I was thinking about this on the way in to work today because it seems like within the last year or two, maybe more, we've seen an uptick in ancient or classic rides being sent to Amusement Heaven (where Coaster Jesus lives). The debate in the Volcano thread alone is interesting albeit dizzying, at times. The back and forth about the history of Volcano, the ride enclosure, the aesthetics, the rides that came before it, and the effort to preserve history.
For an average person, I can see getting lost in the weeds fairly easily. Often in the forum, we talk about a ride (pick a ride - any ride), and it's (sometimes untimely) demise, in painstaking specifics - and rightfully so, we forum members are ride enthusiasts and park-goers. When a ride is determined to be closed permanently, everyone has their personal history and individual memories attached. This had me thinking: when is the right time to cut rope on an attraction? Is there a right time? Do you, as a park-goers, have a given philosophy on this? Maybe a generalized feeling on the subject not tied to any one ride?
So I started thinking about those questions. The more I thought about it, the more I realized I really don't know what the answers are, if there are any answers , nor how I can verbalize what fragmented thoughts I have currently up in this wet brain of mine. Let me be upfront and repeat what I've said in the past: I'm not particularly nostalgic. I see rides as semi-temporary and I have no problem, usually, when it's time to build up and on. But at the same time, I see value in keeping around traces of the past. Nessie is a good example of this. However, contrary to that point of view, there are only so many resources available for so many rides at a given time. Specifically picking on LNM, how many riders (besides Zimmy) go to BGW specifically for a ~40 year old coaster? Then think about real estate in places like Disneyland or Knott's - there's only so much liquid the cup can hold. Is it a better philosophy to constantly keep the audience coming back for new experiences versus banking on trips down memory lane? Is there a balance?
Speaking of Disney, when my thoughts focus on dark rides, the question(s) at hand become even more murky. Dark rides seem to have far more moving parts in keeping these attractions open, yet elicit a stronger emotional response (at least from my perspective) which leads to a stronger attachment from some riders. Disney knows this - BGW, not so much. Disney seems not so shy when it comes to shelling out to keep attractions and experiences going past what would be an average ride lifespan (whatever that number may be). However, Disney also has a fresh set of new customers being born every 5-7 years coupled with their nostalgic parents in tote. It's obvious, at least to me, that dark rides are much harder to maintain. Is it fair to demand regional parks burn resources keeping these kinds of attractions going in an effort to have Disney/Universal kinds of experiences? I tend to think not which is why I see dark rides at regional parks as far more special yet fleeting opportunities.
So anyway, I wanted to have a discussion about this. And like I said, I certainly don't have any answers - I'm more curious what other forum members think. As I type this now, I kind of think for a good roller coaster, a life span of 15-20 years seems to be enough time for a ride to run it's course. But I can see merited arguments going in both directs. Dark rides are harder to gauge at least from where I sit.
Thoughts?
For an average person, I can see getting lost in the weeds fairly easily. Often in the forum, we talk about a ride (pick a ride - any ride), and it's (sometimes untimely) demise, in painstaking specifics - and rightfully so, we forum members are ride enthusiasts and park-goers. When a ride is determined to be closed permanently, everyone has their personal history and individual memories attached. This had me thinking: when is the right time to cut rope on an attraction? Is there a right time? Do you, as a park-goers, have a given philosophy on this? Maybe a generalized feeling on the subject not tied to any one ride?
So I started thinking about those questions. The more I thought about it, the more I realized I really don't know what the answers are, if there are any answers , nor how I can verbalize what fragmented thoughts I have currently up in this wet brain of mine. Let me be upfront and repeat what I've said in the past: I'm not particularly nostalgic. I see rides as semi-temporary and I have no problem, usually, when it's time to build up and on. But at the same time, I see value in keeping around traces of the past. Nessie is a good example of this. However, contrary to that point of view, there are only so many resources available for so many rides at a given time. Specifically picking on LNM, how many riders (besides Zimmy) go to BGW specifically for a ~40 year old coaster? Then think about real estate in places like Disneyland or Knott's - there's only so much liquid the cup can hold. Is it a better philosophy to constantly keep the audience coming back for new experiences versus banking on trips down memory lane? Is there a balance?
Speaking of Disney, when my thoughts focus on dark rides, the question(s) at hand become even more murky. Dark rides seem to have far more moving parts in keeping these attractions open, yet elicit a stronger emotional response (at least from my perspective) which leads to a stronger attachment from some riders. Disney knows this - BGW, not so much. Disney seems not so shy when it comes to shelling out to keep attractions and experiences going past what would be an average ride lifespan (whatever that number may be). However, Disney also has a fresh set of new customers being born every 5-7 years coupled with their nostalgic parents in tote. It's obvious, at least to me, that dark rides are much harder to maintain. Is it fair to demand regional parks burn resources keeping these kinds of attractions going in an effort to have Disney/Universal kinds of experiences? I tend to think not which is why I see dark rides at regional parks as far more special yet fleeting opportunities.
So anyway, I wanted to have a discussion about this. And like I said, I certainly don't have any answers - I'm more curious what other forum members think. As I type this now, I kind of think for a good roller coaster, a life span of 15-20 years seems to be enough time for a ride to run it's course. But I can see merited arguments going in both directs. Dark rides are harder to gauge at least from where I sit.
Thoughts?
Last edited: