Would Alton Towers be different today if it were still owned by Tussauds?

[Matt N]

Sorry to go off on a bit of a tangent, but I’ll admit that I get a tad confused when people describe Tussauds as though it’s some sort of special entity that could do no wrong, because based on what I know about Tussauds’ history at the park and what they did between 1990 and 2007, I’m not actually sure that the path taken by Tussauds would have been that different to the one that Merlin took.

Granted, Tussauds never installed temporary fairground rides, but they were no different to Merlin in how they removed lots of filler rides and didn’t replace them. I seem to remember hearing of a season (I think it was 2004?) where half the park’s filler attractions were just left SBNO, and many of these either weren’t replaced at all or were replaced with upcharge attractions. The way Tussauds handled the likes of Dynamo and Boneshaker seems no different to how Merlin handled the likes of Submission and Ripsaw; all of these rides were removed from the park with no replacement.

Sorry if that comes across overly confrontational (that’s not my intent), but I’d be keen to know; why is it that everyone is so sure that the park would be some utopia if Tussauds had held onto it? I could of course be wrong, but from where I’m standing, it appears as though many of the perceived issues with the park under Merlin already existed to some degree when the park was acquired by Merlin in 2007.

I reckon that the only reason Merlin gets such a bad rap is because they did these things to a park that was already somewhat stripped back, whereas Tussauds did them to a park that was still relatively full and prospering. I don’t think the actual methods employed by Merlin and Tussauds are any different, and I’m not sure that Merlin have employed any methods that had not already been employed by Tussauds in some capacity.

 

[Squiggs]

I think when people talk about Tussauds vs. Merlin, it's actually a slightly more nuanced split than that, we're really talking about Tussauds pre-2000 (owned by Pearson), Tussauds 2000-2006 (the Charterhouse/DIC years) and Merlin (2007 onwards).

The current management of the company was brought in by Charterhouse at the turn of the millennium, with a new focus on increased profits and expansion. It took a few years for a new way of working to really kick in, but you are right that what happened in 2003 and 2004 was essentially the start of a lot of current practices.

You are probably right, that the company (as sold in 2007) would likely have followed the same trajectory either way, as there's been no significant change in management style since then. However, the real topic for debate is what would have happened if Tussauds had remained part of Pearson; a company who seemed to have a more healthy relationship with Tussauds that allowed for great levels of creativity and quality.

For example, to @QTXAdsy's point - Alton Towers broadly had a policy of having four rides in each major area. If you ignore The Retro Squad and CBeebies, Merlin have reduced this to 2/3 per area. It is really notable that these days the park advertises 40+ rides and attractions, but it's only around 10 years ago where that number was 50+.

 

[Trooper Looper]

Sorry to go off on a bit of a tangent, but I’ll admit that I get a tad confused when people describe Tussauds as though it’s some sort of special entity that could do no wrong, because based on what I know about Tussauds’ history at the park and what they did between 1990 and 2007, I’m not actually sure that the path taken by Tussauds would have been that different to the one that Merlin took.

Granted, Tussauds never installed temporary fairground rides, but they were no different to Merlin in how they removed lots of filler rides and didn’t replace them. I seem to remember hearing of a season (I think it was 2004?) where half the park’s filler attractions were just left SBNO, and many of these either weren’t replaced at all or were replaced with upcharge attractions. The way Tussauds handled the likes of Dynamo and Boneshaker seems no different to how Merlin handled the likes of Submission and Ripsaw; all of these rides were removed from the park with no replacement.

Sorry if that comes across overly confrontational (that’s not my intent), but I’d be keen to know; why is it that everyone is so sure that the park would be some utopia if Tussauds had held onto it? I could of course be wrong, but from where I’m standing, it appears as though many of the perceived issues with the park under Merlin already existed to some degree when the park was acquired by Merlin in 2007.

I reckon that the only reason Merlin gets such a bad rap is because they did these things to a park that was already somewhat stripped back, whereas Tussauds did them to a park that was still relatively full and prospering. I don’t think the actual methods employed by Merlin and Tussauds are any different, and I’m not sure that Merlin have employed any methods that had not already been employed by Tussauds in some capacity.

You're right about Tussauds and Merlin sharing a lot of similarities to one another, but I think they also equally share the same amount of vast differences.

Yes, Tussauds closing down 2 flat rides and not replacing them in 2004 was a bad move, but we have to remember during this time, Tussauds was having a lot of financial trouble behind the scenes, so they had to make radical changes and alterations to their parks to still operate them, but not on a scale that will make them go bankrupt. Yes, Ug Land saw the closure of 2 rides which was a bad choice to us enthusiasts, but in 2005 they added Rita to make up for it and to keep guests satisfied during the moment. I think they do care about Guests Satisfaction more than Merlin, even in their dark years.

I think this move by Tussauds is justified, they had no control over who they were being sold to, so radical changes to management, and financial support would obviously damage the company, and how they operate their parks.


