Say good bye too, Geuga Lakes Free Fall!
Lord Gonchar said:
A bunch of crap followed by a smiley.
Is this the point in the thread where one person stands up and starts clapping, and then a crescendo of others join in to make a full blown ovation?
It's the feel-good thread of the summer! ;)
Hi
(for your Emmy consideration :) )
I don't really see anything hypocritical about "selective" preservation. Unlike many people, whether you're talking about buildings, amusement rides, or other memorabilia, I don't believe in preserving everything just because it reaches a certain age.
When it comes to amusement rides, particularly coasters, there should be definite criteria applied to decide what's worth preserving and what's not. First, it should have had a prolonged period of popularity. By that I mean it shouldn't just be the latest "fad" that goes out of style within a few years, or however long it takes the next big thing comes along. We also shouldn't hop on the high horse to save something that wasn't all that popular 30 or 40 years ago anyway.
Second, there should be something unique about the attraction. Coasters that are generally individually designed, particularly those that conform to a given site automatically qualify. Clones and canned products wouldn't. An exception would be the first of a certain genre, or one that was particularly outstanding within its genre. As an example, personally I don't think Boomerangs would be worth preserving-- not every one at least. By the same token, we should make the effort to preserve the last few flat rides of whatever type as they become more rare.
Third, something about the design, construction, or manufacture of the attraction should be noteworthy or unique. Yes, we should try to preserve coasters of certain designers. Same with the first ride to include some notable improvement or advance. The wooden coasters people would like to be preserved were the signature feature of their parks. Could you really say the same about the Free Fall?
Like I said before, preservation SHOULD be a selective process. Not everything is worth keeping indefinitely; if you save everything, the value becomes almost nothing. Parks become the equivalent of the kitchen cabinet that houses all the (useless) cool-whip containers that are saved for some bad reason.
We should welcome the possibilities of the future too. And just hope they aren't all rides that last 30 seconds or less. Hope my little speech didn't bore anybody too much. If it did, TFB!
What I mean is, "Me too".
RatherGoodBear said:
Like I said before, preservation SHOULD be a selective process.
With all due respect, I think you miss the point at the core of my post.
Who makes the selection? Who decides what is important enough to preserve? For example, I'd disagree with a few of your proposed criteria. Am I right or are you when it comes time to 'save the rides'? We've established that it's a very personal decision, not one that will ever be agreed upon across the board.
Then to top it off, what gives any one person or organization that right?
The rides in question in this thread are the property of Cedar Fair. They can piss on them and put up big signs that say "point at the ugly ride and laugh as it rots" and it's nobody's decision but theirs as owners of said property.
I just find interest (and twisted humor) in the whole thing everytime a ride is on the chopping block. Save this, save that, raise awareness, e-mail the park, boycot the park, rent a truck and drive the ride from park to park until someone agrees to take it. The best part is how the sides divide depending on the ride or park in question.
"This ride good. That ride bad."
"No, That ride good, this ride bad"
"No! This ride good and that ride good"
It just struck a chord with me in this thread as people like Rob who I often got the impression was all for preserving rides and the historical or nostaligc, was so blasé in his response, while someone like Tina, for instance, who I normally don't see rallying to 'save the ride' is actually making moves to help get the ride(s) placed somewhere else.
That's not a slam on either of them, I enjoy discussing various issues with them both. It's more of an observation than a challenge.
Like I said before, I profess a general uninterested indifference in cases like this.
So Demon Drop stays. Great, I'll ride it next trip to the Point if I get around to it.
So Demon Drop gets sold. Great, I'll ride it at whatever park it ends up at if I get around to it.
So Demon Drop gets scrapped. Great, I'll ride whatever replaces it if I get around to it.
I'm just along for the ride, I don't pretend to have any say in where we go. :)
For purely sentimental reasons I would love for CP to keep theirs. GLs can go.
As for preservation - they aren't destroying it, just selling it to someone else. What CP/GL don't need (or want) any longer another smaller up-and-coming park would love to have.
It is true that different individuals may have different opinions, and different details in what they consider worthy of preservation.
That said, there are certain broad strokes of a "preservation agenda" that many people can agree on. For example, I think most people could agree that Fallingwater is worth keeping around for its historical significance---it is perhaps the single best example of "organic architecture," designed by the master of the genre. Just seeing that house opens your eyes to all kinds of possibilities about how mankind can live in harmony with nature, rather than insisting on paving it over.
