proof?I think tomorrow is gonna be the big day. Six Flags Thursday
proof?I think tomorrow is gonna be the big day. Six Flags Thursday
Well you weren’t wrong… hopefully this is enough proof for you to stop being worried that six flags might view this park as non-coreI think tomorrow is gonna be the big day. Six Flags Thursday
bro is an oracleI think tomorrow is gonna be the big day. Six Flags Thursday
Where’s the announcement??bro is an oracle
Where’s the announcement??
But this was in the gadv coaster thread so I thought the announcement for that was gonna be todayLooking Forward: A New Chapter for Six Flags
www.sixflags.com
No, this is more perceived support for the idea that SFE is still going down in flames under CF's ownership, and it will eventually take GAdv with it. The context is the particulars of the 2027 coaster, which is more evidence that improvements are just lipstick on a free-falling pig. Surely, we must assume by this argument, GAdv could be on the list of the next round of parks sold off by the company. I don't believe any of this, but that's the counter-argument that's been articulated and why this announcement came up in this thread.But this was in the gadv coaster thread so I thought the announcement for that was gonna be today
Yeah, them selling a bunch of non-core parks that have gotten hardly any to no investment the past 15 years surely means they are also going to sell off a park they are currently building a 400ft roller coaster for.No, this is more perceived support for the idea that SFE is still going down in flames under CF's ownership, and it will eventually take GAdv with it. The particulars of the 2027 coaster is more evidence that improvements are just lipstick on a freefalling pig. Surely, we must assume by this argument, GAdv could be on the list of the next round of parks sold off by the company.
Exactly. To me, every sign points to cautious optimism at the investment and planning for a better park, like the 2027 coaster, not the opposite.Yeah, them selling a bunch of non-core parks that have gotten hardly any to no investment the past 15 years surely means they are also going to sell off a park they are currently building a 400ft roller coaster for.
View attachment 41389
I don't think Six Flags' "brand strength" in NJ is very strong right now, which isn't great paired with the fact that corporate was very clear the parks must respond to investment to not be considered disposable. I don't predict a strong positive response to replacing 10 closed rides with one shuttle coaster personally.
I agree with your assessment. The Enchanted Parks were already seen as non-core by SFEC. I do think this means that Great Adventure *is* a core park for now though. If they had any near-term plans of offloading the park I’m sure it would’ve been with this deal, so they’re at least testing the park to see how it does with Phantom Spire.The Enchanted parks were obviously non-core (that doesn't mean they're bad or disposable, just using their own language). The verbiage to which I've referred previously is regarding parks that are currently core becoming non-core if the response to major investment isn't good. I don't believe any of these parks received major investment under SFEC as a combined entity, so it really wouldn't apply to them anyways.
I agree with your assessment. The Enchanted Parks were already seen as non-core by SFEC. I do think this means that Great Adventure *is* a core park for now though. If they had any near-term plans of offloading the park I’m sure it would’ve been with this deal, so they’re at least testing the park to see how it does with Phantom Spire.
Plenty of people, myself included, have expressed dislike for the new addition (I am not a fan of spinning coasters period, and will likely only ride this once for the credit), while still acknowledging the fact that such a substantial investment in such a substantial ride is unquestionably good for the park, good for the vast majority of enthusiasts, and good for the GP.Yeah I can't recall doubting that Great Adventure is currently considered a "core park." I think the quote that I linked makes it clear that "core parks" aren't safe either because their status is subject to reevaluation after a large investment. Great Adventure is getting a large investment. I happen not to like the large investment.
and that's how I became Satan on the Great Adventure board on ParkFans.net
I went back through your posts and gathered some quotes to read again:Yeah I can't recall doubting that Great Adventure is currently considered a "core park."
I'm not suggesting the sale of the park would be good, something I want to happen, or likely. However, I do believe it has historical parallels, or at the very least, wouldn't shock me
If I'm honest, whatever plan I believe Six Flags is pretending to have about the future of the property seems to me to be self-defeating and a deliberate ploy to continue the cyclical decline in a way that positions the land favorably for medium-term reuse
Yes, and the fact that they didn't reflects just how low its position in the hierarchy of Cedar Flags is. Apparently Cedar Point needed a "distraction" from TT2 (which had amazing uptime all season anyway) more than Great Adventure needed an effective distraction from the extremely public death of Kingda Ka. Great Adventure couldn't even get the better of two coasters without homes.
Great Adventure is not held to the same standard
Six Flags Great Adventure was by far the most neglected of SF legacy flagships, and now is paying the price for both Sucking as a Six Flags Park and Sucking as A Six Flags Flagship.
Batman Knight Flight opened at Geauga Lake in 2000 with the world's largest inversion, among other nonsense. Not a decade later was the park shuttered.
This is almost a consolation or an attempt at understanding, though it fails to acknowledge that Great Adventure continues to get screwed with no end in sight. This is a long, drawn-out death by managed neglect. I cannot imagine thinking the current state the park is in is an accident, nor that the most broadly appealing thing tens of millions of dollars can buy is a shorter, but (maybe) taller, version of the same gimmick that the other new coaster offers. Not to mention that linear shuttles are historically very relocatable. I know others are not having a better experience at the park than I am, and maybe the aggressive positivity is certain peoples' ways of coping, but I think thoosies' standards of "pls don't close the park! :3 it so fun and good !" are at a bare minimum, and non-thoosies will hear about the (intentionally) long lines and how all their favorite rides have been "imploded" and go elsewhere, whether that's an immediate change in plans or a longer-term decision to keep saving for something worthwhile. I 100% believe this spinner is actually less appealing than a relocated Giant Inverted Boomerang to the general public.
Look at all the records 1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Son of Beast will never close, it so much money.
Look at all the investment !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Geauga Lake will never close, SO much money
People should start taking the disinvestment (relative to the other flagships) and complete lack of urgency to improve at face value imo
They're continuing to kill this park slowly
I'll admit, you do imply in the last on that you consider Great Adventure to be a "core" park currently, but the sentiment overall seems to be that SFEC is deliberately sabotaging the park even with the investment into Phantom Spire. I just cannot consider a world in which a company would invest millions into a park which they have no intention of keeping long term, or even in the 5 year range.also the line in the Six Flags earnings call for this past quarter about "core" parks becoming "non-core" parks if they don't respond to investment is absolutely about Great Adventure. Its future is already prophesied
I'll admit, you do imply in the last on that you consider Great Adventure to be a "core" park currently
I just cannot consider a world in which a company would invest millions into a park which they have no intention of keeping long term, or even in the 5 year range.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.