Browntggrr

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.

http://travel.latimes.com/daily-deal-blog/...26+Deal+Blog%29

^ You think that $20,000,000 + is enough to be self insured for all of CF's holdings? Just the Paramount parks alone were $1.24 billion. The $20,686,000 that CF has in reserve would only cover about 1.65% of just the Paramount parks. And you think that is enough insurance for all of the properties? I suggest you read the report that was given, especially the part that says the $20,686,000 is a reserve for the portions that the insurance carrier does not cover. Insurance costs come out of the operating expenses. Just like the expense for utilities, food, maintenance that are also not mentioned in the report as well. They all fall under the same catagory.

The amounts paid for insurance would be included in the operating expenses. The insurance reserves are for this (from page 17): (Bold emphasis added) Given this report, it is apparent that CF is not self insured.

So you are complaining about people complaining. Ok....

10 year olds walking around without adult supervision with money in their pockets is a recipe for disaster.

Not with kids...unless you count the couple of songs in the Lilo & Stitch movie. I have worked in a record/music store for over 20 years...I can count how many Elvis CDs that I have sold to anyone under 10 on my fingers. In my original statement I was just trying to clarify the demographic of who was decorating the trees at this event...there were no "younger" themes like The Simpsons, Nick, Jonas Bros., Miley Cyrus...this is an event geared towards the over 40 crowd...and The Peanuts fit right in! Yeah, your point was clear as mud. A school group goes to a festival of trees geared to adults. I would also hope that you could count, using your fingers, how many total CD's that anyone under 10 has bought.

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/robert/200911/1798/ I really liked this article, even though I don't agree with all his views. And this article does not just apply to newspapers and their websites, but for most businesses today.

Some interesting videos of the construction: http://io9.com/5407828/first-look-at-harry...orld-theme-park J.K. likes butterbeer & more videos: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2009/11/...tter-sneak-peek This project looks simply amazing. I really hope it will meet my expectations!

http://thedailydisney.com/blog/2009/11/dis...s-and-scooters/ I'm confused. How can they have different prices for the same size lockers? And talk about gouging the guest! Higher prices for the water parks, where guests almost have to use a locker? So much for trying to attract guests in a poor economy by doing the "little things".

http://www.zandavisitor.com/newsarticle-25...oo_and_Aquarium

Appearances and fact are often quite different. I am not saying that they are not, but, I would like to see more evidence that the park is self-insured.