Deja Vu officially dead

by **BP317** on March 10th, 2009, 7:36 pm

/\ Indirectly, Six Flags did add the extra seatbelts which slowed down the capacity a lot but they added them because the restraints are pretty weak and have no backup plus being somewhat painful with all your weight on it.

by **stockboy300** on March 10th, 2009, 8:24 pm

I don't Care i still miss it!! It left a thrill ride hole in the park. DK and BB combined would not give me the thrill that Deja Vu gave me.

by **Goku1910** on March 10th, 2009, 9:32 pm

^that's because "thrill" is no longer the objective :roll:

by **onyxhotel08** on March 10th, 2009, 9:38 pm

Let's just say that when the park does decide it is time for the thrills again they realize they better be getting their money's worth for a new coaster and not spend 7.5 million dollars for a ride that many people disliked after the first time. When do you think the park will bring in a new coaster?

A) 2010
B) 2011
C) Later as they will add flats and improve the park in other ways first

by **Goku1910** on March 10th, 2009, 9:54 pm

I'm betting on (3)

Wouldn't it suck if the world really ended 2012?! New coaster year...Ohh, wait, we might not make it to the park that year!

haha, Yeah, I'd concentrate more on park improvements for now...sounds like a good idea since some parts of the park are starting to look bad....particularly the Iron Wolf surrounding Area.

by **CoasterDude12-2** on March 10th, 2009, 10:04 pm

With the way rides are being re-habbed lately (SFNE, SFGADv, SFMM, etc), I wouldn't be surprised if Iron Wolf got a new paint color soon. V2 could also use a paint job. They've got to do something with the Splashwaterfalls and DV area. At worst, put in a few flat rides like they did with Mardi Gras. At best, a floorless or Intamin looping coaster.

by **FParker185** on March 11th, 2009, 5:04 am

I'll choose option A and feel good about it, however however it is without comment or explanation at this time.

by **demonbulleagle** on March 13th, 2009, 6:25 pm

Haha Like I have said before for the SWF spot EUROFIGHTER!

by **FParker185** on March 14th, 2009, 3:01 am

Eurofighter in place of SWF would be sort of a waste of space there, that hunk of land it just to big for something compact like that. I would say stick a EuroFighter where SSA was, although relocation and change being the key, I bet there is a 50% chance give or take that you can fit a big and massive ride where SSA currently stands.

by **stockboy300** on March 15th, 2009, 7:45 pm

Saw - The Ride is a EURO-FIGHTER and it does not look that small. A coaster builder can be asked to do a custom layout for that spot. EURO-FIGHTER looks pretty cool , SW's spot looks big but i think its long not very wide.

by **Goku1910** on March 15th, 2009, 9:25 pm

don't forget, if SFGAM were to put something in that spot....there is also that little car ride and R/C Monster Truck Game. I think that area would become a queue house or something like that.

and including the area surrounding SUF is pretty big.

by **sfgam1** on April 9th, 2009, 8:56 pm

Just thinking about that space it seems pretty small but is actualy kind of big.

by **FParker185** on April 10th, 2009, 1:37 am

Yep, taking out the space shuttle and leaving the Pictorium alone you can draw a straight line from like between Viper and Raging Bull's turnaround all the way out into the parking lot, which right by space shuttle is basically dead space, just a big expanse of those brick pavers. plus the whole area between pictorium and sky trek and that whole area. It's a surprising amount of space. Can fit lots of stuff there.

http://tinyurl.com/d54ag9

by **Ilovthevu'** on October 15th, 2009, 11:47 am

About Shockwave:

demonbulleagle wrote:And the lift motor went to Demon

"and the chain went to SFStL"

I was just reading a trip report, and they said one of the trains went to the Great Escape. So, I guess the 3 trains are at Magic Mountain, Great Adventure, and the The Great Escape. I find it ironic that they didn't keep one for the Demon.

So, Deja Vu was about 3 million to take down, and put back up at Silverwood? To me though, Chang was going down no matter what because they want to expand the waterpark there, and for a Tony Hawk you are also going to have to pay for transportation which I probably don't think the 6.5 million is included in that cost. It could be, but it doesn't sound like it. If you are knocking something down no matter what, can you really include that as SFGAm expense?

I include transportation as expense and construction at SFGAm (getting rid of a ride at SFGAm would be an expense, but yet you would be getting rid of an operations of something else if you have taking out more than one thing), but taking it down at SFKK I wouldn't count because they are taking it down to put something else up.

Either way, the company has to pay for it as in taking it down at SFKK, and reconstucting it at SFGAm. However, in my opinion if you are putting $8 million as the cost of taking it down at SFKK, I disagree with that, because they are taking it down for something they want (a waterpark at that park). If they bought a new LIM 300 ft coaster at SFKK, they would still have to take down Chang to fit it there because obviously they don't care about taking down the Splash Water Falls they have, or Twisted Twins. They want to pretend like they have more.

by **monsterfan99** on October 15th, 2009, 2:06 pm

^ While this has nothing to do with Vu, there is a reason the Twisted Twins area does not come down. If the water park was built there, it would block the path to the large theater, T2 and Blizzard River. Thus with taking out Chang, it allows them to not split that half of the park in two.

by **onyxhotel08** on October 15th, 2009, 2:07 pm

Good point

Deja Vu officially dead

Who is online

Administrator Control Panel