Rivertown Rider Posted September 12 Share Posted September 12 Quote This was on the KI Season Pass Holders facebook group the other day. I do find it odd that the lid is slightly ajar but that could be nothing. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTreeBoi1 Posted September 12 Share Posted September 12 Why would the casket not be buried if SoB has been dead for 15ish years. Little odd.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeastFarmer Posted September 12 Share Posted September 12 43 minutes ago, ShedTreeBoi1 said: Why would the casket not be buried if SoB has been dead for 15ish years. Little odd.... Why would they have other caskets spread throughout the graveyard too? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FALLINLOVE09 Posted September 12 Share Posted September 12 39 minutes ago, BeeastFarmer said: Why would they have other caskets spread throughout the graveyard too? Is there any pictures of other caskets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeastFarmer Posted September 12 Share Posted September 12 3 minutes ago, FALLINLOVE09 said: Is there any pictures of other caskets? There are a couple floating around on social media for those who want to investigate. Plus they always have caskets scattered around the graveyard not related to ride funerals. My theory is that its just a diversion to engage people during an era of budget cuts. I'd love to be proven wrong in the future, though! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion-XL200 Posted September 12 Share Posted September 12 3 hours ago, ShedTreeBoi1 said: Why would the casket not be buried if SoB has been dead for 15ish years. Little odd.... Having worked haunted attractions, often times these caskets are beat up and don't close properly. More than likely, no other reason behind it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonofBaconator Posted September 12 Author Share Posted September 12 I think a lot of people put stock into these tombstones because of what we saw with Firehawk a couple years ago, where it was blatantly obvious that it was going away but they still had fun with it. Now you have a tombstone placed near an old ride, as opposed to the graveyard, with quite a bit of detail in it. Pair this with the former ride building/haunted house seeing some activity last year and you have a good amount of speculation to have fun with if you’re a fan. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTreeBoi1 Posted September 12 Share Posted September 12 1 hour ago, Orion-XL200 said: Having worked haunted attractions, often times these caskets are beat up and don't close properly. More than likely, no other reason behind it. Yeah kinda figured. Fun to speculate though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoodVengeance Posted September 12 Share Posted September 12 I'm also thinking that this was mostly likely done as some sort of publicity stunt (like Beast 2.0) to get people talking about a potential new coaster themed around Son of Beast. I wouldn't hold my breath about this leading to a more significant project unless we start seeing any of the following pop up within the next several months: Attraction removals around Outpost 5 (Xtreme Skyflyer, Timberwolf, The Bat) Survey markers appearing in the area of Outpost 5 Construction vehicles appearing near Outpost 5 Notice of Commencement for 2024-2026 Even with that all being said, I do think it's still very possible we could see our next coaster in 2026, but I would put more stock into it going in The Vortex plot as opposed to reusing the Son of Beast station. But then again, crazier things have happened in the amusement industry so who knows. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJSkyFoxx Posted September 13 Share Posted September 13 On 9/12/2024 at 1:41 PM, WoodVengeance said: I'm also thinking that this was mostly likely done as some sort of publicity stunt (like Beast 2.0) to get people talking about a potential new coaster themed around Son of Beast. I wouldn't hold my breath about this leading to a more significant project unless we start seeing any of the following pop up within the next several months: Attraction removals around Outpost 5 (Xtreme Skyflyer, Timberwolf, The Bat) Survey markers appearing in the area of Outpost 5 Construction vehicles appearing near Outpost 5 Notice of Commencement for 2024-2026 Even with that all being said, I do think it's still very possible we could see our next coaster in 2026, but I would put more stock into it going in The Vortex plot as opposed to reusing the Son of Beast station. But then again, crazier things have happened in the amusement industry so who knows. Joke's on us! Now that SIX is the other half of the company, they are going to pull out a page from the ol'playbook from their SFWoA days and put in TWO major installments in the same year! One in The Vortex plot and one in the SoB station!!! ( hard sarcasm here ) 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanJay Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 Posting this here since it feels more relevant, but the recent prop put out on display is confirmed to be one of the interactive lantern points. Definitely doesn’t rule out this being a clue for something, but is definitely an explanation for why it’s out this year. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bwb.32 Posted September 15 Share Posted September 15 . