New article confirms closure of 3 rides

[thecoasterguy]

For anyone claiming that Great America is marketing to the wrong demographic, visit some parks outside of the area -- King's Island is a perfect example. So is any Disney park. They aren't attracting a thrill seeker demographic only and they aren't hurting for business. Someone else pointed out what has been done at King's Island, but for comparison since some of you actually believe that the thrill seekers come out like families do...

The last big "thrill" ride that Disneyland built was Indiana Jones, in 1995. The re-opening of Space Mountain I don't personally count, but if you want to, then you have that in 2005. Compare this to Magic Mountain which built a new roller coaster every year from 1997-2003, as well as another in 2006 (including the tallest, fastest of most of these rides).

Notice that Disneyland is open daily. Magic Mountain is not. In fact, from what it sounds like, a *LOT* more people visit Disneyland on an average day than they do Magic Mountain.

Seems to me, especially since the thrill seeking strategy was definitely not working, that the family idea has been proven to work better.

Along with that, the general public isn't going to give a darn that Deja Vu was taken out because most of them never rode it thanks to the excessive wait time and constant break downs. Sure, some enthusiasts and locals were willing to spend two hours waiting in line for it just in case they could ride it, but most people didn't want to wait that long to ride it when you could get on any other ride in the park in a shorter period of time.

The opening of the new ride next year means that the capacity will be higher, I would expect it to have less break downs, and I doubt more than a handful of the general public will miss Deja Vu. I personally don't know of one person who was disappointed to hear that it was going away, and literally everyone who I have talked with about the Dark Knight is very excited about it.

I'd say it's all a good move. Business wise and park wise. And that if you really don't get that, or if you don't want to ride the 10 or so major coasters at the park, vote with your pocketbook and don't show up. But I have a hunch that most people will start voting with their pocketbooks in the opposite direction. Besides, unlike Deja Vu, I will wait for the Dark Knight on a regular visit, so I'd be happy if you weren't in line in front of me.

[Demon_07]

I've driven past that chuck e cheeses. Thats interesting they show superstition there.

[Mr. SFGAm]

I go to SFGAm with a group of my friends from high school at least once every year. None of them have ever ridden Deja Vu, and not a single one of them was disappointed to hear about it's removal. I go to SFGAm on average of at least 4 times a year(some times more), and I've only ridden DV three times; once in 04, and twice in 05. Generally, my friends, as well as I would rather go and ride Bull, BTR, or Viper twice in the time it would take to just wait in line for Vu. All three times I've ridden it, the wait was around 15 mins, with a line that was not even out of the station.
I believe that alot of people(like me) just didn't feel like waiting in that slow, agonizing line when there are 11 other coasters in the park, with lines not even near half as long.

My brother is one of the few people I know that has actually ridden Deja Vu, and he's ridden it only two times ever, and both of those times occured on the same day this past July. He jokes that it took him 6 years to finally ride DV, and now they are getting rid of it.

I'm actually more upset about the impending removal of SWF, as I have ridden that one too many times to count. I also have alot of memories associated with that ride, but I do believe it's time for it to go. SSA is one of the few rides that my mom actually liked(along with TrailBlazer), so it's kinda sad to see it go in that respect as well.

[Demon_07]

I never saw the space shuttle america movie but I vaguely remember the Stargate one from a field trip.

[w00dland]

For anyone claiming that Great America is marketing to the wrong demographic, visit some parks outside of the area

Look, I understand that Families are the main target for a park to attract, I'm just saying that they aren't the only demographic out there. Hows Kiddieland doing compared to SFGAm? TDK is a needed addition for the park to make, but as the spiel on Sky Trek Tower tells us SFGAm has been named one of the roller coaster destinations in the world, and there are more people out there willing to pay full price just to ride a few roller coasters. And they will notice when the second largest coaster in the park just disappears. Why do you think the ride always had a line whenever it was open? Yeah, capacity sucked but there were many days where DV had longer lines than SUF.

And while Disneyland may not have added anything thrilling in 10 years, you also need to see what they are competing against down in LA. There are 4 MAJOR theme parks all tapping off one market. One is clearly the thrill destination, Universal Studios caters to the older family market, and Knott's is just Knotts. Disney has the family market wrapped up, and thats probably all they can get right now.

Oh, and do you remember Disney's California Adventure?

