Mark Shapiro Visits Great Adventure - Again

[WadeJ]

I still have the opinion that they need a balance of thrills and family.  This is why I still feel that they are targeting IOA or maybe even Hershey as a resort destination and not Disney.  Yes, Shapiro continues to use Disney but just think about the attention that is getting - its catchy - it grabs our attention right?  Also, it seems that he isn't against changing his way of thinking.  We've already witnessed that with the no-rentry policy. 

Nitro, I have to agree with Gregg there - MANY of the other parks were actually doing worse in the last 2-3 years because they were suffering with no capital.  These parks ALL need the same overhaul that GADV finally started getting the last 2 years.  I think they will finally get it now because they aren't spending the entire capital budget on coasters at 3 or 4 parks at the expense of the other 26.

BUT YES, they still need thrill rides every couple of years.  I can wait 5 years for that

[rjholla2003]

Nitro, if you only knew exactly how spoiled Great Adventure was in 2005, you'd get it. Great Adventure gets a lot of attention, sometimes it's attention that other parks sorely need.  I think that you're looking at this whole thing rather narrow mindedly.  Also, as far as your "what type of parks the chain needs to be" statement, I honestly don't see what you're saying needs to be done that Shapiro isn't planning.  The only thing I see is more of a case of semantics.  You're saying that the chain needs to be a thrill park chain versus a family park chain.  Yet you are stating that there does in fact need to be an increased family focus. 

IMO, Six Flags can never be anything other than a thrill chain because of the way the old SFI bought up the chain.  You can't take the thrills out of Six Flags.  What you can do as the new owners is add a new commitment to the families and give them something to do while the teens and brave members of the families go to add to their conquest.  Make the parks fun for the whole family.  I agree with you that there is no way that Six Flags can go head-to-head with Disney and be a straight, ultra-themed, light thrills, family park.  No one does that better than Disney.  BUT, what Six Flags can do is give you what Disney doesn't.  Six Flags already has the hardware that Disney doesn't -and never will- have.  So the way to beat them is to add as much of a similar experience to that as possible.  Take them to a strange land where everything is fun and simple.  Scare the heck out of them with the world's wildest rides and coasters.  Shake them down (gently) for cash at every corner, and make the experience so fun that they don't even realise it (a la Disney).  You can never replace Disney, so create something that's close to home, and close enough to Disney that it could satisfy the families that are looking for that type of experience at a bit less of a price.

To close out this post, I'll leave you with a quote from my internship seminar at the park today:

"The roller coaster war is over.  We won it.  The only ones left fighting it is us.  We're set on roller coasters for a while.  The future seems to lie with dark rides and simulators."

[PcMan]

That's what my friend said he liked about MGM,Disney,Universal the Simulators (indoor stuff). He loved the coasters at the GAdv park.
Yes some nice indoor air conditioned rides are good for the summer months.

[Nitro1118]

Nitro, if you only knew exactly how spoiled Great Adventure was in 2005, you'd get it. Great Adventure gets a lot of attention, sometimes it's attention that other parks sorely need.  I think that you're looking at this whole thing rather narrow mindedly.  Also, as far as your "what type of parks the chain needs to be" statement, I honestly don't see what you're saying needs to be done that Shapiro isn't planning.  The only thing I see is more of a case of semantics.  You're saying that the chain needs to be a thrill park chain versus a family park chain.  Yet you are stating that there does in fact need to be an increased family focus. 

IMO, Six Flags can never be anything other than a thrill chain because of the way the old SFI bought up the chain.  You can't take the thrills out of Six Flags.  What you can do as the new owners is add a new commitment to the families and give them something to do while the teens and brave members of the families go to add to their conquest.  Make the parks fun for the whole family.  I agree with you that there is no way that Six Flags can go head-to-head with Disney and be a straight, ultra-themed, light thrills, family park.  No one does that better than Disney.  BUT, what Six Flags can do is give you what Disney doesn't.  Six Flags already has the hardware that Disney doesn't -and never will- have.  So the way to beat them is to add as much of a similar experience to that as possible.  Take them to a strange land where everything is fun and simple.  Scare the heck out of them with the world's wildest rides and coasters.  Shake them down (gently) for cash at every corner, and make the experience so fun that they don't even realise it (a la Disney).  You can never replace Disney, so create something that's close to home, and close enough to Disney that it could satisfy the families that are looking for that type of experience at a bit less of a price.

To close out this post, I'll leave you with a quote from my internship seminar at the park today:

"The roller coaster war is over.  We won it.  The only ones left fighting it is us.  We're set on roller coasters for a while.  The future seems to lie with dark rides and simulators."

I do know how spoiled the park has been in past 2 years....2 new coasters, 3 new themed areas....that's just insane (and in a bad way). The face of the chain has to be thrill parks that can appeal to everyone, but the core audience has to be thrill seekers. They can't just be your average park trying to find a perfect balance.

The park can't just stop adding thrill rides and expect people to come back year after year. IOA made this mistake....yes perfect IOA. They were down 15% in attendance the first quarter of this year compared to last year, largly because Disney is kicking their a$$es with brand new rides. Only way to compete is thrill rides. SF will NEVER....NEVER be a mythical type land like you think it can be. There are just far too many parks in the chain to make every one so special without totally neglecting 5 other parks. And once again, as long as things are adequete for families and park quality is high, adding a new coaster/major thrill ride every 3 years or so is perfectly fine. That gives parks enough time to let investment pay itself off. CF has perfected this, with Dorney adding a coaster every 4 years or so, KBF adding major thrill rides every 2 years or so, adding a coaster every 5 or so years to parks that get steady business due to lack of competition nearby, and of course CP. They keep everything thrill oriented, while not going overboard and still appealing to everyone.

As for the quote, that is totally untrue. The coaster war has been reborn. CP with a mjaor new coaster next year, all of the new European coasters, EE, Voyage, etc... Adding dark rides and simulators are good as long as they are top notch, but if they aren't they usually don't do nearly as well as a major flat or coaster. Perfect example is DarKastle at BGW. It is at a true family park, and is better and higher quality than anything SF will ever add, but AC, BBW and Alpie all get longer lines (and have better capacity). Unless you do the dark ride scene totally right and theme it correctly, they don't work out as well as you might expect.

Lastly, you seem to think that I favored SF's old manangement or something. They were worse than Shapiro. While I will tell you that I enjoyed them far more than I will Shapiro (I'm a total thrill junkie, and the past 5 or so years has been heaven) they did waste a TON of money. The problem wasn't buying the coasters and going to be thrill parks, it was buying 3 coasters once the park was boughten, another coaster the next year, neglecting park for years, and leaving park quality (notice I say park quality and not family atmosphere) to the gutters. Perfect example was SFWoA, which had a great first 2 seasons, than just withered away. They didn't let their investments pay themselves off, they bought too many parks too soon, and parks were crap, so they went into huge amounts of debt. But the direction of being thrill parks and totally unique was IMO a good one.

[rjholla2003]

I'm jumping around in this post a bit, so bear with me.

First off, I think Cedar Fair is not learning that the coaster war is over.  Obviously the "bigger, faster" thing is dead with Kingda Ka, at least for now.  With this new coaster, unless CF is adding something else to the park besides this new coaster, I think they are making a mistake.  I wouldn't be suprised to find attendance falling once again this year, and if the coaster is all they're doing, I think it'll just hold it at this year's level versus raising it.  Cedar Point hasn't been adding an experience, just a ride.  Six Flags on the other hand (referring to Gadv really) has been adding a ride, AND an experience.  They are doing what's needed to woo the families and get them back into the park, since that's where the money is.  If you really listen to Shapiro, you will know that the thrills will still be in the chain.  He's not going to change that.  I don't see what the problem is with adding family attractions with the thrills.

You used IOA as an example as a mistake, but you're zeroing in on the thrills.  IOA isn't having problems because they didn't add thrill rides, coasters, family rides, or a single thing since they opened!  You can't let a park stay completely stagnant like that.  If they added some simple family attractions, attendance wouldn't be as bad as it is compared to before.

