Joshua

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.

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?

I think things would have been better for Paramount Parks had Viacom not purchased the studio and its assets. There might've been a heavier push on rides based on movies with genuine theming, more along the lines of Top Gun as opposed to Face/Off and Drop Zone, which were merely name-drops with nothing in the way of theming. Granted, compared to Universal and Disney, Paramount didn't have as many ride-worthy IPs in the 90s. At the time, they were known for their adult thrillers and Lorne Michaels-produced comedies such as Wayne's World, Tommy Boy, and Coneheads. Apart from Star Trek and Mission: Impossible, the only major IP I can think of that maybe, and I mean maybe, could've made a ride was the Jack Ryan series (The Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games, etc.). The Saint too, but that's probably a stretch. Today they would have had Transformers, G.I. Joe, Ninja Turtles, The Terminator, Cloverfield, Paranormal Activity, Interstellar, and Sonic the Hedgehog.

The Addams Family Coaster is one of the great "What Ifs" to me. I love the franchise, I love "creepy! kooky! spooky!" theming, and I think a coaster that embodied all of the above would've spectacular (or as the great Vincent Prince would have said, "spooktacular"). I've also never understood why they didn't try to theme anything to Mission: Impossible. I know the first movie was criticized as being too hard to follow (which I don't get as it was fairly straightforward and is still one of my favorites in the series), but it was also the third highest grossing movie of 1996. Additionally, Mission: Impossible II was the second highest grossing movie of 2000. Star Trek was also at a highpoint at the time, with the release of First Contact and the popularity of DS9 and Voyager. It's a shame there wasn't more done with that in the majority of the parks.

Were the complications from MGM owning the television series and/or WB later producing the made for TV movie, Addams Family Reunion? Also, another person owns It and Thing, and once tried to sue Paramount over it. (Source) EDIT: Shaggy beat me to the punch. When was this coaster proposed? I always assumed it was the 90s, but it sounds like it was in the early 2000s. Side note that I think is interesting. The first Addams Family movie wasn't originally a Paramount film. It was produced by Orion Pictures, but the company was struggling at the time and the film was sold to Paramount. (Source)

You make a fair point. I don't talk about the economic side much, but that doesn't mean I don't care about it. And one of the biggest reasons I don't is it because it is hard for me to convey my thoughts on the subject. I can't help but wonder if perhaps there could've been measures put in place to protect our citizens' health and our economy. But I have no answers in that regard and speculating on it probably won't help now at this stage.

Sorry to hear that, but I am happy that you've beaten your doctor's expectations. I've only been diabetic for 3 years. My struggles have been much smaller than yours, but it's been a rollercoaster, that's for sure. Respectfully, I didn't "victim blame." I offered an opposing viewpoint. I also only mentioned fire simply because you mentioned it in this post: I do care about those other issues that kill many many people. As I've pointed out in the past, this pandemic is competing with those yearly numbers in a fraction of the time. I've gotten snark for saying that before, but I don't think it's something that should be ignored. Regardless, the numbers are significant and that's why many of us are focused on the current pandemic. No one is saying that cancer, fires, diabetes, and heart disease no longer matter. At least, I'm not trying to say that. But I also believe we shouldn't ignore one potential death because another potential death already exists. (Additionally, many of us at risk from diabetes, heart problems, and other illnesses are also at risk to COVID-19 because of lower immune systems.) Maybe more so on social media than here, I keep seeing it suggested that death is a part of life -- which is true, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to slow it down to the best of our ability. (Having said all that, I'm more focused on COVID-19 than "Murder Hornets." But at the same time, I really don't want to come across one.)

I'm a T1 diabetic. The cause of my death would be from consistently eating sugar and my body not being able to process it, not taking my insulin (i.e. not taking the recommended precautions to keep myself safe...), or one of the associated illness related to it, such as heart disease. Now granted, you could argue that you shouldn't take sugar away from everyone to keep a few of us safe, but this is different. In my case, I can't just contract sugar from someone in public. (Although, I am more susceptible to COVID-19, and so are those with heart disease.) With many of the things listed, there is something you do to save yourself. With diabetes, it's managing your blood sugar. For fires, it's following code to prevent it and getting out of the building when there is one. You don't run back into a burning building because that's your freedom and people die every day...

I'm wondering if it's supposed to say, "even if some states..." The sentence makes a little more sense that way. Sometimes editors get this notion that "too many words are bad," but removing too many words can also be bad. Also, nitpick here, but I would've flipped the wording too: "even with social distancing rules in place and if some states don't reopen at all."

