Jump to content

2017 and Beyond Speculation at SFGA


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Railer, if you feel this site is so bad and one-sided - we invite you to leave. After all, we wouldn't want to expose you to too much of our "watered down crap". Besides, we could never reach the l

You didn't answer my question, but in a way I guess you did.   We get that you don't care anymore and nothing makes a difference. I have never seen anyone so passionate about something they could

Are you for real? Good thing they didn't get your TRex. Imagine what that would have done to your ecosystem. Or would that have been OK?   And by the way, that area is nowhere near wetlands.

Posted Images

It's more about using certain "keyword's" that get into People's Head's, and get's them thinking. But the question is a very valid one that the Park will now be asked tonight "Why make a new Building for an Attraction, when in another Six Flag's Park that same new Attraction was placed in the same Building we have currently only being used for Storage?". And the Building we currently have that was converted and only being used for storage now, is in a better location for that "New Attraction" than where they want to Build a new Building for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the better location is your opinion and one that you may have come up with to justify the use of the simulator building. I think that would have been a good spot also but I wont say the park didn't consider it and feel that this placement fits better into future plans.

I don't know what the future plans are for either area and I am sure they have people who have looked into this and made an educated decision that includes more that what JL would do for the boardwalk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That decision is totally up to the park - one that they made based on their business decisions, traffic flow evaluations, and future planning considerations. The Jackson Planning Board has no input on in-park decisions if they want to use a lot of land that is zoned for their construction without any additional impact on the town. Especially a plot of land that was previously developed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking forward to JL next year.

If that's truly what is coming, it is a worse kept secret that than El Diablo was.

 

And I hope there is room to put a new Enterprise next to it.

Edited by scott
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget Quarterly Return's for the Stockholder's in the Park's descision making process since that now seem's way above Guest Satisfaction. The only reason any of us can see them making a new Building and not spending the Money to move an Attraction, and re-furbish a current building is how cheap Building a new one is. But them saving Money now will cost them the long-term earning potential a new Attraction in the Games will provide for a couple year's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking forward to JL next year.

If that's truly what is coming, it is a worse kept secret that than El Diablo was.

 

It is/was kept very well. There were no leaks or anything like that from someone who knew. It's just very easy for us to guess since it falls in line with SF's recent addition patterns and history. That and the fact that the planing board agenda, which they must do, gives it away.

 

 

It's more about using certain "keyword's" that get into People's Head's, and get's them thinking. But the question is a very valid one that the Park will now be asked tonight "Why make a new Building for an Attraction, when in another Six Flag's Park that same new Attraction was placed in the same Building we have currently only being used for Storage?". And the Building we currently have that was converted and only being used for storage now, is in a better location for that "New Attraction" than where they want to Build a new Building for it.

 

I can imagine how this conversation will play out...

 

Board: "We've heard from the internets (so it must be true) that other installations of this same attraction at your other parks have been constructed in pre-existing buildings. We also understand that you have the same exact building on your property, correct?"

SF: "Correct."

Board: "If said building is only being used for storage, why must an entire new building be constructed?"

SF: "...Because it is being used...for storage."

 

Case closed. Permit approved.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it will be "we recieved many e-mail's form Jackson resident's voicing concern over Building a new Building, when the same Building only being used as storage at Great Adventure, has been converted in other Park's for the same said Attraction, lets delay the Vote until we know all the specifics", since it can only take one vaild concern that can get them to postpone a Vote to gather the fact's. And then a month will go by until the next vote can happen. And "storage" is not a valid excuse to Build a new Building, at least not to the Board it's not since that was already discussed today in my correspondence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a pointless battle you are facing. I really don't get the outrage here. Would justice league go better over at the boardwalk? Sure I agree but the chiller spot hasn't been used for over 9 years now. Something in that spot is better then nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^The park could put in an application tonight to build five of these buildings with their intentions to leave four of them empty. There are no grounds for denying their plans.