Also, I think you're thinking of rapid changes as far as how the parks will be if they were to do what I was saying.  You can improve the quality of all the parks and give them a plesant atmosphere without neglecting a lot of parks.  Simple things like a little paint, adding charachters, Brunch with Bugs, the Carrothead Club, and things like that can be added without stretchign the budget.  You can add little things to give yourself enough of a buildup at each park without treating any of them unfairly.  Every park is different and requires a different amount of capital improvements to bring them up to where they need to be, so sometimes things are a bit disproportionate.  They don't need to be as lopsided as 2005 was, but things will not always pan out "equally".  It just has to be fair.

If the park didn't need balance, Cedar Point wouldn't be slipping.  Cedar Fair would not have had a bad year last year.  Six Flags would not be in debt.  Six Flags would not have had what was a good year compared to recent years.  SFWoA wouldn't have near crashed and burned.  SFMM wouldn't have had attendance that was steadily falling as they were adding coaster after coaster after coaster.  Take a real look at your own examples.  A lot of them are clear examples of where balance is being craved.  There is nothing fundamentally wrong with appealing to thrill seakers.  The problem is when you appear *exclusively* to tight-pocketed thrill seakers that usually travel in small groups.  The real money is with loose-wallet familes, even the ones with thrill seakers in them.  Have something for everyone, and get everyone.  Go after one demgraphic and you're eliminating people from your customer base.

Take a look at what you wrote here:

The problem wasn't buying the coasters and going to be thrill parks, it was buying 3 coasters once the park was boughten, another coaster the next year, neglecting park for years, and leaving park quality (notice I say park quality and not family atmosphere) to the gutters.

Guess who you sound like with what you're suggesting is the problem...

[GADVwow]

Well, IOA DID add a flat ride and the Unicorn family coaster.  But, that's it, in all those years! 

Not as an aside, but as part of all this, I really wonder about the path Cedar Fair is now going down.  Stagnant attendance at Cedar Point, they intend to buy Paramount Parks (where Canada's Wonderland is the busiest seasonal park in North America), yet Mr. Kinzel is insistent that Cedar Point is the engine of Cedar Fair and always will be.

I just wonder if we are hearing echoes of a little company called Premier Parks.

Everything goes in cycles.  The great coaster war cycle probably IS about over.  I just hope we don't start seeing major theme and corporate amusement parks closing as we have the small independent parks in the last several years. . .

[sir clinksalot]

Nitro, if all people wanted was thrills out of Six Flags and family fun out of Disney then you would think that SFMM would have no problem brining people in given it's proximity to Disney.

But it's just not that way. While Disney has been packing them in the last few years SFMM has not. Why??? Quality. People were sick and tired of going to the park, finding 1/2 of the rides closed, finding 1 train operation on everything, un-friendly employees, etc, etc, etc.

The nicest Six Flags park I have been to was Fiesta Texas. The park was clean, the rides were all running to capacity, the employees were great, etc, etc, etc. It didn't matter that they only had like 5 or 6 coasters and that they only had 3 (what I would call) good coasters. The only coasters worth riding more than once were Poltergeist, Superman and Road Runner (which IMO is probably the best mine train ever). But it wasn't JUST about the coasters. They had an awesome frisbee, a Scooby Doo dark ride, and a great assortment of flat-rides that it didn't matter that they didn't have 10+ coasters and no record breakers. It was such a 'stress-free' park that none of that mattered. It honestly reminded me of a Busch/Sea World park.

I think this is more of the direction that Six Flags needs to go in. Yes you still need thrill rides, but as we all know teens don't spend the amount of $$ that families do. Of course the parks want to make more $$.

[Nitro1118]

I'm jumping around in this post a bit, so bear with me.

