Gardaland review
Jeremy
http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/2010/gardaland/
Before entering the main gates at Gardaland that morning I found the
guest services building which the map indicated was where a free left
luggage service was held. Very nice. Before handing over my bag they
asked if I had any food in it. Giancarlo and Teresa had given me a
small package with some snacks for the next few days so I
instinctively answered ‘yes’ without thinking why they might want to
know. “I’m sorry, but we’re not allowed to keep this here if there’s
food.” Great. Can we rewind time twenty seconds and pretend I said
‘no’? There’s a self-operated locker service near the Atlantis water
ride, but that costs €1 per hour, and I have to remove my back at
least one hour before the park closes otherwise I risk it getting
permanently locked inside. This doesn’t seem a very wise option. So
I’m stuck with carrying around my twenty pound bag for the entire day.
Much silent grumbling immediately ensued. (On the plus side, this
meant I didn’t have to buy any lunch from them as I had enough snacks
on me to tide me over until after I had left, so I guess the prank’s
on Gardaland…)
The first attraction was Blue Tornado, the park’s Vekoma SLC with an
added helix. While for many coaster travelers an SLC is a ride to be
tried once for posterity’s sake and then disembarked with a shrug of
the shoulders and a crick of the neck, I find the layout when running
with amply proper smoothness to be more exhilarating than many of
B&M’s attempts at crafting an original inverted coaster design. To
quickly restate my Thunderhawk review, it establishes a frenetic pace
with the first elements which strategically sequences itself to a coup-
de-grace climax of double barrel-rolls with nearby supports
threatening amputation of key ambulatory appendages. The primary
deficiency of the layout in my eyes (apart from occasional shunting of
the vehicles which I must be lucky in avoiding) is a coda after the
barrel rolls which is a rather aimless and meandering attempt to get
back to the brakes, but since it doesn’t add or detract anything from
the main layout that precedes it, it can’t be categorized as anything
worse than perhaps a lost opportunity.
Blue Tornado’s final helix almost certainly would have exacerbated the
problem of too much loose final track at the end of the experience if
it weren’t for one detail: a series of hedges built underneath the
track which get so close to riders feet that those sitting on the
inner left side (or even the outer right side if you’re tall enough)
can easily reach out and scrape the sole of their shoe along the
leaves. At furthest extension my feet could only brush along the
topmost layer for the entire helix, but if the distance between plant
and seat were to change by even an inch or two I might have been in
for a nasty surprise. While I couldn’t find any immediate safety
threat, the result was nevertheless unnerving to have the barrier
between secured passenger and lethally high-velocity outside world
removed in such a way that one could directly feel the other. A unique
finish indeed, and one that was worthy of at least two more immediate
re-rides that morning. Good ride.
With a posted five minute queue Mammut might have been next but I
figured with its high capacity it should retain that short queue all
day so I gave it a pass for the moment. Instead I took a walk around
the back loop of the park, first starting with a trip on their Flying
Island, the first of this type of attraction I’ve ever been on, which
afforded a nice perspective of the park and its proximity to Lake
Garda.
Next door the Space Vertigo Intamin freefall tower appeared to have
yet gathered a queue so I figured to try it now rather than risk a
long wait later. The preride queue area was quite accomplished in
creating a 1970’s NASA space theme, but for some reason they held
guests just outside of this area and then had us quickly walk straight
through it immediately to the boarding platform. It was tempting to
speculate if this used up their budget allotted for the tower itself,
as it couldn’t have been much taller than many of the transportable
Fabbri or ARM drop rides, by far the shortest Intamin tower. An odd
cap over the top of the tower also seemed like a missed opportunity
for more theatrical anticipation when in fact the inside was barren
and you could still easily see outside from under it. A more realistic
guess for these odd features more likely involves local ordinances
requiring it not be built too high or requiring a scream shield to
keep any noises that riders may potentially emit at bay. However it’s
often the opinion of many that these shorter drop towers can be just
as effective as their larger brethren, as it’s primarily the initial
‘kick’ when the latch clicks and our butts become weightless that
provides the thrill, and that was still very much present in this
ride. That’s part of the problem I have with the controlled, faster-
than-freefall plunges, because even if a greater force is present the
motors still have to work for a split second before the force of
gravity is defeated, and that moment of the instantaneous removal of
the seat force which makes the inner ear scream red-alert is severely
dampened.
Filling up much of the back loop was Fuga da Atlantide, or Escape from
Atlantis. This is an Intamin water flume ride with a questionable
second identity as a roller coaster (a proto-Aqua Trax, perhaps) due
to the presence of some tri-tube track on the lifts and drops,
although the vehicles are threaded onto and then disengaged from these
rails in the water channels so I’ll deem it in closer likeness to a
ride like Cedar Point’s Shoot the Rapids. My choice was to ride in the
front because everyone else was avoiding that row. Hmm, think that
might be a clue, Dr. Watson? This ride seemed to have huge quantities
of Atlantian props and façades around it but ultimately they didn’t
seem to add anything to the experience. The ground-level flume
channels were painfully slow, and they offered little to look at
besides more faceless scenery. The giant Poseidon statue with golden
nipples was the most interesting contribution from the themeing
department, but since this was easily viewable from the midway it
didn’t serve much of a point to see it again on-ride. Spread
throughout this are the two ‘exciting’ bits, an elevator cable lift
with a coaster-track turnaround leading into a splashdown drop. Here’s
why the front row wasn’t the greatest idea; while the splash itself
was fairly dry, the waterfall effects on the drop had several plates
meant to kick up the water to give it a cascading look, but these were
to an exaggerated effect which in turn splashed up and over the boat’s
nose and onto yours truly sitting squarely center to absorb it all.
Before attempting the other half of the park I thought it a good time
to give their custom Vekoma mine train Mammut a spin. However, upon
arrival I discovered two things: the wait time was now estimating at
least 45 minutes (where did that come from?) and there was no bag
storage on the station platform as with every other ride, you had to
leave your bag (this is true) along a wall next to the entrance on the
main midway, where presumably anyone else could walk up and freely
take it while the schmucks that own them are standing in line. As the
contents of my bag included my laptop, passport, at least €60 in cash,
you can see why this was not an attractive proposal. Against my better
judgment, rather than skip the attraction (I needed to do it at least
once during the day anyway) I figured that enough other bags were
present that they must not encounter too many problems with this
setup, perhaps from a difference in cultural norms which discourages
theft whenever someone else’s belonging is left unattended for longer
than 30 seconds. With great reluctance I tucked it as far behind a
corner as I could and then joined the queue.
Part of the reason the line built up so quickly besides still being
the new, must-ride attraction, only two trains were being cycled on a
layout with three lifts, but just as I was getting towards the
station, they shut it down for another ten minutes to add the third
train. I’m trying to recall if the seats were molded the same on the
Eagles: Life in the Fast Lane. I don’t recall any problems with that
ride, but soon after departing I found the hard-backed seats that
offered little seat support made the unnecessary shaking this coaster
had all the more unendurable. From offride in the queue I sensed some
danger of this just by noticing the guide wheels divot back and forth
as they rolled along the track with apparently too much slack between
them and the rails.
Like Escape from Atlantis, I find this one also suffers from a problem
of excessive themed edifices which add very little to the overall
experience. Maybe it was because I knew I was on a production model
ride and that everything was built to fit around the track rather than
the other way around, but when it consists of nothing but vertical,
boxy, iced-stone walls and square cut-out tunnels, failing both to
establish either a sense of place or to offer any set-pieces with a
‘face’ beckoning one’s attention to them, the theming honestly seemed
negligible. (Actually there were a few special props but since the
track wasn’t custom designed to naturally ‘present’ them for riders,
most whizzed by unnoticed on my first ride.) While I admittedly
overpraised the Eagles just because it was one of only two coasters I
got to ride at Hard Rock Park and technically my first coaster ever to
properly review, I still think that the addition of music was stronger
contributions to that ride’s relative success than an entire third
section with extensive frozen decorations did for Mammut, although I
would probably be in the minority on that opinion. Most likely the
rougher tracking was the biggest turn-off.
