Two more out the door at Geagua Lake?
Huh? B&M with or without a MCBR has anything to do with...what?
CHILLERLC1 said:
It's a joke that GL has a B&M with a MCBR, a non MCBR one would be a better fit, but this ride is what puts GL on the map. I think Dominator should stay. If anything I wouldn't mind seeing Thunderhawk go.
Um. What?
I could sure use a nice view of the lake that makes Geauga Lake somewhere on the ride side.
PsychoMonkey61 said:
makes a lot more sense to me to take out raging wolf bobs, head spinner, double looper (or whatever its called) and any other older ride and leave the two signature rights in there. I can see the removal of xflight and venom but It would make more sense to remove the older rides to lower the operating costs and leave dominator and thunderhawk.
RWB and Head Spin are hardly what I would call old and Double Loop has always been the "It was my first looping coaster" coaster.
Lord Gonchar said:
Wait, I'm confused.
We're saying returning GL to what it was before SF moved in (or as close as possible at this point) is a bad thing?
I don't understand enthusiasts.
Couldn't have said it better myself, Gonch. :) I love Dom as much as everyone else but I have better things to cry over. ;) So what if Dom is going to KD? As long as Dipper is still there that's all that matters. :) I am actually interested in seeing what they can do with the park to get it back (or close to) it's pre-chain days.
I know one thing. Geauga Lake should go down in the record books for the park that has changed the most in seven years (owners, names of stuff, look, waterpark/animal park, no animal park, etc.) :)
-Tina
*** Edited 8/28/2007 10:31:00 AM UTC by coasterqueenTRN***
So... why does Geauga Lake keep their ride removals so secret? The GP probably isn't screaming at each other over what a great business decision it is to remove them, so they are left in the dark. And for the few diehards that GL still has, wouldn't it be a nice gesture to say "Hey, Oktoberfest weekend will be your last chance to ride Dominator and Thunderhawk. Come and get your last rides while you can"? Why do people have to find out about these two coasters coming down when they drive past the park and see them being dismantled?
I realize there's a perfectly good reason for everything CF does though, so I'm sure someone will tell me to just "get over it" and that if I "don't like it, don't go".
Ray P. (edited for grammar) *** Edited 8/28/2007 12:01:02 PM UTC by ProgRay***
Vater said:
Huh? B&M with or without a MCBR has anything to do with...what?
I'd assume the idea is SF installed a huge B&M coaster with a MCBR because they thought the crowds would warrant 3 train operation.
Oh yeah, in the CP/Kennywood case, the parks were replacing the rides with new ones. So, bringing press to a ride removal actually added press to a new ride coming. If Geauga Lake were to advertise the removal of four rides without the mention of anything new, the public perception would be quite negative I assume. That's something Geauga Lake doesn't need.
I can almost buy into the over-expanded Six Flags thing, yet I still fail to see how removing two more coasters will help.
Yeah, I like the Big Dipper, but I like Dominator more.
I see prime lakefront real estate in the future of the ride-side.
Great Lakes Brewery Patron...
-Mark
Attendance will even shrink more on the ride side. Who cares whether you have 6 or 10 roller coasters. I depends on who many roller coasters the GP actually LIKES, and doesn't think they are rough. People went to the park like mad when SF owned the park. The reason is because SF added stuff, and people wanted to know who the park was. People didn't like the added attractions along with the other rides they had, and thus we have this park. It's like opening a store. People go there the first time, and they want to see if that store is any good. They may or may not come back to the store.
It all depends on there first impressions. This park would have been fine with SF if they tore down the right roller coasters the park had (Raging Wolf Bobs, Thunderhawk, and Head Spin-It's rough even though I like it.), and if they bought the right roller coasters (A mega coaster, and a Inverted coaster). They were right on three roller coasters, but the other two were bad choices.
The great paradox of expecting both #1 and #2 to happen is that in the very nature of what you suggest (downsize in step #1, add new draws in step #2), the effects cancel each other out."
Not necessarily.