 

Going with your line of logic, they wouldn't be able to add any new food or merchandise stands because some that they already have aren't being used. Not the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, i really don't give a crap either way, i'm not giving them my Money anymore, that's all that's relavent to me. If complaining to the Board actually gets a delay, good, as it will cost the Park Money. If not, oh well. I'm not the type that complains about thing's i don't like, i forget they exist and move on once i am done with it whatever it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the better location is your opinion.

Not really. Movie town has 2 rides, and they're both batman. Boardwalk has 2 roller coaster, and they're Superman, and Greenlantern, 2 different superheroes, both in the justice league. 2 batman rides (1 justice league character) VS 2 different justice league character rides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, i really don't give a crap either way, i'm not giving them my Money anymore, that's all that's relavent to me. If complaining to the Board actually gets a delay, good, as it will cost the Park Money. If not, oh well. I'm not the type that complains about thing's i don't like, i forget they exist and move on once i am done with it whatever it is.

Then why are you here in the first place complaining about something you don't like at a park you don't even go to at the moment. Clearly you just don't move on

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe SF can put the JL in the Sim building and then just build the new building for the storage they will lose. That would keep OC dead instead of adding a new ride there. That makes more sense right??? What about the money they will lose with two terror trails gone??? I agree it would have been great on the boardwalk but at least we are getting a new high quality attraction. Why cause grief to the park at all for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

New to this forum, looks like a great site and happy to be here. A long time GA attendee (since the 70's).

 

Been catching up on this discussion and it makes a lot of sense for the park to put Justice League in Chiller's spot. As a business owner myself, just because a building is used for storage does not mean it serves no purpose. It may not serve a purpose you see or benefit from, but storage is a purpose that would need to be replaced and I have yet to hear anyone offer what that alternative would be if they converted the old sim building. And since that is the main games area and games uses it for storage, it would not seem to make sense to move their storage somewhere else.

 

In addition, the building is used for 2 FF trails, which is revenue generating for the park. The park already has to find room for one trail lost at the Chiller site, where are they supposed to replace 2 (I don't even know where they will replace the 1)?

 

Lastly, since none of us know what the future holds, and SFGadv aint talking, we have no idea what the future plans are for other attractions. What we do (almost) know is we are getting a high quality attraction that will be used to revitalize a long dormant area. It is probably going to get some more additions to round it out down the road. That has been a long time coming, and the fact the park is balancing itself out to be much more balanced for families and thrill seekers alike is a good thing. Families drive the park's business, not a small group of enthusiasts, lets not forget that.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll use my super premonition abilities and state that it was boring with procedural jargon followed by a bunch of approvals

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll use my super premonition abilities and state that it was boring with procedural jargon followed by a bunch of approvals

I second that motion LOL!!! No matter what I'm really looking forward to trying this next year. Great addition to the park especially with the extended season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

New to this forum, looks like a great site and happy to be here. A long time GA attendee (since the 70's).

 

Been catching up on this discussion and it makes a lot of sense for the park to put Justice League in Chiller's spot. As a business owner myself, just because a building is used for storage does not mean it serves no purpose. It may not serve a purpose you see or benefit from, but storage is a purpose that would need to be replaced and I have yet to hear anyone offer what that alternative would be if they converted the old sim building. And since that is the main games area and games uses it for storage, it would not seem to make sense to move their storage somewhere else.

 

In addition, the building is used for 2 FF trails, which is revenue generating for the park. The park already has to find room for one trail lost at the Chiller site, where are they supposed to replace 2 (I don't even know where they will replace the 1)?

 

Lastly, since none of us know what the future holds, and SFGadv aint talking, we have no idea what the future plans are for other attractions. What we do (almost) know is we are getting a high quality attraction that will be used to revitalize a long dormant area. It is probably going to get some more additions to round it out down the road. That has been a long time coming, and the fact the park is balancing itself out to be much more balanced for families and thrill seekers alike is a good thing. Families drive the park's business, not a small group of enthusiasts, lets not forget that.