[Demon_07]

Persoanlly, I'd rather see Disneyland stay well-kept and clean every year than keep getting more attractions.

[thecoasterguy]

*sigh*

Look, I understand that Families are the main target for a park to attract, I'm just saying that they aren't the only demographic out there. Hows Kiddieland doing compared to SFGAm? TDK is a needed addition for the park to make, but as the spiel on Sky Trek Tower tells us SFGAm has been named one of the roller coaster destinations in the world, and there are more people out there willing to pay full price just to ride a few roller coasters. And they will notice when the second largest coaster in the park just disappears. Why do you think the ride always had a line whenever it was open? Yeah, capacity sucked but there were many days where DV had longer lines than SUF.

There were many days where DV had a longer line than SUF if you look at how long of a wait it was to get on the ride. If you count people in line, no way. SUF can pump about three times the amount of people through it in an hour than DV can.

I figured this out a while ago -- with the attendance figures that we last heard of 2.8 million (2005) a year and an approximately 150 day operating calendar, if it was open every single day every hour and the park was open 12 hours a day approximately something like 22% of the people could have rode it. That means that 600,000 people could ride it. Considering that the park isn't open 12 hours for at least half their operating season, that DV spent days upon days down every year, I think that the realistic *yearly* capacity was 400,000 or so rides.

Compare this to Raging Bull, which would probably have an estimated realistic *yearly* capacity of 2,000,000 or so and I think that it makes the argument even more.

As I've said before, if you don't like the decision, vote with your pocketbook and don't show up at the park. Take your money and head to whatever poor park bough the ride and support them. I seriously doubt Great America will suffer from the twenty or so people that will notice and care.

And while Disneyland may not have added anything thrilling in 10 years, you also need to see what they are competing against down in LA. There are 4 MAJOR theme parks all tapping off one market. One is clearly the thrill destination, Universal Studios caters to the older family market, and Knott's is just Knotts. Disney has the family market wrapped up, and thats probably all they can get right now.

According to the 2005 numbers, Disneyland in 2005 had attendance of 14.5 million visitors. Since they are open 365 days a year, that is an average attendance of just shy of 40,000 people a day. Universal Studios Hollywood got 4.7 million. Knott's Berry Farm got 3.47 million.

Guess what Magic Mountain got? 2.8 million.

So Disney can "only" get the family market, but luckily for them, the family market is 3.53 million more than *all of the other LA parks combined*.

Oh, and I used 2005 numbers because I could find them (here, if you want to double check my work - http://www.themeparkinsider.com/flume/200512/2/ ) but from what I understand, Disneyland's attendance has only gone up since then, while Knott's and Magic Mountain's have dropped.

So, I guess that my point here is that Disney added nothing thrilling in the past 10 years, and they somehow managed to still draw more attendance to their park than all of the other LA parks combined. Doesn't that sound like the family friendly park might be a good way to go for Six Flags?

Oh, and do you remember Disney's California Adventure?

Yes. As a matter of fact, in 2005 it had 5.8 million attendees. Which is second in the LA market only to Disneyland itself. Interestingly, people have said that California Adventure is an attempt by Disney to create a more thrilling park, as a lot of their rides are not family rides but more thrilling rides like Screamin, that launched drop thing, Tower of Terror and their raft ride.

Interesting that even with the Disney name attached to it, California Adventure which is unarguably the more "thrilling" park draws less than half the attendance figures of it's neighboring "family" park. Also interesting that recently Disney announced they were going to pour more than what I think it cost to build the park into "fixing" it by making it more family friendly.

In my opinion, that might just be the *best* proof that the family method sprinkled with some thrills is the way to go.

[w00dland]

Buddy, for the last time I'm not being a spoiled coaster dork who only wants coasters on a yearly basis. My argument is that Six Flags needs to not forget the thrill seekers.

Now I'm going to say this. Six Flags is NOT Disney. Six Flags will never be Disney. Six Flags should not try and be Disney. You can't compare any SFI parks numbers to something like Disneyland where people travel from across the world to go and visit it. First - Disney has more money than they can deal with to throw at their parks to make them the best in the business, and thats what makes their parks great. Six Flags currently has about negative 1.5 billion dollars to throw at their parks to make sure people don't smoke.

My argument is that Six Flags should know its role. Being a family day park Six Flags needs to cater to both families and thrill seekers, but if they only cater to what Disney does, they aren't going to win.