If you remove 4 "thrill" coasters and add 1 new coaster (preferably geared to the crowd you believe you can attract to Geauga Lake) you have both downsized and added a new attraction.
And replacing coasters with flats also accomplishes both--assuming the flats cost less to operate than the coaster they are replacing.
This Isn't A Hospital--It's An Insane Asylum!
As I said earlier, the public perception of the ride side isn't very positive. I heard several comments on Sunday that justify the way I feel.
edited to fix ^^ *** Edited 8/28/2007 2:30:19 PM UTC by zcorpius***
I'm sure some people around here have the real scoop on what's going on. I don't. And that's fine. But while some of us may have all the answers, the rest of us are left to hypothesize and speculate, and when I see four major roller coasters removed from a park, I can't help but assume the writing is on the wall. I don't see this as a way of hitting the rewind button, I see it as the precursor to a wholesale slaughter of the rides side of the park, and perhaps the whole complex in general. Maybe I'm wrong. If I am, I couldn't be happier. But removing everything, even mediocore steel coasters like Thunderhawk and Head Spin doesn't inspire much confidence as far as I'm concerned. Those rides were added before the park was "flagged", so removing them is not rewinding to 1999, it's rewinding to the early 90's. That wouldn't be a bad idea, except the local and regional competition has grown much stronger since then. Cedar Point, Kings Island and Kennywood are arguably better parks than they were in the early 90's. A 1990 Mustang GT is a nice car but it's not as nice a car when you're comparing it to a 2008 Mustang GT.
Someone said that CF purchased the park in an attempt to smother the competition for its flagship park and I really believe that to be the case. SFO/SFWoA was poised to give Cedar Point a run for its money so when Six Flags looked to unload the park, CF saw a golden opportunity. The park had the potential to steal a lot of guests from Cedar Point and had numerous cutting edge coasters that could be distributed to other CF properties. The fact that the park's bones are being picked without anything new being done doesn't seem like a good thing to me. There is downsizing, and then there is a fire sale. This sure seems like the latter. And until I have a reason to believe otherwise, that's my stance... agree or disagree all you want, I'm not changing my mind.
I'd love to see Geauga Lake with the Dipper, a reborn Villain, a few small steel coasters, some older-style flats and a darkride, but is that going to happen? Going by the looks of things right now, I'm guessing no.
To me, that means there was something going on that we don't know about and they wanted out of the park.
Sea World and Geauga Lake worked great together for what they were. Those two parks complemented Cedar Point - not necessarily competed with it. They altered the equation too much and what they had left just didn't work. I think it's too late to get back the great formula that existed before.
It's not like Geauga Lake was completely behind the times and wouldn't have added new coasters if SF hadn't entered into the picture.
Well, there's a lot of variables there. We have no idea what they'd have done and what would've happened with Sea World and how it may or may not have affected GL. There's no way of knowing.
What I do know is that from 1979 until SF bought the park that GL only added three coasters - in 1988, 1996 and 1998. And those two coasters in the 90's were off-the-shelf rides (and probably the only reasonable answer to the 'coaster wars' of the time that they could do)
The point is, GL as it stands doesn't work. SF knew it & sold for chump change and CF knows it and is either getting the hell out or trying to fix it depeding on your perspective.
At this point I honestly don't think they're running from the property or smothering it and salvaging rides for other parks. I think they're still trying to find the optimal groove.
I don't think parks need to add new attractions (especially 'marquee' attractions) every couple of years. And going back to Captain Hawkeye's two part plan, I suspect rather than pursuing #1 and #2 simultaneously, they're taking care of #1 now and when that's finished will start with #2.
And who knows, maybe the big ol' combined park thing is just a bad idea? Seems like it so far. Perhaps the best move is consolidation to one side of the property? And given that all that new waterpark investment is on the SW side and that the GL side is roadfront property - I think it's a safe bet as to which side is the better choice. Hell, maybe that was the long-term plan all along. Who knows?
All I know is that removing the stupid investments that SF put in at the time seems like a great move to me.
(odd that I'm arguing for the small park and Rob is looking for growth on this one :) )
Closed topic.
