What If Paramount Still Owned Kings Island...

[kingsislandfan1972]

Let's pretend that Kings Island (and other parks) were never purchased by Cedar Fair, and it's 2024, what do you think the park would be like now? What new attractions do you think we would have? Is there anything that Paramount would have kept that Cedar Fair wouldn't have? Let me know your thoughts down below! 

[Tr0y]

Paramount is currently running the show at CF

Zimmerman the CEO and Tim Fischer the COO worked for Paramount Parks before being bought out by CF.

[Taylor.B03]

7 hours ago, Tr0y said:

Paramount is currently running the show at CF

Zimmerman the CEO and Tim Fischer the COO worked for Paramount Parks before being bought out by CF.

With the merger, that means somehow paramount won

[BeeastFarmer]

I think it depends on which version of Paramount you are thinking... Paramount, Viacom or CBS.

Viacom and CBS recently reunited and I think Paramount is in play.

I think if CBS kept the parks, they would have been degraded and sold off either as parks or as real estate assets .

Viacom could have been a viable operator.

But in any event, I don't think any of these entities would have held out long term .

[DonHelbig]

Had Kings Island and the other Paramount Parks not been purchased by Cedar Fair, there are rides in operation today that likely would have been retired. Addition by subtraction is what we would have seen more of, similar to what we saw when they took out Flying Eagles and Les Taxis to make way for The Italian Job: Stunt Track. 

[Buckeye Brad]

Kenton’s Cove Keelboat Canal for Tomb Raider

Sunshine Turnpike and Scrappy’s Slides for Nick Universe

Yeah, It seems like there were a lot of removals in a short time, for a park with plenty of space for expansion.

The most interesting to me is what Son of Beast’s fate would have been. Since Paramount were the ones who created and invested in SOB, would they have pushed harder to save it/ reimagine it?

Or would they have come to the same conclusion that it was a maintenance money pit with ever waning public appeal and chosen a complete reboot. 

[silver2005]

You also have to take into account what Paramount/Viacom was trying to do with the parks, they were trying to make them more like Universal Studios parks.   I think all 5 would have lost that more traditional seasonal park feeling and turned into directionless monstrosities.  I'm glad Paramount left.  

Paramount couldn't have saved SOB if they tried.  From what I know (I can't pull up sources since they're all archived into the ethers of the internet), everyone approached to fix SOB turned it down.  Kinzel and his ego were so desperate to get it back they chose to do it in-house.   I'm surprised Gerstlauer even approved the use of their trains on it.  

[SonofBaconator]

I feel like Paramount owning the former Taft parks was problematic for one major reason: location. If their parks were in very touristy locations, I think they would’ve done fine and possibly survived during the split in the 2005. However, this wasn’t the case. When you’re a film company and you’re trying to promote your IP, it’s kind of hard to do when your parks are seasonal compared to companies like Disney or Universal who can use their parks to promote their brand year round.

[Buckeye Brad]

Great points.

Another flaw in Paramount’s strategy in my opinion was that the theme park potential of their IP was vastly inferior and rarely integrated into the ride experience. My friends and I were big KI fanboys, and we’re brainstormed the entire Paramount portfolio. The best we could come up with:

1. Indy Jones (taken by Disney)

2. Star Trek (maybe license issues and probably very expensive to do right) and

3. Titanic (awkward and certainly expensive). I do remember seeing a concept that was presented to guests, with an underwater ride option and ghosts. Yeah, awkward.

Face Off, Drop Zone, Congo, and others  were mediocre movies at best with minimal cultural significance. 

Top Gun, Tomb Raider, Italian Job, Outer Limits had some juice as themes, and were decently executed. But did they drive much business towards the Paramount studio side?

Seems like Disney and Universal had and have far more appealing IP like Jaws, Back to the Future, Marvel, ET, Jurassic Park, Harry Potter, Pixar, etc. 

I am thankful that Paramount had the wisdom to not mess with the more iconic names like Racer, Vortex, Beast.*
 

* I still miss the real Beastie, my first real coaster memory with its scary paw logo, tunnel, tombstone queue, and scary yellow paint job. 

[SonofBaconator]

29 minutes ago, Buckeye Brad said:

Great points.