For California Adventure's sake, I would argue that Disneyland has such a strong reputation for being the "best" park in California that is a family needed to choose between parks for the day I think the choice would be obvious.

In my opinion, that might just be the *best* proof that the family method sprinkled with some thrills is the way to go.

Atleast we are in agreement somewhere. And as much as I'm sure many people would like to argue that Six Flags parks already have so much thrill that we don't need to add anything for an extended period of time I would have to disagree saying that Americans today live with a "What have you done for me today" type attitude. TDK is going to be a great addition that park goers will love, and I think its important that SF starts investing in that type of thrill instead of toddler playgrounds like Thomas Town.

Bottom line, it's not easy to change who you cater to when you have such a reputation for being a place for thrills. Some markets it will work, but in other markets it won't. Until Six Flags realizes that different parks are in different situations we will probably see similar outcomes to the Burke era, only cheaper.

Burke thought that if you threw a new coaster into a park every year it would keep people happy, why would throwing a family area into a park every year change things? We changed what we were doing, but the base problem is the same. Moderation of both equally works best.

[Danhockey04]

Hey, first you should get your stats right. SFGAm's attendance figures are not released to the public and the crowds at all SFI parks receive at that site you linked are approximations. The park in 2005 drew in over 3 million people, second Vu had an amazing year that year except the last two months.

Anyways, I read through the posts and really have no idea what you are arguing about except that SFGAm needs more balance of additions. Just wait for the future years announcements and you will see that they will be more than balanced throughout the years, I can almost guarantee that Shapiro won't turn SFGAm into a total family park and stop catering the thrill seekers. He knows what parks already have what and what parks need. Currently, he is seeing what parks need most and are mass producing the same product cause it is cheaper to buy in bundles. Then it will come down to individual parks that do better will in turn get better things for the next season.

The reason why DLR gets such a high attendance is cause it is the Disney name. If you removed the Disney name and had Six Flags own it, guarantee it would not do as good, so you can never compare a Disney park to anything. They really don't need to do anything there to keep people coming. But the other parks need to add thrill/family rides just to get people coming back to the parks and spend time there.

I also agree that SFGAm is one of the thrill capitals of the world, they even say it themselves on STT, "As you look over Six Flags, you will see why this park is considered one of the roller coaster capitals of the world with 13 unique roller coaster sensations." It goes something like that. They, themselves, are putting the image of the thrill park to the public, with that statement.

I can see another example of a park trying to attract more of the thrill audience. Look at Central Florida, there you have WDW, USO, SWO, and many smaller parks. But SWO is completing by far the grandest and best water park that Central Florida has seen with Aquatica, and now they are currently building a new coaster for 2009. They are trying to attract more people there and with the family exhibits of marine life and now the third coaster coming in 2009, they are really looking for the thrill seekers to convince their parents to allow them to go there. That will especially happen if the rumored B&M Flyer is true cause it will be the only one in Florida. Even there, they know that people go there for Disney or USO, but rarely do families make trips to SWO, but with these two additions, that might change in the next couple of years. Or at least attract more people from the other two parks to come spend a day or two there.

[Galvan]

I agree with what Woodland is talking about, and I think others are unfairly taking his words out of context.

And he is exactly right about having a little of family and a little of thrill in the SF parks, and thats exactly what to expect in 2008 from SF.

Think about TDK, it is going to be a family/thrill ride for everyone to enjoy not just Thrill seekers and not just families.

If you look at whats going in at other SF parks, Thomas Town at SFMM, When was the last time an addition wat SFMM was not a rollercoaster?

While I have said this before, Shapiro is doing what he can to right the ship at SF, obviously Burke and Company really screwed this up more then we originally thought, and it is going to take a lot of work to fix SF up.

Then again look at what Cedar Fair did, they got absoloutely fleeced in the Paramount deal, and now have dwindling attendance and just as much debt as Six Flags.

[Tip Top Club]

It really grinds me when people say that burke and co screwed it up more then "we originally thought" Am I the only one for thinking that shapiro and Co were crazy for thinking they could turn the company around in three years? I was thinking ten years at minimum until we might POSSIBLY see a profitable quarter. I don't know what people were thinking...

[cycamps]

I also thought that it would be a 10 year minimum.

[Colonel Mustard]

I don't know about ten years for a profitable quarter, I think we could see one in the next few years, but maybe a decade until we start seeing some real satisfying results. I really think what they need is time.

