Florida Versus the World

[Mike T]

I often wonder a few things when I think about what I have in my back yard in terms of Roller Coasters... (well its not really a backyard, more like a 2-3 hour drive). My state in particular is home to some of the most technologically advanced attractions on this planet, and it goes to show with its success, how many people these attractions bring in every year. One thing that Florida seems to be consistent with is capacity and reliability. If both of these general concepts aren't met to the high standard for which vacationers expect, the market fails and those vacationers go home unhappy. With that said, its understandable to see why Bolliger and Mabillard is the choice of coaster in this state, as it provides a capacity that can pump over 1000 riders an hour, and the reliability of these rides are generally pretty good.

I find humorous how INTAMIN Ag. seems to be shunned by the likes of Universal, Busch Entertainment, and Disney, yet products from Vekoma, Mack, and B&M dominate the theme park sky lines. I'm not saying INTAMIN in particular is a bad firm, I'm just not so fond of hear about Maverick's engineering fault, Furius Baco's problematic structural integrity, the second generation tower rides being closed indefinitely, the top seeded roller coaster on the planet being close for the remainder of the season due to mechanical instability in the chain drive, and catapult defects on the accelerator coaster that the firm so proudly markets. Sometimes I even complain about how there isn't an INTAMIN product in the state, but when I revert back to these instances, it makes me feel a bit better about what I have.

With that said, I have a question for everybody. Why is it that B&M roller coasters in my particular state are rated so much higher than anything else in the world? Why is it that all of the major coasters from Busch Gardens Tampa Bay are rated in the top 25 on the planet, yet everybody else seems to believe that their coasters in Ohio, Texas, California, Europe, Asia, and amongst other rides are the greatest things grace God's earth? I'm not trying to sound arrogant or anything, but when you let statistics come into play, B&M designed rides down here dominate the world...

Let me hear your thoughts on this:

-Mike

[apsterling]

Much of it is the fact that Busch Parks (Sea Worlds/BGs) all get incredible B&M's built, especially in Florida:

Kumba, an incredible layout, Even 12 years after opening
Montu, a unique layout, most intense invert (I've been on, at least)
SheiKra, first Diver in the US, and a decent layout.
Kraken, best Floorless, period- Incredibly themed.

Bottom line is, Busch manages to force B&M to get incredible layouts, then they theme them/place them exceptionally well.

Intamin fails in Florida, because how many intamins run in the rain?

-

Having lived in Florida for 7 Years, California for 3, and now here for 2, I can say being near the Florida rides is much more exciting, not to mention gratifying than California's (Granted I was only 48" when I moved) or Arizona's (Don't get me started)

The big thing with rating is, when population, location, etc. is considered- the fact remains that with Disney, BG, Sea World, and Universal together, you have a combination for long, potential vote gaining, trips, as opposed to other locations.

Personally, I enjoy B&M's layouts more than Intamin's- but nothing beats MF for me.

[Thrill Reconnoiter]

[This is where I mention all six of FL's B&Ms are ranked higher than the best B&M of CA, OH, or TX in Mitches poll; and the Hurricane reigns over those states in the wooden list]

Yet as great as that is, if there was to be something tall constructed in the state, I'd take an Intamin Mega over B&M Mega anyday (since Beemers seem to be hit or miss)...and with Mavericks introduction, it looks like CP is going to take the title of highest top three steel coasters this year (about time for a park with triple the steel coasters).

[Arez]

Nice topic, I will throw in some thoughts..

You brought up a very good point with Florida only building reliable, high capacity rides. Obviously, customer satisfaction is one of the top priorities for the parks management, and more rides running equals more satisfied guests. When I visited Kings Island this summer, Firehawk was down. I was extremely surprised to hear all the general publics complaints. "Thats the only reason I came down here was to ride it, and now its broken!", was among the statements. When I had the chance to talk with an Imagineer, he told me that Disney usually tends to build rides that use technology that has been around for a while, so that they are reliable.

Now why do B&M's in Florida get more attention then in any other place in the world? One of the reasons, in my opinion, is location. Orlando is among the most visited tourist destinations in the world. So obviously every attraction that a park adds will be super hyped, and will be viewed under a magnifying glass..Same goes for California and Ohio.

Bolliger and Mabillard has sort of found a groove with their coasters. If you take a look at all their coasters you'll see an extreme similarity. Relatively similar heights, inversions etc., thus giving B&M time to work out the kinks, and make their rides as reliable as possible. Some people like to complain that B&M doesn't 'push the limit' like Intamin does, but why would they need too? Their coasters are extremely popular as is. I think the reason that they sort of took off in Florida is because they're not too intimidating, like rides such as Millennium Force and Top Thrill Dragster. B&M's in Florida have been a huge success, so why go to another manufacturer?

-Alex

[Comet]

Some people like to complain that B&M doesn't 'push the limit' like Intamin does, but why would they need too?

Not only that, but they have, B&M might have just as many firsts as Intamin. Some of the first of their kinds rides B&M has introduced...

Dive Machines
Floorless coasters
Inverting inverts

It seems that the complaint you mention comes up for the lone fact that B&M hasn't introduced a launch model.

[Dan]

It seems that the complaint you mention comes up for the lone fact that B&M hasn't introduced a launch model.Well, there is Hulk...

[Comet]

Yeah, but the launch wasn't done by B&M.

[Arez]

It seems that the complaint you mention comes up for the lone fact that B&M hasn't introduced a launch model.

How on earth did you take that as a complaint? I can see what you are saying about B&M having a lot of firsts, but I dont exactly count a new type of train as 'pushing the limit'. B&M has proven that a coaster doesn't need to be 250 feet tall in order to be fun..

-Alex

[disneylhand]

^

Some people like to complain that B&M doesn't 'push the limit' like Intamin does, but why would they need too?
Complaint mentioned.


It seems that the complaint you mention comes up for the lone fact that B&M hasn't introduced a launch model.

Just to clear things up.

-disneylhand

[Arez]

Ah, alright. I thought he said I was complaining..My bad. :o

-Alex

[crZythrill3r]

Alright, personally I thank B&M for choosing Florida.

The mixture of their unique layouts and themes, brings what each theme park needs, but Florida does ring Tourist attraction. Personally, I don't really think Florida needs an Intamin AG, but they do get one, then great add the mix culture of madness of B&M

From my Reviews:

Dueling Dragons: One of my favorite inverts and puns, because it just amazes me how they even put this layout together.

Incredible Hulk: Rush to Dull, it does pack a punch a first, then it gradually slows down and then it seems like all original.

Montu - My favorite invert of all, it just amazing the punch it gives and just one of the intense layout and just one of those rides to ride over and over again.

Kumba - Has it off and on days, very unique layout very crazy at the same time.

Sheikra - I'm a total fan boy of this coaster, even though I haven't been to BGE and rode Griffion yet, I know that SheiKra will still be in my heart as top, who knows I might have a change of heart. It might be short but it pretty much gives that UPH that it really needs, I just can't explain it, somehow it just appeals to me. [I still need to ride it floorless]

Kraken - One of my first floorless coaster, neither the less one of the best choice of first ride on a floorless coaster ever. Pretty much amazing also.

[sheikra182]

I got to admit that Florida obviously has one of the most technical coasters in the world.

Incredible Hulk is the only B&M Launcher and thats something to say right there and even though most think its a slow ride in the ending. Try riding it at night and you will think differently;).

SheiKra has just been incredible all through out the years its been open. It's kept itself up to were it needs to be to compete with the other rides and the guests love it. The lines are always a good time to thanks to a incredible job by the staff. Plus if you add Kumba and Montu on top of that you got one amazing line up.

Montu has been a favorite by many and is my favorite invert because it's so intense. It beats alot of other inverts(Ok Steve it doesnt beat Black Mamba lol) but its still amazing!

I also cant leave out Dueling Dragons. It's the only steel inverted dueling roller coaster in the world and its an amazing ride at that. Ice vs. Fire is a game for the guests to and that makes it more fun. Many choose Fire in this category due to the intensity, theme, and the layout. I prefer Ice as well as many others and I can even tell you that your very own staff member Ryan Sickles prefers it as well. When we hung out at UOR we went on Ice first because to me it's more fun. The drop into the high banked curve is so unique for B&M. You don't get a drop into something that isn't an inversion on a B&M Invert often, plus add the first inversion being the Zero-G to it and you got an amazing start right there!

But as I end this post I must talk about Revenge of the Mummy. Revenge of the Mummy has been thrilling fans of the movie and fans of the ride since 2004. Yes it may have downtime but hey it has LIMs does'nt it? LIMs are'nt reliable all of the time because of how much electricity is needed but UOR does an amazing job at keeping them running just as they do on the effects. I recommend a trip to Florida to all of you, and if anyone wants to meet up at UOR lol just hit me up with a PM ;).

[Tom]

I have never been to Florida, but I had never really thought of the state having no Intamins. They, for the most part, are enjoyable, but have so much downtime, its annoying. I would take a B&M hyper over an Intamin hyper, or giga, any day. I prefer rides with strong forces throughout the rides, and to me it seems like Intamin is all about airtime, or fast launches. Sure launches can be fun, but they are way too unreliable. And with how Florida parks operate, they just can't take a risk like that.

[Mike T]

This has nothing to do with why people like SheiKra or why "Ryan Sickles and SheiKra182 likes Ice Dragon", it has to do with the fact that the people who are chosen to design the layouts for Florida's rides seem to get it, while other places such as California, Ohio, New Jersey, Texas, and every where else seems to lack it. I find it amusing that it takes so much looking to actually find another ride around the country that can live up to anything thats been designed in Florida.

Sure, you can say Top Gun at Carowinds, Tatsu, or Superman Krypton Coaster are the best rides in the world, but if you statistically rank them equally against each other, you find that not one of these rides touch anything that I have here. Thats why I personally find it funny when somebody informs me of how Scream and Medusa are the same thing as Kumba, or Medusa West is the same thing as Kraken just in a parking lot. Its amusing when people compare Montu to Talon, or Hydra to Hulk. The point I'm trying to make is that you wont see a Batman down here, you won't see a Superman Ultimate Flight, and you certainly wont see a Skating Themed spinning roller coaster down here either. Designers in this area didn't sleep through physics class, and understand the symbiotic relationship between forces as applied to gravity, elemental design, and speed when applied to a circuit.