My problem is that Merlin are in a brilliant position at the Moment, obviously the biggest Theme Park Chain outside of Disney and Universal. They get a LOT of income and dont have near to no trouble or problems, financial or not behind the scenes, yet they do the absolute minimum to their parks. Really, fair ground rides on the site of a much more ambitious flat ride, with no effort to keep its theme coherent to the area, not even painting it Black and slapping Oblivions font on it. They're not even trying to fix Enterprise. They can, and they know it, but theyre not bothered. They're trying to make profit, not tying to make great Theme Parks passionately whilst making it a success.

In short term. Tussauds had the same goal as Merlin, profit, but they were clearly very passionate and proud about their work, in result made great rides that made a lot of money for them. Merlin also want Profit, but they only touch their theme parks at the minimum when absolutely necessary. They see nothing wrong with the Retro Squad, the current state of Duel or the River Rapids, etc. If it makes them money, they're happy.

 

[jon81uk]

You're right about Tussauds and Merlin sharing a lot of similarities to one another, but I think they also equally share the same amount of vast differences.

Yes, Tussauds closing down 2 flat rides and not replacing them in 2004 was a bad move, but we have to remember during this time, Tussauds was having a lot of financial trouble behind the scenes, so they had to make radical changes and alterations to their parks to still operate them, but not on a scale that will make them go bankrupt. Yes, Ug Land saw the closure of 2 rides which was a bad choice to us enthusiasts, but in 2005 they added Rita to make up for it and to keep guests satisfied during the moment. I think they do care about Guests Satisfaction more than Merlin, even in their dark years.

I think this move by Tussauds is justified, they had no control over who they were being sold to, so radical changes to management, and financial support would obviously damage the company, and how they operate their parks.


My problem is that Merlin are in a brilliant position at the Moment, obviously the biggest Theme Park Chain outside of Disney and Universal. They get a LOT of income and dont have near to no trouble or problems, financial or not behind the scenes, yet they do the absolute minimum to their parks. Really, fair ground rides on the site of a much more ambitious flat ride, with no effort to keep its theme coherent to the area, not even painting it Black and slapping Oblivions font on on it. They're not even trying to fix Enterprise. They can, and they know it, but theyre not bothered. They're trying to make profit, not tying to make great Theme Parks passionately whilst making it a success.

I don't think the resort theme park division is making any more money than it did in the later years of Tussauds. I don't think Merlin want to use the money the Lego parks make to fund the resort theme parks?

 

[Matt N]

I think when people talk about Tussauds vs. Merlin, it's actually a slightly more nuanced split than that, we're really talking about Tussauds pre-2000 (owned by Pearson), Tussauds 2000-2006 (the Charterhouse/DIC years) and Merlin (2007 onwards).

The current management of the company was brought in by Charterhouse at the turn of the millennium, with a new focus on increased profits and expansion. It took a few years for a new way of working to really kick in, but you are right that what happened in 2003 and 2004 was essentially the start of a lot of current practices.

You are probably right, that the company (as sold in 2007) would likely have followed the same trajectory either way, as there's been no significant change in management style since then. However, the real topic for debate is what would have happened if Tussauds had remained part of Pearson; a company who seemed to have a more healthy relationship with Tussauds that allowed for great levels of creativity and quality.

For example, to @QTXAdsy's point - Alton Towers broadly had a policy of having four rides in each major area. If you ignore The Retro Squad and CBeebies, Merlin have reduced this to 2/3 per area. It is really notable that these days the park advertises 40+ rides and attractions, but it's only around 10 years ago where that number was 50+.

That’s an interesting question, but I would argue that elements of the current culture were creeping in even when Pearson owned the park, and part of me thinks that Alton Towers only got such heavy investment in the 1990s is because Pearson had a relatively blank canvas to work with, and the park, while undeniably successful, was nowhere near fully developed.

For instance; watching the Magic Factory documentary, filmed in 1997 when Pearson still owned Tussauds, suggests that there was a lot of discontent among staff at the time at how corporate the park had become, and it showed a surprisingly cynical picture of the mood among staff and those involved with the park. And I seem to remember John Wardley talking in a Q&A about wanting a wooden coaster as the follow up to Nemesis, but Pearson wouldn’t let him build one because… it wasn’t marketable enough. Sound familiar? I’ve heard many argue that Oblivion, built by Pearson, was the start of the current “USP above all else” culture that the park, and by extension Tussauds/Merlin, has had for many years.

Let me also cite what was happening at Pearson’s other major theme park, Chessington, while Alton Towers was booming. It could be argued that Pearson basically hung Chessington out to dry while Alton Towers got the lion’s share of investment; after Vampire in 1990, the park’s next ride investment that was even remotely major was Rameses Revenge in 1995… a flat ride that was considered a minor investment when installed at Alton Towers. After that, Rattlesnake in 1998… an off the shelf wild mouse model, which would again have been considered a minor investment at Alton Towers. While both of these were admittedly well themed, and the troubles with the locals could have in part caused the lack of investment, they don’t suggest a huge amount of investment into Chessington by Pearson (compared to what was going on at Alton Towers, at very least).

And when Alton Towers began to receive lower investment from the early 2000s onwards… Thorpe Park was going through a boom period very much akin to the 1990s at Alton Towers and the late 1980s at Chessington. Yes, this large investment manifested itself in rather different ways to how it did at Alton & Chessington, but that’s because Charterhouse/DIC had a very different vision for Thorpe Park; the magnitude of investment was arguably similar.