First off, I think Cedar Fair is not learning that the coaster war is over.  Obviously the "bigger, faster" thing is dead with Kingda Ka, at least for now.  With this new coaster, unless CF is adding something else to the park besides this new coaster, I think they are making a mistake.  I wouldn't be suprised to find attendance falling once again this year, and if the coaster is all they're doing, I think it'll just hold it at this year's level versus raising it.  Cedar Point hasn't been adding an experience, just a ride.  Six Flags on the other hand (referring to Gadv really) has been adding a ride, AND an experience.  They are doing what's needed to woo the families and get them back into the park, since that's where the money is.  If you really listen to Shapiro, you will know that the thrills will still be in the chain.  He's not going to change that.  I don't see what the problem is with adding family attractions with the thrills.

You used IOA as an example as a mistake, but you're zeroing in on the thrills.  IOA isn't having problems because they didn't add thrill rides, coasters, family rides, or a single thing since they opened!  You can't let a park stay completely stagnant like that.  If they added some simple family attractions, attendance wouldn't be as bad as it is compared to before.

Also, I think you're thinking of rapid changes as far as how the parks will be if they were to do what I was saying.  You can improve the quality of all the parks and give them a plesant atmosphere without neglecting a lot of parks.  Simple things like a little paint, adding charachters, Brunch with Bugs, the Carrothead Club, and things like that can be added without stretchign the budget.  You can add little things to give yourself enough of a buildup at each park without treating any of them unfairly.  Every park is different and requires a different amount of capital improvements to bring them up to where they need to be, so sometimes things are a bit disproportionate.  They don't need to be as lopsided as 2005 was, but things will not always pan out "equally".  It just has to be fair.

If the park didn't need balance, Cedar Point wouldn't be slipping.  Cedar Fair would not have had a bad year last year.  Six Flags would not be in debt.  Six Flags would not have had what was a good year compared to recent years.  SFWoA wouldn't have near crashed and burned.  SFMM wouldn't have had attendance that was steadily falling as they were adding coaster after coaster after coaster.  Take a real look at your own examples.  A lot of them are clear examples of where balance is being craved.  There is nothing fundamentally wrong with appealing to thrill seakers.  The problem is when you appear *exclusively* to tight-pocketed thrill seakers that usually travel in small groups.  The real money is with loose-wallet familes, even the ones with thrill seakers in them.  Have something for everyone, and get everyone.  Go after one demgraphic and you're eliminating people from your customer base.

Take a look at what you wrote here:

The problem wasn't buying the coasters and going to be thrill parks, it was buying 3 coasters once the park was boughten, another coaster the next year, neglecting park for years, and leaving park quality (notice I say park quality and not family atmosphere) to the gutters.

Guess who you sound like with what you're suggesting is the problem...

I am talking past few years. Of course these past 2 or so years things have been declining with CF. Quality has declined as they add more attractions, that is same problem SF had. But if you go to CP then head over to GADV, you can see what makes CP the better park, even if things are declining. And if you had read Shapiro interviews, he continuously states SF parks are done with thrills for the next 5+ years or so. That is neglecting the ONLY audience the parks have ever generated, and will promote the parks as family parks. That is not SF's forte, and never will be a successful one.

Don't kid yourself, Universal Orlando has had attendance declines in past 3 years or so, even with adding ROTM and different things. A simple dark ride (not referring to ROTM, but in general) can't compete with a HUGE dark ride/coaster hybrid that is EE, or the other countless new attractions at WDW.

Yes, I know that. But if you want things equal or fair at each park and get each park to where they "need" to be, it will be 10 years before GADV gets another coaster, and I guarantee while they will be making more profit, interest in the parks and attendance will sag big time, and those loyal thrill park visitors will now go to CF.

When did I say parks didn't need balance? Of course they need balance, but it can't just stay in the middle of be a 50/50 deal. In one way or another, the direction of the parks has to be either more towards thrill, or more towards family. That is why i said they can't just be ordinary parks looking for perfect balance.And once again, I keep stating I know what SF did wrong in late 90's, early 00's. The idea was a good one, but they did everything WAY too soon (adding over 4 coasters to SFWoA in 2 years and than neglecting the park for 3 is just pathetic, adding so many things to SFMM at once, etc..). They also didn't realize that park quality and customer service needed to be of high quality to make it work. Not necassarily targeting families, but keeping things in tip top shape, whcih is why CP is consistently successful.