To give a few insights on the coaster itself, while I’m always in
favor of long, meandering layouts where it’s not just a random
sequencing of one big element after another (especially when three
lift hills are involved; seriously, when was the last time before
Mammut a regional theme park built one of those?), I find the mine
train genre doesn’t work as well when the track is forced into a
compact space unless they start incorporating other things into the
layout besides long curves and shallow drops. That’s partly why the
addition of the third lift offered diminishing returns on the ride’s
overall excitement; after two parts of random layout noodling, do we
really need one more? A large downhill double-helix and a surprise
exit of the rocky prop area to suddenly twist high over a natural
forested valley near the end are a step in the right direction in
terms of providing a more distinguished closing act, but it’s still
maybe not quite enough, especially compared to the amazing finale on
Disneyland Paris’s Big Thunder Mountain. (Heck, even as corny as
Adventure Express’s ‘finale’ is, it’s at least something memorable!)
Best row is in the back, where you can watch the entire train snake
around the corners ahead of you, and because with the locomotive the
front actually offers worse views. Overall a minor disappointment, and
the best part was the relief I had when I found my backpack still
untouched when I finished.
After some more Blue Tornado rides and taking a break on a park bench
to snack on a small lunch, I moseyed over through the park’s western
“Frontierland” section (what a surprise, another European theme park
with an ‘homage’ to Disney.) While without as large of rides, this
older side of Gardaland seemed a bit nicer, with more mature trees
grown between attractions rather than a large loop of midway with a
line-up of arbitrarily themed attractions built over flat, grassy
land. On the whole Gardaland seemed like a pleasant enough theme park
and I can understand (if not wholly sympathize with) why it’s one of
the most visited parks in Europe, although the lack of a major, high-
quality, unique roller coaster still haunts it when it’s still not
strong enough on theme or setting to compete with the likes of Europa
Park or PortAventura. One complaint I had read online before my visit
was that customer services were also terrible at Gardaland. Since I
never once entered a café or gift shop and the rides all seemed to be
cycled efficiently enough I can’t complain too much, but upon my entry
to the loading platform of the Magic Mountain Vekoma looping coaster I
discovered where some of those hard feelings may have been generated.
The train before I was to board (which would have been only a single-
cycle wait) ended up stuck at the platform for at least five to ten
minutes due to some dispute a group of traveling European enthusiasts
had with the operators. While at the time I couldn’t figure out what
exactly was going on since it was all conducted in angry Italian, I
later discovered by coincidence that one of the members of the
NoLimits-Exchange was part of that club and needed to call Gardaland
out for what was a case of unjust treatment. What happened was one of
their members had a large scar on his face but was in no other ways
handicapped, but this didn’t stop the operators from making their own
ruling on his eligibility to ride and demanded he leave. Of course the
rest of the group refused to let him move which resulted in the
temporary station lock-down (also leaving riders on the second train
to sun bake for a while); I learned this was only one of many
incidents they had with the park that day. A very surprising
discrimination policy, especially since it sounds like management
hands that authority over to their workers carte blanche.
Anyway, the main notable feature about Magic Mountain is that it’s the
first ride for me to try the new Vekoma sit-down restraints, which
feature a streamlined car design and over-the-shoulder straps which
are, if not soft, at least semi-pliable. While it guaranteed a
reduction of headbanging as there was no longer any restraining
material positioned near one’s noggin, I didn’t expect that to be a
major problem with Magic Mountain anyway and the new design is much
more snug than the old horsecollars, resting firmly on top of one’s
shoulders and chest, causing a minor amount of claustrophobia when
pulled all the way down and also not reducing the amount of shockwaves
absorbed by the body on bumpier pullouts due to the extra direct
contact with the cars flattening you between restraint and seatback. I
won’t call it a step backward from the old design, just apples to
oranges.
Unfortunately the layout itself was hardly worthy of the special
treatment anyway. I love me a good old classic Arrow looping design,
the back always promises a good kick of airtime over the first drop,
and the loops and turns, designed by geometry rather than force,
always keep me aware of my changing orientation (ironically leading to
increased disorientation). I had already hit Vekoma gold a couple
weeks ago with Super-Wirbel, so why not again?
Maybe it was just that it got off to a bad beginning, with a timid and
overstretched first drop, but this ride did nothing for me aside from
provide the customary looping sensations which have been individually
done one hundred times before. Between these, the turn and final helix
were completely without teeth, and the centerpiece inversions were a
far cry from the fury of nearby Blue Tornado. A pleasant spring-time
color palate with multi-color trains couldn’t prevent this one from
being an even bigger disappointment than Mammut, which at least had
ambition to be something original.
Nestled inside of Magic Mountain’s layout was a fourth coaster which
did promise that ambition to be original: Sequoia Adventure. I was
expecting a long wait for this one, but surprisingly I spent barely
five minutes in queue before I was watching the attendant nearly
topple over as I handed him my weighty backpack. While the chassis is
entirely different from the El Loco designs at Indiana Beach or
Flamingo Land, the seats and restraints are identical. Climbing the
lift I was surprised by my slight nervousness, as I had really no idea
what to expect. Technically this ride is tied with its few worldwide
duplicates as being the steepest roller coasters in the world with
three drop approaching 180°, if that can even be considered ‘steep’
anymore. We get to the top, slide toward the edge and then…
“Ah, okay…?” First time over the edge is exciting. Second time is fun.
Third time is getting redundant. Then it’s over. Unfortunately the
situation is such that an immediate reride starts from where the last
one left off. I don’t think from the time it engages the lift to when
it hits the final brakes does our car ever exit the 5-10 mph speed
range. To say the ride is all gimmick and no substance is not to
employ hyperbole. Thankfully it’s an interesting gimmick. Basically
the idea is to hold you at one G in whatever direction is available.
The flips over the edge are definitely the coaster’s most interesting
moments, although I couldn’t help but feel they’d be more effective if
built with a larger radius and allowed a few feet to gain momentum in
order to have more fun fucking with your inner ear. I’m glad that S&S
realized with their El Locos that three 180° vertical turns by
themselves does not a coaster make, in fact it barely even qualifies
as a wild mouse which was their point of inspiration. Like a good
joke, the first time you hear it it’s unforgettably funny, but that
doesn’t mean having it retold several times throughout the day is
necessary. Additionally there were lizards in the queue.
Capping the furthest edge of the park was Gardaland’s fifth and final
coaster, the Ortobruco Tour. This might be the world’s largest wacky
worm, although despite the similarly design train the use of regular
tubular steel rails and supports makes me want to give the nearby
Valle degli Gnomi that official distinction. That’s not to detract
from the fact that this children’s coaster is long, taking at least a
couple minutes to complete a circuit which meanders back and forth
over a square patch of gardens, many of the nearby shrubs actually
brushing into the ride vehicle similar to Blue Tornado. There are
multiple lifts, although it’s more like an odd tire drive is placed
every so often when the train needs a boost, and occasionally a few
are stringed together on a longer uphill section of track. I sort of
wish I went for a re-ride but I never did.
Other rides I tried in the park included the Ramses: Il Risveglio dark
ride (aka Ramses: the Revenge), which had an odd techno/sci-fi
Egyptian tomb theme in an interactive shooter format that didn’t
improve the ride anyway. I Corsari was a second major dark ride which
I somehow missed; when I checked the map it looked like just an
elaborately decorated swinging ship, and never ventured over to its
corner to investigate further. However, despite some reports praising
the attraction, I suspect that if I had given it a go my review would
have echoed that for Piraten in Batavia.
As the sun was starting to come out and I no longer felt the need to
wear my jacket, the Colorado Boat flume ride seemed a good idea. The
queue was the second longest I’d experience that day after Mammut (and
also the second to require I drop my back at the entrance). There was
a pleasant ground-level run through the trees and the artificial
mountain with some waterfall effects, culminating in a climb straight
up then straight down a relatively sharp drop into a splashdown that
again got me wetter than I had been led to anticipate from European
water rides. I ended up skipping the Jungle Rapids for fear this one
too might result in a soaking. The last attraction was Inferis: Il
Laberinto del Terrore. This was the main ‘new for 2010′ thing at the
park so I decided to give it a try especially since Europeans are
supposed to do better walkthrough attractions than in the States.
Unfortunately this was just a second-rate Halloween scare zone
attraction I’d find at any American park that has a Halloween event,
and the only thing I had any real reason to fear were some very loud
noises that seemed like they’d easily damage anyone’s ears.
With less than an hour left to finish the day I decided to get another
ride on Mammut under my belt: happily the three trains had whittled
the previously long queue down to a manageable five minute wait.
Additionally, as I was about to disembark I noticed one row of seats
appeared as though it would go unoccupied so I quickly slid in, which
the ride attendants either didn’t notice or didn’t care. I was
enjoying it more on re-rides, so I went back twice more afterward, for
a total of five circuits that day.
To wrap up the evening, I crammed in at least three or four more walk-
on Blue Tornado rides, my clear vote for best ride in the park.