And even now, Merlin’s midways and Legolands are arguably going through a boom period. New ones are being built at a rate of knots, and even the existing Legoland parks are receiving fairly hefty levels of investment. For instance, Legoland Windsor has received 3 new dark rides in the last 5 years, as well as a fairly high-end kiddie coaster (as the kiddie coaster genre goes, anyway), a new hotel, and various improvements to Miniland. That level of investment can’t have been cheap; things like Triotech dark rides and flying theatres in particular are expensive bits of kit, and I can’t imagine Madhouses are cheap, either. Rightly or wrongly, Legolands and midways are arguably where Merlin sees their main growth priorities, and the Resort Theme Parks division is more of a cash cow to find this growth. Say what you want about Merlin, but history suggests that even Pearson and Charterhouse/DIC had distinct growth priorities and cash cows. The business methods aren’t that different, Merlin just has different priorities.

You're right about Tussauds and Merlin sharing a lot of similarities to one another, but I think they also equally share the same amount of vast differences.

Yes, Tussauds closing down 2 flat rides and not replacing them in 2004 was a bad move, but we have to remember during this time, Tussauds was having a lot of financial trouble behind the scenes, so they had to make radical changes and alterations to their parks to still operate them, but not on a scale that will make them go bankrupt. Yes, Ug Land saw the closure of 2 rides which was a bad choice to us enthusiasts, but in 2005 they added Rita to make up for it and to keep guests satisfied during the moment. I think they do care about Guests Satisfaction more than Merlin, even in their dark years.

I think this move by Tussauds is justified, they had no control over who they were being sold to, so radical changes to management, and financial support would obviously damage the company, and how they operate their parks.


My problem is that Merlin are in a brilliant position at the Moment, obviously the biggest Theme Park Chain outside of Disney and Universal. They get a LOT of income and dont have near to no trouble or problems, financial or not behind the scenes, yet they do the absolute minimum to their parks. Really, fair ground rides on the site of a much more ambitious flat ride, with no effort to keep its theme coherent to the area, not even painting it Black and slapping Oblivions font on it. They're not even trying to fix Enterprise. They can, and they know it, but theyre not bothered. They're trying to make profit, not tying to make great Theme Parks passionately whilst making it a success.

In short term. Tussauds had the same goal as Merlin, profit, but they were clearly very passionate and proud about their work, in result made great rides that made a lot of money for them. Merlin also want Profit, but they only touch their theme parks at the minimum when absolutely necessary. They see nothing wrong with the Retro Squad, the current state of Duel or the River Rapids, etc. If it makes them money, they're happy.

Fair enough; thank you for the detailed response!

However, there’s one key thing you are forgetting that Merlin faced which was on a scale far, far more catastrophic than anything Tussauds faced… the Smiler crash and the fallout from that. Yes, you could argue that Merlin as a whole never did too badly during this, but profits and attendance in the Resort Theme Parks division specifically fell sharply, and Alton Towers specifically faced an absolutely catastrophic hit. When 25% of your guests from the previous year do not return, and this level of downturn is sustained for multiple years (the park did not hit pre-incident attendance until 2019), something is seriously wrong, and cost-cutting action of some description needs to be taken. If the Smiler crash hadn’t happened, I’d wager that many of the closed filler rides would still be open in some capacity, or would have been replaced. And as much as you could argue that the closed rides did not help with this decline, the likes of Ripsaw and The Flume being removed did not cause the decline; it was because a significant proportion of people viewed Alton Towers as fundamentally unsafe. Even if they had fired on all cylinders, those guest figures would still have been catastrophically low.

Also, you talk about Merlin doing incoherent, ill-fitting rides and neglecting things… it could be argued that Tussauds did the same.

As much as you cite Rita as positive, it was widely panned for the impact it had on Ug Land and how little theming it had, and it was said to have only happened because Tussauds got a reduced price deal on a second Intamin launch coaster alongside Stealth rather than because there was any drive to have such a ride at Alton Towers. Ditto with Spinball Whizzer; many reviews from the time panned it for its low capacity, garish appearance (I even heard references to “fairground ride” cited in a number of reviews), lack of theming and the impact it had on the view of the Towers. And once again, it was said to have only happened because Tussauds got a reduced price deal on a second Maurer spinning coaster alongside Dragon’s Fury rather than because there was any drive to have such a ride at Alton Towers.

And in terms of examples of where Tussauds didn’t maintain things… from what I can gather, Duel happened because the Haunted House had been allowed to fall into disrepair. CATCF happened because Toyland Tours had been allowed to fall into disrepair.

Merlin does refurbish things and maintain effects non-essentially, as well. The Nemesis retrack is a prime example of this, as are the rumours that Duel is receiving some kind of work in the near future. Wicker Man is also seeing very good effects maintenance, and a lot of the park has received a fair degree of sprucing up in the last few years.

Sorry if that seems like a bit of a long, confrontational rant, but my basic point is; I don’t think Tussauds were any better than Merlin are. They used the same methods, they simply manifested themselves in slightly different ways.