I don't know what you are getting at with the quote....





sirclinksalot: You missed my point. I said that the only reason SFMM competed for a few years was the coasters. It definately kept the park competiting. But, coasters attract, while park quality and overall experience bring them back. SFMM's closed rides, dirty park, and bad atmosphere obviously sent a wrong message, which is why Scream was a bust.

I never said SF should only attract teens, but you can be thrill parks and still attract families...

[rjholla2003]

With the quote, I was saying that you sound like Shapiro.  You were basically saying that SFWoA was drugged on coasters, and when the high was gone, so were the visitors.

As I said before, there is no way that Six Flags can have anything other than thrill parks.  That is something that will never change because the thrills are there.  Like it or not, we are truly set on coasters for a while.  At Great Adventure, we can afford to go 5 years without a roller coaster.  That doesn't mean that a drop tower can't be added, an amazing dark ride, or a crazy simulator that competes with Mission: Space.  With the thrills already built up, the thrill seakers will still come.  If you bring in the families as well, the attendance will increase, the per-capita spending will increase, guest satisfaction will increase since everyone has something to do.  Good publicity follows, along with good word of mouth.  I honestly don't see where you see any of that as a bad move.  Yes being coaster-stagnant for 5 years or so can make thrill seaker attendance drop a bit.  BUT, if you add non-coaster thrill rides you can stem this.  Also, a lot of that thrill seaker crowd are teenagers that end up comign alone because their family doesn't want to "waste their time" at a Six Flags park.  Cater to them as well, and now you've got 4, 5, 6 customers instead of just one stingy kid.  It's stilla thrill park, but it's got that family appeal. 

To sum it all up, your fears of a non-thrill SFI will never coem to fruition unless Snyder and Co. decide to tear out all the coasters.  You can not take the thrill out of Six Flags at this point.  That is what makes the chain what it is.  BUT, that does not mean that you can not successfully cater to families by adding to the entertainment package, building more family attractions, making better quality food, and improving the atmosphere to a level that you do indeed emotionally transport the park visitor to a place where they are care-free and money isn't an object.

[Nitro1118]

With the quote, I was saying that you sound like Shapiro.  You were basically saying that SFWoA was drugged on coasters, and when the high was gone, so were the visitors.

As I said before, there is no way that Six Flags can have anything other than thrill parks.  That is something that will never change because the thrills are there.  Like it or not, we are truly set on coasters for a while.  At Great Adventure, we can afford to go 5 years without a roller coaster.  That doesn't mean that a drop tower can't be added, an amazing dark ride, or a crazy simulator that competes with Mission: Space.  With the thrills already built up, the thrill seakers will still come.  If you bring in the families as well, the attendance will increase, the per-capita spending will increase, guest satisfaction will increase since everyone has something to do.  Good publicity follows, along with good word of mouth.  I honestly don't see where you see any of that as a bad move.  Yes being coaster-stagnant for 5 years or so can make thrill seaker attendance drop a bit.  BUT, if you add non-coaster thrill rides you can stem this.  Also, a lot of that thrill seaker crowd are teenagers that end up comign alone because their family doesn't want to "waste their time" at a Six Flags park.  Cater to them as well, and now you've got 4, 5, 6 customers instead of just one stingy kid.  It's stilla thrill park, but it's got that family appeal. 

To sum it all up, your fears of a non-thrill SFI will never coem to fruition unless Snyder and Co. decide to tear out all the coasters.  You can not take the thrill out of Six Flags at this point.  That is what makes the chain what it is.  BUT, that does not mean that you can not successfully cater to families by adding to the entertainment package, building more family attractions, making better quality food, and improving the atmosphere to a level that you do indeed emotionally transport the park visitor to a place where they are care-free and money isn't an object.