Hopefully that says as much about the relative quality of this SLC as
it does for the relative lack-thereof in the park’s other starring
attractions. In the end I found I had more than enough activities to
fill an entire day with, and that was with mostly short queues and
skipping one of the principle water rides and dark rides each. I
daresay 2011’s X-Raptor will be a highly welcomed addition however, as
the park needs something to compete with the show-stopping Katun and
iSpeed next door (although based on the press release, my suspicions
will be that this will be better regarded as a must-ride prototype/
gimmick attraction à la Sequoia Adventure rather than potential top-
ten fodder).
Unfortunately I had another long night ahead of me. After a two-hour-
plus transfer in Verona, I was deposited in Bologna Centrale for the
night before I’d catch a final train to Mirabilandia the next morning.
In retrospect I should have booked a hotel or hostel as I would have
at least seven or eight hours in Bologna, but I wanted to stay cheap
so once again I had to find a half-way decent sleeping quarters inside
the train station. I caved into my first McDonald’s meal abroad
(despite the less favorable exchange rate, they don’t even go as low
as a Euro-Menu here, and you have to pay for ketchup. I don’t
specifically recall what a quarter-pounder with cheese is called in
Italy; apologies for those curious). Then scouting out a decently warm
place to spend the night, I found they had one large waiting room…
unfortunately filled to the brim with homeless or other poor,
international travelers, many of whom appeared to have no qualms with
having loud conversations or playing their music for everyone at
3:00am in the morning. Stark fluorescent lighting didn’t help, nor did
a massive plaque on one wall commemorating the 85 lives lost from a
terrorist attack in this very waiting room three decades ago. Where
else was I to go, I’d surely catch pneumonia if I waited outside? As I
tried get some sleep I reminded myself two things: in a couple hours
I’d be riding iSpeed and Katun, and that these are exactly the sort of
European adventures I wanted when I signed up for this trip, to be
remembered fondly once enough distance has been put between me and the
crazy gypsy ladies sharing this metal bench.
Theme Park Review
> Before entering the main gates at Gardaland that morning I found the
> guest services building which the map indicated was where a free left
> luggage service was held. Very nice. Before handing over my bag they
> asked if I had any food in it. Giancarlo and Teresa had given me a
> small package with some snacks for the next few days so I
> instinctively answered ‘yes’ without thinking why they might want to
> know. “I’m sorry, but we’re not allowed to keep this here if there’s
> food.” Great. Can we rewind time twenty seconds and pretend I said
> ‘no’? There’s a self-operated locker service near the Atlantis water
> ride, but that costs €1 per hour, and I have to remove my back at
> least one hour before the park closes otherwise I risk it getting
> permanently locked inside. This doesn’t seem a very wise option. So
> I’m stuck with carrying around my twenty pound bag for the entire day.
> Much silent grumbling immediately ensued. (On the plus side, this
> meant I didn’t have to buy any lunch from them as I had enough snacks
> on me to tide me over until after I had left, so I guess the prank’s
> on Gardaland…)
Really? How long were you at the park for? 10 hours? 15 hours? It
really isn't worth 10 - 15 euros so you don't have to carry your bag
around all day? Or at very least only had to carry it the last hour
of the day?
But then again if you're so cheap as to bring in food so you can avoid
paying for a meal at Gardaland (of which I found some of their
restaurants to be TOP NOTCH, especially the one at the hotel), then I
guess you're stuck carrying around your bag. Deal with it.
Seriously, I hate it when people bitch about stuff like this. The
park offers you TWO options in which to leave your bag. (most parks
don't even offer the free service), But that's still not good enough
for you.
Perhaps they should offer a service where they take your bag for free,
give you a meal and suck your dick all the same time? Then again, I'm
sure people would still complain.
--Robb Alvey
www.themeparkreview.com
Jeremy
I did say their free bag service would have been "very nice", but as I
was not allowed to use it that sort of makes it hard to say good
things about. As I recall their second option was generally intended
only for people that wanted to leave their stuff for less than an hour
before going on the water ride, and required the money in coin change
which I didn't have so that service was more or less impossible for me
to use anyway (at least if I needed enough change for an entire day).
My concern over having to remove it an hour before park closing was
more because the notice said they'd confiscate and dispose of any
items left inside, which given the value of items in the bag was why I
thought it safer to hang onto it than risk being late. I wasn't
intending to bring food inside and carry it with me all day, but
that's basically what I was told at Guest Relations so that's what I
ended up doing. Gotta lighten that load somehow! I'm sure Gardaland
has a good will that shines like a jewel, but when their value
proposition still requires me to carry my bag all day as my best
alternative I think I'm entitled to grumble.
By the way, they're a business, they don't need you to defend them
when their goal to create value for the customer that is worth their
money in exchange. If they fail to do that then they lose some
potential profits and risk a bit of negative word of mouth over the
value of the product. I "dealt with it" by carrying my bag around all
day, and making brief note of that fact in my review. If you were on
commission by the parks to tell other people "pay or don't complain"
that would be considered an anti-competitive business practice, which
as fellow reviewers we should both be celebrating that we're part of
the process to keep them competitive. If cheap college students are a
big enough market segment of theirs, I'm sure they'd be glad to know
how they're loosing some customer satisfaction. If the park feels
they're not risking too much lost profit by the occasional guest that
might have problems despite an already thorough service, that's their
business alone. If you think a reviewer is cheap and silly, then just
say that, and maybe they can explain their position better. If you
think they're cheap and silly and ought not mention the fact that they
personally didn't like something about the park based on their
personal experience in their personal review, then I guess you're the
one that should expect to be told to deal with it. Don't worry, I'm
aware I might be loosing you as a potential customer. Thankfully, I
work for free anyway. :)
P.S. Just for some perspective on reality, not everyone has the luxury
to spend 10 euro on locker hire and 30 euro on good meals every day
they're traveling to Europe, some of us are simply trying to see as
much of the world as we can while we're young, aware that we also have
student loans to eventually pay off while working minimum wage jobs
over the summer when we get home. I'm happy for you that you don't
have to be in that position.
Keith Hopkins
news:257af8c1-f9a8-49b1...@w4g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
>
> I'm sure Gardaland
> has a good will that shines like a jewel, but when their value
> proposition still requires me to carry my bag all day as my best
> alternative I think I'm entitled to grumble.
I now want to have your babies.
--
Keith Hopkins
suss...@sssssssssgmail.ssssssssscom
[clear up the hissing to email]
"You don’t need fashion designers when you
are young. Have faith in your own bad taste."
John Waters
Theme Park Review
> P.S. Just for some perspective on reality, not everyone has the luxury
> to spend 10 euro on locker hire and 30 euro on good meals every day
> they're traveling to Europe, some of us are simply trying to see as
> much of the world as we can while we're young, aware that we also have
> student loans to eventually pay off while working minimum wage jobs
> over the summer when we get home. I'm happy for you that you don't
> have to be in that position.
about stuff so insignificant. Seriously if you can't afford 10 Euros
for something that you're going to dedicate an entire paragraph to in
your report complaining about, then maybe you shouldn't be on a trip
to Europe in the first place.
--Robb Alvey
www.themeparkreview.com
Jeremy
I'm aware that marginally 10 euro is almost negligible, but I think
having to pay that much for a day's locker service (and having to find
someplace to break my paper into coins, and having to worry about a
policy mentioning that they'll confiscate and discard my laptop and
passport if I'm not back an hour before park closing) is *easily*
worth a paragraph noting that my personal experience with the park
started with some bad footing, regardless of whether or not I did
decide to pay for that locker or not.
I'm sort of at a loss to understand your argument, that words aren't
worth their equivalency in cash, or that you don't like my opinion and
wish it were different? I can maybe hold a discussion with you if it's
the second, but I don't know what to say if it's the first. If you
read the rest of the review or others that I've posted, you'll notice
that one paragraph is exceedingly marginal in terms of all the content
I've taken the time to analyze and critique. Carrying a heavy bag
around was a significant part of my experience such that by my
standards I'd be doing a bad job if I didn't mention it. I can see
where you might be coming from if your standards of a review consist
of mostly photos only meant to document the random fun you've had,
with maybe one short paragraph of an actual review in there which just
sums up broad opinions with little written narrative or reason for
why. Then yeah, one paragraph devoted to lockers and baggage would
definitely seem excessive. But that's not the type of review I want to
write, I believe in the standard set by cinematic, musical and
cultural literature that a review by definition requires criticism,
even if you loved it and had fun every moment, that still requires
positive criticism to defend. I try to take the time to offer a
critical analysis of a park and all the details that comprise that
experience (*especially* if it costs a lot of money to have those
experiences to report on), because that's the review I want to write.