[Dan]

Mike, you can't blame the designers that set everything up for an attraction in Florida, but you can blame the parks you have. California and Ohio are often thought of as two of the best places one can go for roller coasters...which I myself am beginning to find rather amusing after this thread was created. But, when you think about it, the reason really lies in the attractions Florida parks require, verses the requirements for rides elsewhere. Here in California, we have a great lineup of rides. But where are they located? A Cedar Fair park, a Six Flags park, and Disneyland, whose coasters are inferior to those at Disneyworld. In Ohio, there is a Cedar Fair park, and a Six Flags park. See a pattern? The parks do have stellar coasters, but almost none that match up to Florida's. Look at your lineup, Mike. Busch Gardens, Disney, and Universal. Those are three of the most highly regarded parks, and they require some of the most high quality rides to compete for business.

If Universal were to want a spinning coaster in the park, you can bet it would be one of the best in the world because of...what's that magic word? Theme. Although many of us might not thing theme plays a big park in how good a coaster is from an enthusiast's point of view, I believe there is somewhat of a subconscious attraction to a good theme, and a well done one at that. Take Superman: Ultimate Flight vs. Hulk. There is no comparison! Hulk may have a better layout and array of elements and of forces, but Hulk will also wins that battle through its theme. They are both superheroes, but just waiting in the queue can change one's entire outlook on a ride.


Florida is and will always be the place to go for high quality theme parks and roller coasters, but don't give the designers the credit for that...give the business credit. If it weren't for the intense competition there, you wouldn't have half the world-class attractions you do.

[apsterling]

and Disneyland, whose coasters are inferior to those at Disneyworld.

Disneyland's coasters are by far NOT inferior to DisneyWorld's. Space Mountain at Disneyland is marginally better- you keep mentioning theme, Disneyland's is much better (I especially enjoy the music, but the old sound was better). Disneyland's Thunder Mountain is better themed, by a very long way. Matterhorn is insane and Cali Screamin' is the best launched ride I've been on yet. They could do without Mulloholland Madness, but they an Okay job attempting to theme it. (The new plans look good too, IMO)

What does Florida have? A "Drag-n-drop" Koma Launch, A slower, less dense themed Thunder Mountain, a visible support structure on Space Mountain, Primeval Whirl, (With no plans to renovate the theme) and Everest (Which is the best ride there IMO)

The reason Florida's other parks win is that it's the biggest destination for Tourism- not that the rides are any better- I prefer Alpie to Dueling Dragons any day.


If it weren't for the intense competition there, you wouldn't have half the world-class attractions you do.

There ya go.

[vekoma9]

I think Florida has better B&M's, because they are willing to put more money into their rides, because they know if they do; The Park will get that money back. It's pretty simple. I gotta say Tatsu looks better than alot of those B&M's in Florida anyways.

[Jake]

Disneyland's coasters are by far NOT inferior to DisneyWorld's. Space Mountain at Disneyland is marginally better- you keep mentioning theme, Disneyland's is much better (I especially enjoy the music, but the old sound was better). Disneyland's Thunder Mountain is better themed, by a very long way. Matterhorn is insane and Cali Screamin' is the best launched ride I've been on yet. They could do without Mulloholland Madness, but they an Okay job attempting to theme it. (The new plans look good too, IMO)

Woooow, and I thought I was a Disneyland fanboy. How could you possibly come to the conclusion that Disneyland themes better than Disneyworld? Lets look at some comparisons.. California Screamin' to Rock 'n' Roller Coaster. Winner? RNRC, hands down. Much better theming, and it looks like a far better ride. Matterhorn to Expedition Everest, it's hardly fair to compare the two! Primeval whirl to Mullholland Madness? Primeval takes the cake again. I can't speak for the Thunder Mountains but I can not imagine that the two are that different.

As far as the topic at hand is concerned, I have to agree with Dan. Look at the amazing arary of parks you guys have down there! Companies like Disney, Universal and Busch don't half *** things! In the competitive market that the parks are located in, they can't afford to! I do agree with you Mike, that if you were to compare the best beemer of each catergory you have there to the top beemer of the same catergory in another state... The Florida beemer would most likely come out on top, thanks to theming, layout and location.

[apsterling]

Woooow, and I thought I was a Disneyland fanboy. How could you possibly come to the conclusion that Disneyland themes better than Disneyworld? Lets look at some comparisons.. California Screamin' to Rock 'n' Roller Coaster. Winner? RNRC, hands down. Much better theming, and it looks like a far better ride. Matterhorn to Expedition Everest, it's hardly fair to compare the two! Primeval whirl to Mullholland Madness? Primeval takes the cake again. I can't speak for the Thunder Mountains but I can not imagine that the two are that different.

I've lived near both parks, having lived in Florida for 7 years, and California/Phoenix for 7 Years. Trust me, California Screamin' takes the cake for better ride hands down. Massive air, a relatively (for it's age) smooth ride, and a soundtrack that murders it's rival's. Theming, RNRC gets it, but it's not THAT good. The trackwork is shoddy, and the ride is rough as anything.

Yeah Everest steals the cake, but it's 40 years newer than Matterhorn, what do you expect when the ride costed more than DL's initial investment?

Primeval and Mullholland Madness are a tie- neither is themed well. The difference in Thunder Mountains is that at Disneyland's you spend more time speeding around tunnels and boulders and less seeing Liberty Square and Splash Mountain. As for trackwork I believe they're identical.

[Dan]

I can't make too many educated comments regarding Disneyland vs. Disneyworld. However, I can say safely, as Jake said, that Expedition Everest beats Matterhorn. Disneyworld is three parks, whereas Disneyland is just one.

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense. Florida wins the "Florida vs the World" battle. Put the state up against any state, country, or the whole world, and it will most likely blow them out of the water.

May I just say, this is one of the best threads I've seen in my time here.

[Comet]

and a soundtrack that murders it's rival's.

Better then Rock 'n' Roller Coaster's? You definitely can't say 'murders'.


Theming, RNRC gets it, but it's not THAT good. The trackwork is shoddy, and the ride is rough as anything.

Rough as anyhing, not even close. It's just as smooth as Screamin'. And IMO, the theming is THAT good. The alley at the end of the queue is one of my favorite theming elements anywhere.

After saying that though, I do think California Screamin' is a better ride. This for the lone fact that it is more then 30 seconds long. Rock 'n' Roller Coaster is a better 'Disney Ride' though, if that makes sense.

[Arez]

Disneyworld is three parks, whereas Disneyland is just one.

DLR consists of two parks. ;)

When it comes to rides, of course Florida parks are going to install the best of the best. Every ride that a park installs has to compete with the other 'mega resorts' around the area..If a park can not keep up with the competition, it will lose visitors.

-Alex

[Jake]

And Disneyworld consists of four parks, but really, who's counting? :p

^ That sums it up right there.

[Dan]

DLR consists of two parks. ;)

...Perfect example of why DCA needs the revamping...I completely forgot about it!

[disneylhand]

How can one make an argument about the way things seem without actually experiencing both?

Sorry, but is this really the place to compare Disneyland to DisneyWorld?
I try not to look at other's opinions; I'd rather make one for myself.

-disneylhand

[Dan]

Sorry, but is this really the place to compare Disneyland to DisneyWorld?

Yeah...it's Florida vs. the World, which includes Disneyland. It's a factor proving California inferior.



I try not to look at other's opinions; I'd rather make one for myself.
But then there's no discussion, that's what the forum is all about :)

[Jake]

I try not to look at other's opinions; I'd rather make one for myself.

Who's to say we can't formulate opinions based on what we've seen and heard from others?

[disneylhand]

Dan and Jake- You guys can do whatever you want.
I was merely stating the fact that I personally would not choose to count on others to think for me...


Yeah...it's Florida vs. the World, which includes Disneyland. It's a factor proving California inferior.

To tell you the truth your opinion does not prove anything over mine.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, no offense Mike, but I guess I'm not seeing the great side of this thread that some of you guys are.

-disneylhand

[mayoki]

The one park that really stands out as high quality and "Florida-worthy" is Busch Gardens Europe. You just can't beat the theming, I mean---The natural, hilly terrain, the river threading through the center of the park, and the giant, leafy oak trees------It's pretty much what you would find in Europe. And did I mention that their coasters are excellent. I was there last Saturday (My second visit) and once again I was completely satisfied. The park was over capacity, and we were in a traffic jam waiting to pay for parking for more than an hour and a half. Was it worth it? Completely!

You see, if I had to wait more than an hour to park, and then get through the gates at 3:00 at a park like Cedar Point (no offense, I love CP), it would ruin my day. However, BGE's high standards, wonderful theming, beautiful scenery, fall colors, cool weather, great coasters---(endless list of +'s) made up for that completely. Sure, they may only have 5 coasters, but they are all very satisfying, and each one stands out in its own way. BBW is a bit slow, but it's hands down the most fun suspended coaster I have been on. (at night in the back) LNM is a bit bumpy, but it is still loads of fun and it isn't the 'painful' kind of bumpy that you'd find on other older Arrows.


I'm from Florida, and I just want to say that there are other parks out there that are better than what you'd find down here. Griffon TOTALLY blew away my expectations. The queue is located around the meat of the ride, and it is more entertaining seeing terrified people plummet straight down 205 feet than leaning against a wall in tight quarters staring at the floor. BGE is probably one of the best parks I have been to, and I would rather visit it than any Florida theme park any day, simply because it offers an enjoyable and more-than-satisfying experience.

[MaverickManJZ]

Does Florida have Maverick? I don't think so. :P

[Jake]

Does Ohio have Sheikra, Montu or Hulk?

Case closed.

