What do you think will happen to all of Magic Mountain's coasters?

I would not like to see the Mountain go, even though I live in MD. I wouldn't mind seeing such places as SFEG, EV, etc. go, but not the Mountain. Here's what I posted in a news thread:

The Mountain should stay. It is their only park that they keep open year-round, so it's pretty much the only one bringing in money year-round. It's also the second-most attended, so why would they sell that?
Let's not jump the gun here. Perhaps they will just sell some of the land around the Mountain. FWIW, they look like they are putting in some sort of shopping center or something across MM Pkway from the front gate.

SFMM could definitely use some work, though. They have some old stuff sitting around the park that's not being utilized, such as the monorail and Orient Express. They have a lack of flats as well. What they should do is kick maintenance into high gear, add another children's area, along with some flats, and combine SFMM with SFHH. SFGam is doing well--perhaps they can use that as a pattern for SFMM (included waterpark, more than one kids area, more flats).

---

Swoosh said:
^Tatsu would be the only loss.

---

I, too, find it sad that Ninja, Gold Rusher, and Revolution could so easily be written off by certain enthusiasts.
Pretty amazing statment to read here, Swoosh. What a loss that would be if that ever did happen...

I mean, by that standard, why not just remove *all* arrow suspendeds, or mine trains? I mean, no big loss, right? *** Edited 6/23/2006 4:00:22 PM UTC by matt.*** *** Edited 6/23/2006 4:04:31 PM UTC by matt.***

All three of the coasters you mentioned, matt., are great rides. Ninja is especially fun.

^No kidding. And even if they were just *ok* rides, or mediocre rides, why shouldn't there be a place for that in the world? I mean, really the vast majority of coasters somewhat fit into that category, dontcha think?

Not saying that whatever happens to these coasters is a good business decision or a bad one. Just saying if there's a day when people (families!) can't enjoy these rides together, that's a shame.

I still can't believe all of the folks I see who whine "that ride isn't thrilling." What is wrong with a ride simply being entertaining and fun? If you want a "thrill" go skydiving.

Or go on the more thrilling coasters at whichever park you are visiting. Just about every major park in the country has at least 2 or 3 truly great coasters, but they also have a...you know...supporting cast of others. I mean, what would be the point of having 14+ coasters and every single one being a mega thrill ride?

I mean, Cedar Point wasn't built in 1989, you know?

The fact that there has been very little outcry on this board about the possiblity of a mega coaster park closing just goes to show how much this park has alienated all facets of their targeted audience (could you imagine what would happen if CF anounced CP was closing.)

That being said I really hope this park doesnt close, ever since I read about Superman for the first time its been on my list of places to go. I realize that the park right now is in bad shape, but I cant believe that SF is ready to unload one of their three "flagship" parks over this. If the new management actually goes through with this, they will have lost my support.

I realize that parks need to be family oriented but what Sharpie needs to realize is that the ride most associated with an amusement park is the roller coaster. A park without a roller coaster is not a park, its a carnival, and families do in fact enjoy riding them. It is becoming apparent to me that the new mangement just may be out to turn Six Flags into Kiddieland USA, which will take out thrill rides and let coasters fall into diseray/bulldoze them to that end.

However, the big problem in all of this is that in the end Kiddieland USA is a failed business model because there comes a point in every family's life where the kids arent content with riding Convoys and mine trains anymore and believe it or not when that happens long before the teen years (8-10) and only focusing on that segment of the population is severly limiting your audience.

Sharpie needs to realize that he is not going to be able to copy Disney, for one thing their rareity makes them a destination park, and for another they have 50 years of advertising that have engrained in our subconcious that they are the ultimate family destination. While the thrill seakers do include teens, it also includes pre teeens, college kids, young adults (who have lots of money to spend,) a fair amount of adults and of course enthusiasts. If he really wanted to kick the teens out of SF he should raise Season Pass prices and single tickets while giving a very nice discount for buying multiple tickets or make all children 10 and younger free.

---

Touchdown said:

I realize that parks need to be family oriented but what Sharpie needs to realize is that the ride most associated with an amusement park is the roller coaster.

---

I agree with this, but here's the problem:

SFMM already has a buhzillion roller coasters. Attracting families back to the park when you are sharing part of a market with Knott's, Universal, and the 2 ton gorilla that is Disney, is going to take some serious realingment, money, and time.

I think it is wise for SFMM to do some counter-programming with the thrill heavy line up, but there should have been a point where somebody said "Geez, guys, enough is enough."

