TombRaiderFTW

I think you're right, although I do wonder how much Premier and S&S offering retrackings for Arrow coasters might lessen the blow. If one or both is willing to retrack the loopers, it makes me wonder about the suspended coasters in particular. I could see Six Flags retracking either CP's Iron Dragon or Wonderland's Vortex, replacing the trains with floorless trains, and giving either a new name.

Silly homestar, don't you know that now is the time for hyperbole and continually judging the entire legacy of the former Six Flags Entertainment Corporation based on the CEO from the late 90's and early 2000's? You're not supposed to say NICE things! Quick, crack a Six Flags over Sandusky joke to right your wrongs!

I can't believe they involved the painter and forklift operator in the design of TT2! No WONDER it's got so many problems.

So, no one asked for this novel, but you've touched on a special interest of mine and now you will pay: The image/presence of Durga(**) was not specifically copywritten, nor was the concept of icy stalactites, nor was the idea of a lava pit. The entire concept of a ride like Tomb Raider: The Ride was patented to Paramount Parks, Inc. You can see the patent here: link. (It's got some cool pictures I geek out pretty hard over.) Included in the patent are the following descriptions, paraphrased: A HUSS Giant Top Spin ride (or similar product with at least three rows of theatrical seating) synchronized with theatrical effects, including music, lighting effects, audio, fog, fire, water, smoke, and/or steam Using said ride to stop riders at a number of predetermined locations in sync with music, lighting, audio, etc. Seated-integrated loose article receptacles, such as a bag An exact description of the TRTR ride cycle, including the locations of the gondola, descriptions of when the gondola was meant to lock and unlock, and which effects were meant to trigger at each location A description of the antechamber (the room before the preshow) that contains specifically named items like stone archways and the stone monkey statues that were used during the filming of Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001), as well as the presence of fog in the room A description of the preshow room that names specific actions like the antechamber door closing behind guests (including accompanying sound effects), the faux fire lamps, the use of the preshow screen, and of course the audio and video of the preshow itself The door itself between the preshow room and the ride chamber (##) The headlights on the front of the gondola The jewels in Durga's (**) hands and the fact that they are backlit, as well as the lasers in Durga's eyes that scan the gondola Blacklight effects in the ride chamber (##), period The aforementioned razor sharp ice spikes and their use of mist, dripping water, and fiber-optic lights The volcano and its use of mist, water, lighting, and fire (the last of which was never part of the ride experience, to my knowledge, but can you imagine?!) Admittedly, that link DOES say that the process of patenting the ride was abandoned as of 1/10/2005. I don't know how or where to go to corroborate that date or discover whether or not it would have given Paramount additional legal standing to sue if Cedar Fair had been less heavy-handed with the retheme. I'm also under the impression that Cedar Fair absorbed Paramount Parks, Inc., so one could assume that ownership of the patent would have passed to Cedar Fair if it still had any legal merit. If the patent wasn't the reason for the heavy-handed retheme, then it was almost certainly overcautious lawyers and Kinzel-era "thrills first" thinking of the time. Note that short of the loose article bags and the preshow-ride chamber door, none of the things I pointed out from the patent remained when The Crypt opened in 2008--not even the presence of a third row on the gondola. It got reduced down to two rows beginning in 2008. Even then, though, if you ignore the patent, that ride was of course chock-full of references to Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, which remains Paramount-trademarked film. These references included but were not limited to: The Triangle of Light (a magical artifact from the film) in the queue, antechamber, and ride chamber Queue music that sampled the film score and ride audio that sampled film dialogue Monkey statues that were used in filming A preshow room whose decor was an in-spirit recreation of the Cambodian temple scene in the film, including the Brahman statue behind the preshow screen A preshow film that used audio and video from the film If you take those away... there's not much left to work with. There's more than what The Crypt operated with, sure, but you've taken a lot away from the experience. It's not inconceivable that Kinzel-era CF saw what remained and decided to ditch the theming (which was never their forte, and Paramount hadn't exactly kept up with what was there) and go for thrills, which is definitely what the first 1.5 years of The Crypt had to offer. Curiously, Kings Dominion's Tomb Raider: Firefall/The Crypt stayed almost intact throughout its life and only lost its one reference to the Triangle of Light. It straight up kept its monkey statues AND audio references to the Lara Croft: Tomb Raider film score. Which makes me think all the more that Kings Island's drastic de-theming was more because of the patent than anything else. Kings Dominion's ride was not patented and (in my non-lawyer-y opinion) did not match the description of the KI ride's patent. But, that's just my guess! ** = It should be noted that the patent itself claims the god represented in the ride chamber is Shiva. Over the years of being curious, I've never found a depiction of Shiva or Durga (or any other Hindu deity) that seemed conclusive enough to say. Either way, presenting a deity of a real-world religion as the antagonist of a theme park ride is... a choice, and perhaps a product of its time that wouldn't and shouldn't be repeated today. ## = I do love that the patent refers to the ride chamber as the Heart of the Tomb. That's a cool name.