Where Shapiro and I differ in  opinions is that while we both want high quality parks, he wants high quality family parks while I believe the parks would be most successful as high quality thrill parks. he wants to change the aura of the parks, while I feel the aura is perfectly fine as long as other things ar ein tip top shape.

You can't add 5 coasters in 7 years, 3 new sections, and over 25 thrill rides, a waterpark, and go 5 years with only adding family rides and things like shows. This is for the major parks....SFMM, GADV, SFGAm, SFOG, etc... For the neglected parks over the years, those additions will be peachy as many of them do not compete with high caliber parks and get consistent attendance because of it. But at the big 6 or 7 parks, attendance will take a major hit. Shapiro is trying to change the face of the company by neglecting thrill rides for many years, and despite how many coasters we got now, people are attracted to new things. And I have never seen a family choose a park liek Dorney over GADV because lack of family attractions. The 3 SF parks I have been to all had a very good amount of family attractions, but like my dad says..."Coasters are down, lines are long, park is dirty, food is overpriced and sucks...why do we go to GADV and not Dorney?" That is the general feel I get throughout different families, and different people on the internet.

Trying to mindwash a person to think money is not a concern just won't work. You won't get people spending Disney money at say SFNE, as SFNE isn't a resort. You need to be a resort to really do that, which is the only reason BGA and BGE get such good business. SF doesn't need to be more family, every SF park has enough to do for families. They have to cleanup the parks, improve theming/landscaping, make them parks and not just thrill ride assortments, and not compulsively buy coasters if attendance starts decling at major parks. What old manangement failed to realize was that in order to keep attendnace up without adding coasters was to give them an experience that was a positive one where everything seemed perfect in operations and park quality, whether you are a thrill seeker or family. But, adding coasters is SF's golden ticket, and the group they attract is one that no other company truely has. That makes SF unique, they just have to take a different approach to achieving the same thing. Shapiro wants something totally different.

[rjholla2003]

have you ever been to Dorney Park?  All I hear when I'm in line there is how Great Adventure sucks because of a lack of family rides (which Dorney has), unnecessarily long lines (Which Dorney lacks), better atmosphere (I disagree when it comes to Gadv this season versus Dorney last season), and cleanliness (Dorney won there last year, Gadv is pretty clean this year).  People didn't care that the coasters at DP are smaller and less thrilling because they felt that Dorney Park had a much better experience than Great Adventure did.  Coasters are not, and will not, be the be all and end all of a chain.  Coasters can only take you so far, and if the old SFI didn't teach us that, I don't know who will.

I guess the main reason that we disagree here is because you seem to be convinced that the whole chain will become ultra family.  I on the other hand look at the Six Flags that exist today and do not see who they can be anything other than thrill parks.  I see the future under Shapiro being a chain of thrill parks that the whole family can enjoy.  The thrill will never be gone from Six Flags.  This chain is the leader in thrills.  They are the innovators.  They are on the forefront.  It's too engrained in the chain to remove that.  When I listen to Shapiro, I hear someone who is willing to build around that instead of tryign to tear it down.

[Dubya91]

So far I have been liking the things Shapiro has been doing, walking around the parks himself, holding confrences, making the atmosphere better, and also planning ahead for the future. You never saw Burke walking around the parks when he was the ringleader. As for Shapiro, he is what I can see happening, He learns fast from mistakes and fix them right? So If he decides to go Ultra-Family, which it sounds, he will learn that he just cannot make his biggest demograph (Thrill Riders) disappear, he will get that perfect, beautiful balance of Family and Thrill rides, the idea Burke was finally starting to grasp. But It gets better, not only will it be balanced but it will be well planned out and not a half ass project, it will run much smoother. The only disadvantage I can see to planning well ahead in the future is the coasters available, if I plan for 10' in 06', The coaster I plan to build may be outdated, but i suppose it can be easily substituted. Anywho, I think that with Shapiro in charge, SF has a bright future, remember he WANTED this job and will NOT accept failure

[PcMan]