I'm slightly disappointed that I'm in the minority of people who have
the opportunity to travel worldwide who put the effort into writing
that sort of review (hopefully for other people to enjoy), but I don't
go onto other people's websites directly bashing they way they choose
to review things. I *love* arguing differences in opinion in those
forums, especially when they require me to maybe reconsider my
original position, but writing comments that circumvent that argument
altogether by saying "you should just be happy you're in Europe and
not bitch" and "maybe you shouldn't be on a trip to Europe in the
first place" strike me as being extraordinarily petty. Your opinion on
the matter may differ.
Theme Park Review
I just think it's a really fucking stupid thing to bitch about. And
when I see you dedicate an entire long paragraph to something so
insignificant, it makes me not want to read the rest of your report
(which I didn't.)
You just also happened to hit on a pet peeve of mine, which is people
basically complaining about stuff that should be their own personal
responsibility. YOU brought YOUR bag to the park...and the park
offered two different options. One option didn't work because you
were stupid in how you answered the question. And the other option
didn't work because you were being a cheap bastard.
But somehow the park is to blame.
That's fucking lame, dude.
--Robb Alvey
www.themeparkreview.com
Jeremy
> I just think it's a really fucking stupid thing to bitch about. And
> when I see you dedicate an entire long paragraph to something so
> insignificant, it makes me not want to read the rest of your report
> (which I didn't.)
>
> You just also happened to hit on a pet peeve of mine, which is people
> basically complaining about stuff that should be their own personal
> responsibility. YOU brought YOUR bag to the park...and the park
> offered two different options. One option didn't work because you
> were stupid in how you answered the question. And the other option
> didn't work because you were being a cheap bastard.
>
> But somehow the park is to blame.
>
> That's fucking lame, dude.
>
> --Robb Alveywww.themeparkreview.com
One didn't work because I answered their question honestly and didn't
intentionally lie to circumvent a park policy. The other didn't work
because it was a horrible option worse than any other park I've been
to (reminder, it wasn't just the cost which would have been at least
double anything I had ever paid before, it was also because I didn't
have the money in spare change needed to feed the machine for a day
anyway, and I didn't want to have to also endure the risk of getting
it locked and confiscated). As I said before, the park offered a
horrible value proposition for me. Since they're a business that very
much is their responsibly, they're not my buddy and I don't owe them
any favors to pay more than I normally would or to write nice things
about policies that negatively impacted my day. Responding with "pay
up or shut up" is the exact antithesis of what a review is supposed to
accomplish (unless you're commissioned by the park to promote their
interests in turning a profit, in which case such a statement would be
considered anti-competitive). The fact that I was able to find a
manageable solution at every other of the 30+ parks I visited does
seem to indicate that they're not doing something right with their
policies. Hence it was worth a mention in the review.
But oh my god I didn't realize I wrote an *entire paragraph* on the
subject! That's just insane! At an average reading speed that must
have taken you what, twenty seconds! Most review-dedicated websites
that spend thousands of dollars traveling the world to obscure
locations can't even be bothered to spend that much reading time
justifying why they think a ride or park is any good or bad for people
curious to know; that someone in the world actually has an attention
span long enough to write a detailed report covering all notable
facets of their experience must indicate that they're suffering from
some severe passive-aggressive/mother complex! Especially when it's
common knowledge the amusement industry has immunity from any sort of
critical analysis which doesn't have a moral value judgment attached
to them. I mean if you read professional reviews from other industries
they're all like "Citizen Kane is my new #1! The mise-en-scene in that
one scene is absolutely sick! It's so cool how much effort Orson
Welles put into it, everyone else just has to see it, I guarantee
there's nothing you can possibly blame the guy for unless you're just
being a bitch."
Seriously Robb, I'm not saying I'm Keats, but it is conceivable that
someone might write a report detailed enough that a paragraph
commenting on a true event that happened during a course of a day can
an objective account without moral blame values attached to every
critique. If you disagree with my opinion, fine, but if you read your
own words I hope you'll notice that you're going beyond that and
attacking the fact that I had any opinion in the first place, throwing
belittling personal insults for taking the time to write anything at
all because they disagree with your preconceived values or conception
of what topics are worthy of a review. I've glad you took the time to
read and comment at all, but honestly this is by far the most immature
discussions I've had to have after posting a piece of writing.
Considering how insignificant the paragraph you're citing is in the
scope of the entire review or the high 'reputation' you have in the
enthusiast community I would have expected much better from you. I
replied to you comments on why the locker situation was a problem for
me, if you want to continue to insult me for the *act* of writing and
expressing an opinion you disagree with then you can expect this to be
my last reply.
(FYI, little self-referential fallacy you have going, if I'm to accept
your argument that writing a paragraph on insignificant pet-peeves is
fucking lame, after writing some eight paragraphs bitching about
reading one opening paragraph, you should imagine what my opinion of
you right now is. Thankfully I won't begrudge you for the very act of
writing an opinion, just for the merits of that opinion itself.)
Theme Park Review
Theme Park Review
Not at all. We take responsibility for our own actions, and always
have been. If I've got something in my bag that I'm not willing to
dispose of and I'm too cheap to spend money for a locker, then I take
the fault for that because it's my own "choice" ... it's not the parks
fault.
My issue wasn't with any of the policies or his choice of actions,
it's the fact that he's blaming the park for something that is
absoultely not their fault. I would actually be impressed that the
park had a "free bag drop" to begin with, but Mr. Cheapsake didn't
want to part with his "bag of snacks" which kept him from taking
advantage of the service.
Seriously, the guy is just being a cheap bastard and an asshole on top
of it.
Joe Schwartz
> One didn't work because I answered their question honestly and didn't
> intentionally lie to circumvent a park policy. The other didn't work
> because it was a horrible option worse than any other park I've been
> to (reminder, it wasn't just the cost which would have been at least
> double anything I had ever paid before, it was also because I didn't
> have the money in spare change needed to feed the machine for a day
> anyway, and I didn't want to have to also endure the risk of getting
> it locked and confiscated).
You omitted a third option, which was to simply remove the food from
your bag, check your bag for free, and carry only your food instead of
carrying the entire bag.
Pathetic BaSSclown
David H.--REMOVE "STOPSPAM" to reply
wrote:
and also earlier:
>I'm aware that marginally 10 euro is almost negligible, but I think
>having to pay that much for a day's locker service (and having to find
>someplace to break my paper into coins, and having to worry about a
>policy mentioning that they'll confiscate and discard my laptop and
>passport if I'm not back an hour before park closing) is *easily*
>worth a paragraph noting that my personal experience with the park
>started with some bad footing, regardless of whether or not I did
>decide to pay for that locker or not.
The point that Robb is making is that you did not HAVE to pay that much for
a day's locker service. You CHOSE to, because you CHOSE to bring food onto
a property that serves food. And then you CHOSE to keep it in your bag.
Have you considered that it might be a violation of health codes? Which
makes it not the park's decision at all? And that you might be risking the
park's license to serve food and beverages? Many areas do not allow
businesses that sell food to have customers bring outside food onto their
property. And as soon as they take it from you, it becomes THEIR
responsibility. If there were a health inspection, and your food had gone
bad or had any property that caused them to fail a health inspection (such
as being improperly stored in luggage and not being refrigerated!), they
could lose their license.
In addition, food attracts rodents and insects. And while the users of a
certain Theme Park website might tend to like rodents, most of us don't
want them or insects near OUR checked bags!
You do realize that many amusement parks don't allow outside food on their
property, right? Perhaps they're not always so diligent at checking bags,
but technically, it's not allowed on property of many parks at all. Not
only for all of the reasons mentioned above. But also because they are in
the business of selling food, and as such don't want you bringing your own.
You can't bring your own food into most restaurants either, due to either
restaurant policies or local health ordinances.
I was just at Six Flags Great Adventure at the end of a weekend in New
York. They did not have free bag check. I had to pay $11 for it. That's
pretty standard at all Six Flags parks in the country. I didn't complain
about it at the park or here.
As to your other comments about the other lockers, I don't see your
complaints about those either. I was at Gardaland last year. I seem to
recall MANY restaurants and stores. Couldn't you have gotten change at any
of them? Or are you complaining about having to walk a minute or two to a
store to get change? And would have been so hard to go back and get your
bag an hour before closing? Yes, you would have had to carry your bag for
the last hour. But considering that you ended up carrying it all day
because of a small bag of snacks (that you didn't even pay for), that
doesn't seem like a bad alternative!