 

[immelmanloop]

I think the important thing to remember, especially with merlin, is that they are a company. Despite ow it may appear, they still have a bottom line to meet, and though they may achieve that with fun, that fun must turn a profit. at the heart of any company is their accountant, and they are the ones who hold the purse strings, and decide what happens. Few accountants would build several highly themed, minor attractions, year in, year out to improve the park for the long term, when they can use a cheap fair ride for a (supposedly) similar impact in the short term. remember, the financial year is just that, a year. I may not like it, and I'm sure no-one else on this server does either, but if the parent company can keep an attraction relatively abandoned, and still turn a profit, they will. It is very much a trend of merlin, that a park will be a love child for a few years, then left in dereliction, or all the major parks, (Thorp, Chessie, Alton) will all get a major attraction at once, and then one is picked as a love child depending on which does best. The companies final goal is profit first and foremost. That is just the way the world currently works, and they get away with it. Remember, enthusiasts make up at most 1% of Merlin's attendance annually. We do not really factor into their calculations. Sure they will run a few events for us, but only when there's a handsome profit, like the swarm lift climb, that costs as much as a park ticket. Our opinions may be used for the odd bit of research, but at the end of the day its the money that speaks, and the money comes from cheap investments with high marketing power, interspersed by a few headline attractions now and then that can get them on the national news, and that is what Merlin will keep doing unless the general economic pressures push them to do otherwise. I sincerely hope that the company can change and will change for the better but for now, their method works and they will stick to it.

 

[Trooper Looper]

That’s an interesting question, but I would argue that elements of the current culture were creeping in even when Pearson owned the park, and part of me thinks that Alton Towers only got such heavy investment in the 1990s is because Pearson had a relatively blank canvas to work with, and the park, while undeniably successful, was nowhere near fully developed.

For instance; watching the Magic Factory documentary, filmed in 1997 when Pearson still owned Tussauds, suggests that there was a lot of discontent among staff at the time at how corporate the park had become, and it showed a surprisingly cynical picture of the mood among staff and those involved with the park. And I seem to remember John Wardley talking in a Q&A about wanting a wooden coaster as the follow up to Nemesis, but Pearson wouldn’t let him build one because… it wasn’t marketable enough. Sound familiar? I’ve heard many argue that Oblivion, built by Pearson, was the start of the current “USP above all else” culture that the park, and by extension Tussauds/Merlin, has had for many years.

Let me also cite what was happening at Pearson’s other major theme park, Chessington, while Alton Towers was booming. It could be argued that Pearson basically hung Chessington out to dry while Alton Towers got the lion’s share of investment; after Vampire in 1990, the park’s next ride investment that was even remotely major was Rameses Revenge in 1995… a flat ride that was considered a minor investment when installed at Alton Towers. After that, Rattlesnake in 1998… an off the shelf wild mouse model, which would again have been considered a minor investment at Alton Towers. While both of these were admittedly well themed, and the troubles with the locals could have in part caused the lack of investment, they don’t suggest a huge amount of investment into Chessington by Pearson (compared to what was going on at Alton Towers, at very least).

And when Alton Towers began to receive lower investment from the early 2000s onwards… Thorpe Park was going through a boom period very much akin to the 1990s at Alton Towers and the late 1980s at Chessington. Yes, this large investment manifested itself in rather different ways to how it did at Alton & Chessington, but that’s because Charterhouse/DIC had a very different vision for Thorpe Park; the magnitude of investment was arguably similar.

And even now, Merlin’s midways and Legolands are arguably going through a boom period. New ones are being built at a rate of knots, and even the existing Legoland parks are receiving fairly hefty levels of investment. For instance, Legoland Windsor has received 3 new dark rides in the last 5 years, as well as a fairly high-end kiddie coaster (as the kiddie coaster genre goes, anyway), a new hotel, and various improvements to Miniland. That level of investment can’t have been cheap; things like Triotech dark rides and flying theatres in particular are expensive bits of kit, and I can’t imagine Madhouses are cheap, either. Rightly or wrongly, Legolands and midways are arguably where Merlin sees their main growth priorities, and the Resort Theme Parks division is more of a cash cow to find this growth. Say what you want about Merlin, but history suggests that even Pearson and Charterhouse/DIC had distinct growth priorities and cash cows. The business methods aren’t that different, Merlin just has different priorities.

Fair enough; thank you for the detailed response!

However, there’s one key thing you are forgetting that Merlin faced which was on a scale far, far more catastrophic than anything Tussauds faced… the Smiler crash and the fallout from that. Yes, you could argue that Merlin as a whole never did too badly during this, but profits and attendance in the Resort Theme Parks division specifically fell sharply, and Alton Towers specifically faced an absolutely catastrophic hit. When 25% of your guests from the previous year do not return, and this level of downturn is sustained for multiple years (the park did not hit pre-incident attendance until 2019), something is seriously wrong, and cost-cutting action of some description needs to be taken. If the Smiler crash hadn’t happened, I’d wager that many of the closed filler rides would still be open in some capacity, or would have been replaced. And as much as you could argue that the closed rides did not help with this decline, the likes of Ripsaw and The Flume being removed did not cause the decline; it was because a significant proportion of people viewed Alton Towers as fundamentally unsafe. Even if they had fired on all cylinders, those guest figures would still have been catastrophically low.

Also, you talk about Merlin doing incoherent, ill-fitting rides and neglecting things… it could be argued that Tussauds did the same.

As much as you cite Rita as positive, it was widely panned for the impact it had on Ug Land and how little theming it had, and it was said to have only happened because Tussauds got a reduced price deal on a second Intamin launch coaster alongside Stealth rather than because there was any drive to have such a ride at Alton Towers. Ditto with Spinball Whizzer; many reviews from the time panned it for its low capacity, garish appearance (I even heard references to “fairground ride” cited in a number of reviews), lack of theming and the impact it had on the view of the Towers. And once again, it was said to have only happened because Tussauds got a reduced price deal on a second Maurer spinning coaster alongside Dragon’s Fury rather than because there was any drive to have such a ride at Alton Towers.

And in terms of examples of where Tussauds didn’t maintain things… from what I can gather, Duel happened because the Haunted House had been allowed to fall into disrepair. CATCF happened because Toyland Tours had been allowed to fall into disrepair.

Merlin does refurbish things and maintain effects non-essentially, as well. The Nemesis retrack is a prime example of this, as are the rumours that Duel is receiving some kind of work in the near future. Wicker Man is also seeing very good effects maintenance, and a lot of the park has received a fair degree of sprucing up in the last few years.

Sorry if that seems like a bit of a long, confrontational rant, but my basic point is; I don’t think Tussauds were any better than Merlin are. They used the same methods, they simply manifested themselves in slightly different ways.

You're spot on that Merlin had no control on the impact the 2015 incident have the park, and i think they handled it fantasticly, and recovered in in a short span of 4 years, While Drayton Manor is still kinda suffering from the 2017 incident, though on a very small scale, which is 5 years ago now, and i still hear people talk about the Tragedy sometimes when queuing up for it now as Adventure Cove River Rapids.

If there's one thing I admire about Merlin, it's their serious take on safety precautions post 2015 incident. They really do care about Guests safety, which is a top priority.

When you say that Tussauds had rides that weren't coherent with certain areas, such as like you said, Rita and Spinball Whizzer, if you look into more detail, there actually is attempts of trying to keep the rides theme similar to the area, though with a very obvious near non existing budget.

Rita's original Area was called Thunder ROCK Ralley. What do people think of when you say cavemen? Most likely the flintstones and their ROCK made vehicles and properties. Rita's original track colour had a very primeval like natrual dark red to it, which also helps it look not so out of place in Ug Land. I wouldn't be surprised if Ug Land was inspired by the Flintstones because of its primeval esque but intentional campy feeling to it.

Spinball Whizzer wasn't themed to X-Sector because, let's be honest, it's a lot closer to the previous Story book Land than X-Sector. It may not have been themed to Fairy Tales since it wasn't part of the area, but Tussauds knew it had to be aimed at kids since it was close to the area, so they chose a very quirky theme of Pinball Machines, with a very OTT and vibrant look to it. And you know what, it worked! It may not be thematically appropriate, but it's target audience and style, definitely.

The only reason Duel was made because of the recent and MAJOR changes behind The scenes of The Tussauds Group. Pearosns has sold them to Charterhouse, which obviously will not hold the same ideas and ways Pearsons hold, which would effect Tussauds badly. So Tussauds had to make quick changes to The Haunted House to keep guests interested in wanting to visit the park with Charterhouses budget (which was around £1 million)

Toyland Tours was very similar, with Charterhouse having a very limited budget, Tussauds wasn't capable of keeping up top quality maintenance with every attraction, unlike their previous owner. The reason why Toyland Tours was replaced by CATCF instead of getting Refurbed was because of, again, behind the scenes. With Charterhouse now sold Tussauds to Dubai International Capital, which gave them a much harder time with even less of a budget. Tussauds was desperate to get attendance, so they had to regretfully replace some fan favourites to keep the company running, which was on its last legs at this point (2006) thanks to the big budget constraints, and they still tired to make really good rides, but the rides from that era have a really obvious low budget feel to them. This explains why Rita has such little theming around Ug Land, they didn't have the money to give it any major theming apart from its branding, and paint job.

A few years after Duel opened, people already started to point out its problems during the mid to late 2000s i hear. I don't think The Haunted House permanently staying as Duel was Tussauds initial plan. They knew an updated Version of the Haunted House was the better option instead of Duel, but again, due to Budget problems, they could do that.


Also, Nemesis retrack is only being done because its essential, the supports need replacing for safety standards after decades of stress. Merlin isn't retracking Nemesis to make it smoother. Again, it's an essential refurb for safety. Besides, I can't think of anything they could've put in the pit if they had to close Nemesis down permanently. They know they would lose a huge amount of their guests if they did.