[superflybri]

If you actually think about the business aspect of this its fairly simple. Galvan touched on this concept a little bit some where...
Think about the situation of Walmart vs. Target, You have the always lower prices vs. quality based product.
Disney, very family based park whereas, Six Flags and Cedar Fair are targeting thrillseekers.
My point being, Six Flags and Cedar Fair are in a totally different market then disney, if they try to run against Disney, they would lose. This is why K-mart is going out of business and filed for chapter 11.

[Demon_07]

If you actually think about the business aspect of this its fairly simple. Galvan touched on this concept a little bit some where...
Think about the situation of Walmart vs. Target, You have the always lower prices vs. quality based product.
Disney, very family based park whereas, Six Flags and Cedar Fair are targeting thrillseekers.
My point being, Six Flags and Cedar Fair are in a totally different market then disney, if they try to run against Disney, they would lose. This is why K-mart is going out of business and filed for chapter 11.

^Very good point.

[BP317]

(All-time Demon re-ride record holder)

How many rerides?

[thecoasterguy]

I'm going to cut and paste little snippets here, so sorry if I don't touch on anything from others...

Buddy, for the last time I'm not being a spoiled coaster dork who only wants coasters on a yearly basis. My argument is that Six Flags needs to not forget the thrill seekers.

Your specific statement that I was replying to is "Disney has the family market wrapped up, and thats probably all they can get right now." What I was trying to point out is simply that Disney in tapping the family market is doing better than all of the other parks combined, which says something.

Yes, the Disney brand is strong, but can we also all agree that right now the Six Flags brand is not? I don't know if anyone here remembers this, but there was an era before Premier bought the parks where the Six Flags brand was *very* strong. That was the whole takeover plan of Premier -- "Flag" their smaller parks and use the name to draw in more people. And, if you look at their records in the beginning this plan worked. It wasn't until the brand was basically rendered meaningless by them not following through in any park on what Six Flags had been in the mid-90s that the chain really got in trouble.

My argument is that Six Flags should know its role. Being a family day park Six Flags needs to cater to both families and thrill seekers, but if they only cater to what Disney does, they aren't going to win.

...but my whole point was that Disneyland caters to families, thrill seekers, boys, girls, and a little bit of everyone. But their number one target market is families, which is what Six Flags has said now their number one target market is.

I'm not saying that Six Flags needs to stop catering to thrill seekers, but even with the removal of Deja Vu, I would think that the rest of the remaining rides at the park were still pretty good 'thrill seeker' type attractions.

Burke thought that if you threw a new coaster into a park every year it would keep people happy, why would throwing a family area into a park every year change things? We changed what we were doing, but the base problem is the same. Moderation of both equally works best.

It is difficult to change who you cater to, but by adding one family area (every year?) and one family ride that still borders on the thrill ride side with the Dark Knight, I think that is both moderation and a real attempt to start to change who the parks cater toward.

Hey, first you should get your stats right. SFGAm's attendance figures are not released to the public and the crowds at all SFI parks receive at that site you linked are approximations. The park in 2005 drew in over 3 million people, second Vu had an amazing year that year except the last two months.

If Six Flags attendance figures are not released to the public, how can you tell me I have to get my stats right? I am aware of this, and I will happily use that approximation to make the same argument. Besides that, even if Vu had an amazing year I think those numbers would stand, and having a higher attendance would mean a *lower* percentage of guests could get on it, bettering the argument for "very few people will care".

The reason why DLR gets such a high attendance is cause it is the Disney name. If you removed the Disney name and had Six Flags own it, guarantee it would not do as good, so you can never compare a Disney park to anything. They really don't need to do anything there to keep people coming. But the other parks need to add thrill/family rides just to get people coming back to the parks and spend time there.

As I highlighted above, Six Flags once had a reputation that was very high, and the last 10 or so years destroyed it. Disney could very easily go down the same path if they changed things around badly, and the differences between Disneyland and California Adventure I think really highlight this. While the park may have shown a decent amount of attendance for 2005, it was about 1/3rd of the attendance of Disneyland. Clearly, if it was *just* the name, the park should be doing better.

