RobertDavid

What they are doing is making shortsighted decisions that will hurt them in the long run, chasing away families and catering to rowdy guests getting drunk at bars every few feet. Just because it makes money doesn't mean it's good for business. 

2 minutes ago, 29yrswithaGApass said:

 

Wow, I couldn't disagree more.  I too didn't care for the repaint but when it first opened and was all white I thought it was beautiful.  It looked classic, graceful, and simplistic all at the same time.

 

The parachutes looked good, but the tower looked like something from an industrial park. And the whole thing stuck out like a sore thumb.

I got a great chuckle out of the idea of the "frontier" being "outdated". That's kind of the point. It's not outdated, it's neglected, like most of the park. Best of the West is closed, the Safari is closed, the arena is closed, and the second coaster in the area has once again been inappropriately themed to intentionally not fit in the theme of the area.

You can't really "re-theme" something that never had a theme to begin with. And goliath is just another non-theme.

Nitro is one of my favorite rides in the country. I would love for it to have a coherent theme and less obnoxious color scheme, but it would require that area of the park actually having a theme, something they are too lazy and cheap to do.

On 2/16/2023 at 11:37 PM, The Master said:

 

That sucks big time. GADV is becoming pretty unrecognizable from what it was in my childhood. 

It's funny, but I am actually glad it will be removed, for pretty much the same reason you wish it wasn't. It wasn't there when I went to the park as a child. I saw it as an obnoxious eyesore, especially when they painted it multiple colors. When I started going to the park, when it opened, it was a forest. All you could see from the parking lot through the trees were a portion of the skyride and the top of the Big Wheel. It was magical to enter the forest and discover what was inside. Now you pull into the parking lot and see through the entire park. The parachutes were pretty much the beginning of that mess. I never liked the fact that they built rides in the parking lot and that a park built in a lush forest has practically no trees left in it. 

On 3/22/2023 at 2:47 PM, Medusa42 said:

It would be nice if they could move some of the pathways and then fill in the green areas with a new coaster. a couple of flats rides and some new restaurants and shops.

 

could we just leave some green areas in the park please.

Another bar.

More bars???? Really????

What happened to Best of the West? Aside from them letting it rot and crumble. it was everybody's favorite restaurant. it was the best themed restaurant. Now it is only open for exclusive events????

On 4/9/2021 at 4:04 PM, EasternThrills said:

 

Really?! Another gray metal warehouse? The Jersey Devil lives in a gray metal warehouse?

On 6/24/2019 at 9:10 PM, 29yrswithaGApass said:

Did anyone get the Six Flags survey about building a hotel at the park?  Of course, like all their surveys, ideas may or may not happen and can be for any/all/none of the their parks.

 

My survey asked about the likelihood I would spend a night at their hotel if built at Six Flags Great Adventure.  It included the following images.

 

I would LOVE to see a hotel built at Great Adventure!

 

 

 

The interior looks good. The exterior is awful. It doesn't match the interior at all. A safari lodge exterior would be much more appropriate.

On ‎9‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 5:06 PM, 29yrswithaGApass said:

I can’t say I am wild about the placement of the ride.  I get why it was placed there but it takes away from the entrance to the area.  Maybe if they move or enhance the land’s portal by bringing it to the opposite side of the bridge.  

 

Is there even "land" there? Isn't that water? That's a horrible place for a ride. 

God PLEASE, do not let Six Flags get their hands on Busch Gardens. The last thing they need is to become "Superhero Land" with all the trees cut down and falling into disrepair. The current owners are not the greatest and have made some horrible decisions and budget cuts, but they are at least keeping the theming in tact and keeping what they do have in decent shape. I so miss the days of Anheuser-Busch.

I would like to see them get rid of IPs altogether and have an actual theme park, instead of a generic park with characters slapped on the side of rides.

5. Conestoga Wagon

4. Super Teepee

3. Swings

2. Shows ( Ski Show, Dolphins, live shows in Showcase Theatre )

1. THE TREES

No one expects the park to be the same as it was when it opened. No one wants it to be. But it is not unrealistic to expect it to have a decent atmosphere. It was built in a forest and had plenty of land to expand without cutting down every tree in the park and building in the parking lot.