The only reasons Wicker Man is getting Refurbs by Merlin because clearly know its still a very new, marketable and Profitable ride. If it wasn't new or made by Melrin, the ride would be in an unkempt state and eould be left to rot and would still operate until a new Trend comes along. *Looks at Air*

 

[Craig]

I've moved these posts from the Retrosquad topic into a separate one about comparisons to the Tussauds era, as it was veering well off topic

 

[Alsty]

I think the important thing to remember, especially with merlin, is that they are a company. Despite ow it may appear, they still have a bottom line to meet, and though they may achieve that with fun, that fun must turn a profit. at the heart of any company is their accountant, and they are the ones who hold the purse strings, and decide what happens. Few accountants would build several highly themed, minor attractions, year in, year out to improve the park for the long term, when they can use a cheap fair ride for a (supposedly) similar impact in the short term. remember, the financial year is just that, a year. I may not like it, and I'm sure no-one else on this server does either, but if the parent company can keep an attraction relatively abandoned, and still turn a profit, they will

Europa-Park are also a successful company that exist to make profit, except they do it by providing an excellent quality product that makes people want to spend money. They don't undertake any of the sloppy practices that you see Merlin do.

 

[QTXAdsy]

I have suspected that if you want Tussauds to still be around and keep Towers then perhaps in 2007 during the sale to Merlin you'd have Tussauds keep Towers yet sell everything they have other than the waxworks which I suspect for them is like the family silver.

Yes it would mean that in size Tussauds would be greatly reduced though the plus side is that with Towers being the only theme park they have control over, it means that they would he able to focus all their attention on it as opposed to having to look out for Thrope and Chessie too which we can see over the decades the parks having their better times such as Chessie in the '80's, Towers in the '90's and Thorpe in the 2000's etc.

I made an alternative history on Towers in which was what if Merlin were good but upon one certain user on here suggesting it as if Tussauds kept going then it gave me an unlikely yet plausible point of diversion for the history of not only Towers but the UK theme park industry into the following decade.

I suppose Towers would be much better off having much care and attention on it though if they can keep this up or let standard's slip is unknown and you can say it is 50/50 regarding both Thorpe and Chessie if they become better off without Towers being a sister park for them though with more active competition in which the UK theme park industry needs means that this could see all the 'bigger' parks up their game and I suspect that the London Resort wouldn't have needed to be an actual thing, never mind actual getting built, for their would be no need for a park like that providing if Thorpe goes down a healthy path and given how right at the end of the Tussauds era they were in a good place, its not hard that Merlin here would keep this trend up to the point that Thorpe likely attracts families and doesn't aim fully for the teenage market. More so I'd suspect Cbeebies Land would be built at Thorpe instead of Towers given how Merlin would still want an IP here and that Thorpe would be in a different state here.

And don't ask me how Chessie ends up in this timeline. Honestly I want to write this all down in a full alternate history timeline on the alternate history forums and if anyone is interested in viewing that or even hand out various tips on what might have been would be helpful.

Anyway back on topic. For Tussauds to survive means that having to nearly sell lock, stock and barrel to Merlin while keeping their independence not only clears any money troubles behind the scenes but gives them pretty much a blank cheque to do what they want. Quite something to think just how plausible it might have been had one or two things worked then yes, we'd be looking at a independent, different yet strong Alton Towers here.

Certainly TS would be less of salty place that is for sure!

 

[Trooper Looper]

TBH, I can see Tussauds reforming if something drastic ever Happens To Merlin that they'd have to sell some of their parks here in the UK, or if Merlin is shut down. I believe a lot of The Tussauds Group from the 90s to the late 2000s are still alive and well. I can imagine it as the UK Theme Park resurgence.

 

[Themeparksandy1981]

I think under Tussaud’s the park was marketed well with every new ride/attraction.
Before 1992 Alton Towers really was just a amusement park
Then in 92 the Haunted House and the Runaway train was added with Alton’s 1st 2 real themed areas created.
In 93 construction on Nemesis started, Astro Dancer added to Fantasy world and the Land of make believe opened.
In 94 Nemesis/forbidden valley and Toyland tours opened.
In 95 Energiser opened in festival park
In 96 Story book land opened with the Alton Towers hotel
In 97 Ripsaw and Nick interactive show opened
In 98 X sector opened with Oblivion with the moved Energiser and Enterprise with the re-themed black hole
In 99 Ug land opened
In 00 Hex opened
In 01 Submission opened
In 02 Air
In 03 Duel and Splash landings opened
In 04 Spinball opened
In 05 Rita opened
In 06 Charlie and the chocolate factory opened with the driving school.
Really only 07 the last year they were in charge only minimum was added to the resort.

They also had live entertainment on towers street at the start and end of
every day, the ice show in the tent, live music in fountain square.
The staff had uniforms to suit different areas of the park and interactive street performances

 

[Matt.GC]

Are we taking about DIC Tussauds or Pearson Tussauds here?

 

[jon81uk]

Are we taking about DIC Tussauds or Pearson Tussauds here?

Yep I think Squiggs already mentioned this but post-2003 Tussauds isn’t really significantly different to the current management of AT.
The good times everyone is nostalgic for is definitely Pearson.

 

[Trooper Looper]

Yep I think Squiggs already mentioned this but post-2003 Tussauds isn’t really significantly different to the current management of AT.
The good times everyone is nostalgic for is definitely Pearson.

Yeah, Pearosns Tussauds mostly, but pre Merlin Tussauds did also have its pros.

Oh yeah, and I'm not nostalgic over Tussauds at all, I've never experienced the park under their management. I just overall prefer it to what we have currently. The only time Melrin was as good as Tussauds was from 2008-2013. I really think they peaked at that time.

 

[jon81uk]

Yeah, Pearosns Tussauds mostly, but pre Merlin Tussauds did also have its pros.

Oh yeah, and I'm not nostalgic over Tussauds at all, I've never experienced the park under rhein management. I just overall prefer it to what we have currently. The only time Melrin was as good as Tussauds was from 2008-2013. I really think they peaked at that time.

I don't think there was any major pros in the 2004-2008 era? Extraordinary Golf was probably the best addition. The only major thing added inside the park was Rita, which is meh really.

As you say 2008 was better with Muntiny Bay, but Thirteen was then over-hyped.

Also you do come across as nostalgic for the park of the 90s, its just you didn't get to experiance it first-hand. In fact I would guess over half of posters on these boards didn't make a significant number of visits in the 90s.
I only went once, my family did Drayton Manor far more as the wristband pricing model made it more affordable. Most of my visits to AT were 2001-2008, so my personal highlight was Air opening and going to Nemesis' 10th anniversary event.

 

[Trooper Looper]

I don't think there was any major pros in the 2004-2008 era? Extraordinary Golf was probably the best addition. The only major thing added inside the park was Rita, which is meh really.

As you say 2008 was better with Muntiny Bay, but Thirteen was then over-hyped.

Also you do come across as nostalgic for the park of the 90s, its just you didn't get to experiance it first-hand. In fact I would guess over half of posters on these boards didn't make a significant number of visits in the 90s.
I only went once, my family did Drayton Manor far more as the wristband pricing model made it more affordable. Most of my visits to AT were 2001-2008, so my personal highlight was Air opening and going to Nemesis' 10th anniversary event.

I just prefer the atmosphere the park held in the 90s, with the parades, unique staff uniforms, really unique and quirky Rides and areas with a very Biritish feel to them, RIDES THAT ACTALLY STAYED COHERENT WITH THE PARKS THEMED AREAS XD

From what I hear from online, most people actually liked Rita back when it opened, so I assume it was pretty smooth back then and was a positive move by Tussauds.

You're right, the early to late 2000s era of Tussauds didn't have any major investments, but you can tell they were trying their best with the money they had, so you gotta give it to them for the attempts.

Yeah, Th13teens marketing was a bit misleading, which did lead to me being a little Dissappinted when I first rode it. I can still remember seeing the advert back when I was 5, gave me nightmares for the upcoming years, Ha!!! Though I actually prefer Th13teen to The Smiler currently. If this was 2017, Smiler was definitely better. But since then, it's seemed to become absolutely rough as heck!! Rougher than Colossus and Saw!! The more I ride Th13teen, the more I appreciate it.

Never knew Nemesis had a 10th birthday celebration! But blimey, it's nearing 30 years now. How time flies...

 

[jon81uk]

From what I hear from online, most people actually liked Rita back when it opened, so I assume it was pretty smooth back then and was a positive move by Tussauds.

The ride was liked, but it was plonked into Ug Land with a tenuous theme, so the overall reception was a bit so-so. Good ride, but why put it there?

RIDES THAT ACTALLY STAYED COHERENT WITH THE PARKS THEMED AREAS XD

That was the issue with Rita. It didn't stay coherant with the Ug Land theme. It tried to change the theme to drag racing at Thunder Rock without actually getting rid of any of the Ug-land stuff.
Of course Thirteen made it worse by just painting everything grey and adding some fake vines.
They might have made the area vaguely coherant, but did that on the tiniest budget.

Never knew Nemesis had a 10th birthday celebration! But blimey, it's nearing 30 years now. How time flies...

It was great, took place in early March before the season, night in the hotel, waterpark access on the first day, evening dinner in the Emporer rooms follwed by a talk from John Wardley as well as director of the park (forget his name) and Andy Hine from RCCGB. Then ERT on the next day, with Air Nemesis, then Oblivion, then Corkscrew with complimentary drinks and hot dogs. Although there was a Channel 5 film crew who trapped us on the Corkscrew for at least six cycles while they got more footage. Six times round Corkscrew is more than enough!

 

[QTXAdsy]

I do feel a problem with Tussauds in the later years as far as I can remember was that towards the end much of the magic atmosphere had all but gone, for example was the start of all the marketing gimmicks such as when Rita first opened, there was an event to mark the occasion when Towers brought in some drag queens due to the rather loose connection that the ride was themed to drag racing...uh huh, not exactly magical PR you'd expect of Towers in the 1990's and wasn't there a sorry case in which on Nemesis instead of playing its theme music that instead it was playing Black Eyed Peas during the 2005 and 2006 seasons?! there was the case of the ride being renamed 'Wonderland' to coincide with McFly's album in 2005 but thankfully that was just a one off for one day.

