• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

  • ⚠️ Online Safety Act Changes

    We've made some changes to the forum as a result of the Online Safety Act. Please check the post in guest services for further information.

Unpopular Opinions: Theme Park Edition

some of these might have been done but I cant be bothered looking back

- You could remove Oblivion and providing you put another coaster in the park, it wouldn't be missed

- Thirteen hugely missed the mark as a coaster and without the drop at the end, its a tame and almost boring ride

- regulations and red tape mean any haunted house in the UK will never be any good because of darkness requirements
 
Last edited:
Tibble said:
- regulations and red tape mean any haunted house in the UK will never be any good because of darkness requirements
Click to expand...

Not sure what you might be referring to. The only specific HSE lighting requirements I can think of off the top of my head relate to working conditions and wouldn't be relevant under a rides show conditions.

Fire safety wise the regulations as I understand them relate specifically to lighting requirements in an emergency situation, ie there isn't a requirement for lighting at all times, not even emergency exit lighting, as long as in an emergency it is illuminated to a certain brightness. So again should not impact anything under show conditions.

I could be missing something though?
 
Pretty sure fire safety exit signs must be brightly lit at all times nowadays in all entertainment venues...since about the eighties if my gig attending memory proves correct...(not always!).
Preston Guild Hall comes to mind...used to go pitch black at the start of a concert...then the green lights came in, then the green exit signs.
Used to get pitch dark concert stalls...not nowadays...essential exit corridors also have low level downlighters as well as a condition of licence.
 
rob666 said:
Pretty sure fire safety exit signs must be brightly lit at all times nowadays in all entertainment venues...since about the eighties if my gig attending memory proves correct...(not always!).
Preston Guild Hall comes to mind...used to go pitch black at the start of a concert...then the green lights came in, then the green exit signs.
Used to get pitch dark concert stalls...not nowadays...essential exit corridors also have low level downlighters as well as a condition of licence.
Click to expand...
I sometimes wish that fire exits didn't have to be green because I find that sometimes it ruins the immersion of an attraction but I will accept it because the fact that fire exits are bright probably saves many lives.
 
Despite being an abjectly **** coaster in pretty much every way (train lighting package aside), Rip Ride Rockit/**** Ride Shutit is still a really, really fun experience if you pick the right songs.

Track 312 makes it an absolute scream.
 
This is not going to go down well...
The Gruffalo River Ride Adventure is better than Bubbleworks when it was sponsored by Imperial Leather. (Prof. Burp's Bubbleworks was of course far superior to Gruffalo)
 
Last edited:
A possibly unpopular opinion of mine is that I am against the idea of listing amusement rides or mandating their permanent preservation.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand the sentiment behind it, and I am all for the preservation of iconic or significant rides where it is feasible and in the public interest.

However, I think that the idea of listing rides has a couple of flaws.

One principle flaw is that listing a ride (under the UK building listing system) merely mandates that the park keep it standing and don't majorly alter it. That does not force them to operate it. That to me seems to make the exercise of listing a bit pointless; surely the intent behind it is to keep a ride operating, so if the park doesn't operate it, that defeats the object of the listing, does it not?

The other principle flaw is that listing a ride could mean that that ride eventually stands in the way of progress and becomes a huge burden for the park. What if a ride that is listed becomes unfeasible to operate for whatever reason? At that point, you've hit a complete lose-lose situation for all parties. The folks wanting the ride listed lose because the ride can't feasibly operate. The park lose because the ride can't be removed to make way for something new due to the listing, meaning that the ride just sits there SBNO and becomes a massive millstone around the park's neck.

A ride that the park are obligated to maintain and keep standing that they can't feasibly operate is a complete white elephant that does nobody any good; the folks wanting the ride listed can't ride it, and the park can't replace it, so nobody wins. That is what I fear that listing rides could lead to in the long term.
 
Last edited:
Matt N said:
A possibly unpopular opinion of mine is that I am against the idea of listing amusement rides or mandating their permanent preservation.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand the sentiment behind it, and I am all for the preservation of iconic or significant rides where it is feasible and in the public interest.