[Dan]

Does Florida have Disaster Transport or Little Bill's Giggle Coaster???

Case re-opened. What now Jake?!


View, as required by Steve, is as follows :p

Although Ohio has some great coasters, they alone cannot bring up a state in the coaster world. They must be accompanied by a good environment, theme, and well-run park to fulfill their duty. A roller coaster is a small part of what makes up a park, and after a park visit, you are left with not only the ride but the park experience. Yes, you can say roller coasters out of the state of Florida are better than some in Florida, I can't argue with you much there since I haven't been to the state. However, would you rather come home from a park having ridden a good coaster, or having ridden a good coaster plus having a great overall experience?

[Steve K]

Please explain your views instead of just putting one liners...

[Jake]

Although Ohio has some great coasters, they alone cannot bring up a state in the coaster world. They must be accompanied by a good environment, theme, and well-run park to fulfill their duty. A roller coaster is a small part of what makes up a park, and after a park visit, you are left with not only the ride but the park experience. Yes, you can say roller coasters out of the state of Florida are better than some in Florida, I can't argue with you much there since I haven't been to the state. However, would you rather come home from a park having ridden a good coaster, or having ridden a good coaster plus having a great overall experience?

That's exactly how I feel about Cedar Point. While I was there I really enjoyed all the great coasters, however after leaving the park I felt.. empty. Where-as when I leave Disneyland or Universal Studios I feel.. "full" as it were. So although Cedar Point may have some amazing coasters, they can't live up to the overall quality of the Florida parks.

[sirloin]

I say Texas beats the daylights out of any other state. What now, punks? ;)

Ohio has Cedar Point and Kings Island. Both great parks, indeed. I think as far as the full experience goes, Kings Island is the winner. Beyond great layouts, there really isn't anything to the coasters at Cedar Point. There's very little interaction with the environment, with Magnum's run along the beach probably the most noteable that I've experienced (I say this without a Maverick credit, mind you). Not only that, but the park seems to have very little atmosphere to it. For me, the nicest part of that whole park is the Frontier Trail. That's what amusement parks are to me. The place has become so overcrowded with giant steel structures jutting into the sky and not much else to look at. Not only that, but every ride there has a similar experience somewhere else, so there's little uniqueness to it.

Kings Island has theming and Kings Island has terrain. Mind you, not every park will have the advantage of the latter, but some know how to compensate for it (or the theming is enough to make me forget about terrain). I left Kings Island having ridden 7 coasters plus a couple flats and a brief trip to the waterpark. I've ridden the daylights out of CP's best coasters in nothing more than half a day. So why did KI leave such an impression on me? Simply put, the place had more to it than rides. Having a Top Gun theme can automatically make a ride cooler, even if the theming is somewhat minimal. No matter, though, as the Italian Job (which is outrageous fun) and Tomb Raider rocked the theming department. Oh, and there were trees as well. You can have a ride with no theming, but pack trees around it and you have a guarenteed winner (see KD's Grizzly, HP's SooperDooperLooper, or BGE's Apollo's Chariot, to name a few). Also, it gives the park a more peaceful feeling than a giant slab of concrete. When I'm at CP, I feel like I'm downtown in a major city with all the hustle and bustle of people rushing to rides with 3-hour lines. KI has that park feeling.

However, Florida smites Ohio with little mercy. Not only that, but Florida is proof that a park need not terrain to be great. Florida is flat, plain and simple, but the parks there have taken on better approaches than Ohio parks to compensate.

First off, and most noteable, is theming. Tell me, why is it that WDW's Space Mountain, which has been chugging along happily since 1979, holds a higher regard in the minds of many people than, say, Raptor or Mantis at Cedar Point? BECAUSE IT IS AN EXPERIENCE, not just a ride. Heck, every ride at Disney World is that way (save for Primieval Whirl, though it's lack of truly hardcore theming is part of it's theme to begin with). Disney World is just that: a different world. Universal and SeaWorld are much the same way.

But let's level the playing field and consider the most regional of the massive Florida parks: Busch Gardens Tampa. They thought smart. They decided on ridiculous quality over ridiculous quantity. I'd take one ride on Kumba than one lap, front row, on MF and TTD (well, that isn't true, because it'd be more of a victory to have that on the Intamins since the lines are far longer than the aqua B&M ;)). But still, BGT decided to give the ride an African flair (though not obscenely themed, the African influences are noteable). Montu's even better for theming. The whole ride is packed with Egyptian architecture and influences, including the trenches along the ride's route. Ditto on the theming for the other attractions.

You see, it's all about making an experience out of things. I find one visit to BGT more satisfying than 3 visits to CP. I'm less stressed, and I don't have to worry about cramming 14 coasters into 1 day. I can ride 5 or 6 at BGT and come out with a greater sense of contentment. And briefly referring back to the other major Florida parks, well, no contest, but I wouldn't expect an Ohio park to try and match that. That's not a fair fight.

And I suppose that's why I say Texas is the place to be. Nothing's overhyped about those parks, and SFOT is my favorite park on Earth. It strikes a perfect blend and it's filled with quality. Not every ride at a park needs to be themed for the place to be amazing, and SFOT is case and point. However, they realized its advantages in certain situations and they utilized it, offering a fantastic Gotham City area and other nice areas as well (heck, La Vibora's track is themed!). SFFT does the theming even better, with an almost Disney-quality regional park. I'm sure SeaWorld in San Antonio is just as good as the rest.

So for me, I give my props to the Lone Star state and it's dynamic Six Flags duo.

And no, Texas being home to wonderful food, DFW, IAH, American Airlines and Southwest Airlines had nothing to do with my decision. ;)

I think I see an editorial coming along...

[Michael]

^ hahaha, loved that first comment about texas :cool:

I have to disagree about Magnum being the only coaster at Cedar point that interacts with the environment. What about Cedar Creek Mine Ride? Excellent views and theming above the creek, it's very nicley done. Also, did you forget about Wicked Twister? It sounds dumb, but it is the only inverted impluse to capture that atmosphere alongside the beach, it's incredible. Many people just over-look it, but it fits in so well.

[Jake]

The only "views" you get from Cedar Creek Mine Ride is it's own support structure. The "creek" is a stagnant, smelly, misquito breeding ground, or at least it was when I was there. I have to give you Wicked Twister though, it has a great setting.

[sirloin]

Wicked Twister does have a great setting, but what actual environmental interaction does it have? Setting and actual interaction are two completely different things, my friends. Heck, Magnum doesn't really have any interaction either, but I was just being generous.

Note that simply traveling 30 feet over water does not count as interaction. I know that the Mine Ride drops lower than that, but you have the bottom of the train, the track, and the supports below you. I'll even make things more complex for you all. I firmly believe that two different rides could drop to the same distance above the water, and you can say that one interacts with the environment and the other doesn't. My reasoning behind the double standard? Well, define the word 'interaction' as the usage of the environment to the ride's advantage. For instance, if an invert dropped to a mere few feet above the waterline, it would count as interaction in that case. Why? Because there's nothing between you and the water below. The same could even apply on solid ground. It's all in how you use the environment, and Cedar Creek Mine Ride really doesn't use it. I'd even count a low-level over-water turn as environmental interaction as there's less between you and the water due to the banked orientation, but the Mine Ride really doesn't have that.

Now Trailblazer at Hershey Park, well, there's a mine train with some interaction. Ditto BTMR.

But alas, this is a thread created to fuel Mike's ego by telling us his state is so much better than ours, so let's crush his hopes and dreams, shall we?

I refer Mike to the case of Superman Krypton Coaster. Show me a coaster at BGT with THAT kind of environmental interaction. Nothing like plummeting off the side of a cliff, my friends. SKC's drop off of the elevated turnaround that follows the loop is simply righteous. I may prefer the sheer insanity of Kumba to the mighty Krypton Coaster (though admittedly, it has been 3 years since my last bout with the Man of Steel in San Antonio), but Kumba has no element which can compare to that madness.

Oh, and mad props to Mike for a wicked fun topic.

[Mike T]

Not only that, but Florida is proof that a park need not terrain to be great. Florida is flat, plain and simple, but the parks there have taken on better approaches than Ohio parks to compensate.

Doing a little double talk are we?

Its interesting that Mitch Hawker's poll ranks Kumba at the elite spot of 21, yet Superman Krypton Coaster ranks 63.... Talk about Weak... ;).

Now I'm not one to rank the rides that I ride, but I know a lot of you like to go off of polls to help you make an opinion, which is why I continue to revert to Mitch Hawker's poll. A cool thing about that poll is that generally most of my roller coasters parallel to some extent with where they are placed in the poll. But thats besides the point lol...

This thread was created specifically for the B&M market, but has flourished into something of a broader stance on things. I like what a lot of you have to say about this subject, but I still don't understand why Florida always comes out top with great coasters, yet there are so many others out there that seem to just short shoot the hype that they receive. I understand that Florida has a larger budget to work with, but statistically speaking most of Florida's roller coasters cost just as much or even less to what other rides out there cost that seasonal parks seem to be building. My question is why is it that Florida is so consistent with what they design, while other regions seem to have hit and miss roller coasters? I often wonder the approach some of these parks take when they design rides. I know Florida's main issue before they decide to build anything is capacity, but besides from that, every park is given the same equal oppertunity to create something awesome and its just funny how Florida is always top dog.

[sirloin]

I think you mentioned it right there: capacity. And what manufacturer tends to rank highest in that regard? ;)

The reason Florida coasters rank so high is because all of the good ones down there are B&Ms (with a couple of exceptions). Other parks don't have it in their budget to build B&Ms, so they go to other manufacturers. Think about the SROS coasters. Those rides aren't nearly as expensive as B&Ms of the same stature, so parks with smaller budgets are going to go for them. Florida also has the advantage of being open year-round, so there's a greater cashflow. Not only that, but the style of parks that Florida have, which really don't work in too many other places, have the advantage of outrageous theming. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't expect theming on the level of Disney in Ohio or anywhere but SoCal (and even then at only a couple of parks). That theming pretty much sets it in stone that you're going to get a higher-caliber experience.