WOW
a lot of good reading

Things are getting better

[Nitro1118]

have you ever been to Dorney Park?  All I hear when I'm in line there is how Great Adventure sucks because of a lack of family rides (which Dorney has), unnecessarily long lines (Which Dorney lacks), better atmosphere (I disagree when it comes to Gadv this season versus Dorney last season), and cleanliness (Dorney won there last year, Gadv is pretty clean this year).  People didn't care that the coasters at DP are smaller and less thrilling because they felt that Dorney Park had a much better experience than Great Adventure did.  Coasters are not, and will not, be the be all and end all of a chain.  Coasters can only take you so far, and if the old SFI didn't teach us that, I don't know who will.

I guess the main reason that we disagree here is because you seem to be convinced that the whole chain will become ultra family.  I on the other hand look at the Six Flags that exist today and do not see who they can be anything other than thrill parks.  I see the future under Shapiro being a chain of thrill parks that the whole family can enjoy.  The thrill will never be gone from Six Flags.  This chain is the leader in thrills.  They are the innovators.  They are on the forefront.  It's too engrained in the chain to remove that.  When I listen to Shapiro, I hear someone who is willing to build around that instead of tryign to tear it down.

Yes, many times. I never hear anything about how there is more to do at Dorney than GADV for family. I do hear it is cleaner, better atmosphere, and lesser lines, along with being run better, but never more for family to do (if they do say that, it is because of the free waterpark). GADV has far more to do for family, but Dorney is a much cleaner and overall nicer park because the way it operates, but not because the main focus is thrills.

If you go 5 years with going towards all family and no thrill, the face of the chain changes. The direction changes. The thrill seekers WILL stop going. You can't be the forefront of thrills if you start changing direction of chain from thrills to family. As I said before, it is one or the other. You can have a balance, but it has to be a gradual thing. Add a coaster in 2008, add a family ride in 2010, add a coaster in 2012, add a dark ride in 2013, etc... You can't just take off 5 years from thrills, go in the totally opposite direction, and expect that crowd to stay loyal while competing parks are beating you in new thrills.

And as I keep saying, all the SF parks need is to imrpove park quality, and if there is a lack in family fun, definately add that. But, SF's big thing is thrills, and you just can't discontinue that, it has to be a gradual blend of thrills and family.

[rjholla2003]

I'll modify that one part of my last post.  Dorney itself definitely has less for families to do than Great Adventure does.  But with Wildwater Kingdom thrown in there, it's a very formidable opponent.

When I think of restoring the balance, I think of taking maybe 3 years off of coasters, and then when you do add them, theme the crap out of them.  In the years inbetween, focus on cleaning up the park, adding the family attractions, creating a better atmosphere.  Getting more street performers.  Creating new entertainment choices.  Maybe during our next "coaster turn" , we can have a non-coaster thrill ride added instead.  Maybe a larger version of the Screamin' Swing, a drop tower, or a state of the art simulator that will make you feel like you stepped into Disney.  When Kingda Ka was added, that was the right thing to do.  Add the thrills right with the family attractions.  Give everyone a reason to come to the park.

[Nitro1118]

I personally hate many of the new things like street performers at the parks, But I do not speak for everyone, so I guess they are a good addition. The best thing SF has done this year with the parks is improve the quality of the parks, exactly what they did last year, and what go them increased attendance last year. Landscaping, getting places like Papa John's, repaintings, new signs, etc... But I could definately do without the billions of characters I saw back in April.

I'm done with this discussion, as it's reaching its end anyway. Nice debating, and we will all have to keep a close eye the next few years on what they do with the parks.

[sir clinksalot]

Nitro, I hate to keep disagreeing with you ... but ...

As far as us coaster nuts are concerned ... yes ... a lack of new coasters is not what we would want.

But for the vast majoriy of society they are looking for well-rounded days.

As much as I like thrills I can't do looping ride, after looping ride, after looping ride. After awhile I get a headache and need to go on something calmer.

As it is with most people.