I could be off-base, but I was always under the impression that WoF's Troika and Condor were both products of that time in the mid-2010's where Cedar Fair sent representatives to Europe to buy some classic flat rides that have become less available nowadays stateside.

I believe you've got that backwards. EDIT: Ignore me. I thought we were talking about Space Mountain.

If I were the park and doing a nostalgia-based attraction based on the options here, I'd do a B&M surf coaster named King Cobra. I don't say this to shoot down this topic, but if I'm being honest, I'd much rather the park definitively draw the nostalgia era to a close with a return of Phantom Theater and then start focusing more on creating new legends. Nostalgia was a cool focus for the 50th, and bringing back The Bat name, adding Kings Mills Antique Autos, and making the refurbishments of Adventure Express and Racer among the marketed additions of their respective years were inspired touches. I also think that if we continue much more down that path, the park risks another era down the road where, much like post-Paramount, the park will have failed to keep up with the industry and we'll be getting an RMC 10 years after the stateside trend has faded, as was the case with B&M inverts and Banshee. Every legendary KI ride was some new idea the park hadn't seen before. Let's do more of that.

Zamperla offered CF a multi-Intamin refurbishment package. Next year KI will open 2 Eiffel 2 Tower. When ascending, the elevators will use multiple launches a la Power Tower, except using LSMs, and it'll stop at the top, not the bottom. When descending, the elevator will perform a randomized program of ascents and drops like Tower of Terror.

It might have been Gravity Group prefab track. I believe their shop is located near 275 and 75 north of Cincinnati.

Not at all an expert here, but I'd speculate that perhaps options A through D represent general concepts, not necessarily literal ride options currently being considered. The shuttle spinner could represent out-of-the-box ride concepts that have never been seen by most people in the park's market area. If the results show this is what the people want, perhaps CF would be more likely to try new models and prototypes for its next addition(s). The family coaster might represent family-oriented attractions, period. In today's industry, I have to imagine that translates to the park getting additions like Big Bear Mountain at Dollywood, or flat rides of a similar caliber. The dark ride coaster likely represents theming-heavy additions. Again, I have to imagine Dollywood being an example of this in the present day, especially FireChaser Express. The dive coaster surely represents tall, fast coasters. Coincidentally, now that we have Orion and Diamondback, I'm not sure what else they could add based on this feedback BESIDES a super tall dive coaster. (Surely they wouldn't add something like TT2/Kingda Ka/Red Force, right?) Note that actual layouts beyond snippets to convey each idea aren't really shown. If the park wanted feedback on these as actual, literal options they're weighing out for the future, surely they'd include a sample layout, right?

Melt has been struggling lately. A number of their locations have closed over the last few year or two. I'm sad to see it go.

FUNdraising has been offered at KI for several years now.

I don't disagree with the idea of stricter rules per se, but I'm intensely curious to know how "faking a disability" will be policed. If anyone other than people who understand the details of the person's disability are the ones policing it, this seems like it could turn into some PR nightmares where someone unfairly gets a lifetime ban for not presenting "disabled enough." I mean, it's Disney, so I'm sure they've thought it through. The wording on this change is just... curious.