I placed my vote on my favorite state for parks based on how I feel at them. SFOT and SFFT are so laid-back compared to the Florida parks. I feel more relaxed at them, and they still maintain that amusement park feel, which the Florida parks don't have. Florida parks feel like resorts (which they all pretty much are), with BGT being the most similar to a regular amusement park.

Also, as stated above, Florida is such a huge tourist state, even on an international level. People come from all over the world for Florida parks, and much of that is because of the name Disney. Mickey Mouse is an international icon. Snoopy and Batman don't hold a candle to the mouse. That's where all your money comes from, and that's why your parks can shell out the $$$ for all those B&Ms while other parks can't.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that the only reason other parks seem so hit-or-miss with their additions is the frequency of additions. If Florida parks added attractions at the pace regional parks do, you might see more mediocre or even disappointing rides among the greats. However, Florida parks, thanks to reasons stated above, get obscene cash flows due to their year-round operation (which most places can't match due to the climate) and their legacies.

Simply put, I'll take a laid-back day with Mr. Freeze, Titan, B-TR, and Shock Wave over an over-crowded day with Donald Duck.

I'd also like to add one thing. SF parks don't lose their novelty when you go to them alot. I imagine most people prefer their once-annual visit to WDW, if they go even that often. It's a different world, but I can see people easily making it part of their everyday life. Do something like that too often, and it begins to lose its touch. It seems that SF parks and the former Paramount parks do a better job of hitting the right balance that allows them to maintain their touch even if you do go somewhat frequently. Same for the AB parks, and before you accuse me of contradicting myself, it's due mainly to the WDW and Universal parks that I like Texas more.

[Tom]

I think you mentioned it right there: capacity. And what manufacturer tends to rank highest in that regard? ;)

The reason Florida coasters rank so high is because all of the good ones down there are B&Ms (with a couple of exceptions). Other parks don't have it in their budget to build B&Ms, so they go to other manufacturers. Think about the SROS coasters. Those rides aren't nearly as expensive as B&Ms of the same stature, so parks with smaller budgets are going to go for them. Florida also has the advantage of being open year-round, so there's a greater cashflow. Not only that, but the style of parks that Florida have, which really don't work in too many other places, have the advantage of outrageous theming. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't expect theming on the level of Disney in Ohio or anywhere but SoCal (and even then at only a couple of parks). That theming pretty much sets it in stone that you're going to get a higher-caliber experience.

I placed my vote on my favorite state for parks based on how I feel at them. SFOT and SFFT are so laid-back compared to the Florida parks. I feel more relaxed at them, and they still maintain that amusement park feel, which the Florida parks don't have. Florida parks feel like resorts (which they all pretty much are), with BGT being the most similar to a regular amusement park.

Also, as stated above, Florida is such a huge tourist state, even on an international level. People come from all over the world for Florida parks, and much of that is because of the name Disney. Mickey Mouse is an international icon. Snoopy and Batman don't hold a candle to the mouse. That's where all your money comes from, and that's why your parks can shell out the $$$ for all those B&Ms while other parks can't.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that the only reason other parks seem so hit-or-miss with their additions is the frequency of additions. If Florida parks added attractions at the pace regional parks do, you might see more mediocre or even disappointing rides among the greats. However, Florida parks, thanks to reasons stated above, get obscene cash flows due to their year-round operation (which most places can't match due to the climate) and their legacies.

Simply put, I'll take a laid-back day with Mr. Freeze, Titan, B-TR, and Shock Wave over an over-crowded day with Donald Duck.

I'd also like to add one thing. SF parks don't lose their novelty when you go to them alot. I imagine most people prefer their once-annual visit to WDW, if they go even that often. It's a different world, but I can see people easily making it part of their everyday life. Do something like that too often, and it begins to lose its touch. It seems that SF parks and the former Paramount parks do a better job of hitting the right balance that allows them to maintain their touch even if you do go somewhat frequently. Same for the AB parks, and before you accuse me of contradicting myself, it's due mainly to the WDW and Universal parks that I like Texas more.

You just hit SO many points I was about to hit on. Firstly about the cash flow Florida gets. Basically all year around people are always going there to vacation due to the environment. Always sunny and warm. Also, there are lots of older couples there. How many families go on vacation to see their grandparents? When I lived in Texas I flew out to Cali just to see family, we went to Disneyland because that was a tourist attraction an thats exactly what we were. Same exact thing happens in Florida.

The part about going to a Disney park many times in a year compared to once a year or less is 100% true in my case. When I did move to Cali, I had a Disneyland pass 3 out of 4 years, I went constantly over summer. Now I go either when it is free, friends who work there, or if it is for a special occasion. I can't pay that much to go there more than one time a year. I am not made of money, and will not use a pass enough. DLR is much smaller than WDW, which is practically a city in itself. Families go to both for vacation for a week. Both locations have a Universal park, granted USH is pretty lame from what I remember last time I was there was before ROTM, and USF consists of 2 parks. Cali has KBF and SFMM while Florida has BGA and IOA. I have not been to IOA or BGA, but I can promise you, just from the pictures I have seen, the day experience is much better there. Like Steve said, I also like more than just coasters at a park. SFGAm is my favorite park I have ever been to. New Orleans Square, I believe that is the name, is Disney-esque theming and I felt when I walked in that area I seriously thought I was in a completely different place.

I plan on going to the major Texas parks again soon, since I went to SFFT when I was very young and I wasn't tall enough for anything. Cedar Point is a great coaster park. Frontier Trail is the best part of the park. You can make the debate about MF and Magnum being next to the water as scenery but it doesn't work for me. I cant make a decision about which state is the best until I hit more parks in Texas, Florida, and Ohio, KI in particular.

[Mike T]

Like I said before, there is nothing that I can see that can influence the facts that contributes to how a roller coaster is designed in Florida, versus how its designed anywhere else in the world. Lets take a look at some statistics:



3 Nemesis Alton Towers UK
5 Katun Mirabilandia IT
7 Nitro Six Flags Great Ad NJ
8 Black Mamba Phantasialand DE
9 Pyrenees Parque EspaNa JP
10 Goliath Six Flags Over Geo GA
11 SheiKra Busch Gardens Tamp FL
13 Montu Busch Gardens Tamp FL
17 Dueling Dragons-Fire Islands of Adventu FL
18 Apollo's Chariot Busch Gardens Will VA
21 Kumba Busch Gardens Tamp FL
23 Dueling Dragons-Ice Islands of Adventu FL
25 Goliath La Ronde Parc Amus QC
27 Incredible Hulk Islands of Adventu FL
28 Kraken SeaWorld Orlando FL

Above listed is the top 15 Bolliger and Mabillard roller coasters in the world, as voted by the contributers of the Mitch Hawker 2006 Steel roller coaster poll. Bolliger and Mabillard has claimed their name to 71 roller coasters from around the world, and out of the top 30 ranked steel roller coasters, 15 are accounted from this firm. That means that they are quite the successful firm, wouldn't you say so?

The neat park about this is that if we took what I just said and put into account the top roller coasters in the world, you will find that 25% of them (out of the entire world keep in mind) reside within a 70 mile radius of each other, all being from Bolliger and Mabillard. Other than that, go ahead and try to find me such a concentrated area of high class rides.

You can try to tell me that its unfair because the parks down here generate so much more revenue, thus being the reason for the rides down here being so much better, but if you look at the prices between a seasonal park's B&M, and Florida's, there isn't much difference. You can also tell me that Florida is given more time to design the attractions, but the last time I checked, it's taking Busch 3 years to pump out awesome rides... just like any seasonal park looking to add a new ride.

So again, my question is: Why is it that the rides in Florida have all of the goods to them, giving them their high ranking that they deserve. All of the rides down here are Unique, Complete, Forceful, and paced well. Its not a hard concept to grasp, but it kind of flabbergasts me that there are so many other B&M's ranked below the stuff in my state.

[vekoma9]

So again, my question is: Why is it that the rides in Florida have all of the goods to them, giving them their high ranking that they deserve. All of the rides down here are Unique, Complete, Forceful, and paced well. Its not a hard concept to grasp, but it kind of flabbergasts me that there are so many other B&M's ranked below the stuff in my state.


Can we not say this to other parks aswell?

Many states have great coasters. I mean B&M's everywhere are all designed masterfully. I suggest to you, Mike, to go ahead and ride some B&M's elsewhere like go to Busch Gardens Europe. Like I said before; Florida seems to try and invest more money into their rides to get the money back. Same with other parks that have great B&M's.

[Comet]

The neat park about this is that if we took what I just said and put into account the top roller coasters in the world, you will find that 25% of them (out of the entire world keep in mind) reside within a 70 mile radius of each other, all being from Bolliger and Mabillard. Other than that, go ahead and try to find me such a concentrated area of high class rides.

Well...there's your answer.

Go ahead and try to find another place in the world with 6 custom B&M coasters within a 70 mile radius of each other. There isn't, except in Florida.

So yeah, you live in or around the Theme Park capital of the world, to me it doesn't come as a surprise that eight of the top thirty steel coasters are located there.

The Orlando parks are in a different league than other parks, it's been like that for a while now.

[sirloin]

Mike, save Kumba, how many of those Florida B&Ms were the first of their type? Zero. They all were built with experience from previous installations of rides of their various types. Montu had plenty of influence from B-TR, Raptor, and Nemesis. SheiKra came off of Oblivion. Kraken was born from Medusa (which I'll acknowledge has some Kumba in it). Dueling Dragons, well, is Dueling Dragons, which probably got some influence outside of B&M as well.

Also, if Kumba was the insanely influential design that everyone says it is, why did it never influence people to buy more coasters of its type (note that I didn't say it wasn't influential at all, especially with respect to certain elements, an argument I would easily have lost)? Why did it take a floor removal to get sit-down loopers to sell?