However, I think that the idea of listing rides has a couple of flaws.

One principle flaw is that listing a ride (under the UK building listing system) merely mandates that the park keep it standing and don't majorly alter it. That does not force them to operate it. That to me seems to make the exercise of listing a bit pointless; surely the intent behind it is to keep a ride operating, so if the park doesn't operate it, surely that defeats the point of the listing?

The other principle flaw is that listing a ride could mean that that ride eventually stands in the way of progress and becomes a huge burden for the park. What if a ride that is listed becomes unfeasible to operate for whatever reason? At that point, you've hit a complete lose-lose situation for all parties. The folks wanting the ride listed lose because the ride can't feasibly operate. The park lose because the ride can't be removed to make way for something new due to the listing, meaning that the ride just sits there SBNO and becomes a massive millstone around the park's neck.

A ride that the park are obligated to maintain and keep standing that they can't feasibly operate is a complete white elephant that does nobody any good; the folks wanting the ride listed can't ride it, and the park can't replace it, so nobody wins. That is what I fear that listing rides could lead to in the long term.
Click to expand...
Before this comment, I was all for listing rides. However, this comment has certainly changed my opinion and I totally agree with it.
 
Even Walt Disney knew his park had to evolve and develop over the years.

Some parks do a decent combination of modernising classic rides in order to ensure they continue for years to come. Others prefer to rip up the past for development. The answer isn't always clear cut though as lots of factors need to be considered.
 
Benzin said:
Even Walt Disney knew his park had to evolve and develop over the years.
Click to expand...
Especially him. He said that 'Disneyland will never be finished', which is a lot more outright than most park owners.
 
Matt N said:
A possibly unpopular opinion of mine is that I am against the idea of listing amusement rides or mandating their permanent preservation.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand the sentiment behind it, and I am all for the preservation of iconic or significant rides where it is feasible and in the public interest.

However, I think that the idea of listing rides has a couple of flaws.

One principle flaw is that listing a ride (under the UK building listing system) merely mandates that the park keep it standing and don't majorly alter it. That does not force them to operate it. That to me seems to make the exercise of listing a bit pointless; surely the intent behind it is to keep a ride operating, so if the park doesn't operate it, that defeats the object of the listing, does it not?

The other principle flaw is that listing a ride could mean that that ride eventually stands in the way of progress and becomes a huge burden for the park. What if a ride that is listed becomes unfeasible to operate for whatever reason? At that point, you've hit a complete lose-lose situation for all parties. The folks wanting the ride listed lose because the ride can't feasibly operate. The park lose because the ride can't be removed to make way for something new due to the listing, meaning that the ride just sits there SBNO and becomes a massive millstone around the park's neck.

A ride that the park are obligated to maintain and keep standing that they can't feasibly operate is a complete white elephant that does nobody any good; the folks wanting the ride listed can't ride it, and the park can't replace it, so nobody wins. That is what I fear that listing rides could lead to in the long term.
Click to expand...


Sadly this can go for alot of listed buildings. We have a beautiful Georgian house in the village I grew up in. Grade 2 listed, crumbling to bits. Owner won't do anything to it. When the owner does die (which he can't be far off) that building will go further rack and ruin.


In the past 30 years, we have had 3 listed building knocked down in the village. The money and investment isn't the issue. All the red tape you need to go through just to make it safe by modern standard's, is a major issue.
 
Controversial here, but Merlin need to stop trying to be Disney and Iniversal and they need to be their own thing, especially here in the UK. It feels that over the last 10 years they're trying to draw more international audiences with the parks here, with thongs like IPs, following trends, overuse of screens and projections, just like Disney and Universal. The themed areas they've made outside of a few exceptions like CCL, Rainforest, Shipwreck coast, are very generic and don't fit in the parks they're in. Though with the new additions over the last 2 years hopefully they've learnt their lesson. Stop trying to copy American Parks.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top