Unless you're tall. Then, the house just seems cramped. ;)
An even easier case: I think most people can agree that preserving the memorial at Dachau is worthwhile.
When it comes to amusement rides, there really aren't that many that even most enthusiasts would agree are historically significant, and even fewer that anyone who is not an enthusiast could possibly care about. I'd put Matterhorn and Leap the Dips in that class, as the first steel and oldest operating coasters, respectively. The first teardrop loop might qualify, too, as the first only moderately-punishing inversion ;).
But, honestly, I'm not sure what else belongs. And, if Disneyland decided tomorrow that they were going to dismantle Matterhorn and replace it with one big combination playground/character dining location, why, I'd be disappointed, but I doubt I'd write a letter or decide I didn't want to go to Disneyland anymore.
The other thing that is interesting about these discussions is that some people really genuinely care. For example, consider the PKI flyers. Flyers are fine. I enjoy them, but I didn't see what the big deal was about PKI's set moving to PCar. But, there were people who were clearly emotionally moved by the decision to do so---it was obvious from their trip reports. A few sounded as though their dog had just been shot. And, lets face it, the average enthusiast TR does not exactly convey emotional depth, making these all the more remarkable/interesting/what-have-you. I'm not talking about the average complainer, mind you, but the people who seem truly touched by the departure of a favorite ride.
I've got a theory about that: for many of us, these parks are connected to important life memories. Perhaps its one of the few things we remember doing with our families from childhood. Maybe it's one of the few times we connect with our own children as people having fun together rather than parent and child. Maybe its just the escapism and true sense of fun one has visiting these places---an increasingly rare commodity. We like to point fingers at the Disney nutcase community, but in some ways they best exemplify what I'm talking about---they consider Disneyland to be their park. Not Disney's. Not even Walt's. Theirs.
Obviously, that's silly. They didn't buy it, and unless they hold a lot more shares than I think they do, their opinions on how the park should be run still leaves them $3.25 short of a churro. But that doesn't change how they feel. It's not rational, it's emotional, and perhaps trying to apply rational arguments to it just won't get us very far.
I'm sure most of us agree it's OK to be selective, but when one person says no one will miss the ride, and that person has gone as far as questioning other members' "true enthusiast" status because of their feelings on other rides/parks, that makes Gonch's point valid.
RatherGoodBear said:
I don't really see anything hypocritical about "selective" preservation.
Want to see what I mean? Watch... "If Conneaut Lake closes, no one will miss it."
Who will take the bait?
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
Anywoo, after I rode it (with the guys, my girlfriends were too chicken**** and only wanted to "shop" anyway) I was BLOWN away, and wanted to ride again right away.
I think we went to the Enterprise and then Gemini before heading back that way. A friend of mine looked up in horror and said "It's stuck!"
I looked up and one of DD's cars was literally "wedged" near the top. Nobody was hurt, but it was fun watching them "un-wedge" it. ;-)
Good times!
Again, I hope SOME park will take either of those. They may not have many fans but I love them.
-Tina
*** Edited 8/17/2005 1:50:13 PM UTC by coasterqueenTRN***
They have more than enough stuff to worry about rather than a high-maintainance ride like this.
To me, this hobby is about emotion. If it weren't, I wouldn't find myself hopping planes and flying across the country to visit amusement parks. Sure, amusement parks are a business, but for some people, they mean more- just like cars are transportation to some people but a passion for others. That's what irritates me about people on this site that speak of nothing but ROI and the bottom line- they fail to understand how amusement parks can touch the lives of people. I like to believe that we are all on this site because we all fall into that category in one way or another.
Rides, and amusements as a broader subject, are a personal pursuit. Some people (such as I) appreciate the nuances of a classic wood coaster and will do anything to see one preserved instead of torn down. There will never be another new Herb Schmeck, John Miller or John Allen coaster so for me, it is important to make sure every last example of their work lives on for current and future generations to enjoy. But when it comes to an Intamin Freefall, I admit to being indifferent. The ride was made by a company still in business and personally, I feel that the ride has been eclipsed by newer versions from that same company and others. While newer CCI, Gravity Group and GCII coasters are all phenominal in their own ways, I don't think they have made Schmeck, Miller and Allen coasters obsolete.
That said, I can completely empathize with those that express upset over Demon Drop and Mr. Hyde being removed. I know how a single ride can make or break an amusement park experience, or at least play an important role in one's desire to visit a particular park. While I think that any effort to convince Cedar Fair to "save" these rides is futile, I know where those people are coming from and wish them the very best of luck in their efforts. I don't care about Intamin Freefalls but I know that others do and I respect that they appreciate those rides enough to care about them on an emotional level. Getting hot and bothered because someone wants to see a ride saved is just plain wrong. Who is anyone to tell someone else what they should or should not be passionate about?