The idea that seeing the whole park from the parking lot "draws people in" is ridiculous. They're in the parking lot. THEY'RE ALREADY ON THEIR WAY IN! Do you think they would just sit in their cars in the parking lot if they don't have roller coasters in their face? They have no idea there are coasters in the park unless they can see them all from the parking lot? You can make the same silly argument that they have no reason to go into the park because they have already seen it all from the parking lot. If they are in the parking lot they are going in the park. You do not need to "draw them in".

What you may think "draws people in" to the park actually scares a large number of people away. The overpowering in-your-face atmosphere is unpleasant to the majority of the general public. Only coaster enthusiasts find it exciting, and even a lot of them would rather ride coasters that have creative theming that are in the woods instead of a coaster in the parking lot with a plywood cutout of a superhero slapped on the side of it.

Yes the park is a business, however the in-your-face atmosphere does not appeal to enough people to sustain the business. You need to have a well-rounded park that appeals to all demographics in order to be successful. You can have exciting roller coasters that fit the park theming and blend with their surroundings. The park atmosphere itself can be appealing to adults while still having the coasters and thrill rides that appeal to thrill seekers.

The park's main mistake is believing they can sustain the business on coaster enthusiasts alone and that all coaster enthusiasts don't care about environment or theming. They need to combine a pleasant atmosphere, entertainment, unique dining options, AND thrill rides in order to attract all demographics and be a successful business.

The Forrest they are using is nowhere near the park entrance of the park in general. It's on the opposite side of the safari on 'reed road'. It's a dirt road that runs along Parallel of the of the safari. Using that land to create a shaded parking lot isn't an option. Also they'd have to take down a lot more trees to fit the spaces since a lot of trees would have to be left for 'shade' which would just create a whole other fiasco about cutting down trees. Majority, if not all Parking lots I've seen aren't shaded as it is not sure why you would expect the park to.

 

The park considered all options and the only doable one was where it is going.

The park probably has not considered ALL options, and this is probably just the cheapest one.

Just because MOST parking lots do not have trees you believe Great Adventure should not? That is probably the thought process that goes on in Six Flags board rooms. If you just want to build a park on a slab of cement you buy an empty lot, not a forest. They chose the forest for a reason, and it wasn't because they needed firewood.

Yes, trees have been cut down inside the park as well, but it doesn't make all the coasters "parking lot" coasters, and GAdv still has more trees than many SF and CF parks. From those 2 chains I've personally been to CP, Dorney, KD, SFGAm, SFNE and SFWoA (pre-closing), and only SFGAm has close to as many trees as we do.

 

And the only coasters you pull right next to are S:UF, GL and KK. Just because there isn't a full forest between the car and coasters like Batman and Bizzaro doesn't mean there aren't trees or they are parking lot coasters.

 

I don't know how many parks you have visited, but you should really curb your expectations if you expect the park to assume Leroy's vision and be the northeast Disney. I compare us to other regional parks, and in my travels I realize we are one of the better ones out there. Not perfect, but compared to most of the SF and CF parks we have kept a lot of trees and ambiance, have one of the best coaster lineups in the world, finally expanding our flat ride offerings, have a unique safari attraction, a waterpark, and have one or two of the best themed sections in all of the SF or CF parks.

 

We may not be Universal or Disney, but we are also not neglected, run down or a carnival. However, if you expect small park charm or theming, you will be disappointed.

I did not say that ALL the roller coasters at Great Adventure are in the parking lot. I pointed out how other coasters were built in the back of the park, which showed that it was unnecessary to build in the parking lot.

I have been to, and worked at, many theme parks in the country, and most of them are better than Six Flags. Pointing out that other Six Flags parks are worse than GA does not help your argument. All Six Flags parks are tacky. The company does not know how to operate a theme park.

I do not expect GA to be a small, quaint park. It is not a small park. The fact that it is so huge, however, all the more makes people expect something better than a bunch of rides thrown on a slab of cement.

Very few parks have had the luxury of being built in a forest with lots of room for expansion like Great Adventure. Six Flags has wasted that advantage and ruined the greatest asset they had which was the forest it was built in.