Obviously you aren't here to have good-faith conversations and you'll show me up with a laugh reaction or a reply where you don't actually respond to anything I say and just repeat how entitled or delusional we are for expecting something else, but for what it's worth, you're ignoring a long context of the multi-park Cedar Fair pass not having these kinds of restrictions being added to them. A Platinum pass from one park was entitled to the Gold-level perks from all of them. You could fairly point out that the Gold and Prestige passes with the All Park Passport aren't called Platinum passes BECAUSE the parks want to be able to have these exclusive events, and you might even be correct, but that's simply not how passes with the All Park Passport were advertised when you consider the context of how similar products from the company have worked for 17 years. Here's how the website currently reads: (Underline emphasis mine. Link.) Does that automatically mean the pass is good for special events like the Top Thrill 2 preview where park-specific admission is required? To your point, not necessarily. If you think of this legalistically, there's nothing there to imply that parks can't have their own park-passholder-specific events. But the implication is that the status quo is unchanged, and it actually is. Adding in a line elsewhere in the pass page before the 2024 page went live to say that your Cedar Point pass gets you entry to CP passholder-only events would clear up a lot of feelings of being duped--and I daresay even function as an added benefit they could advertise with. As it stands right now... KI's Passholder Preview Day is the 19th. The text on the event page starts with, "Calling all Kings Island 2024 Silver, Gold and Prestige Season Passholders!" Does that actually mean Kings Island passholders only? It didn't previously--your CF Platinum Pass would get you in, regardless of park. Does it now? The site text does not offer a disclaimer at the bottom such as, "Passes from other Cedar Fair parks are not valid for this event." If KI were to update the page today to say that only KI passholders can attend, they'd be within their rights to do so based on what's in writing, but it's a poor PR move and arguably violates an unwritten contract that no customer had reason to expect would have changed from prior years. "Gold Pass with All Park Passport" and "Prestige Pass with All Park Passport" is not the same product as a "Platinum pass," but apart from the name, what was supposed to clue customers into that difference? It checks out on a technicality, but that's not a great way to run a company. It's giving Kinzel-era, "get such-and-such special offer on the second Thursday of every other October" 2012-FunPerks-reward-level convolution on something that should be very simple and easy to communicate. For the record, I don't actually care if the parks want to do events that are open to their own passholders. It's a neutral idea to me. I just think that if Cedar Fair is going to go down a new path, folks would digest that change a hundred times better if they were upfront about it at the time of purchase instead of changing things along the way. It's not a bait and switch in the most literal sense of the term, but it does skirt the line.

Obviously this is more of the trademark Cedar Fair bait-and-switch, and that's an issue, but I feel like what's bugging me more is how unwieldy of a condition this might be to enforce. Will they be asking for pass numbers at the time of reservation and checking each one against the database automatically to make sure they're Cedar Point passes? Surely they will... but I also wouldn't put it past Cedar Fair to not set that up and make it the poor admissions folks' job to tell KI passholders they're out of luck at the gate.

If there's one thing I've figured out in this hobby, it's that when a ride is SBNO or has its closure announced, people who were otherwise silent on the matter WILL come out of the woodwork to talk about how amazing and underappreciated it is and why the park should reverse their decision immediately. I genuinely never witnessed a single person do that for Garfield's Nightmare.

I actually own a copy of this book. It's a nice little guide, although obviously the material is 20+ years old. It makes me nostalgic for Kings Island as it was when I first realized my love for it. I don't suppose there's a legal means for KIC to scan and document it in the photo galleries, right?

Boo! Hiss! Burn the heretic!

Thank goodness. I was there in October, and rather than emptying the park and readmitting everyone like Carowinds does, they closed the rides for an hour and had everyone inside the park line up to be rescanned. The problem was that the rescanning happened by Berzerker and the line stretched past Drop Tower, so the vast majority of people never got rescanned--the park reopened and eventually the staff just told everyone they didn't have to be rescanned and could go about their day. I'm on the fence about whether or not Halloween events should be separately ticketed, but that entire experience at KD just reeked of being scare tactics (no pun intended) to get you to buy a separate ticket to Haunt that, effectively, you didn't have to buy. I struggle to imagine any nights except the most lightly-attended ones using that strategy effectively.

I love this new litmus test for amusement park amenity usefulness. If it's not relevant to KIC user FreedomPenguin, it's gotta go.

Smart move. Weird move to make in 2024 instead of 2014, but as long as this helps the chain move forward...

Finally. Someone with VISION.

^ To clarify, the Suspended Top Spin is a model that has been offered by HUSS longer than the Giant Top Spin ever was. Kings Dominion's Tomb Raider: Firefall (later The Crypt) and Knott's Riptide were both Suspended Top Spins. At this point, Cedar Fair has removed all variations of HUSS Top Spins from their parks--KD's Crypt was the last to go. Wonderland has a similar ride, but it is from Mondial (makers of WindSeeker), not HUSS. HUSS continues to offer the normal Top Spin and the Suspended Top Spin; Cedar Fair just doesn't own any of them.

Like... I'm not defending Chad, but after 7+ months of folks going after him and Elizabeth and the quality of their individual work, why wouldn't you cut off folks' ability to discern whose work is whose? Surely the criticism wears thin after a bit, regardless of the fact that there does seem to be consistent patterns in what has been observed about Chad's work. Like, yeah, maybe this is just changes from the top... but the merger has not happened yet. And there is a nonzero chance of it being rejected in the SIX vote--remember that a big shareholder for SIX was against it. Adjustments in preparation of that seem pretty premature.

^ I'm not implying you're wrong, but I'm curious: What site(s) is your data based on?