I agree- progress is exciting. However, there are ways to move forward without leaving behind some important things. Dorney didn't have to remove the Iceberg, the Rockets and Journey to the Center of the Earth in order to build Steel Force, Talon and Dominator. PKI didn't have to remove the Flyers to build Italian Job. There is no written rule that says something has to be lost in order for something to be gained (unless your Kennywood and have no place to go, and even they realize the importance of classic rides). Parks like Knoebels, Rye Playland and Lake Winnie are great because they don't make the patron choose- they have old stuff and new stuff and there doesn't seem to be any need to compromise.
Who makes the call when it comes to these kinds of situations? The parks, obviously- after all, they own the land, they own the ride and they employ the people necessary to operate it. That said, the guests that spend money in the park should be made to feel that their opinions are being heard. If you go to a supermarket and complain that they don't carry sushi, they are under no obligation to provide it, but it might be in their best interest to do it. I've seen stores close because they stop carrying items that people went there to buy- again, the stores were perfectly right to decide to stop carrying those items, but it would have ultimately been in their best interest to listen to the customers. And no, I'm not suggesting Cedar Point is going to close because of the removal of Demon Drop- all I'm saying is that the people who go to a park to enjoy a ride like that, and on an emotional level, deserve the right to make themselves heard and be heard by the powers that be.
*** Edited 8/17/2005 3:20:50 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***
I totally agree with you... but being a vocal minority is still a minority, and it doesn't always change the economics of the situation. When the rider to operational cost gets out of alignment, the park is likely to let it go. I know that Cedar Point in particular measures this to the penny. It's a surprisingly data-driven company (or at least it used to be before they lost a lot of good people to Geauga Lake).
Rob Ascough said:
That said, the guests that spend money in the park should be made to feel that their opinions are being heard.
All things considered, they really got their money's worth out of Demon Drop, and it's no secret that it's not exactly packing the queue these days. I'll admit its historical significance to the park, but I'll also admit that I haven't been on it in years. I'll miss the sounds it makes in particular. It always had a very unique sound to it.
The other thing that I recently thought of is that with 68 rides, most of them running every day, it's not impossible to think of the park as having too many rides. For a daily crowd of 30,000 people, that's a lot of attractions when you also add in shows, restaurants and such. The only thing you really have to wait for anymore is Dragster and Millennium Force (and Raptor if you're uninformed enough to ride it in the morning). I can't remember the last time I had a significant queue time for anything else. If your capacity is that good, maybe it doesn't make financial sense to operate and maintain that many rides.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
I can see where "rider to operational cost" makes a lot of sense, and when a rather unpopular ride like the Demon Drop falls on the wrong side of that equation, I'm sure the decision is an easy one to make. I just wonder what happens when a popular ride becomes a victim of those statistics (this is where "passion" comes in).
Since the PKI Flyers topic gets everyone heated, let's create a hypothetical situation... let's say that Kennywood is about to get rid of their Turtle because its rider to operation cost is unfavorable. The ride is costing the park money to keep running but at the same time, it's a very popular ride- one which ranks among park guests' favorites because it is part of the Kennywood experience. The new question is, does the park lose more money by operating a costly ride or removing it and suffering a media backlash?
I worked part-time in retail for many years and one thing I learned was that stores purposely lose money on certain items so that people come into the building and spend money on more profitable things. Perhaps there are rides in parks that should be scrapped because they cost a lot of money to run, but instead should be kept around because they make people happy? Perhaps a slight loss on a ride like Kennywood's Turtle is worth it if it keeps people coming in to ride the more profitable coasters and modern flats?
Like I said, it's obvious that Demon Drop isn't a main draw for the park, but what happens when a main draw falls victim to this kind of thinking?
I suppose Steel Phantom might count, but ridership #s seem to indicate that the re-design was an improvement.
The only thing you really have to wait for anymore is Dragster and Millennium Force (and Raptor if you're uninformed enough to ride it in the morning).
There are a few more if you go on a summer Saturday (or even many weekdays for that matter).
I'd say Knoebels' Jet Star was one of their main attractions when it was removed. Same for Rye Playland's Aeroplane, Epcot's Horizons and Pavilion's Corkscrew.
You must be logged in to post