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bwb.32 Posted September 15 Share Posted September 15 6 hours ago, BryanJay said: Posting this here since it feels more relevant, but the recent prop put out on display is confirmed to be one of the interactive lantern points. Definitely doesn’t rule out this being a clue for something, but is definitely an explanation for why it’s out this year. getting home from work and reviewed the changes a little closer now, noticed that the "remnants of the unloved son" tape has gone, likely confirming IMO that this for sure has no relation to future plans, as this was the one link to the previously abandoned teasers. Edit: If the collective analysis of all these changes posted here by all you amazing people and making the connection back to the abandoned teasers at CP had anything to do with the removal of this reference, I would genuinely find that hilarious ;;; It would be awesome if we could get direct confirmation from anyone what the abandoned teasers at CP were about -------- gonna get crazy here feel free to disregard lol: My final I'm going insanely out on a limb here thought for the tiniest shred of a scrap of hope that maybe this is still something is that, we figured this out a little quicker than the park wanted, and were now being thrown off the trail because they want people at haunt to buy and interact with this feature piece for the lanterns, which also doubles as an announcement, and let the word spread naturally to drive sales of the lanterns and advertisement of a new attraction. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beastfan11 Posted September 15 Share Posted September 15 12 hours ago, Bwb.32 said: So Chad really is cool with just pulling on the heartstrings of fans, very classy. (Not directed towards you specifically) Look, I’m not a fan of the current direction of things. And as someone who works in marketing, I’m also baffled by a lot of the decisions that come out from that side of the park. But to blame him specifically for this “teaser” is kind of absurd. I mean, if the park does so little as move a landscaping rock, there are enthusiasts that immediately take that as a “hint” regarding SOB returning. The only ones responsible for any disappointment are the ones who are over reacting and assuming every little thing is a hint/teaser. And it bears repeating that SOB was an awful, miserable fail of an attraction. It was a money pit that physically harmed guests on a few different occasions. And even if you weren’t involved in any of those incidents, the ride experience as a whole left much to be desired. The land where there ride stood is mostly occupied by another attraction. So, any new version would be by name alone. So is that really a SOB revival? And to that point, if there was to be a major new coaster addition, why would you want it to be associated with a ride that has such a miserable past? The hype around the ride was fun. The actual experience was mediocre on a good day. Ultimately, SOB was a low point in an otherwise world class coaster line up. Why do it again in any way? This display is a lot of fun. I love stuff like this. But it’s cool if it stays as a fun throwback to a defunct attraction. 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBEW_Sparky Posted September 15 Share Posted September 15 I am absolutely with 99% of everything posted above, with the 1% I dissent on being the "Why do it again in any way?" question. If by some Universe altering miracle the folks in Sandusky and Charlotte will pat their eyes dry and lay off on their "take my ball and go home" philosophy regarding RMC (which could be the single thing worth a D amn in the whole FUN/SIX merger) then I wouldn't even be mad at them building an SV annihilating RMC in those woods and valley and using any kind of SOB name or reference they want! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndyGuy4KI Posted September 15 Share Posted September 15 In am so open to a ground up RMC. Leave all the woodies alone and start from scratch. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TombRaiderFTW Posted September 15 Share Posted September 15 Gonna be honest, I'm feeling pretty intense nostalgia burnout with KI, and especially with Son of Beast. It was a terrible ride with the coolest marketing. Make a new legend and stop dancing around the idea of reviving old rides. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver2005 Posted September 15 Share Posted September 15 Just out of curiosity, does acquiring Six Flags give the new Six Flags access to any non-DC and non-Looney Tunes IPs from WB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disco2000 Posted September 15 Share Posted September 15 31 minutes ago, silver2005 said: Just out of curiosity, does acquiring Six Flags give the new Six Flags access to any non-DC and non-Looney Tunes IPs from WB? If they cough up enough cash they can have any IP they want. I am sure SIX is using any IP they have paid for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoodVengeance Posted September 15 Share Posted September 15 47 minutes ago, silver2005 said: Just out of curiosity, does acquiring Six Flags give the new Six Flags access to any non-DC and non-Looney Tunes IPs from WB? For right now, I believe Six Flags only has access to the Looney Tunes and DC IPs and they would probably have to pay extra to get any more IPs from Warner Bros. If you're curious about Hanna Barbera, it seems Six Flags did have access to the Hanna Barbera IP at one point since Six Flags Great America had a Hanna Barbera themed section named "Camp Cartoon" between 1998 and 2017. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion-XL200 Posted September 16 Share Posted September 16 23 hours ago, Bwb.32 said: So Chad really is cool with just pulling on the heartstrings of fans, very classy. I'll be first to admit, I don't like this guy. But I will say, I'm 99% positive, he had nothing to do with this display....so it's not him "pulling on the heartstrings." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJSkyFoxx Posted September 16 Share Posted September 16 I'd like to know if when the lantern activates at this point if the station lights up too. Only wondering since it appears that there is at least one prop of some gangly creepy body from the Wolf Pack days and since they put up some webbing in there, it would be cool if it lit up and did a howl or something. I guess we will find out this coming weekend what it does. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old_Bearcat Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 Hmmmm................... 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bwb.32 Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 5 hours ago, Old_Bearcat said: Hmmmm................... considering dippin dots have to be stored at -40 degrees, this is likely just infrastructure improvements on a space dedicated to storing such inventory lol on the other hand, I mean theoretically I guess they could use whatever to hide what an "actual" project name is, but that doesn't follow convention with Orion originally being project X and, id be hard pressed for them to use another companies brand name to disguise permits for a new major addition. someone wanna go pull the permits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeastFarmer Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 Are we really speculating that Kings Island would falsify government documents to throw off some roller coaster enthusiasts? The two previous posts were likely said in jest, but some may actually think this way . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bwb.32 Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 4 hours ago, BeeastFarmer said: Are we really speculating that Kings Island would falsify government documents to throw off some roller coaster enthusiasts? The two previous posts were likely said in jest, but some may actually think this way . it name, not scope. they could call the project "big Jim's whimsical garden of farts" and it wouldn't matter, yes the intention is for the project name to be related to what the scope of the project is, but whether modifying an existing structure or commencing a new project, the name of the project could be quite literally whatever the park wants it to be, as long as the site is identified, and the actual work listed to be completed within said permits is accurate. Naming the project permit something unrelated to the work being done within the permit is far from falsifying government documents. but lets also be clear, Orion was identified by the project name "project X" would that also be falsifying government documents since it didn't use the actual name for project either!? They can call a project whatever, id argue to say the city of Mason generally has an understanding with the park about doing such things for the preservation of their marketing intentions, so even if they did quote on quote "falsify a government document", it would likely be nothing more than an ask for correction or further information from the city. the project is for commercial alterations, which could mean any amount of work to a commercial structure, anywhere within the property. yeah this is probably exactly what I stated it likely is, my brother in Christ are we not allowed to throw out wild possibilities while speculating anymore? if someone chooses to take this as factual evidence that's their prerogative I've been very unbiased and clear in everything I've posted, either my opinion, personal thoughts, or clearly labeled wild speculation. I cant make it any more clear. the only reason I made any sort of wild toss in this direction for speculation is due to the parks precedent of utilizing names unrelated to the actual project to hopefully prevent the permits being pulled and the "secret" let out early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old_Bearcat Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 Spoiler Alert: Is actually is a storage shed for ice cream products 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeastFarmer Posted September 18 Share Posted September 18 There is a difference in building a new project "project x" and modifying an existing structure "Dippin' Dots Storage Shed." I mean I guess they could put a couple of boxes of Dippin' Dots lids in the former SOB station/Wolf Pack building and call it a Dippin' Dots Storage shed, but that's highly unlikely. For something as specialized as this food product, I would conjecture that they'd have a specific area/shed to meet the product storage requirements. Likely routine replacements. Or not. Maybe they will do what you speculate and they are using the infamous Dippin' Dots reference to throw folks off ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmartCat7162 Posted September 19 Share Posted September 19 17 hours ago, BeeastFarmer said: There is a difference in building a new project "project x" and modifying an existing structure "Dippin' Dots Storage Shed." I mean I guess they could put a couple of boxes of Dippin' Dots lids in the former SOB station/Wolf Pack building and call it a Dippin' Dots Storage shed, but that's highly unlikely. For something as specialized as this food product, I would conjecture that they'd have a specific area/shed to meet the product storage requirements. Likely routine replacements. Or not. Maybe they will do what you speculate and they are using the infamous Dippin' Dots reference to throw folks off ... As someone who has worked with Dippin' Dots I can confirm they do require a special area since they are stored below 0 so they can not be kept in a regular freezer. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bwb.32 Posted September 21 Share Posted September 21 any update on what the lantern point effect is/does with the box? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts