Honestly mate. I really like you. But, just stop giving the same message over and over again in multiple posts. It's just not necessary. Everyone is fully aware of what your feelings are about any potential attraction. It's 97% going to be a roller-coaster and there is a very small chance that it won't be. What's more to discuss? Why the need to make your point over and over again. Don't apologise after making another 400 word argument, just don't make it in the first place. We know, there's a small chance it won't be a coaster.
To defend Matt for a moment here, he is only responding to repeated posts that 'over and over again' do not have either the grace or understanding to acknowledge or comprehend the real possibility that this is something other than a coaster. That is what is unnecessary. If people weren't so bent on belittling the valid considerations of others rather than simply having their own opinion this whole tediousness would stop.
It feels worth repeating...
Whatever side of this absolute jizz fest of a conversation you sit on, if you sit on it with absolute certainty you are a buffoon, if you are trying to persuade others that you are correct rather than just having your opinion then thats even more true.
While a coaster looks most likely, and a flying theatre specifically of all the dark ride options looks very unlikely, the actual knowns are slim pickings. Some people putting waaaay too much emphasis on what are largely third party contributions to planning documentation for a building, when the actual contents have very little relevance to planning application. It is, primarily, an application for a building, not its contents. To many a lay person a ride that moves is a roller coaster, for many weird and wonderful rides types I'm sure many of us wouldn't even agree where the boundary lies for what is or isn't a cred...
We don't know for certain what will be in the building. The end.
Here's a couple of thoughts. DBGTROTDetcetc ride vehicle does actually spend a small amount of time rolling and coasting along. You could then call it a roller coaster and not be legally wrong. Many many ride types that you wouldn't traditionally call a roller coaster do this.
AT themselves have history of submitting inaccurate (but legal) planning to hide what they are doing, including creating undisclosed elements at high points likely to induce screaming at a place in the park where screaming at high points has been a specific issue requiring intervention.
AT have submitted plans for a building with a certain use
type. What's actually inside isn't particularly important to the application.
JWs comments were all but meaningless in the context of the question put to him and his current position in Merlin.
I think thats most of the things that people are throwing around as irrefutable proof...
Maybe some posters here have some 'insider knowledge' and as a result do actually know the ride type coming. If so, well done? But the way to make use of that is not to tag it òn to other things that alone do not 100% confirm anything and pretend that it does.
The building suggests flight or space, but we already have a flying / space themed coaster so we can rule that out. What other themes would work for this building design?
Could also be a flight themed non-coaster
We don't, we have a flight named coaster with no discernable theme. Flight/space themes can absolutely not be rulled out.
