Cincinnati Business Courier article 2/17/06

[WooferBearATL]

As much as I would not mind to see Nick go by the wayside, I figure it's a no brainer that a buyer would want those rights.

I really can't see new owners keeping other Paramount aspects, though. It would be similar to if Disney bought Universal Parks alone and said "Yeah, let's keep running it as Universal."

[jzarley]

But, if a competing media company doesn't buy the parks there's no real compelling reason to change it either. If the licensing deal is cheaper than the cost of re-theming, why change it? Keep in mind, CBS/Viacom still wants to keep their media properties in front of theme park guests--they just don't want to have to own the parks to do it. They may make it very advantageous for new owners to keep things the way they are.

I think we all agree the Nickelodeon properties are where the value is... The rest of the themes (Top Gun, Drop Zone, Italian Job, Face Off--if that is even considered a "theme"--) is debatable. But, if it makes good business sense to keep it, why not? I'm sure the execs at AB (or any of the other rumored--yet unlikely--suitors) will not spend extra million$ just to rid the parks of any Paramount movie theming, unless there is a good business (or legal) reason to do so.

That being said, as I've said before I could see Nick characters and theming adding value to other park chains (BEC, CF, etc.), but I think it's pretty unlikely you'll see "Top Gun" ever doing the same thing.

[WooferBearATL]

Honestly, there is not much that Paramount has done towards themeing that would not be able to be changed very quickly. Esentially, they are only names to the rides that would need to be changed. Everything else can be quickly adapted to other names.

[jzarley]

yeah, I kind of thought the same thing, but when you start thinking about all the signage, merchandise, promotional materials, etc. all times five different parks I bet the "re-branding" process gets expensive pretty quick. (Not to mention that Paramount plastered the "mountain" on pretty much everything it could for twelve years.)

Another important media license to consider related to the sale is Star Trek...ST:TE in Vegas is part of the deal, and let's face it--that place is about as "theme-dependent" as an attraction can get

[WooferBearATL]

Yeah, but honestly I'm not certain how interested an entity is going to be in keeping the Vegas attraction.

I actually could see Paramount wanting to retain that portion as it's not truly a park and is for all intents and purposes more along the lines of the Viacom and Paramount line.

[jzarley]

Well, it's certainly the best quality thing that Paramount Parks ever did.

I can't imagine why any theme park company wouldn't want it...it's successful, it's well done, and it's in the second busiest destination in the country. However, I could also see why if Viacom wanted to hold onto anything, ST:TE would be it.

Does anyone remember the Star Trek attraction that USH had years ago (back in the '80s)? It was some sort of walk-thru or character attraction if I remember correctly... Paramount Studios declined to renew the license agreement when it expired, and just a few years later went out and bought their very own park chain

UPDATE: Actually, I guess it was a show. I found something on Wikipedia about it:

'Star Trek Adventure, Universal Studios Hollywood, 1988'

At the Hollywood Universal Studios Theme Park in late '80's featured a Star Trek themed attraction.[5] The attraction was set up to select 10 participating performers from the theme park's audiences and place them into a Star Trek story line. Those park patron performers are put into authentic Star Trek costumes and sets. The participants are director "coached" to deliver scripted dialogue in scenes that are then recorded on a video camera for edited final version. The storyline script is made up of several dramatic Star Trek feature films clips featuring characters from Starfleet, Klingons and other Star Trek film characters. The finished edited mini video/film is then shown to the audience and the "actors" can purchase their own video tape. This Star Trek attraction closed after several years of operation.

[WooferBearATL]

I agree. The funny thing is that when you compare how Paramount has run the individual parks with how they do the Vegas attraction that it's like apples and oranges.

It's almost as if they were confident and secure in taking chances with the Vegas attraction but reserved with the parks.

[CoastersRZ]

Yes, but is that related to the fact that they are in partnership with the hotel in which the Star Trek thing is based in? It could be that they consider that Las Vegas has more tourist dollars available than in the cities the parks are in.

[WooferBearATL]

True, Vegas does hold it's attractions up to a higher standard.

Could you imagine having a show like Cirque performed at an amusment park.

LOL, I mean other than the one that is on the WDW Property.

[jzarley]

Yes, you both are right--you certainly couldn't put a half-a**ed attraction in either Vegas or Orlando and expect to compete.

What I've always found interesting about ST:TE is that it showed what Paramount Parks really could do when the budget was available. Granted, I am a ST fan, but it really is a well done experience. I would also argue that the "Klingon Encounter" simulator is as good as any out there--including BTTF:TR at Universal. (And, the pre-show is outstanding.)

I always wondered why they didn't clone the simulator at some of the parks? They already had all the R&D costs worked out... My guess is that they wanted ST:TE to remain unique, and having multiple installations around the country would ruin that.