Heck, this whole argument is unfair, as Comet pointed out. If I want to throw in Premiers, Intamins, Arrows, Vekomas, Giovanolas, and wooden coasters, I've got a far better ride selection.

Happy Mike? This thread isn't an argument. This is a thread telling us what we already know and agree with. The only question is why other parks don't add a bajillion B&Ms, which is because they'll take variety instead. I'll side with them on this one, though I do say that no manufacturer has eclipsed B&M in the quality department.

[Dan]

I agree, Comet, a good answer to your question is that the demand for high quality thrill rides (B&M rides in this case) is so high in such a concentrated area (Florida parks area) that you get top rides cranked out by B&M for the parks.

Again, I bring up my point about various companies being an influence. Busch Gardens recently installed Griffon, which is arguably better than SheiKra. Yes, you can talk about their theme differences, but one must admit that they are very close in comparison.

Nemesis at Alton Towers ranked at the top in Hawker's poll. I have personally ridden it and, having ridden many B&M's, can say it is among the best. The theme is on par with Busch parks.

Black Mamba: Just look at the theme! Simply an outstanding job, the actual ride takes some Nemesis and some originality to create what looks like another world class B&M. And, look where it placed in the poll.

Look at all the B&M Megas on Hawker's list you have there in your post, Mike. Not one of them is in Florida. What do they all have in common? They are all in different places. Obviously if Florida had a Mega it would rank extremely well, but Florida has yet to build one.

Look at all those coasters. They are not in the same place, yet rank among and even above Florida's coasters. What's the difference? They are located in different states and countries around the world, whereas Florida contains so many top rides. The reasons being the high demand for thrill rides, and the large presence of high quality amusement parks willing to build those rides. Is that a satisfactory answer?

[Thrill Reconnoiter]

Heck, what did Kumba do except create a rather low-selling coaster style. While Medusa has alot of Kumba in it, it provided the world with a best-selling coaster idea.
Floorless spawned off the sitdowns. There wouldn't have been a Medusa without Kumba. Really...Kumba didn't do anything? It only made the Dive Loop, Cobra Roll (on Beemers) and Interlocking Corkscrews. Grab a cup of coffee with anyone who was an avid enthusiast back then, and they'll tell you just how it changed the way loopers are today.

You say FL can't invent stuff? ...And that DLR has done more than WDWR (before you edited your post)? Seriously, that's most ignorant comment I've ever heard!

What about Space Mountain...only the biggest name in all of roller coasters? Did the first amusement LIM technology not come from the People Mover? WDWR became the first large scale multi-park resort. Busch Gardens Tampa Bay is the oldest surving vendor in all of Busch Entertainment Corporation. I mean, Walt-Disney World Resort built THREE seperate, completely unique, amusement parks before Disney Tokyo Resort, Disneyland Resort, or Disneyland Resort Paris even got one new park! That's insanity. No imagination from Epcot, Animal Kingdom, or MGMS? Really dude... Why did SWO get such a refined and sophisticated layout while San Antonio or San Diego lack? Why did J:TA come to Orlando six years before San Diego? Yet it's still ranked better. Universal Orlando Resort opened a second theme park while Hollywood and Japan still remain solo. Are you telling me no imagination went into IOA?

I can't begin to think where you're coming from, because you missed the big picture.

[sirloin]

1) Half of your post was in response to a post I made then practically deleted because I misunderstood the specific theme of this topic, assuming it meant parks as a whole.

2) SWO needed Kraken WAY more than San Diego or San Antonio needed it. SWSA only has to compete with SFFT, which isn't quite the same threat as WDW and IOA, coaster-wise or even in general, and SWSD is 2 hours away from any real competition.

3) I never said that absolutely no imagination went into any of those parks. What I said was that they didn't impact the amusement world as a whole as much as places like SFOT and CP did. SFOT and CP built rides that inspired ride styles that were placed the world over. With a few exceptions, Disney and Universal inspired parks and rides that you only find at other Disney or Universal properties. SeaWorld as well. More imagination went into the Florida parks than any other parks anywhere, but those styles of parks only work in limited areas. They're like a sub-industry.

4) I'm willing to bet the idea for the cobra roll came from the Vekoma Boomerangs that had been out for nearly a decade by the time Kumba came around. Sure, Kumba was the first one to get things right, but Vekoma Boomerangs have cobra rolls. Just not the better-executed ones of the B&Ms. And Dominator's is the best anywhere. ;)

[Thrill Reconnoiter]

What I said was that they didn't impact the amusement world as a whole as much as places like SFOT and CP did. SFOT and CP built rides that inspired ride styles that were placed the world over. With a few exceptions, Disney and Universal inspired parks and rides that you only find at other Disney or Universal properties. SeaWorld as well. More imagination went into the Florida parks than any other parks anywhere, but those styles of parks only work in limited areas. They're like a sub-industry.
It's not FL's job to "contribute and inspire to designs and rides." In all probability they don't even care what other parks are doing, or if CedairFair or SixFlags can easily build a similar design. Simply, all FL parks aim for is building the most unique/best attractions they can...and if it so happens to be done in a manner that others [parks] cannot pursue, that is all the better for them because of originality.

There is no "only works in limited areas." That's a complete fallacy. The real problem is that only these [Uni/Disney] parks have the ability & talent to pull it off completely, to pull it off successfully.

[sirloin]

Nowhere did I say that it was Florida's job to make those contributions. It wasn't the job of SFOT, CP, DLR, or anyone save the actual ride companies. However, the fact remains that the regional parks did and the Florida ones didn't. Not that the Florida parks haven't done the industry good. They set service levels that every park should strive for.

And Ryan, the Universal and Disney parks have the financial resources coming from year-round operation to pull it off. SF doesn't have enough year-round parks to make enough money to add $100,000,000 attractions. They have Six Flags Mexico and behind that, their best contribution is SFMM, which goes weekends-only come the regular offseason. Perhaps if they had the location and room for a WDW or even DLR-sized property, things might be different.

Not only that, but Disney and Universal parks, and even the Anheuser-Busch properties, started out with money from entertainment or beer. Six Flags wasn't blessed with that kind of financial backing. Neither was Cedar Fair, so for their limited starting resources, I'd say they've done mighty well for themselves, even if they both have huge budget deficits to take care of.

The Disney, Universal, and Anheuser-Busch approaches wouldn't work at a SF or CF park, and the same is true in reverse. And good on them all for their individuality. That's why people still go to Florida and that's why they still go to their regional parks. Different places offer different experiences. Disney wouldn't be the same if you could do it everywhere.

That brings me to another point: if Disney is so wonderfully unique, why are all their parks the same? Heck, California Adventure, Disney/Hollywood Studios, and Animal Kingdom are the only unique ones. Every other Disney park is a Magic Kingdom spinoff. Sure, there are subtle differences here and there, but there's a million Space Mountains, a million Splash Mountains, a million Big Thunder Mountain Railroads, a million Haunted Mansions, etc., etc.

With SF, the only coaster I can ride at SFNE and SFOT is a Boomerang. I have to go to Texas for Titan and Massachusetts for Superman. Not so with Disney, or even the Universal parks. I can visit the Mummy, Shrek, or, at least a couple years ago, Back to the Future in Hollywood or Orlando. I was watching a TV special once on a Universal park and I couldn't tell which one it was.

Disney rides are unique to Disney, but often times, not to the specific park. I know SF has a million SLC's, Boomerangs, B-TRs, you name it, but each park is VERY different from the next.

Oh, and go Texas!

Mike, with your permission, can we turn this into a thread about the parks in general to avoid this awesome convo being considered off-topic?

[Thrill Reconnoiter]

Not only that, but Disney and Universal parks, and even the Anheuser-Busch properties, started out with money from entertainment or beer. Six Flags wasn't blessed with that kind of financial backing. Neither was Cedar Fair, so for their limited starting resources, I'd say they've done mighty well for themselves, even if they both have huge budget deficits to take care of.
Everyone still uses this claim, but it went out like bell-bottoms in '82. It was all started by one man, with one dream. Why can't Six Flags or Cedar Fair become successful? They can, they have had the opportunity to. Unfortunately they let it slip by. CF/SF all started out good, but just went downhill. That's not because they weren't "spoon fed" parks like Disney or Universal-that's just a claim ignorant people make up. The fact of the matter is both Cedar Fair and Six Flags went downhill because of poor management. If Universal or Disney didn't churn a profit, they would be dumped. Am I right? Simple business.


And Ryan, the Universal and Disney parks have the financial resources coming from year-round operation to pull it off. SF doesn't have enough year-round parks to make enough money to add $100,000,000 attractions. They have Six Flags Mexico and behind that, their best contribution is SFMM, which goes weekends-only come the regular offseason. Perhaps if they had the location and room for a WDW or even DLR-sized property, things might be different.
So why can't Six Flags have each park run under individual management and that particular parks revenue goes back into just that park? Same for Cedar Fair. If this was done, you could have year round parks like SFMM with that money going back to just SFMM. Nothing says SFMM can't be as successful as BGA. So just why is it that SoCal cannot be as successful as FL?


The Disney, Universal, and Anheuser-Busch approaches wouldn't work at a SF or CF park, and the same is true in reverse. And good on them all for their individuality. That's why people still go to Florida and that's why they still go to their regional parks. Different places offer different experiences. Disney wouldn't be the same if you could do it everywhere.
Nobody said Six Flags or Cedar Fair had to buy a million parks, that's just clearly poor judgement in quantity over quality. Furthermore, your statement holds no water. SF/CF are "daycations", no one from Chicago goes to Six Flags St. Louis-they go to Six Flags Great America. So why can't they adopt the Disney/Universal mentality and build similiar attractions if they work? You're thinking like an enthusiast, not a GP. GP go to their local parks and that's it, not across the country to get new credits. If it works at one park, use it all the parks.