Gardaland offered you FREE bag check, something that very few parks in the
industry offer. As long as you didn't have food in the pack. You could
have carried your snacks. Or thrown them away. Or brought them back to
your hotel. Or checked them at the train station. You CHOSE not to do any
of these. You had many options, yet chose not to avail of any of them.
Yet, you're blaming them for that? That seems unfair, at best.
"With the first link, a chain is forged. The first speech censured,
the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us
all irrevocably." -Capt. Jean-Luc Picard
"The Drumhead", _Star Trek: The Next Generation_
Jeremy
In retrospect that would have been the best option, however at the
time in the guest services building they made the lockers inside the
park sound like a better option as they had not disclosed that I'd
have to pay in coins (which I didn't have) or the caveat about the
last-hour lock-up. By the point I found them I might have headed back
to guest services, but since they were near the back of the park and I
had already wasted fifteen minutes after park opening when queues were
filling up trying to find a place to store my bag I didn't want to
deal with going all the way back out the entrance, through the tunnel
back to guest relations and have to dispose of what was to be my meal
that evening on an extensive train journey. The food was a gift
prepared for me by my Italian relatives whom I visited the days before
and I was reluctant to dispose of it due to some park policy I have
never seen in effect anywhere else and wasn't given any good reason
for its existence. Carrying the food around by itself neither occurred
to me (I assumed since it was against rule to bring it to a bag check
that I would definitely be stopped if I brought it exposed into the
park itself) nor would it have been any more practical.
Robb, I apologize if I was getting at all sarcastic with you in my
last post. From my perspective I've been working very hard to write
*detailed* trip reports between schoolwork after a 5 1/2 month long
European trip which I am still having to pay off some $1,500 in debts
that I went overbudget on, which I admit was partly my fault due to
overambitious plans; I simply wanted to see too much of Europe on too
tight of a budget. The first comment I see on this report is from you,
which at first I think is an honor... until I read that you only read
one paragraph, and then jumped straight to calling me a cheapskate and
other personal insults, and telling me that not only do you disagree
with my opinion, but that the very expression of that opinion itself
somehow represented some immorality or bad content of character, and
that I should have remained silent and not complained, apparently it
being me to blame for being on a tight budget. I tried to clarify the
circumstances of that encounter because I left some details short in
the review I never thought anyone would care about (which if you'll
notice I never said anything to the effect that personally blamed
Gardaland, only that I was unhappy with the situation I found myself
in, a fact which you cannot disprove as being 100% true). Instead you
gave me a reply that didn't even address the situation at hand and
just made more ad hominem accusations and suggested I shouldn't have
even been in Europe in the first place... I'm not sure if you're
unaware of the tone you carry but this seemed to me extremely
insulting and for no good reason other than it was "a pet-peeve". I'm
sorry if you disagree with my perspective on things but it struck me
that instead of trying to civilly address where you thought I was
mistaken you instead were intentionally belittling me directly to my
face and in public on RRC. If you want to discuss the opinions
presented in my review, just do that and leave the personal
insinuations out of it. If you have more basic problems with the fact
that I'm expressing commentary on my personal experience and tell me
what I should and should not be writing about in the first place with
a few personal insults thrown in, do it privately via email. I would
expect the same from you if I were to go on your website and start
directly attacking your reviews in public.
"If you're so cheap..." "deal with it" "Perhaps they should offer a
service where they take your bag for free, give you a meal and suck
your dick all the same time?" "you should just be happy that you're in
Europe and not bitch about stuff..." "...because you were being a
cheap bastard..." "You're really an asshole."
I don't care what your reasons for disagreeing with me are, any time
you use that sort of language directly to someone's face when they had
done nothing to provoke you personally besides state an opinion in a
public forum, you not only loose the argument but you loose some
dignity as a decent human being capable of engaging in civil
discourse. I would certainly emphasize if that would ever happen to
you, and I will apologize if I made some sarcastic comments in my last
post that stooped to your level. I know netiquette is a bit looser
than if this were a face-to-face exchange, but I hoped you would still
be better than that to use it as an excuse.
Theme Park Review
I speak my mind un-filtered online and in person. If you don't like
what I have to say, or how I say it, too fucking bad. Grow some balls.
Jeremy
<davidhhhSTOPS...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 18:39:36 -0700 (PDT), Jeremy <jkthompso...@gmail.com>
David, thank you for finally bringing Robb's issue into a clearer
light for me. Yes, it did occur to me that was why they had the
policy, most likely for health codes. I was honest about that and
followed their policy. It did strike me as very odd that their
suggested alternative was to then directly bring that food into the
park and store it in lockers I would have to pay much more for. To me
that immediately suggested they were less concerned about health and
safety than they were about making a profit under the guise of health
and safety. I didn't state that in the review because that would have
been pure speculation and there probably was a better reason for this
policy, nor did I say I blamed Gardaland for having a bad policy, I
was simply commenting on the fact of my own situation, that my day did
not start off as happily as I hoped because of this locker situation
that put both me and the park in an awkward circumstance. If I were to
criticize the park, assuming there were different safety codes for in-
park lockers, they could have at least made it a more friendly service
in line with what other parks offer for locker services for people
unable to use the main checked bag desk but needing an all-day
solution rather than one intended for a water ride. Since they didn't
have an option I would say was of reasonable value for me and I had
already been directed inside the park with the food, it made me
consider that by now my best option was just to carry it, although
this was far from the best option I'd experienced at other parks,
hence the grumbling. That all this policy ultimately ended up
achieving, even if it was implemented for good intentions by Gardaland
or the safety department or whoever, was to cause me to bring food
into the park and eat it there anyway, I found the irony too delicious
to pass up comment on. Also the degree to which this is being labeled
as my choice I think is slightly overstated: yes it is true I was the
agent responsible for the bag and the food in the first place, but as
I knew I would have to immediately catch a train as soon as I was done
with the park where an evening meal option may or may not be available
as the route I was scheduled to take required that I spend five hours
overnight in a train station (which ultimately ended up being eight so
I was in fact able to get a meal in before the restaurants closed at
my destination, but I would not have known that at the time). Thus my
choice would have been to discard what might have been my only meal
that night. I can see where you would bring up issue with this, but I
never actually said "I blame Gardaland for my problems", only that
there were problems resulted in some lose-lose-lose decisions for me:
carry the bag, pay for an overpriced and inconvenient service, or risk
spending another night relying on vending machines for my nutritional
intake. I'd think I'd have a right to comment on this experience at
the beginning (since it was intended as much as a setup for the later
mention of the odd loose-item check policy at Mammut and Rio Bravo)
without personal insults being sent my way.
Jeremy
> what I have to say, or how I say it, too fucking bad. Grow some balls.
Then I suppose that is your right, although you are hopefully aware by
now that this undiplomatic approach makes actually persuading anyone
to your side of the argument much much more challenging. If when you
first sat down to write a response your goal was to actually make me
see your side of the story and appreciate your logic, then, sadly,
mission failed (thankfully David H came to your aid and showed how to
do it right). But if your only goal was to antagonize people and
further divide the issue while collecting as many more enemies as you
can, then keep doing what you're doing, it's working great. (again,
apologies for the sarcasm.)
Keith Hopkins
Stop being intelligent and reasoned with your writings, Jeremy.
You're missing the whole point of RRC. You're supposed to swear at
people and act like a complete tool.
(throws hands up in exasperation)
Keith Hopkins
news:jpjj86tokqh659fpu...@4ax.com...
>
> You do realize that many amusement parks don't allow outside food on
> their
> property, right? Perhaps they're not always so diligent at checking
> bags,
> but technically, it's not allowed on property of many parks at all.
> Not
> only for all of the reasons mentioned above. But also because they
> are in
> the business of selling food, and as such don't want you bringing
> your own.
> You can't bring your own food into most restaurants either, due to
> either
> restaurant policies or local health ordinances.
Not sure what this has to do with the current argument, as they ended
up telling him to bring the food into the park.
Mike Kallay
> I speak my mind un-filtered online and in person. If you don't like
> what I have to say, or how I say it, too fucking bad. Grow some balls.
Let me translate this for you, Jeremy. Robb can't speak to most of
your review because his lack of education & propensity for hanging out
with 'tweens has stunted not only his reading comprehension, but also
his cognitive development in general.