I can see another example of a park trying to attract more of the thrill audience. Look at Central Florida, there you have WDW, USO, SWO, and many smaller parks. But SWO is completing by far the grandest and best water park that Central Florida has seen with Aquatica, and now they are currently building a new coaster for 2009. They are trying to attract more people there and with the family exhibits of marine life and now the third coaster coming in 2009, they are really looking for the thrill seekers to convince their parents to allow them to go there. That will especially happen if the rumored B&M Flyer is true cause it will be the only one in Florida. Even there, they know that people go there for Disney or USO, but rarely do families make trips to SWO, but with these two additions, that might change in the next couple of years. Or at least attract more people from the other two parks to come spend a day or two there.

Didn't Disney just add Expedition Everest though? And Universal is adding Harry Potter. It's all competition, and all of the parks compete in both family and thrill rides.

And he is exactly right about having a little of family and a little of thrill in the SF parks, and thats exactly what to expect in 2008 from SF.

I agree. But since in the years before Premier the parks overbuilt thrill rides and under built family things (exception being the waterpark), I think that the parks could still use some more evening out.

But maybe what isn't clear from my posts is that I don't think that kiddie areas like "Wiggles World" is really evening out the park. Now, there are basically two different type of attractions at the park -- those JUST for thrill seekers, and those JUST for kids. Neither one works, however the way I see it -- Wiggles World (and similar areas) was a specific thing so the promotional materials once again told parents that there were great things to do for their kids.

The Dark Knight (and hopefully many future additions) fall into the previously basically untapped (except maybe by the Whizzer) genre of rides that the whole family can ride together and enjoy. In my estimation, the park would be better off investing in three or four of these over the next few years before doing any more thrill seeker or any more kids only rides.

My point being, Six Flags and Cedar Fair are in a totally different market then disney, if they try to run against Disney, they would lose.

They are currently in a different market than Disney, yes... but Disney's approach definitely has merit, and Six Flags has a good reason to think they can run against it. To do a family trip to Flordia for four would probably cost about $1500 or more to go to the parks for two days. If Six Flags can convince those families that while their experience isn't quite as great as the Disney one, they can get the Six Flags experience for $500 for that same family of four (since they don't have to travel and stay overnight), don't you think that would be a very strong selling point?

--

I'm not arguing that the park needs to tear down roller coasters and add four more kids only areas, but I do think that the park has enough for thrill seekers for a little while, and if they can focus on some more Dark Knight style rides over the next few years, I think they'll find a previously completely untapped market that would enjoy those rides. Then, the teens in the family will have a better argument for going to ride the big thrill rides, and the parents with younger kids will be able to still go through experiences with them.

In my opinion, this all sounds like an excellent business plan to me. Enough to turn the company around this year? Who knows. If they get enough time to do it though, it definitely sounds like a more viable business plan than marketing to *only* the thrill seekers and not caring about families like before.

[Colonel Mustard]

My only reply to that is that Danhockey is right, while Six Flags doesn't release it's figures to the public, they aren't impossible to track down, and you can safely say that it was well over 3 mil in 05.

[Coaster Justin]

I wonder if the Pictorium could be turned into a 3D/4D Simulator now that SSA is removed?


By the way Trailblazer Tony, Skull Island was added in 2005, Goliath Was added in 2006.

[FParker185]

physically I'm sure Pictorium could be converted into a Motion Sim, but I highly doubt it will, most simulators are pretty outdated, and unless you have 8-9 figures to do it like Disney or Universal, I dont think it'd be worth the cost.

[Demon_07]

(All-time Demon re-ride record holder)

How many rerides?

Haha..... I lost count after 60.

[Shckwave]

It's about time they are getting rid of SSA next let's get rid of Wizzer keep taking down these old no useful rides. I am so surprised that SSA lasted as long as it did.

[superflybri]

^ WHOA! Already tried that once, remember?! It failed! BON VOYAGE! It would have been intresting to see what would have happened if the SW thing never happened. (for that I would have to say, nobody really knows if it could have left) I do not see Whizzer coming down anytime soon, it really is a classic, great FAMILY ride. But... I've been wrong before

[Demon_07]

^ WHOA! Already tried that once, remember?! It failed! BON VOYAGE! It would have been intresting to see what would have happened if the SW thing never happened. (for that I would have to say, nobody really knows if it could have left) I do not see Whizzer coming down anytime soon, it really is a classic, great FAMILY ride. But... I've been wrong before

With the way the park is headed, I say it's almost impossible the whizzer is coming down anytime soon.

[DominatorDude05]

Besides Families love it, and enjoy it as well.