a lemon by taering it down? One decision spends more money with a low percentage of success, the other spends money with guaranteed results.

On a side note; did anyone catch the new Muppets Christmas special last night? It was great! And my kids who are unfamiliar with the Muppets thought they (the Muppets) were new. It was refreshing to go "old school".

I would think that all the ideas have already been exhausted in improving SoB after the support incident. I find it hard to imagine that engineers thought like this: "Well here are our suggestions to fix SoB. If this doesn't work, here are some other ideas." The ride was down too long, and too much money was spent not to get it right the first third time (or is it fourth time?).

You must be punished! Would you like to be dipped in boiling oil, or ride SoB for 8 consecutive hours? Choose. Choose wisely....

A new ride does not guarantee higher ridership, nor should it. It would be a terrible decision for any park to base future ride plans solely on ridership from a previous ride. Also, put DD in the back of the park. I am willing to bet that ridership would decrease significantly.

^ Many will always find fault with any decision that CF makes. Imagine the comments if CF just decided to remove the ride and not send it anywhere.

Watching Spongebob makes me appreciate Snoopy and the Peanuts gang that much more.

Getting? It's been ridiculous.

If Son of Beast stays or goes should have no effect on season pass sales. It hardly operates anyway...

Absolutely not. They are going to have enough insurance to protect and cover their investment. If you ever purchase home owners insurance, you need to have sufficient insurance to cover your home and the belongings in the home. Part of your mortgage contract is to have sufficient insurance as they need to protect themselves as well. Now think of all the rides, buildings, and equipment that just Paramount had at the sale. Do you think a $20,000,000 reserve would cover it? Now add in liability insurance and workman's compensation. A $20,000,000 reserve is not even close to what they would need. Think of it this way: say something catastrophic happened to DB and the ride was no longer able to operate and needed to be torn down. If CF was self insured, not only would they lose the initial price tag of the ride, $22,000,000, the park would also be on the hook for the deconstruction of the ride as well as take care of any injuries that the ride has caused. And that is only for one ride at one park. Obviously I am only using very general numbers and there is much, much, more to it.

Read the title of the article closer.