Your references to Keats, Sartre and Camus are akin to having One.org
canvassing outside of a Carrot Top concert -- he simply can't
understand it, so he jumps on the first thing he does understand &
bitches about it, using language that is lazy & ironically, completely
absent from the little sandbox he created.
And, when he says he speaks un-filtered on-line and in person, what he
really means is that he'll be around only as long as you kiss his
undeserving ass, then he's gone faster than the hippie couple on The
Amazing Race.
Please keep your reviews coming, Jeremy. I do think you have a
predisposition for anticipointment at times, but I enjoy the
exhaustive and well written accounts of your travels. I'd much rather
see your prose than "...Rodent Threesome" posted under a low rez
photo.
/mike
Jeremy
published soon.
Theme Park Review
Oh, yes...here comes the personal attack from douchebag internet
stalker Mike Kalley. You're a few hours behind schedule. I'm
disappointed in you. Probably too busy researching my personal
records again and posting under fake names....
Theme Park Review
<sussk...@sssssssssgmail.ssssssssscom> wrote:
> Stop being intelligent and reasoned with your writings, Jeremy.
The only intelligent part of his writings is that he's using big words
to convince everyone that he's smart (and great job for doing so,
IMO), but when the reality of the situation really is...when you boil
it down to it's simplicity... he's being an unreasonable cheap
bastard.
--Robb "And I don't need to use big, fluffy words to get my point
across." Alvey
Wolf
news:5322a590-345c-4431...@q21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
It's not my read that he's blaming the park.
And it's not like parks are never in the wrong, or have contradictory
policies. Sam's shtick is never blaming the park. That didn't used to be
yours.
--
|\-/|
<0 0>
=(o)=
-Wolf
Wolf
>> I don't care what your reasons for disagreeing with me are, any time
>> you use that sort of language directly to someone's face when they had
>> done nothing to provoke you personally besides state an opinion in a
>> public forum, you not only loose the argument but you loose some
>> dignity as a decent human being capable of engaging in civil
>> discourse. I would certainly emphasize if that would ever happen to
>> you, and I will apologize if I made some sarcastic comments in my last
>> post that stooped to your level. I know netiquette is a bit looser
>> than if this were a face-to-face exchange, but I hoped you would still
>> be better than that to use it as an excuse.
>
> I speak my mind un-filtered online and in person. If you don't like
> what I have to say, or how I say it, too fucking bad. Grow some balls.
Remind me again how big your kill-file is over at TPR.
David Sandborg
"Wolf" <bill.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not my read that he's blaming the park.
Nor mine. I think he did his job well as a reviewer, presenting some
logistical information that could well be of interest to future visitors
while putting a semi-humourous anecdotal spin on it. The whole thing
seems to be a tempest in a teapot, and a big distraction from the rest
of the review. In fact I haven't even read it yet myself but I hope to
do so and respond this weekend. Perhaps we can actually talk about some
coasters or something then.
> And it's not like parks are never in the wrong, or have contradictory
> policies. Sam's shtick is never blaming the park. That didn't used to be
> yours.
The same comparison had crossed my mind. Oh, the irony!
--
Dave Sandborg
Remove Spam-away to respond via e-mail.
David Sandborg
generic. I also have already said all I think I need to about the
backpack incident, so I'll just skip that part...
In article
<b4f477d7-cebb-4786...@c21g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Jeremy <jkthom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The first attraction was Blue Tornado, the parkąs Vekoma SLC with an
> added helix. While for many coaster travelers an SLC is a ride to be
> tried once for posterityąs sake and then disembarked with a shrug of
> the shoulders and a crick of the neck, I find the layout when running
> with amply proper smoothness to be more exhilarating than many of
> B&Mąs attempts at crafting an original inverted coaster design. To
> quickly restate my Thunderhawk review, it establishes a frenetic pace
> with the first elements which strategically sequences itself to a coup-
> de-grace climax of double barrel-rolls with nearby supports
> threatening amputation of key ambulatory appendages.
I guess I can see it in theory, but I frankly never can get excited for
an SLC in the way that I can about a Batman, to choose another generic
B&M layout. Of course, that's generally acknowledged as one of B&M's
best, but I'd still rather ride Great Bear than even the best SLC. I do
like the way that the SLC uses visual effects better but that's about
all I really can find myself saying for it.
> The primary
> deficiency of the layout in my eyes (apart from occasional shunting of
> the vehicles which I must be lucky in avoiding) is a coda after the
> barrel rolls which is a rather aimless and meandering attempt to get
> back to the brakes, but since it doesnąt add or detract anything from
> the main layout that precedes it, it canąt be categorized as anything
> worse than perhaps a lost opportunity.
This raises a thought in my mind, though a somewhat unfocused one. The
twistedness of the SLC layout kind of makes it feel more aimless to me
than a more extended layout that feels like it goes somewhere. This
could be post-hoc rationalization, but I get a similar sense from other
hyper-twisted coasters, such as SFoG's Ninja or Premier's Mad Cobra
layout. Out and back may be an overly simple layout, but you do feel
like you traversed some distance.
> Blue Tornadoąs final helix almost certainly would have exacerbated the
> problem of too much loose final track at the end of the experience if
> it werenąt for one detail: a series of hedges built underneath the
> track which get so close to riders feet that those sitting on the
> inner left side (or even the outer right side if youąre tall enough)
> can easily reach out and scrape the sole of their shoe along the
> leaves. At furthest extension my feet could only brush along the
> topmost layer for the entire helix, but if the distance between plant
> and seat were to change by even an inch or two I might have been in
> for a nasty surprise. While I couldnąt find any immediate safety
> threat, the result was nevertheless unnerving to have the barrier
> between secured passenger and lethally high-velocity outside world
> removed in such a way that one could directly feel the other. A unique
> finish indeed, and one that was worthy of at least two more immediate
> re-rides that morning. Good ride.
I do like visual effects such as you describe. Any close brushes with
foliage or other scenery works well in my book. This includes highly
banked turns on stand-up coasters, one of the few times where heavy
banking really does much for me.
> With a posted five minute queue Mammut might have been next but I
> figured with its high capacity it should retain that short queue all
> day so I gave it a pass for the moment. Instead I took a walk around
> the back loop of the park, first starting with a trip on their Flying
> Island, the first of this type of attraction Iąve ever been on, which
> afforded a nice perspective of the park and its proximity to Lake
> Garda.
I have been on Efteling's, and wish there were more of these. It's a
very cool ride. I can't speak for Gardaland's, but Efteling's also adds
a certain amount of a fantastic element to the skyline, very appropriate
for that park.
> Next door the Space Vertigo Intamin freefall tower appeared to have
> yet gathered a queue so I figured to try it now rather than risk a
> long wait later. The preride queue area was quite accomplished in
> creating a 1970ąs NASA space theme, but for some reason they held
> guests just outside of this area and then had us quickly walk straight
> through it immediately to the boarding platform.
I'd think that would be a disappointment.
> It was tempting to
> speculate if this used up their budget allotted for the tower itself,
> as it couldnąt have been much taller than many of the transportable
> Fabbri or ARM drop rides, by far the shortest Intamin tower. An odd
> cap over the top of the tower also seemed like a missed opportunity
> for more theatrical anticipation when in fact the inside was barren
> and you could still easily see outside from under it.
I think in the past I've seen such caps used to hold camera equipment
for on-ride photos. Possibly what happened there?
> A more realistic
> guess for these odd features more likely involves local ordinances
> requiring it not be built too high or requiring a scream shield to
> keep any noises that riders may potentially emit at bay. However itąs
> often the opinion of many that these shorter drop towers can be just
> as effective as their larger brethren, as itąs primarily the initial
> Śkicką when the latch clicks and our butts become weightless that
> provides the thrill, and that was still very much present in this
> ride. Thatąs part of the problem I have with the controlled, faster-
> than-freefall plunges, because even if a greater force is present the
> motors still have to work for a split second before the force of
> gravity is defeated, and that moment of the instantaneous removal of
> the seat force which makes the inner ear scream red-alert is severely
> dampened.
I'm not sure if I am 100% with this reasoning, but at least this much is
true: The short free fall rides can feel more potent (my theory is that
the brakes are further down the tower relative to its height), and a
good free fall ride can feel just as good if not better than a forced
fall ride.