Approach it the same way. Look at the information they're presenting, how they're presenting it, and compare it to other sources. What that professor taught us was to use critical thought in selecting our information and recognize that we ourselves aren't sources unless we had significant experience that firmly makes us a source on the subject we're discussing (ex. a physicist discussing string theory, a dentist on tooth decay, etc.). In other words, a virologist has more clout in discussing alleged facts about COVID-19 than a layman on Reddit or YouTube whose expertise and experience is significantly less. But for what it is worth, most of the articles I've read, the sources have expressed that more data is needed.

Regarding the media. This is how I try to approach it: The sources cited. Where does this information come from? Who is being quoted? What is their expertise? Does it give me enough information to make up my own mind? Look out for those who deem themselves the source of the information. The language being used. Are they using phrases like "might," "may," could," "seems like," etc. A lot of times the speculative nature isn't addressed directly, but instead implied through language. It's not just the media, you can see this a lot in this thread. I'm guilty of it myself sometimes. Something "seems to be true" or "is probably true," that means it is true, right? Wrong. The website or channel itself. Is it a major newspaper/news site/network, a website akin to Buzzfeed-ish/We Got This Covered, some sort of "(insert political affiliation) Daily" Facebook page, or is it just some dude on YouTube shouting in his truck? I'm not saying the media is perfect, but the other three are far more untrustworthy as they rarely cite sources nor approach the information presented with critical thought, and prey upon your angers, fears, and doubts regarding the media (or other entities). If someone is ranting and raving like some angry lunatic, I immediately click away. I had a speech teacher in film school who hammered this all this into us. I'll never forget what he told us on the first day: "You are not a source for information." He then would ding us for us for making bold claims, implied statistics ("most people this, most people that"), stating something as a fact without either citing a source or at least explaining what it is that makes us an expert on the subject (ex. "I worked in this field for 5 years").

Here's an article discussing warm weather's impact on COVID-19. https://news.yahoo.com/latest-research-says-summers-impact-200500617.html According to the CDC, the death toll in the US is 64,283 and over a million confirmed cases.

The Cyclone is almost a century old. As long as Kings Island maintains it, I see no reason why The Beast couldn't live at least a couple more decades. The same for The Racer.

Isn't that a good thing?

This is news to me as well. It looks like it happened at least two years ago. This image is from a Dayton Daily News article from 2018: https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/watch-10m-plan-set-for-the-former-americana-amusement-park-take-aerial-tour/3CsO1x1EZyXtg8L639dZ0H/

Magazines are a dying breed and B&N is one of the few places around here that sells a decent selection (i.e. more than just gossip, guns, and car mags). Personally, I love perusing their film and horror magazines and they are the only place that carries my favorite, Cinefex.

The best was the short period it interacted with the Safari train.

May I ask what sources you use for your information and why you think the precautions we've taken haven't contributed to keeping the death toll below expectations?

I'd be okay with a broader spooky theme that allows for a variety of different styles. One ride could have the old gothic, "castle thunder" style that Universal Monsters and Hammer are known for while another could be themed to 80s horror. The Bat could lend itself to the giant monster craze from the 50s and maybe they could do some Atomic Age stuff with Drop Tower and Delirium. They could even theme a coaster to the Maestro himself if his Theater never opens back up.

The purpose of my posts isn't to discredit your concerns, but to point out that those 37,000+ were people. Like standbyme expressed in his post, it makes my heart sink every single time I see someone even remotely suggest that people's lives are expendable and their deaths an "acceptable" sacrifice to protect our economy. I'm not saying I don't want a normal life again nor am I saying I'm unconcerned about our economy. I'm one of those who was affected economically by this. I lost my job. Not furloughed, laid off permanently, and I worked hard for that job. Also, for what it's worth, I fall into another statistic you mentioned on the last page. I've gone through many tough battles in the last decade, and I'll have another one ahead of me in the months to come. Respectfully, I'm saying those people are most than just percentages, those lives mattered.

37,055 Americans and counting in.. Just.. One.. Month..

As of today, there are 37, 055 Americans who would probably disagree.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

i haven't been counting Planet Snoopy rides since the first post said not to, but I would have to add everything that wasn't there in the early to mid 90s. Unfortunately, my memory can't vouch for riding all the Hanna-Barbara from that era either.

The Enchanted Voyage has been covered by Yesterworld.