That brings me to another point: if Disney is so wonderfully unique, why are all their parks the same? Heck, California Adventure, Disney/Hollywood Studios, and Animal Kingdom are the only unique ones. Every other Disney park is a Magic Kingdom spinoff. Sure, there are subtle differences here and there, but there's a million Space Mountains, a million Splash Mountains, a million Big Thunder Mountain Railroads, a million Haunted Mansions, etc., etc.
Says the guy who's only been to one Disney and Universal resort. Sure, they have similar ideas and rides...but that's because they are reaching out to different markets. No one in CA goes to WDWR for vacation and no one from FL goes to DLR for vacation. The Space Mountains are very different. Same for the Tower of Terrors: different queues and the drop sequences at Orlando are random.


With SF, the only coaster I can ride at SFNE and SFOT is a Boomerang. I have to go to Texas for Titan and Massachusetts for Superman. Not so with Disney, or even the Universal parks. I can visit the Mummy, Shrek, or, at least a couple years ago, Back to the Future in Hollywood or Orlando. I was watching a TV special once on a Universal park and I couldn't tell which one it was.
Yet I can ride one of nine Batman: The Ride attractions at a SixFlags park. Same for Dark Knight. Back to what I said above, Universal/Disney are still very much different in their own respective ways. Revenge of the Mummy is way different from one another...hence why Orlando's is in the Top 35 and Hollywood's didn't even make Top 100. Jurrasic River Adventure is completely different aswell. Like I said above: If it works, why not use it at all the parks? You are thinking like an enthusiast, not a money making GP.


Disney rides are unique to Disney, but often times, not to the specific park. I know SF has a million SLC's, Boomerangs, B-TRs, you name it, but each park is VERY different from the next.
Not very different. Nearly each one has Batman, or Superman theme...and I've explained enough above so I'm not repeating. All I've seen is just a bunch of repetitiveness in your defense. I've presented the facts.


Mike, with your permission, can we turn this into a thread about the parks in general to avoid this awesome convo being considered off-topic?
I'm still comparing everything to Florida.

[disneylhand]

No one in CA goes to WDWR for vacation and no one from FL goes to DLR for vacation.

You might want to change this, or at least un-bold it. Because it's not true.

-disneylhand

[Jake]

^ As a general rule, that is the case. I don't know any Californians who have been to WDW, nor do I know any Floridians who have been to DLR.

*Note that the above statement does not include enthusiasts!*

[Thrill Reconnoiter]

You might want to change this, or at least un-bold it. Because it's not true.

-disneylhand

Rare instances and generalizations are totally different. More so, I know of no one (GP) that goes to DLR on a family vacation being from FL. However, I do know people from CA that come to WDWR...hmm, I love irony.

[Tom]

^ As a general rule, that is the case. I don't know any Californians who have been to WDW, nor do I know any Floridians who have been to DLR.

*Note that the above statement does not include enthusiasts!*

I know MANY non-enthusiasts who have done that trip.

[Jake]

Did I ever say that it never happened? I merely stated that I didn't know any non-enthusiasts who had made the trip from California to Florida.

[sirloin]

OK Ryan. To save space, I'm going to make another numerical list, with each number representing each of your paragraphs.

1) I never said Disney and Universal were still spoon-fed. I said they got their money from resources not available to Six Flags and Cedar Fair. Also, as I've said before and I can't believe I have to say again, year-round operation makes a difference. Even if the SF and CF parks had management on the level of Disney, they wouldn't make enough money to add attractions as elaborate as those at the Disney parks. Not only that, but I'd love to see a Disney park near Chicago, Sandusky, or Minneapolis turn the kind of profit Disney World can.

As far as turning each property into a multi-park resort, that's an easy claim to make when you ignore the fact that most parks don't have the kind of acreage to pull that off. Cedar Point would have to buy the entire city of Sandusky to have the room available WDW does, and again, with year-round operation not an option due to the climate, that just isn't going to happen. WDW pulls off of the revenues of 4 theme parks, 2 waterparks, a bajillion hotels and an entertainment disctrict. Universal Orlando has 2 parks, 3 hotels, and an entertainment district. DLR has 2 parks and a couple of hotels, all of which can stay open the whole year thanks to a good climate. The only park in either SF or CF located in the US that is open year-round is KBF, who has nowhere else to expand.

So no, alot of those parks never had the opportunities afforded Disney and Universal. And no, attractions with price tags consisting of 9 digits don't work at those parks because those parks don't have the amount of time to make that kind of money and make a profit off of it. A $25,000,000 cobalt blue gigacoaster would do better for CP then a $100,000,000 mountain that would stand across the whole Lake Erie peninsula and probably even into the water. Why? Less space used, and it's just as popular.

Then let's consider the added advantages WDW and Universal have in marketing. Those two are just a small part of much larger entertainment enterprises. They have marketing in the form of movies and TV shows. They own their own licenses, so it costs them bupkus to throw in the Little Mermaid or Shrek. I've not read any comics from SF Comics Inc. Have you? No! And think about all those ABC shows that had their casts visit WDW. Boy Meets World, According to Jim, Step by Step even (I'm pretty sure it did, but that's an OLD show). And on the Disney Channel, there's still plenty of ads for it! How much does that cost Disney? Little, if anything, since they own all of those enterprises. Free advertising for 'em, and there's already plenty of name recognition. As for SF and CF, well, they can pay for their TV spots. They can pay for the use of DC Comics or Warner Brothers characters. That's money out of their pocket to create great experiences. If those rights were free, I imagine the theming would be a bit more impressive.

Simply put, I think that there are no parks on Earth more impressive than those in Florida. What I'm trying to say is that your argument that it was a fair fight isn't true at all. The Florida parks have additional room and additional sources of revenue even from within themselves, and they have marketing opportunities SF and CF will probably never have.

2) Had the parks been run under individual management, yeah, they might do a little better for themselves. Oh, but wait, then SFMM would have 17 coasters. Sometimes a little corporate oversight might be better. Heck, according to Kinzel, the CF parks many times are run under their own management, and get rides accordingly. It was an act of generosity on the part of CF to add Patriot, though. No fault of WoF. They just aren't in as big a tourist area as Orlando is.

Oh, and don't for 1 second tell me those FL parks don't mooch off of each other. That's a huge reason for the success of BGT. It's an hour and a half away from Orlando, yet I imagine many of its visitors are on trips to Orlando. Doesn't have to be the majority of them, but without those package deals that include SeaWorld and Universal, which are far more likely to attract the people thanks to their much closer proximity between themselves and WDW, BGA wouldn't be nearly as successful as it is. I'm willing to bet that all of them mooch off of WDW anyways, though.

3) You're right. They didn't have to buy all those parks. However, even if they did, but had better management, they might not be in the hole they're all in right now. CF even did us a favor with Paramount because it's quite possible Paramount may have decided to just shut 'em down if they didn't sell. And as far as adding the same rides to every park, that just doesn't work all the time. SF parks all have different layouts due to the property available and some have the advantage of terrain. Why should SFMM and SFSTL suffer because SFGAdv and SFGAm are on flat ground? Good for SF and CF for keeping things varied. I don't really have to visit Tokyo Disneyland or Universal Studios Hollywood. I get the same, or better, of an experience in Orlando. I do want to go to all the different SF and CF parks, though, because it's a new experience every time. It keeps me on my toes, and I'm more apt to spend my money going to new destinations than the same ones every time.

4) Yeah, yeah, we all know the Revenge of the Mummies or Towers of Terror have their differences, but they're the same style of ride with the same concept. Really, only the enthusiast would take the time to analyze how different they really are. Think like a GP. They hear Revenge of the Mummy, they aren't going to remember the exact queue shape, number of right turns, maximum drop length, etc.

5) Those lists are made up by enthusiasts. A member of the GP might not notice the differences in the different layouts of ROTM in CA and FL. That's something we'd notice. Also, those GP don't place votes in those polls. Only we do. And for Jurassic River Adventure, again, that's a distinction that only us and the most perceptive and anal of GP would make.

6) Of course every park has similar themes in it, i.e. Batman, Superman, Bugs Bunny, etc. However, they don't go to the extreme of having the same rides all the way up to their biggest coasters. Maybe 1 or 2 SF parks do, but not all of them.

[Thrill Reconnoiter]

I said they got their money from resources not available to Six Flags and Cedar Fair.
Did we forget IOA was built on all loans? People wonder why it took seven years to get something major into the park, and that's because they were paying off loans majority of that time.


Also, as I've said before and I can't believe I have to say again, year-round operation makes a difference. Even if the SF and CF parks had management on the level of Disney, they wouldn't make enough money to add attractions as elaborate as those at the Disney parks. Not only that, but I'd love to see a Disney park near Chicago, Sandusky, or Minneapolis turn the kind of profit Disney World can.
I already acknowledged this above. So why can't SoCal [SFMM, DLR, KBF, Uni] be as successful as Florida? Why can't Fiesta Texas operate on weekdays?


most parks don't have the kind of acreage to pull that off.Is that a joke? Half the Cedar Fair/Six Flags parks are built in a wooded areas. All the Universals/Disneys (minus WDWR) are land locked.


So no, alot of those parks never had the opportunities afforded Disney and Universal.
Since you're so smart and know your history, you'd know the Cedar Point started out on the game waaaay [decades] ahead of Disney or Universal. Sounds like all the fairness in the world to me...


A $25,000,000 cobalt blue gigacoaster would do better for CP then a $100,000,000 mountain that would stand across the whole Lake Erie peninsula and probably even into the water. Why? Less space used, and it's just as popular.
You telling me that ROTM or SM's footprint is larger than Millenium Force? Give me a break.


The Florida parks have additional room and additional sources of revenue even from within themselves, and they have marketing opportunities SF and CF will probably never have.
Once again, not really true. Universal and Busch Gardens are both land locked...and their money goes back into the park. The fact of the matter is, Busch Gardens is a "hobby"-straight from the mules mouth. Universal used to make its money from its Studios that were within the park. Now they're not really operational, so in another 10 years are people still going to make this bogus claim?