Thankfully this was one of the first things Merlin did correct when they acquired the park (one of the few good things you can say about Merlin's ownership) but deary me that was a rather unfortune footnote in Nemesis' history. Actually now that I think about it, the years of 2005 and 2006 were both at that point considered the worst years of Tussauds thanks to many things happening that I can remember very clearly how much many enthusiasts utterly hated Charlie and this was before I found TowersTimes with it being the fact that not only that it was just poor, which it was, but that it replaced Toyland Tours which was a ride that many loved.

So much was all of this was that by the time Merlin did take over the park, I can remember very well on TowersTimes many celebrated as if things could only get better from there...oh, how that feeling aged that warm milk!

The loss of the magic feel of the park was really that in some ways, Towers became a victim of their own success and could have gotten a bit too cocky for their own good, not helped that with their rival park in BPB going into a decline then and how the only other parks that could challenge them just so happened to Towers' sister parks in Thorpe and Chessie and this is were things started to go down dare we say a less magical path regarding some of the strange PR stunts that were to follow that you can say still happen to this day. This is why I do feel if Merlin decided to sell off one of their UK parks to an independent owner then this could help bust their monopoly on the UK theme park scene and in the long term might be good for all concerned.

 

[Trooper Looper]

Talk about Differences between Tussauds and Merlin, am I the only one noticing the sudden decline of Quality adverts the park makes anymore. The last Great advert they made in Merlin hands was The Smilers. From then on, quite a few of them feel like college student films. Wicker Mans lacks the unique and charm the last 2 SW adverts had. It lacked the weird camera angles, no colour grading to the rides theme, nor did it feel that scary either. They just filmed a bunch of people that kneeled in a forest, the it just cuts to a few cameras stuck ot the rides car with people riding it.

Don't even remind me of the recent ads they've been showing on the telly ever since 2020. I know it's been a bit of a struggle for TV and Media because of "World Troubles out of their control" but, come on Merlin. These ads just don't have of the charm the Parks Tussauds and Early Merlin ads had, which actually manage to carry the Quirky feeling the Tussauds ads had. These new ads are just quick cuts, some sped up, slow motion cuts at an angle, drone footage, and a very standard sounding narrator, very surprising since its David Walliams, and it feels like he really wants it done as soon as possible.

Back when Tussauds made adverts, doesn't matter which era, they were bloody creative with each ads genre. Nemesis had that welcoming and exciting 90s sci fi cheese to it.

Oblivions advert, the best Ad ATs ever made, actually one of the best pieces of marketing ever made IMO. The bland colour it has, black, grey, white and orange. It already tells you this ride anything but happiness and joy, but rather, gloom and doom, fear of the unknown, and anticipation. The way the camera slowly tilts even more each cut, as if we're slipping into the hole, the sweat drop going down seemingly forever, and the sharp lighting the facial expressions given off from our main Character, and then "Don't. Look. Down!" Then the music kicks in, turning into almost a fast paced electronic version of in the Hall of The Mountain King as the car drops into the hole and soon goes offscreen as we follow the sweat drop finally land on the track with the Alton Towers branding with Oblivions logo almost coming to existence because of the drop.

This also apply with Airs advert. You start with a group of people in a seemingly dark voice, with only themselves and the car having a light blue layer of colour over them. Then the car goes into the flying position, "assume the position" comes up, the music builds up, as if something truly magical is about to happen. Mkent later, they're outside, goes past a flock of birds which seems to be closely inspected on, this is because its intentionally giving the viewer a huge hint of what the coasters main premise is, flight. The ad continues, the music becomes a relaxing remix of In the Hall of the Mountain King. Then the rides are finally let go from the car, now finally free to fly all by themselves. The ad ends with the ads main Character, the woman now starts to incline, then the camera cuts to her POV, with the clouds above becoming the iconic vortex, then finally the ad ends with "Air at alton towers, yoy can fly..."

I can go on for ages to how Tussauds handled their adverts brilliantly. Every ride or Hotel at the park that had an advert was given the rides/Hotels personality and style, and was made to be fun and intriguing to watch AND still be a very high quality product of marketing.

Rita's advert was serious thanks to the heatwaves on the first half, with the buildup to the launch, and the deep narration. Then the quick and intense cuts to the rider and the ride itself, making the ride feel quick and powerful, But fun with that final cut of the rider smiling in excitement. Rita may not be the best ride, but I think its the best advert Alton Towers has made since Airs.

Don't believe me, here's a challenge for you. Watch any of Tussauds Alton Towers adverts, doesn't matter which era, they're all great to me, then compare it to Alton Towers Wicker Man and the 2021 advert promoting Gangsta Granny. Then compare the 3 to one another. Or you can compare the 2 below.

These 2 adverts are doing something vert similar, trying to represent the entire park as a whole while being very quic laced and mainstream. The first one is Tussauds 2007 advert, probably the last advert the ever made, and the one below that one is Alton Towers 2021 advert.



I know I'm probably overthinking this entire subject, but I think there's a huge drop in quality of Adverts recently, which I don't finally appealing. This might only be me though...