> Filling up much of the back loop was Fuga da Atlantide, or Escape from
> Atlantis. This is an Intamin water flume ride with a questionable
> second identity as a roller coaster (a proto-Aqua Trax, perhaps) due
> to the presence of some tri-tube track on the lifts and drops,
> although the vehicles are threaded onto and then disengaged from these
> rails in the water channels so Iąll deem it in closer likeness to a
> ride like Cedar Pointąs Shoot the Rapids. My choice was to ride in the
> front because everyone else was avoiding that row. Hmm, think that
> might be a clue, Dr. Watson?
Interesting. I have found that most patrons are more willing to get wet
than I am.
> This ride seemed to have huge quantities
> of Atlantian props and façades around it but ultimately they didnąt
> seem to add anything to the experience. The ground-level flume
> channels were painfully slow, and they offered little to look at
> besides more faceless scenery. The giant Poseidon statue with golden
> nipples was the most interesting contribution from the themeing
> department, but since this was easily viewable from the midway it
> didnąt serve much of a point to see it again on-ride.
Shame to hear all this. I like good, scenic rides, but this sounds a
bit underwhelming, particularly considering what the budget probably
likely was.
> Spread
> throughout this are the two Śexcitingą bits, an elevator cable lift
> with a coaster-track turnaround leading into a splashdown drop. Hereąs
> why the front row wasnąt the greatest idea; while the splash itself
> was fairly dry, the waterfall effects on the drop had several plates
> meant to kick up the water to give it a cascading look, but these were
> to an exaggerated effect which in turn splashed up and over the boatąs
> nose and onto yours truly sitting squarely center to absorb it all.
Yes, I dislike this side effect. Even some of my favorite water rides
are prone to sloshing over. I usually try to keep my feet somewhat
elevated in case any comes near my shoes.
> Before attempting the other half of the park I thought it a good time
> to give their custom Vekoma mine train Mammut a spin. However, upon
> arrival I discovered two things: the wait time was now estimating at
> least 45 minutes (where did that come from?) and there was no bag
> storage on the station platform as with every other ride, you had to
> leave your bag (this is true) along a wall next to the entrance on the
> main midway, where presumably anyone else could walk up and freely
> take it while the schmucks that own them are standing in line. As the
> contents of my bag included my laptop, passport, at least ¤60 in cash,
> you can see why this was not an attractive proposal. Against my better
> judgment, rather than skip the attraction (I needed to do it at least
> once during the day anyway) I figured that enough other bags were
> present that they must not encounter too many problems with this
> setup, perhaps from a difference in cultural norms which discourages
> theft whenever someone elseąs belonging is left unattended for longer
> than 30 seconds. With great reluctance I tucked it as far behind a
> corner as I could and then joined the queue.
Wow, this is the aspect of the bag saga that never came up! I have to
admit I'd be very reluctant to do this. I wonder why they don't have at
least some bag storage in the station, or at least a bank of pay lockers
near the entrance. It seems such an obvious service to provide.
> Part of the reason the line built up so quickly besides still being
> the new, must-ride attraction, only two trains were being cycled on a
> layout with three lifts, but just as I was getting towards the
> station, they shut it down for another ten minutes to add the third
> train. Iąm trying to recall if the seats were molded the same on the
> Eagles: Life in the Fast Lane. I donąt recall any problems with that
> ride, but soon after departing I found the hard-backed seats that
> offered little seat support made the unnecessary shaking this coaster
> had all the more unendurable. From offride in the queue I sensed some
> danger of this just by noticing the guide wheels divot back and forth
> as they rolled along the track with apparently too much slack between
> them and the rails.
Sounds very disappointing indeed. It hardly seems credible that such a
well-worn variety of ride as a mine train could be so badly executed.
> Like Escape from Atlantis, I find this one also suffers from a problem
> of excessive themed edifices which add very little to the overall
> experience. Maybe it was because I knew I was on a production model
> ride and that everything was built to fit around the track rather than
> the other way around, but when it consists of nothing but vertical,
> boxy, iced-stone walls and square cut-out tunnels, failing both to
> establish either a sense of place or to offer any set-pieces with a
> Śfaceą beckoning oneąs attention to them, the theming honestly seemed
> negligible.
This I would have to judge for myself. On a fast-moving ride I find a
little can go a long way, and trying to do too much is
counterproductive. This is part of why I'm so down on rides that try
too hard to tell a story. So well-excecuted facades might be the sort
of thing that I'd like; I'll take your word for it they don't work to
convey that "sense of place".
> (Actually there were a few special props but since the
> track wasnąt custom designed to naturally Śpresentą them for riders,
> most whizzed by unnoticed on my first ride.) While I admittedly
> overpraised the Eagles just because it was one of only two coasters I
> got to ride at Hard Rock Park and technically my first coaster ever to
> properly review, I still think that the addition of music was stronger
> contributions to that rideąs relative success than an entire third
> section with extensive frozen decorations did for Mammut, although I
> would probably be in the minority on that opinion. Most likely the
> rougher tracking was the biggest turn-off.
My memory of the Eagles ride is pretty vague by this point. I don't
remember it being all that great as a mine train, but the music and the
ending effect made a big difference.
> To give a few insights on the coaster itself, while Iąm always in
> favor of long, meandering layouts where itąs not just a random
> sequencing of one big element after another (especially when three
> lift hills are involved; seriously, when was the last time before
> Mammut a regional theme park built one of those?), I find the mine
> train genre doesnąt work as well when the track is forced into a
> compact space unless they start incorporating other things into the
> layout besides long curves and shallow drops. Thatąs partly why the
> addition of the third lift offered diminishing returns on the rideąs
> overall excitement; after two parts of random layout noodling, do we
> really need one more?
I have definitely found this to be true. The only ride I can think of
where the section after a third lift really contributes something is Six
Flags over Texas's mine train (one of the early ones!) and that because
the subsequent drop is so shocking. In fact even on that one the last
bit of track is very short, it's really only the drop that makes that
third lift worthwhile.
> A large downhill double-helix and a surprise
> exit of the rocky prop area to suddenly twist high over a natural
> forested valley near the end are a step in the right direction in
> terms of providing a more distinguished closing act, but itąs still
> maybe not quite enough, especially compared to the amazing finale on
> Disneyland Parisąs Big Thunder Mountain. (Heck, even as corny as
> Adventure Expressąs Śfinaleą is, itąs at least something memorable!)
I was thinking about Adventure Express as I was recapitulating mine
trains in my mind. It doesn't suffer from the three lift syndrome, but
manages to be a good ride in its own right, apart from the silly ending,
which as you say does make it memorable.
> Best row is in the back, where you can watch the entire train snake
> around the corners ahead of you, and because with the locomotive the
> front actually offers worse views. Overall a minor disappointment, and
> the best part was the relief I had when I found my backpack still
> untouched when I finished.
Well, that's good to know hear.
> Anyway, the main notable feature about Magic Mountain is that itąs the
> first ride for me to try the new Vekoma sit-down restraints, which
> feature a streamlined car design and over-the-shoulder straps which
> are, if not soft, at least semi-pliable. While it guaranteed a
> reduction of headbanging as there was no longer any restraining
> material positioned near oneąs noggin, I didnąt expect that to be a
> major problem with Magic Mountain anyway and the new design is much
> more snug than the old horsecollars, resting firmly on top of oneąs
> shoulders and chest, causing a minor amount of claustrophobia when
> pulled all the way down and also not reducing the amount of shockwaves
> absorbed by the body on bumpier pullouts due to the extra direct
> contact with the cars flattening you between restraint and seatback. I
> wonąt call it a step backward from the old design, just apples to
> oranges.
I'd think at least the removal of potential headbanging is worthwhile,
even if other problems remain to be addressed. I guess the closer fit
might be a bad tradeoff, but I have never found horsecollars to be
particularly loose-fitting (or if they are, it doesn't matter that much)
and I haven't found the soft restraints I've run into to be all that
constraining. The worst I can say for the soft restraints I've run into
from a different manufacturer, they can come very close to the head
while being pulled down, potentially hitting sunglasses on the way down.
> Unfortunately the layout itself was hardly worthy of the special
> treatment anyway. I love me a good old classic Arrow looping design,
> the back always promises a good kick of airtime over the first drop,
> and the loops and turns, designed by geometry rather than force,
> always keep me aware of my changing orientation (ironically leading to
> increased disorientation). I had already hit Vekoma gold a couple
> weeks ago with Super-Wirbel, so why not again?
>
> Maybe it was just that it got off to a bad beginning, with a timid and
> overstretched first drop, but this ride did nothing for me aside from
> provide the customary looping sensations which have been individually
> done one hundred times before. Between these, the turn and final helix
> were completely without teeth, and the centerpiece inversions were a
> far cry from the fury of nearby Blue Tornado. A pleasant spring-time
> color palate with multi-color trains couldnąt prevent this one from
> being an even bigger disappointment than Mammut, which at least had
> ambition to be something original.