Had the parks been run under individual management, yeah, they might do a little better for themselves. Oh, but wait, then SFMM would have 17 coasters. Sometimes a little corporate oversight might be better. Heck, according to Kinzel, the CF parks many times are run under their own management, and get rides accordingly. It was an act of generosity on the part of CF to add Patriot, though. No fault of WoF. They just aren't in as big a tourist area as Orlando is.
Like I said before: no one forced Kinzel to buy 50 million parks. That was clearly poor judgement.


Oh, and don't for 1 second tell me those FL parks don't mooch off of each other. That's a huge reason for the success of BGT. It's an hour and a half away from Orlando, yet I imagine many of its visitors are on trips to Orlando. Doesn't have to be the majority of them, but without those package deals that include SeaWorld and Universal, which are far more likely to attract the people thanks to their much closer proximity between themselves and WDW, BGA wouldn't be nearly as successful as it is. I'm willing to bet that all of them mooch off of WDW anyways, though.
How wrong you are. Not too long ago Universal and Busch decided to team up against the mouse an offer plans that would sway visitor away and to their parks. So why can't KBF, Uni, and SFMM do this against DLR?


You're right. They didn't have to buy all those parks. However, even if they did, but had better management, they might not be in the hole they're all in right now.
Yup.


CF even did us a favor with Paramount because it's quite possible Paramount may have decided to just shut 'em down if they didn't sell.
That's a favor? Are you telling me that putting themselves in such a huge financial strain, where they can't offer their visitors a fair and fun experience, that this is a favor?


And as far as adding the same rides to every park, that just doesn't work all the time. SF parks all have different layouts due to the property available and some have the advantage of terrain. Why should SFMM and SFSTL suffer because SFGAdv and SFGAm are on flat ground? Good for SF and CF for keeping things varied. I don't really have to visit Tokyo Disneyland or Universal Studios Hollywood. I get the same, or better, of an experience in Orlando. I do want to go to all the different SF and CF parks, though, because it's a new experience every time. It keeps me on my toes, and I'm more apt to spend my money going to new destinations than the same ones every time.
You say this like Universal/Disney layouts are clones. They're not.


4) Yeah, yeah, we all know the Revenge of the Mummies or Towers of Terror have their differences, but they're the same style of ride with the same concept. Really, only the enthusiast would take the time to analyze how different they really are. Think like a GP. They hear Revenge of the Mummy, they aren't going to remember the exact queue shape, number of right turns, maximum drop length, etc.

5) Those lists are made up by enthusiasts. A member of the GP might not notice the differences in the different layouts of ROTM in CA and FL. That's something we'd notice. Also, those GP don't place votes in those polls. Only we do. And for Jurassic River Adventure, again, that's a distinction that only us and the most perceptive and anal of GP would make.
Are you telling me a GP is going to be able to determine a difference from a Superman themed Intamin in SF New England to a Superman themed Intamin in SF America? Same concept.


6) Of course every park has similar themes in it, i.e. Batman, Superman, Bugs Bunny, etc. However, they don't go to the extreme of having the same rides all the way up to their biggest coasters. Maybe 1 or 2 SF parks do, but not all of them.
Are you saying Universal and Disney have the same attractions up to their "big coasters?" Last time I checked, California Screamin' was top at DLR and Expedition Everest top at WDWR. Oh, and those Uni parks, one has a couple B&M's.




Simply put, I think that there are no parks on Earth more impressive than those in Florida.
Thank you for seeing the light.

[disneylhand]

Simply put, I think that there are no parks on Earth more impressive than those in Florida.I disagree.

I want to remind you guys not to underestimate "the GP". Some of you are acting like they're complete idiots. I know from many first hand experiences that they are way more observant than some of you seem to believe...


^ As a general rule, that is the case.
Rare instances and generalizations are totally different.
There's also a difference between truth and untruth.

Ryan, I'm only getting on you for this because you are, in my eyes, one of the most respectable users on this site. I'd hate for more uninformed readers to believe such an exaggeration.

-disneylhand

[sirloin]

I'm gonna get carpal-tunnel syndrome replying to you, Ryan. ;)

1) If it took all sorts of loans to be able to afford IOA, Universal wasn't as successful as we all thought. But then, I think everybody knew it took IOA and CityWalk to make that property even remotely competitive with WDW.

2) SFFT would lose money if it operated on weekdays. San Antonio is hardly the tourist spot Orlando is, and I doubt the city is even remotely as big. After all, Orlando is only the city it is because of those resorts. No other cities were built on attractions.

3) You misunderstood my comment about acreage. The properties may be landlocked, but the amount of land they sit on is far more than CP or SFMM sit on. There's not room for a park adjacent to CP like there was before DCA or IOA came along. The Disneyland and Universal Florida resorts may be landlocked now, but not before the extra parks/hotels came in. And just because those parks are built in wooded areas does not mean that all the land is there's. Tell SFFT, SFKK, SFOT, SFGAm, Dorney, KBF, etc. to build another park on the remaining land. They could probably throw in some monkey bars, a sandbox, and a jungle gym, but that's about it.

4) CP started out way before, but with alot less money and nowhere near the technology DLR or the Florida parks had. Oh, and CP didn't start out with the same amount of money behind it as Disney. Time doesn't always equal a fair fight. And again, CP does not have the benefit of year-round operation, which will always land you bigger profits. On top of that, no brands to be associated with, etc.

5) The mountain I was referring to was Expedition: Everest, but that's OK. Even so, the footprint might not be as big, but MF's is pretty narrow for much of the course. ROTM, EE, and SM are big chunks of land taken up by one attraction. It's not always the size of the footprint. The shape makes a big difference. Track takes up less space on its own than it does with a building larger than an airplane hangar around it.

6) Universal and DLR may be landlocked, but they still had more space to begin with than the regional parks did. And I don't feel sorry for USF at all. They didn't buy the extra land when they had the chance. And you didn't address the marketing opportunities. The money may go into the park, but the parent company can promote the heck out of it for practically nothing. Not that they do that anywhere near as much as Disney does, but the concept is still the same. And the name recognition means everything. All CF and SF have are parks in their enterprise, so they have no extra way to promote it without shelling out some serious $$$. Not a problem for the other 3 mega-chains who all have name recognition, be it from TV, movies, or beer.

7) Buying 50 million parks isn't poor judgment if you run them properly.

Skipping over 8, as no discussion is required, we move on to 9.

9) I went to KD and still had a great time. If he's planning on ruining them, he hasn't yet.

10) The layouts aren't perfect clones, but there's always a Tomorrowland, Fantasyland, etc.

11) Easier to tell apart different layouts when they aren't hidden in a building. The GP would notice clones at regular parks before they noticed them at Universal parks.

12) There's still Space Mountain, Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, and ROTM. Oh, and I was referring to more rides than just coasters. While I have a hard time believing you would actually get so specific as to pick 1 particular coaster, it's not what I meant. There's also Splash Mountain, Haunted Mansion, etc., etc.

13) I never said FL parks were horrible. Yeah, I like my TX parks more, but they aren't nearly as impressive as FL ones are.

[Jake]

I disagree.

Care to back up your statement?


4) CP started out way before, but with alot less money and nowhere near the technology DLR...

A lot less money? Walt Disney started with next to nothing, and had no better knowledge of technology than Cedar Point did.


7) Buying 50 million parks isn't poor judgment if you run them properly.

Key word: if.


12) There's still Space Mountain, Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, and ROTM. Oh, and I was referring to more rides than just coasters. While I have a hard time believing you would actually get so specific as to pick 1 particular coaster, it's not what I meant. There's also Splash Mountain, Haunted Mansion, etc., etc.

And every single one of those rides are unique in one way or another. All the Haunted Mansions have a unique theme and layout to them. The Big Thunders all have different layouts as well as Space Mountain and Splash Mountain. And lastly the Mummy's have unique layouts (unfortunately) as well.

[Thrill Reconnoiter]

There's also a difference between truth and untruth.

Ryan, I'm only getting on you for this because you are, in my eyes, one of the most respectable users on this site. I'd hate for more uninformed readers to believe such an exaggeration.

-disneylhand
I appreciate you trying to point it out, no worries. However, if you're trying to get me to believe that the majority of families in Santa Clara book a vacation to WDWR, or the average family in Miami books a vacation to DLR, it's not going to happen. I've never in my life seen a commercial for DLR while living in the sunshine state, and never a WDWR commercial in my visits to CA. I think [hope] most everyone understands that there are instances when people go to the other resort not resided in their state (I'm a perfect example of this: I visited DLR as a resident of FL). Without typing an essay, I was trying to explain that DLR controls the western frontier as WDWR controls the rest.



Justin, if I get the energy to respond I might, but I felt like I've said enough that can stand in its own defense.

[sirloin]

Honestly, I think I've wrapped up my argument. It's in the hands of the jury, good sir. And I reckon you probably won anyways. I stand by my arguments, but as far as I'm concerned, we've said all we can say. Now we have to wait for other people, like good sir Jake, to jump in, so we can respond to them. Funny how we all kinda passed on the actual subject matter of the thread.

Anyways, in response to Jake:

1) Walt Disney started with plenty of money. Don't give me that. He started it because he wanted to bring his films to life, and last time I checked, he made good money off of those films. Good try, but I don't buy for a second that Walt Disney started the Disney parks with next to nothing. His enterprise, maybe, but not the parks.

Oh, wait, he was actually a pretty rich kid as well, at least last time I checked. And if Walt Disney had no concept of technology, he probably wouldn't have asked Arrow to create some advanced technology that has resulted in steel coasters.

2) CF has done well for themselves. They could do better, yes, but that's only because they bought an entire chain. Oh, but wait, they're still maintaining their quarterly distribution, so they can't be doing that poorly.

3) The Haunted Mansions, Space Mountains, Big Thunder Mountains, and ROTMs are either indoors or built through so much crazy terrain that people couldn't possibly tell them apart. As for rides like SFA's and SFNE's Supermen, if you've ridden them both, you KNOW they're different. Not so with a ride like ROTM, at least for the GP.

