What sort of record would they break? It's not going to be an extreme thrill ride.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
New Harry Potter Coaster Confirmed for 2019 (Dragon's Challenge Closing Sept 4th)
- Thread starter Coaster Lover
- Start date
What sort of record would they break? It's not going to be an extreme thrill ride.
21stamps
Well-Known Member
Longest or most air time etc... those don't have to be 54" height requirement
Just4Pics
Well-Known Member
It's funny that you say that because I was just thinking that would be a good move for them, especially as they transition away from animal shows to rides.
Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
I actually wonder if they are indeed selling the tracks or scrapping them, and if they sell them, will they sell them individually if the opportunity comes up?
Disneyhead'71
Well-Known Member
c-one
Well-Known Member
It did look spectacular... but only when you were off the ride... and not even in the queue.
Even in the front, you would barely see that other train.
100 percent agree. The thing I hate about inverts is that if you're not in the front row, you can't see a damn thing, which is extra important on a dueling one! I always liked the blue side as far as it goes, but it belongs in a Busch park. Universal has come so far in offering real themed storytelling experiences.
AndrewsJ
Well-Known Member
I should say the best B&M I've ever ridden! I will definitely take your word for it because I know you'd never steer me wrong! I have never been to King's Island but now I must! Longest B&M ever built?! 4124 feet?! Wow how did I not know about this??
Disneyhead'71
Well-Known Member
cheezbat
Well-Known Member
It may be the longest but it's not the best. I actually found it to be quite painful. I enjoyed Alpengeist and Montu far more. Heck, even Top Gun(Flight Deck or whatever it's called now) in Carowinds was also more fun.
Disneyhead'71
Well-Known Member
I think Top Gun, even though small, has a perfect layout. I'm not a big fan of cobra rolls on an inverted coaster. I always preferred the butterfly roll better. The cobra roll is such a head knocker.
Just adressing a small part of your post. In no way were children not interested in SW. Had you ever been to a SWW ? And the Jedi training academy started in 2007 and even before the new film came out was always well attended and tricky to get into. Starwars has bridged the generations extremely well.
If he's in his 20s, your cousin would have been a child when the prequels came out, as well as the theatrical re-release of the original trilogy only a few years earlier. As a 30-year-old, I remember the toy stores of the 90's being stockpiled with Star Wars items even before any of that. Its pop culture relevance never dwindled as much as you think. In fact, the hype reached a fever pitch prior to the release of Phantom Menace, much more so than for Force Awakens or anything else they've done recently. It was only tempered by negative reaction after the fact. Even after the prequels, they've ran several animated series based on them as well as numerous books. The new films are obviously a boon for the franchise, but they're hardly creating something out of nothing or reviving its golden age. Far from it.
Last edited:
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
As someone who is exactly the demo being debated (87 baby), Star Wars didn't lose complete relevance. Mostly it was beloved and shared by parents during those intervening years. I had a few friends who were obsessed with it.
That said, I partially agree that Star Wars did not define my generational age group in the same sense that it did those who were kids and teens in the late 70's/early 80's. Or those born in the latter 90's to ride the prequel wave. There was an obvious lull in the films and that allowed a few other properties to capture the imagination.
We very much were the Disney Renaissance in our childhood, followed by Potter in our pre-teen years (87 is the extreme end of Potter, I find those who were in high school when the books first hit stride missed the the boat). I know it's anecdotal, but I cannot for the life of me find any friends born in 84/85 who like Potter. Potter book fans have their heaviest hitting demo between ~87-97. Of course the movies started hitting before the books let up meaning the Potter fanbase extends well beyond that, but we were the generation who first and foremost discovered it via the books.
Likewise, Nintendo dominated the generation dipping bit more into the early 80's for Mario. Pokemon's line in the sand falls later, the first craze swept when I was still in grade 6. Those 84/85 babies again would have been in high school.
There is a reason these properties are all collectively coming out of the woodwork, early millennials now have some buying power.
That said, I partially agree that Star Wars did not define my generational age group in the same sense that it did those who were kids and teens in the late 70's/early 80's. Or those born in the latter 90's to ride the prequel wave. There was an obvious lull in the films and that allowed a few other properties to capture the imagination.
We very much were the Disney Renaissance in our childhood, followed by Potter in our pre-teen years (87 is the extreme end of Potter, I find those who were in high school when the books first hit stride missed the the boat). I know it's anecdotal, but I cannot for the life of me find any friends born in 84/85 who like Potter. Potter book fans have their heaviest hitting demo between ~87-97. Of course the movies started hitting before the books let up meaning the Potter fanbase extends well beyond that, but we were the generation who first and foremost discovered it via the books.
Likewise, Nintendo dominated the generation dipping bit more into the early 80's for Mario. Pokemon's line in the sand falls later, the first craze swept when I was still in grade 6. Those 84/85 babies again would have been in high school.
There is a reason these properties are all collectively coming out of the woodwork, early millennials now have some buying power.
Figment82
Well-Known Member
1984 baby here, and I absolutely adore the Harry Potter series. I got into the books right around the release of Chamber of Secrets, before the super craze hit. I love the books far more than the movies (which is partly why I put off going to see the Universal areas for so long). All my friends in high school were really into the books as well.
Just wanted to let you know that we're out there, even if we're the minority!
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
I've always thought Rowling was just a "meh" writer. But I really like all the ancillary stuff - the movies and the park attractions. Those things bring the Potter world to life better than their source-creator ever did IMO.
Disneyhead'71
Well-Known Member
Rowling is an awesome "Storyteller" but not a great "author".
That's why it's so easy to read.
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
She constructs plots well, enough to keep you plodding on through all of the misfiring humor and trite depictions of magic, I'll admit.
But I think the real reason Harry defeated Voldemort in the last battle is because he monologued the guy to death.
captainkidd
Well-Known Member
Not sure if this has been brought up, but should Universal really be retiring one (or 2) of it's biggie roller coasters, when Islands is known for thrill rides? If anything, I think they should be building more coasters. And not in the Mine Train vein.
While I'm sure there are people who appreciate the park's heavy leaning towards thrill rides, it also gets heavily stigmatized for it, with many in the Disney crowd even comparing it to a Six Flags. And that's with only three large coasters, mind you. What you're suggesting would only make that worse. I'm not sure removing thrill rides for the sake of something tamer is the optimal solution, but they needed to add some tamer rides if they want to appeal to the folks whom the park doesn't already appeal to. I don't believe that's why Dragons is closing, but they're going to take the opportunity and run with it.
Universal are also putting themselves in danger of competing for a more niche audience if they focus on large coasters, because that appears to be all SeaWorld knows how to build. Eventually the thrill seekers will all go there regardless of what Universal does... assuming they can stay in business.
Last edited:
Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
Something to consider is that currently, whenever it storms (so, you know, half of summer), more than half the attractions at IOA have to close, as opposed to Studios, where Rockit is the only major attraction that closes. I feel like this probably influenced the decision to both remove Dragons and not replace it with another outdoor coaster.