Another flaw in Paramount’s strategy in my opinion was that the theme park potential their IP was vastly inferior and rarely integrated into the ride experience. My friends and I were big KI fanboys, and we’re brainstormed the entire Paramount portfolio, and the best we could come up with Indy Jones (teken by Disney), Star Trek (maybe license issues and probably very expensive to do right) and Titanic (awkward).

Face Off, Drop Zone, Congo Falls, and others  were mediocre movies at best with minimal cultural significance. 
 

Top Gun, Tomb Raider, Italian Job has some juice as themes, but I can’t think of any others that have appeal like Jaws, Marvel, ET, Jurassic Park, Harry Potter, Pixar, etc. 

I am thankful that Paramount had the wisdom to not mess with the more iconic names like Racer, Vortex, Beast.*
 

* I still miss the real Beastie, my first real coaster memory with its scary paw logo, tunnel, tombstone queue, and scary yellow paint job. 

If you watch Defunctland’s video on Tomb Raider, he talks about the comparison between companies.
 

I'm not entirely sure if they could’ve done Marvel because the early Marvel Cinimatic Universe films Ironmans 1 and 2 Thor and Captain America were all distributed by Paramount. I can’t remember what they had to do with Iron Man 3 but I remember seeing the mountain before the film began. I feel like they could’ve milked the Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America properties in a Six Flags-esque way.

[DoomPlague]

15 hours ago, SonofBaconator said:

If you watch Defunctland’s video on Tomb Raider, he talks about the comparison between companies.
 

I'm not entirely sure if they could’ve done Marvel because the early Marvel Cinimatic Universe films Ironmans 1 and 2 Thor and Captain America were all distributed by Paramount. I can’t remember what they had to do with Iron Man 3 but I remember seeing the mountain before the film began. I feel like they could’ve milked the Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America properties in a Six Flags-esque way.

It's my understanding that Universal had (and still does) exclusive Marvel theme park rights east of the Mississippi, starting when they opened IOA.

[Benjamin22]

Considering Paramount is on the brink of total collapse and is ran by the same incompetent family as it was in the 1990s and 2000s I shutter at the thought. The parks likely would have been sold off in the past few years as Paramount is desperate for money ATM. 

[Orion-XL200]

I made this when WindSeeker's opening kept getting pushed:

[jzarley]

On 6/27/2024 at 10:32 AM, Benjamin22 said:

Considering Paramount is on the brink of total collapse and is ran by the same incompetent family as it was in the 1990s and 2000s I shutter at the thought. The parks likely would have been sold off in the past few years as Paramount is desperate for money ATM. 

Exactly! At this point what is currently Viacom/Paramount very well may be carved off and sold off in pieces

[jzarley]

On 6/24/2024 at 9:53 PM, SonofBaconator said:

If you watch Defunctland’s video on Tomb Raider, he talks about the comparison between companies.
 

I'm not entirely sure if they could’ve done Marvel because the early Marvel Cinimatic Universe films Ironmans 1 and 2 Thor and Captain America were all distributed by Paramount. I can’t remember what they had to do with Iron Man 3 but I remember seeing the mountain before the film began. I feel like they could’ve milked the Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America properties in a Six Flags-esque way.

Of course, being a film’s distributor and having the theme park rights are two different things. With the exception of the most recent one, all of the Indiana Jones films were distributed by Paramount, but Disney still had the theme park attractions. The reason being is that Lucasfilm retained the theme park rights and licensed them to Disney. (Of course now Disney owns Lucasfilm outright).

It’s unlikely Paramount would have been able to do anything with the Marvel IP in their parks because of the exclusive licensing (at least East of the Mississippi) that Marvel had granted to Universal. I’m pretty sure Captain America and Iron Man are part of those “core group” of characters covered by Universal’s licensing.

On a related note, I think the only attraction where Paramount demonstrated their real potential was with Star Trek: The Experience in Vegas. That was a fantastic attraction for its time—a predecessor to the highly themed areas parks are doing today (Cars Land, Harry Potter, Star Wars, etc.). Everything done at the regional parks always felt half-assed—regardless of all the promises of the “most fabulous, fantastic, Hollywoodized attraction ever” with each new attraction’s announcement each year.

[Bansheelover]

If Paramount still owned Kings Island you would see more themed rides like Backlot Stunt Coaster. There would be no Orion, Diamondback, or Banshee. The park would look and feel cheap like it did in the late 90s. More of Kings Island's history would be gone, and I doubt they would keep The Beast and Racer up to beings some of the best coasters in world.