[Jake]

1) Walt Disney started with plenty of money. Don't give me that. He started it because he wanted to bring his films to life, and last time I checked, he made good money off of those films. Good try, but I don't buy for a second that Walt Disney started the Disney parks with next to nothing. His enterprise, maybe, but not the parks.

I will not contest this, however I can't imagine that he started w/ith that much more than Cedar Point did. Remember Cedar Point also had an 85 year head-start on Disneyland, and if they didn't both have similar funds in 1955 that doesn't say a lot for Cedar Points management.


Oh, wait, he was actually a pretty rich kid as well, at least last time I checked. And if Walt Disney had no concept of technology, he probably wouldn't have asked Arrow to create some advanced technology that has resulted in steel coasters.

I don't remember him being a rich kid, but I could be wrong of course. And I can't imagine that after over 80 years in the amusement business that Walt still had a better understanding of technology than Cedar Point.


2) CF has done well for themselves. They could do better, yes, but that's only because they bought an entire chain. Oh, but wait, they're still maintaining their quarterly distribution, so they can't be doing that poorly.

And yet they're still sitting on one hell of a debt thanks to the Paramount acquisition.


3) The Haunted Mansions, Space Mountains, Big Thunder Mountains, and ROTMs are either indoors or built through so much crazy terrain that people couldn't possibly tell them apart. As for rides like SFA's and SFNE's Supermen, if you've ridden them both, you KNOW they're different. Not so with a ride like ROTM, at least for the GP.

Whoa whoa whoa, WRONG! I just can't even begin to tell you how incredibly wrong you are. Do you know ANYTHING about the Haunted Mansions? Honestly, if you can't tell the difference between the two you would have to be a complete and total idiot. The Big Thunders would be more difficult to tell, but the Space Mountains? The trains are radically different,a nd the layouts are quite different as well. As for the Mummy rides, one is easily over a thousand feet longer than the other, so don't give me that.

[Tom]

Jake,
Would a non-enthusiast KNOW that one ROTM is 1,000 feet longer, of course not! They will know its longer if they pay attention. Calling someone a complete and total idiot for not knowing differences between Haunted Mansions is a HUGE overstatement! Yes they are different, just like each Coney Island Cyclone model is different from another based on how they are constructed. Even if a ride is the exact same, you can notice tiny differences if you pay attention. Its been years since I went to WDWR and yes attractions are different, but the vast majority of people won't visit one after another to be able to compare ride to ride. The obvious differences will be stated like Splash Mountain at WDWR has you sit next to someone compared to DLR being you sit alone. If someone were to say the seating arrangement was the exact same, then you could call them an idiot.

Yes Walt Disney did come from a wealthy family. I remember learning that in first grade, my brother did a project on Walt Disney in second grade.

You can't expect after one year that debt to vanish. It will take time. Also even though they had an 85 year head start, they didn't have a little character called MICKEY MOUSE on their side. That mouse has done wonders for the park.

[sirloin]

How would CP not having the same amount of funds in 1955 as Walt Disney did detract from their reputation? They weren't a particularly attraction-laden amusement park for quite some time. They had attractions, yes, but nothing like Walt had at his disposal.

And again, Jake, the GP may notice slight theming differences between the Space Mountains at Disney World and Disneyland, but do you really think they'd know the layout was different? I don't, considering they're both, I dunno, in the dark?

Lastly, yes, CP may still be in debt, but if they're able to maintain their quarterly distrbution, they can't be hurting that bad.

[Michael]

You can't expect after one year that debt to vanish. It will take time.
Haha, Disney, debt, :p


About Jake's comments on guest's noticing things. Well, like Sirloin said, it's in the dark, so there's a pretty good reason they didn't notice ;)

I think in general the GP isn't going to notice things because unlike us, they don't give a crap. They're there to get their enjoyment, and leave with family memories; not memories of a ride's stats or layout :p

[Jake]

And again, Jake, the GP may notice slight theming differences between the Space Mountains at Disney World and Disneyland, but do you really think they'd know the layout was different? I don't, considering they're both, I dunno, in the dark?

How can you, for a second, think that guests would not notice the layout is different? Especially since you are assuming that they would be able to tell the difference between the two Supermans' layouts. Especially since the Supermans both have the exact same seating arrangement, same track color, same..pretty much everything. Where-as both Space Mountains have radically different seating arrangements, there are two tracks (WDW) as opposed to one (DLR), or one with a launch (Paris).

The GP may not be paying THAT much attention to details, but give me a break, they aren't stupid.

[sirloin]

They'd probably notice a difference between Paris and the other two, yes, but launch instead of lift is much easier to tell.

Oh, and since when does the number of tracks imply different layouts? If I were to eliminate one side of Rebel Yell, does that imply that the side remaining must now have a double-down to distinguish it? Certainly not! And the same goes for differences in trains.

Oh, but one thing: You get to see the trains with the lights on. You can't see the track at all because it's all in the dark, so yes, my comment about the GP being able to tell the difference between SFNE's Superman and SFA's while not being able to distinguish the 2 Space Mountains (I never said that nobody could tell, just that I wouldn't expect them to notice the difference between the 2 SM's) is still valid.

[Jake]

It sounds to me like your trying to say that guests could not tell the difference between the Walt Disney World Space Mountain, and the Disneyland Space Mountain. I have several reasons that could dis-prove that theory.

First of all, the layouts are different, it's just one of those things you can tell. Secondly, as I already mentioned, the seating arrangement. Walt Diseny World's cars are like those of the Matterhorn, a bobsled car where you are sitting in someone lap. Where-as at the Disneyland Space Mountain you all have an indivdual seat, directly to the left or right from another guest.

Also, Disneyland's Space Mountain has a soundtrack, where-as Walt Disney World's does not, which is a MAJOR difference. Disney World's also has a different "pre-launch" sequence than Disneylands. Which is something guests are bound to notice.

With all this, I rest my case. The two rides are radically different, and even a simple guest could figure this out.

[sirloin]

I'm only referring to a layout difference, which no, you can't always tell. However, the ultimate concept is the same among all the Space Mountains, and that's mainly what I'm referring to in my argument.

Also, if a simple guest thinks Kraken goes 90 mph, which doesn't automatically qualify them as an idiot because they don't check RCDB whereas we do, then no, I'm not holding my breath that many of them will notice a significant layout difference. After all, you only have the forces to tell you.

And again, bear in mind that yes, some of them will be able to tell a difference.

[Tom]

I have had many friends here in Kansas, who by the way have never been to WDW, DLR, or any major amusement park, biggest one being WoF, say that Mamba is easily over 400 feet. I have stopped correcting them, since they got upset that I completely told them that they were wrong and it is not even close to 400 feet. People will say what they want to about a ride, if someone says WDWR Space Mountain and DLR Space Mountain are the exact same let them, they aren't hurting anyone, but if the need is there simply say they are different and if they ask how then tell them.

[p0tat0]

It sounds to me like your trying to say that guests could not tell the difference between the Walt Disney World Space Mountain, and the Disneyland Space Mountain. I have several reasons that could dis-prove that theory.

First of all, the layouts are different, it's just one of those things you can tell. Secondly, as I already mentioned, the seating arrangement. Walt Diseny World's cars are like those of the Matterhorn, a bobsled car where you are sitting in someone lap. Where-as at the Disneyland Space Mountain you all have an indivdual seat, directly to the left or right from another guest.

Also, Disneyland's Space Mountain has a soundtrack, where-as Walt Disney World's does not, which is a MAJOR difference. Disney World's also has a different "pre-launch" sequence than Disneylands. Which is something guests are bound to notice.

With all this, I rest my case. The two rides are radically different, and even a simple guest could figure this out.

And you think a guest actually pays attention to that?

[Jake]

And you think a guest actually pays attention to that?

No, I posted all of that merely because it entertains me :rolleyes:.

So you think a guest does not notice when one has a soundtrack and another does not?

[sirloin]

Again, merely a theming difference. I'm specifically referring to the rides having identical concepts, even if they are carried out differently, and as far as guests not being able to tell the difference, I'm referring to layout alone, which is something I wouldn't expect a guest to notice. Some will, yes, but I imagine many won't.

[Jake]

Than your comparison of the two Superman: Ride of Steel's is completely useless. Those two rides have identical concepts, and extremely similar layouts. In the "GP's" mind all they see is this. "A bunch of big hills and long lines". Again if we're comparing layout alone, most guests would not be able to tell one ride from another if all you had was layout.

I would be ready to venture the guess that if you blindfolded a normal patron and put them on Kraken, and then on Medusa, they would not know they had been on different rides. So as you said, while some may tell a difference between two similar layouts, most will not.

[sirloin]

*sigh*

You just don't get it, do you?

Superman is outside. Space Mountain isn't. My comparison is just fine.

[Thrill Reconnoiter]

Sorry Justin, but I've gotta' go with Jake on this one. If GP somehow think ROTM is the same, GP wouldn't notice the difference between the SROS coasters.

Just because one is outside or enclosed, it doesn't mean anything. I remember being younger and not understanding the full layout of coasters outside, however I understood enclosed dark rides VERY well. Why? Because they had a storyline that I could follow and associate with. I'm not talking just elements, but the layouts are incorporated differently into the storyline of ROTM: one has three LIM launches, the other has one; one has a coaster segment all backwards, the other forwards; one has a false ending, one does not. And what GP ARE good at is following storylines, and the storylines between them are different...Universal even goes so far as to have different spiels between the two.

[sirloin]

I'm saying that I'd be less surprised to see a member of the GP spot the differences IN LAYOUT (keeping things clear enough for Jake to follow ;) ) between 2 outdoor coasters than 2 indoor ones, ROTM or otherwise. I still don't say that there is any one situation where 100% of the people would notice the difference, as I'm sure I could find someone who couldn't tell the difference in layout between Raptor and Mantis if I wanted to, but you get the idea.

Oh, and Ryan, storyline does not always imply difference in layout. And minus ROTM, most indoor coasters don't have storylines that are as elaborate as that of ROTM, for the simple fact that the closest coasters to ROTM are the Italian Job coasters (highly recommended by yours truly).