Jump to content

VIACOM to build Paramount Park--IN CHINA


Recommended Posts

http://www.pacificepoch.com/newsstories/67948_0_5_0_M/

Posted by: Zhengqian Zhou on Jul 05, 2006 | 14:07

Editorial Summary

A Paramount theme park will be constructed in Tianjin as part of Tianjin municipal government's Eleventh Five Year Plan, reports China Business. An official with the Tianjin branch of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) said that the plans for the park have been approved by the Tianjin government but still need approval from China's State Council. The park will likely be in Tianjin's Binghai New District. An insider from Tianjin Teda Investment Holdings, the company that will construct the park, said that the company has signed a confidentiality agreement with Paramount and cannot reveal details of the deal for three years. Paramount is a Viacom subsidiary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess again.

Viacom has previously indicated it intends to operate a chain of Paramount Parks in Asia...

Why there and not here? Because there it is a high risk, high growth potential market, not a mature industry like it is here.

Well I am sure they will od well. I know Japanese people LOVE roller coasters - probably even more than we do. I wonder how the family friendly attractions will go over in China and Japan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhm...

Cedar Fair just bought the Paramount Parks entity.

Viacom can't use that name or paramountparks.com anymore... they no longer own it.

Not true.

CBS had only a license to use the name in the USA and Canada for the next 10 years. VIACOM owns the Paramount name...not CBS, and certainly NOT Cedar Fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recommend you take up the practice of trademark law.

The mere threat of litigation is enough to stop most companies from using the name claimed to be the property of another.

And in this case, the name is currently used under license....which license is an admission that you don't OWN the mark, just the right to use it...for a time and in exchange for the payments of monies...

The Paramount theaters predate even the Gulf + Western days, and are allowed to keep the usage as pre-existing uses....At one time, they belonged to the studios (except the one in Ashland, Kentucky...which is a long story for another day), but the Government made the studio sell them off due to antitrust concerns...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah - CBS licensed it right? They would essentially be starting a new company for these Asian parks.

As far as the litigation thing - I know Timber Terror at Silverwood was originally named Grizzly - but had to change its name because of the same name being used at a Paramount park. Kind of surprising they could trademark a name like that. I mean how many Big Dipper, Little Dipper and Cyclones are there out there? rolleyes.gif Besides - Grizzly is highly appropriate for Silverwood!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were going to rip off an existing park's name, I wonder why you'd choose Valleyfair? If I was going to get the lawyers after me, I'd go for broke and call it "Disney" biggrin.gif

The proposed park in China:

http://www.pkicentral.com/forums/index.php...wtopic=5512&hl=

...and even earlier Japan:

http://www.pkicentral.com/forums/index.php...wtopic=2154&hl=

...have been under discussion/consideration for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The growth potential in China and the east is huge. Mandarin has surpased English as the global language of business. This is probably a smart move for Paramount, keeping their foot in the theme park business without the need for the North American parks. Paramount Pictures always envisioned the parks as a way to promote the movie studio and television side of the business. However slapping the name of a movie onto the side of a roller coaster did not quite convey the message. Paramount never supported the attractions with the capital needed to really have an impact the way that Disney and Universal have done with their attractions. Paramount's most successful attempt at combining movies with with a themed experience is Star Trek: The Experience in Las Vegas. PKI's best attempt was Tomb Raider, but it fell short of expectations. It will be interesting to see how the China park plays out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main difference i see... Is that they would be starting from scratch. Slapping a movie name on a coaster is essentially all they could do in some cases. In most cases rollercoasters dont lend themselves verywell to be highly themed - 'most' cases... not all...

I agree that it will be interesting to see how it plays out.... It will be a 'from the ground up' project no doubt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were going to rip off an existing park's name, I wonder why you'd choose Valleyfair? If I was going to get the lawyers after me, I'd go for broke and call it "Disney" biggrin.gif

The proposed park in China:

http://www.pkicentral.com/forums/index.php...wtopic=5512&hl=

...and even earlier Japan:

http://www.pkicentral.com/forums/index.php...wtopic=2154&hl=

...have been under discussion/consideration for a while.

I saw the japan article last year, and also what about the paramount park thats in europe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paramount Communications bought the KECO parks, and it was a stretch for them at the time to buy the parks they did. We sometimes forget Paramount Communications should get the credit for putting the KECO parks back together. Kings Island was no longer related to the other KECO parks...there was only a management contract with Lindner, and it was in its last year. There was widespread, probably accurate, sentiment that it was not going to be renewed. And, of course, had KI not been included and KECO had sold the other parks, there wouldn't have been much of a KECO to manage KI left for long anyway.

When contracts are not renewed, the major reasons are usually either financial (someone is either paying too much or getting too little in their opinion, or not getting what they are paying for or losing money doing the contract on the other hand). Sometimes the parties just plain old don't like each other, or think they can do a better job elsewhere or even by themselves.

Usually why a contract ends is not talked about. It's considered "proprietary information." Business speak to the rest of us for "none of your business."

As for the theming, I was never there. Perhaps someone here was?

Why did Paramount Parks want to manage it? Probably to make some money and to see if they were good at managing parks in Europe to gain experience and decide if that was something they wanted to do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Did it carry any viacom theming or paramoutn entitys etc. ? Why was the contract not re-newed, why did Paramount parks want to manage it  and when the 5 parks were purchased from KECO, why was Australia's wonderland not purchased?

Australia's Wonderland closed several years ago and demolished. Paramount was not involved with it at that time, and I can't imagine what happened to the KI Zodiac Double Wheel that ended up there. I'd heard that AW was never profitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paramount Communications bought the KECO parks, and it was a stretch for them at the time to buy the parks they did.  We sometimes forget Paramount Communications should get the credit for putting the KECO parks back together.  Kings Island was no longer related to the other KECO parks...there was only a management contract with Lindner, and it was in its last year.  There was widespread, probably accurate, sentiment that it was not going to be renewed.  And, of course, had KI not been included and KECO had sold the other parks, there wouldn't have been much of a KECO to manage KI left for long anyway.

...that brings up some interesting thoughts. Imagine just how vulnerable an independent KI would have been in the 90s with all the consolidation that occurred in the industry. A single, unaffiliated park wouldn't have had the competitive buying power or marketing clout of all the chain parks...it would have been a perfect target for Six Flags during its huge spending spree.

Imagine if that would have happened...Six Flags Kings Island. Kind of gives all the "Paramount haters" pause for thought, huh? wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...