 

Welcome Nativenyer! Great to have you join us at GAH! Totally agree with your post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome Nativenyer! :)

 

Great first post! Totally agree, there's a reason why it wasn't used, wether current or future reasons nobody really knows but I have to say I am glad it isn't going in boardwalk and a old, unused area will be getting life again - unless it doesn't end up in chillers spot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, i really don't give a crap either way, i'm not giving them my Money anymore, that's all that's relavent to me. If complaining to the Board actually gets a delay, good, as it will cost the Park Money. If not, oh well. I'm not the type that complains about thing's i don't like, i forget they exist and move on once i am done with it whatever it is.

I'm sorry but this all seems like a tantrum because the park didn't follow your outline for the future. With how this company gouges its customers for every penny, why do you care they don't put JL in what is already arguably the most crowded midway we have? They make us pass the games already to get to the the GK and PDC. Hell, even the "shortcut" to El Toro requires cutting through an arcade. With an extra giftshop, maybe a new restaurant and restorations throughout OC/Movietown, how do you know they would make so much more money putting it on the Boardwalk? You don't. This could just be the beginning of making Movietown/OC a "moneypit" like you call the Boardwalk.

 

And besides, the money SF plans on making from JL is through getting new admissions, keeping customers returning, and adding yet another new attraction for families who have kids not quite big enough for half the coasters.

 

Trust me, I wanted it to go in the sim building as well to keep Chiller's location open for a coaster. I also wanted Bugs Bunny Land to get totally refurbrished in 2004 and Viper to get removed for a drop tower in 2005. That was my best plan back then. What we got is Kingda Ka (and Zumanjaro eventually), El Toro, and two new themed sections. They had a better plan for the future than I ever did. My point is they might have something better up their sleeves than you ever did, so be patient. Just be happy we are FINALLY getting a dark ride and reopening a dead area of the park. That is awesome and brings us one step closer to being a "complete" park once again with no abandoned/rundown buildings or entire areas.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but this all seems like a tantrum because the park didn't follow your outline for the future. With how this company gouges its customers for every penny, why do you care they don't put JL in what is already arguably the most crowded midway we have? They make us pass the games already to get to the the GK and PDC. Hell, even the "shortcut" to El Toro requires cutting through an arcade. With an extra giftshop, maybe a new restaurant and restorations throughout OC/Movietown, how do you know they would make so much more money putting it on the Boardwalk? You don't. This could just be the beginning of making Movietown/OC a "moneypit" like you call the Boardwalk.

 

And besides, the money SF plans on making from JL is through getting new admissions, keeping customers returning, and adding yet another new attraction for families who have kids not quite big enough for half the coasters.

 

Trust me, I wanted it to go in the sim building as well to keep Chiller's location open for a coaster. I also wanted Bugs Bunny Land to get totally refurbrished in 2004 and Viper to get removed for a drop tower in 2005. That was my best plan back then. What we got is Kingda Ka (and Zumanjaro eventually), El Toro, and two new themed sections. They had a better plan for the future than I ever did. My point is they might have something better up their sleeves than you ever did, so be patient. Just be happy we are FINALLY getting a dark ride and reopening a dead area of the park. That is awesome and brings us one step closer to being a "complete" park once again with no abandoned/rundown buildings or entire areas.

I couldnt agree more! People need to start accepting what we get! They also need to realize that the people making the decisions for new rides arent idiots. The only "bad" thing SF corp has done in the last few years is market the super loops as coasters (you could even argue adding the super loops in general were a mistake.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so happy that we are finally getting a dark ride as well as something new in Movietown. The ride will fit perfectly in that spot (size wise). I also hope they at least add a flat ride in front of the observatory, its the perfect size for a ride pad. Should be interesting to see what they will do with Old country as well as Movietown in general. I can definitely see a flat package in 2018 that will bring Old Country back to life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...