I did not say that coasters ruin the theming. I said that building rides in the parking lot and cutting down every tree so you can see through the whole park from the parking lot ruins the theming. If the coasters were "poking out of the trees" it would be great. That is not what is happening at Great Adventure. The trees have been cut down and the coasters have been built in the parking lot. You do not pull into the parking lot and see coasters "poking out of the trees". You pull into the parking lot and park right next to coasters. There are no trees for them to poke out of, they have all been cut down, and it was not necessary. Coasters were built in the parking lot before Nitro was built. Nitro was built in the woods in the back of the park, so obviously the parking lot was not the only land left to build in.

Great Adventure does not have a good skyline. It looks like Wally World from National Lampoons Vacation. They made Wally World as an exaggerated, tacky, joke of a theme park and Six Flags seems to think it was a goal to try to achieve. Seeing every ride in the park from the parking lot does not make a great skyline, it makes a tacky one. It ruins the theming when they all blend together into one massive mess. It is not a carnival, it is a theme park, or at least it should be.

I have no idea how big the current parking lot is, or exactly where the forest they are planning to use for the solar farm is in relation to the park, but if it were possible I think it would be a much better use of the forest to create a parking lot under the trees. They could remove only half the trees, leaving enough to both shade the cars and create an amazing atmosphere where people would park in a forest instead of on a giant slab of cement. Then the could use the current parking lot for the solar farm. The land is already cleared and they would not have the expense of raising the panels for the cars to park under.

They have always had a lot of land, they just did not use it wisely. Just because some of the public does not realize the land the rides are on used to be the parking lot does not change the fact that they are in the parking lot. There is no difference between being in the parking lot and being in the park itself. They destroyed the forest, destroying the atmosphere of the park. If you are standing in the parking lot looking at rides in the Golden Kingdom, The Boardwalk, Adventure Alley and Movie Town all at the same time it ruins the whole point of having theming at all.

Do you really think it "draws people in" to see them from the parking lot? They do not see them unless they are already on their way in. It's not like they see them from the Turnpike and say "Hey look at that cool roller coaster, let's go ride it".

I do not believe it is "unrealistic" for the park to have a pleasant atmosphere. It was built in a huge forest for a reason, to use that forest for a unique and amazing atmosphere. There was plenty of forest to expand the park while maintaining that atmosphere, but Six Flags made very poor choices and permanently destroyed the park's atmosphere.

They won't spend money to fix the parking lot they have, so I highly doubt they'll build a new one. For expansion, there's a huge chunk of land that used to be the safari that can be developed.

If they have old safari land that is not being used, why couldn't they use that for parking and use the current parking lot to expand the park. That would separate the parking lot from the park again.

I count it as a credit, but still feel a bit cheated as it was a decade old when it got moved here, is B&M's worst style ride, and was our only major coaster addition in the last 9 years (while removing Chiller, RT and GASM in the last 8). We were right there with CP as the best coaster lineup in the world back in 06, and I feel it's regressed since then, while most of the other flagship SF parks have gotten significantly stronger in that department.

 

Still, it could be worse...GL could have easily been Apocalypse, and El Toro is still topping all the coaster polls

I think you confuse "the most" with "the best". There is a difference between having a lot of coasters and having the best coasters. I do not believe the park has regressed by getting rid of 3 coasters that were not very good. I think the company would benefit greatly in the future by adding fewer coasters and making what they do add really worth it. Spend time and money creating a unique, quality attraction, giving it an appropriate theme with themed elements, and creating an immersive atmosphere instead of just throwing some mass-produced piece of crap on a slab of cement and slapping a plywood cutout of a superhero on it.

As far as park expansion is concerned, I still think they should expand into the parking lot since it is already cleared land and already has roller coasters in it. Then they should build a new parking lot in the woods under trees.

Actually I have a very good idea what goes into these things. It was my job at Disney, and we didn't take 2 weeks to do it. We got it all out of the park and into a backstage area overnight, then took our time repacking it and putting it away out of sight of the guests. It just requires proper planning and execution.

Have they mentioned why the parking lot was not an option? I've always wanted them to build a new parking lot in the woods and utilize the current one for park expansion, since they keep expanding into it anyway. If they do not want to expand the park, then why not use it for solar panels?