SFWOA anyone?

I don't think Shapiro is trying to copy Disney. I just think he's trying to see what they are doing right and try to learn from some of that magic. Because yet another multimillion dollar coaster just isn't going to get the job done. *** Edited 6/23/2006 4:57:27 PM UTC by matt.***

^I dont disagree but selling SFMM isnt going to help, SFWOA failed because not only did SF try to make it a thrill park, they made it in CP's backyard. There is a market for parks with thrill rides (which SFMM has) on top of family rides, there just isnt a market for parks with strictly thrill rides.

Agreed. The park is fixable. Its just a matter of how much money and time it would take. Six Flags doesn't really have much of either.

It's a bit too early to even speculate about what may happen to SFMM's rides & coasters should the park close...heck we're still waiting to see what will happen to the astroworld relocations that were made when that park closed.So far the three coasters SF kept from that park are still sitting in fields or parking lots rotting when they could be put up within the next season or two.

SFMM could very well be a candidate for being sold as it has become of balance as being a thrill only park,thus lacking the needed selection of family rides to cater to everybody in the region,SF went too far in trying to obtain a coaster record just to draw in the teenage crowd/enthusiasts while alienating the family crowd by removing or not adding attractions to cater to them as well.While we tend to view SF & parks in general from an enthusiast standpoint Shapiro views it as a business & the sole purpose of any business is to make a profit for the owners & shareholders first & foremost & right now SFMM simply isn't succeeding at this goal.

---

Swoosh said:
^Tatsu would be the only loss.

---

That's pretty narrow-minded. What's wrong with a ride if it isn't thrilling? There's a lot of history in Gold Rusher, Revolution, and Ninja. Tatsu isn't much of a loss as the flying coaster is still evolving and there are certainly many more to come. But we don't really see Schwarzkopf loopers being built, or purely fun Arrow suspendeds being built. History is a part of coasters too. I don't think it's all about the thrill.

Here's to having hope that someone buys at least Ninja and Revolution while they're still at the mountain.

SoCal already has MANY "family" parks. They should just keep MM and continue to market it as a thrill park, it's succesful as one, and would continue to be with the proper marketing and changes that park could be brining in more money annually then the land there sitting on.

We haven't heard the outcry yet because it is only 10:30 am in the West Coast and those fanboys aren't awake yet.

At least we have something else to talk about now.

Does anyone actually know if/how succesful this park is? I mean, even if it is the second highest attendance in the chain, that doesn't make it a profitable park (if they have to keep it open year round and maintain/run 17 coasters).

First off, Sharpie does not need to worry about stepping on Disney's toes in LA. Magic Mountain is so far on the other end of the spectrum when it comes to family attractions, Disney is not even an issue. With all the talk about Six Flag's new family focus, I have yet to see a new family attraction built on Sharpie's watch, and I don't expect to. I think he's full of hot air.

The idea that the Mountain needs to stay away from family style attractions is what got this park in trouble to begin with. This park, more than any I've been to, is so focused on the narrow demographic of teenage coaster fans that there is little else for anyone outside the demographic to do. I'm surprised so many parents are willing to drive so far to drop their teenage coaster fans off, while parents try to find something else to do in Valencia.

What is the down side of a park offering family attractions? The original purpose of amusement parks is to provide families a place to have fun together. If your park doesn't do that, then what's the point of your park if it doesn't want to attract families?

SoCal has too many amusement parks? Someone should tell Orlando they've got too many family attractions.

Magic Mountain is off balanced in their attraction focus. The park simply needs to stop running noncoaster fans out of their park. By strategically installing a few family attractions, (dare I say a well advertised dark ride) the targeted demographic will slowly change. In ten years time we could be singing praises for the Mountain instead of casually anticipating its demise. *** Edited 6/23/2006 5:57:15 PM UTC by rc-madness***

They should all be relocated to the new extreme park, Six Flags New Orleans!

Besides, we need them more than anyone. :-)

---

calcajun said:
They should all be relocated to the new extreme park, Six Flags New Orleans!

Besides, we need them more than anyone. :-)

---

Now now, that just won't work.

If the Flying Dutchman in Efteling has taught us anything, it's taught us that roller coasters just -don't work- underwater =)

But we have new flood gates and pumping stations!

Kinda.

LOL

Isn't Louisiana just considered the ocean now anyways?

You can't build coasters in the ocean.