[OrlandoRocks]

I personally hate many of the new things like street performers at the parks, But I do not speak for everyone, so I guess they are a good addition. The best thing SF has done this year with the parks is improve the quality of the parks, exactly what they did last year, and what go them increased attendance last year. Landscaping, getting places like Papa John's, repaintings, new signs, etc... But I could definately do without the billions of characters I saw back in April.

I also can not stand the street performers at the parks. I can see having the Warner brothers characters around the park for the children, but what demographic are the reaching out with the DC figures ? It's bizarre seeing the characters walking around in themed areas where they shouldn't be in. I guess I am used to Disney or Universal were they station the characters to their particular themed areas not just walking around randomly in the park. Then we get to the miscellaneous characters such as the party patrol and other strange figures that tour the park, these insignificant positions should be eliminated and relocated to the most vital positions in the parks. Everyone complains about closed rides, security booths shutting down, not enough ride operators and that is where they should take the staff from.

Good thing they shut down the petting zoo that bothered me too. Who goes to six flags to ride a horse around in a circle for five bucks give me a break 

[rjholla2003]

Nitro, it's always fun debating with you.

I can see why it would annoy people to see charachters in areas that they don't really fit in, but at the same time I don't really see that on a daily basis.  I only see the DC charachters in Movietown with the exception of meet and greets on Main Street.  But that is the entrance of the park so it's forgiven IMO.  I only see the Looney Toons within LTSP and BBNP, and Main Street. Again, Main Street is forgiven.  There are more streetmosphere charachters that do fit each individual portal, but they don't stand out as much since they don't seem to have a solidified position yet.  I think that will get better throughout the season, and definitely throughout the years. 

As far as Great Adventure is concerned, take a serious look at the park.  Think about how many rides you see closed on a daily basis.  The ratio of closed rides to open rides is extremely good.  Yes, there is room for improvement, but their always is.  Now think about this:  The park has had that many rides open on a daily basis during the hardest time period to do so.  The minors can only work weekends, the femployees from Thiland are going home soon, or already left.  College students are still returning.  This is when the park traditionally struggles, yet most rides were open.  The park is running low on people, yet the only consistently closed rides are Movietown Water Effect, Riptide (still somewhat early for water rides, despite the warm weather), El Toro (opening next week!) Spinmeister, and now The Chiller.  IMO that's really good for a park that has near 70 rides and attractions to only have 5 attractions closed on a daily basis.  It will only get better from this point on, because the employees will start to come in.

[stew560]

I only see the DC charachters in Movietown with the exception of meet and greets on Main Street.

It was a little weird the time I saw the Flash walking through KK's station waving to people.

I agree the Streetmosphere characters are a little much sometimes, but even the annoying Party Patrol (L.O.L.) get a crowd to gather (mainly children) whenever they come around on their Golf Cart. I too would like to see them be contained in their respective areas. It would just make more sense.

IMO that's really good for a park that has near 70 rides and attractions to only have 5 attractions closed on a daily basis.

The problem is that those 5 attractions are out of how many THRILL attractions in the park? From an Thrill Seeking Enthusiast point of view, you need to cut out the dozens of Kiddie Rides and the Shows as well when you make that analysis. Personally, I agree 5/70 is a good ratio, but when those 5 are important to you, and 45 of the 70 are not, you see where I am going with this...

[rjholla2003]

I definitely do, especially when Spinmeister is one of my favorites.

[stew560]

OffTopic, but just an FYI - From what I've heard, Spinmeister is not going to be back this season...

[PcMan]

I like the PP  Party Patrol.
THey put smiles on faces.
It makes the wait times in line move along faster and less boring.
I know I was in line at Medusa and they came out from the fenced in door area and had about 30 people dancing and having fun.
I'm to old to be embarrassed lifes to short
I know it's corny but the word is FUN.

[peterpjr]

Rather off topic I realize but does anyone have Mr. Shapiro's email address?

thanks

[GADVwow]

Even if they do, you might want to consider writing a snail mail letter instead.  Letters on paper get far more attention and are more apt to produce the desired results.