These loop-corkscrews don't do much for me unless there's something
original about the layout. Though I'm not exactly a fan of
Super-Wirbel, it does seem to have more creativity in its design.
Though by my reasoning above I should probably prefer the less compact
layout. Consistency?
> Nestled inside of Magic Mountainąs layout was a fourth coaster which
> did promise that ambition to be original: Sequoia Adventure. I was
> expecting a long wait for this one, but surprisingly I spent barely
> five minutes in queue before I was watching the attendant nearly
> topple over as I handed him my weighty backpack. While the chassis is
> entirely different from the El Loco designs at Indiana Beach or
> Flamingo Land, the seats and restraints are identical. Climbing the
> lift I was surprised by my slight nervousness, as I had really no idea
> what to expect. Technically this ride is tied with its few worldwide
> duplicates as being the steepest roller coasters in the world with
> three drop approaching 180°, if that can even be considered Śsteepą
> anymore. We get to the top, slide toward the edge and thenŠ
>
> łAh, okayŠ?˛ First time over the edge is exciting. Second time is fun.
> Third time is getting redundant. Then itąs over. Unfortunately the
> situation is such that an immediate reride starts from where the last
> one left off. I donąt think from the time it engages the lift to when
> it hits the final brakes does our car ever exit the 5-10 mph speed
> range. To say the ride is all gimmick and no substance is not to
> employ hyperbole.
This is really no less than I expected. In fact, I'm surprised it's
even fun. From the moment I heard about this I expected I'd dislike it,
though I have not had the chance to try it yet (and will certainly do so
whenever that chance arises).
> Thankfully itąs an interesting gimmick. Basically
> the idea is to hold you at one G in whatever direction is available.
> The flips over the edge are definitely the coasterąs most interesting
> moments, although I couldnąt help but feel theyąd be more effective if
> built with a larger radius and allowed a few feet to gain momentum in
> order to have more fun fucking with your inner ear. Iąm glad that S&S
> realized with their El Locos that three 180° vertical turns by
> themselves does not a coaster make, in fact it barely even qualifies
> as a wild mouse which was their point of inspiration. Like a good
> joke, the first time you hear it itąs unforgettably funny, but that
> doesnąt mean having it retold several times throughout the day is
> necessary.
Very much a hallmark of gimmick rides. I'd say it may be the difference
between a successful gimmick and an unsuccessful one.
> Additionally there were lizards in the queue.
As far as I'm concerned that would be a bonus!
> Capping the furthest edge of the park was Gardalandąs fifth and final
> coaster, the Ortobruco Tour. This might be the worldąs largest wacky
> worm, although despite the similarly design train the use of regular
> tubular steel rails and supports makes me want to give the nearby
> Valle degli Gnomi that official distinction. Thatąs not to detract
> from the fact that this childrenąs coaster is long, taking at least a
> couple minutes to complete a circuit which meanders back and forth
> over a square patch of gardens, many of the nearby shrubs actually
> brushing into the ride vehicle similar to Blue Tornado. There are
> multiple lifts, although itąs more like an odd tire drive is placed
> every so often when the train needs a boost, and occasionally a few
> are stringed together on a longer uphill section of track. I sort of
> wish I went for a re-ride but I never did.
I went to look at the pictures and it does look quite attractive. It
might be better regarded as a scenic ride than a roller coaster.
> Other rides I tried in the park included the Ramses: Il Risveglio dark
> ride (aka Ramses: the Revenge), which had an odd techno/sci-fi
> Egyptian tomb theme in an interactive shooter format that didnąt
> improve the ride anyway.
These days I prefer a non-interactive dark ride to a shoot-em-up one.
The ideal case is when I ride with somebody who does all the shooting
and I can just watch.
> As the sun was starting to come out and I no longer felt the need to
> wear my jacket, the Colorado Boat flume ride seemed a good idea. The
> queue was the second longest Iąd experience that day after Mammut (and
> also the second to require I drop my back at the entrance). There was
> a pleasant ground-level run through the trees and the artificial
> mountain with some waterfall effects, culminating in a climb straight
> up then straight down a relatively sharp drop into a splashdown that
> again got me wetter than I had been led to anticipate from European
> water rides.
Sounds like a decent flume. I personally like it when a flume has a
good portion of its course at or near ground level.
> To wrap up the evening, I crammed in at least three or four more walk-
> on Blue Tornado rides, my clear vote for best ride in the park.
> Hopefully that says as much about the relative quality of this SLC as
> it does for the relative lack-thereof in the parkĹfs other starring
> attractions.
I hope it's the former rather than the latter for sure. I really doubt
I could ride any SLC for more than a couple of circuits in a day.
David H.--REMOVE "STOPSPAM" to reply
<suss...@sssssssssgmail.ssssssssscom> wrote:
>"David H.--REMOVE "STOPSPAM" to reply"
><davidhhh...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
>news:jpjj86tokqh659fpu...@4ax.com...
>>
>> You do realize that many amusement parks don't allow outside food on
>> their
>> property, right? Perhaps they're not always so diligent at checking
>> bags,
>> but technically, it's not allowed on property of many parks at all.
>> Not
>> only for all of the reasons mentioned above. But also because they
>> are in
>> the business of selling food, and as such don't want you bringing
>> your own.
>> You can't bring your own food into most restaurants either, due to
>> either
>> restaurant policies or local health ordinances.
>
>Not sure what this has to do with the current argument, as they ended
>up telling him to bring the food into the park.
Did they actually tell him to bring it into the park, or did they just not
tell him not to. Given language barriers, this might not be the same
thing.
My point is that most parks wouldn't let him in with the food at all. At
least Gardaland did.
I've seen them take food from people or send them back tot he car with it
at several Six Flags Parks. And he was complaining that he didn't think it
was fair that this park wouldn't check his bag with food in it. Other
parks would have confiscated it and thrown it out.
Jeremy
> tell him not to. Given language barriers, this might not be the same
> thing.
No, the person at guest services spoke fluent English, she
specifically told me my only other choice was to bring it all into the
park, and gave me direction to that set of lockers if I still needed a
place to store my bag once inside (the guest services building was
outside the property where I'd assume that sort of left-luggage
service was specifically intended for contraband items not allowed
inside the premises). I was even skeptical and asked for clarification
but she assured me this was allowed and my best alternative.
Again, while I did think the situation slightly unfair as there was
basically no possible solution for me to 'win' without giving up
something, be it more money than I would have budgeted for such an
expense, dumping one of my meals that day, or having to carry a heavy
bag all day. I chose the last as my best option seeing as I was trying
to conserve expenses as much as possible. I can clearly see the reason
they might have had that rule in place, as soon as I was told I wasn't
allowed to use their free service I assumed without asking that was
the reason why. My 'complaint' was more at the general scope of being
in the situation rather than to place blame on the park. It's like
being in a traffic jam. You offhandedly complain even though there's
really no one to blame, it's just part of your day's narrative, and
then the situation isn't made better afterward when people tell you
it's your fault for wanting to drive at that hour at all and you
should silently accept or even thank the delay because you maybe
shouldn't be allowed to drive at all.
Man, I wish this much analysis could be applied to something I even
spent a minute to think about before I wrote. ;)
Pathetic BaSSclown
> Man, I wish this much analysis could be applied to something I even
> spent a minute to think about before I wrote. ;)
It's RRC man, it's what we do. :-)
Years ago, someone's very well-written Myrtle Beach trip report got
totally sidetracked over some Southern "dialect" the author typed out.
Gooood times.
Dana Schwartz
<bassis...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 14, 11:32 pm, Jeremy <jkthompso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Man, I wish this much analysis could be applied to something I even
>> spent a minute to think about before I wrote. ;)
>
>It's RRC man, it's what we do. :-)
Yep! If somebody here sticks a fly under a magnifying glass in the
sun and sears off its wings, you can be certain that another person
will come along with tweezers and a probe to dissect what's left of
the twitching body in the pile of ashes. :-)
>Years ago, someone's very well-written Myrtle Beach trip report got
>totally sidetracked over some Southern "dialect" the author typed out.
>Gooood times.
Was that during the Shake 'N Bake years, when I chimed in with:
"An' Ah-eye hay-elped!" ?
(Oops. Wrong newsgroup.)
You're rolling with it, Jeremy. Gooood attitude.
Dana Schwartz