Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

History vs. Thrill?

MestnyiGeroi

MestnyiGeroi

Giga Poster
Would you be excited to visit Idlewild Park in Pennsylvania? It's the third oldest operating park in the States, and it's steeped in that old-timey amusement park feel. Would that get you enthusiastic to see the place, or would your attitude be "It's mostly a kiddie park with two nothing coasters -- no thanks"?

Would you be excited to ride Leap-the-Dips at Lakemont Park in the same state, knowing it's the oldest operating coaster in the world, or would you think, "Yet another coaster with an ACE plaque and a dull, forgettable ride"?

In other words, are the history and lore of amusement parks a part of your interest, or are you all about the thrill of the rides and nothing else?

Which one is closest to you?

A. I go to amusement parks for thrills, not museum curiosities. I want awesome rides and don't care about the history of rides or parks.

B. Yeah, the historical aspects are kind of cool and I enjoy them here and there, but I'm primarily about the thrills.

C. Both the history of a park or ride AND the thrill level of rides are really enjoyable aspects of my amusement park experience.

D. The history and lore of parks are my biggest interest. I'm all about the old-school amusement park experience, and thrill rides are fun but less important to me.
 
Last edited:
Definitely C for me. Obviously we all love to experience the thrills but I equally cherish the chance to experience something of historical relevance. That doesn't mean that old always = good of course, but the examples you've listed (oldest coaster in the world etc.) are on my bucket list. I'm totally gutted that Lakemont Park isn't going to be opening while I'm that way this year.
 
Mysterious Sue said:
Definitely C for me. Obviously we all love to experience the thrills but I equally cherish the chance to experience something of historical relevance. That doesn't mean that old always = good of course, but the examples you've listed (oldest coaster in the world etc.) are on my bucket list. I'm totally gutted that Lakemont Park isn't going to be opening while I'm that way this year.
Click to expand...
Yeah, fwiw, I'm definitely C as well, but as I've been getting to know this forum in the past months I've gotten quite a few possible hints that there are a lot of A and B folks around here, so I asked out of genuine curiosity.
 
C: I love old coasters. They're not all great but for me History adds to a ride experience. That said a bad coaster to me is still a bad coaster, no amount of history can change that. just like no matter of worlds firsts or other new technology can make what i found to be a bad coaster a good coaster.

Notice leap the dips at my number 10. That ride was just pure fun for me. Had a great experience on it and the fact that it's the oldest operating in the world is a plus, but not all defining.
 
C.

I love all the history of the old woodies at Blackpool, but I'm really stoked for Icon. Lakemont Park (specifically Leap the Dips) was really lovely, but Cedar Point was amazing. I probably do more "thrill" parks on average than "historic" parks (I'd guess the split is probably something 75/25), but I do enjoy both equally.
 
I'll be the first boneheaded B then. 'Here and there' is pretty much spot on.
A good ride is a good ride and I don't find age makes much of an impact on that.
 
HeartlineCoaster said:
I'll be the first boneheaded B then. 'Here and there' is pretty much spot on.
A good ride is a good ride and I don't find age makes much of an impact on that.
Click to expand...
There's nothing boneheaded about stating your preferences. I suspect there are a lot of As and Bs on this forum, so I'm glad you broke the C pattern.
 
A

Outdated technology is for museums, not to be used in practice. With the exception of a select few that are still very good, I will always find outdated rides to be inferior to more modern, technologically advanced rides. I'm the biggest advocate for technological progress in the amusement industry you'll ever meet. If a park wants to operate as a museum for the amusement industry like Knoebels, fine, but for a park that's supposed to be relevant, I would gladly be the guy to bulldoze everything pre-1972 and replace it with something modern. I'm a complete supporter of the RMC conversion on almost anything before 1972 and about half of what exists between 1972 and 1980. It's kind of interesting to see the stuff that was built before CAD and CNC technology to see how it was done back then, but I'd far rather see that space used to demonstrate something cutting edge and state of the art.
 
While I can't bring myself to go full Jarrett on this one, I'm definitely more of a B than a C.
I'm not one for keeping lots of old crap lying around just for history's sake. If it's a good ride or is actually historically significant, sure, keep it going as long as possible, but just 'being old' is not a good enough reason on its own to keep a rough knacker open indefinitely.
Take Blackpool for example, home of 5 classic woodies. I'd be quite happy to see at least 3 of them bulldozed to make way for new stuff. They're a bit short of space in Blackpool, right?
Actually, make that 4 of them - just keep the Big Dipper.
In fact, bulldoze the Big Dipper too - the last time I rode it I thought it was utter sh*t.
Oh what the Hell - I'm an A.
 
I am probably B as well.
Old coasters are cool, but if they suck... they suck. Old coasters that are still fun are very cool though.
If I was the one deciding about what to bulldoze, I would try to avoid bulldozing anything that is still fun and try to keep it alive, if necessary with a retrack, new trains or something like that. If the layout sucks though and could be done a lot better, I would bulldoze and replace it. The most important thing is fun (not thrill).
I absolutely love Eurosat even though it is relatively old, and I am really happy it gets retracked instead of replaced. I like its story and I am glad it doesn't end yet.
 
I'd say I'm B. I like roller coasters a lot, and I also like history a bit so it's always nice to read some of the plaques.
 
I'm somewhere between B & C. I'm always up for a visiting a significant piece of coaster history, whether it be an individual ride or an entire park. Still, I'm usually more excited for bigger "thrill" rides.
 
Somewhere between A & B. I appreciate some historical value, but at the end of the day I'm really visiting theme parks for the good stuff. Take Lake Compounce for example. Oldest operating theme park in America, cool right? Sure. Wildcat is 90 years old. That's also kinda cool, but the ride's a piece of ****. I'm not gonna go to Lake Compounce for the history, I'm gonna go so I can ride Boulder Dash!

I wouldn't go out of my way to visit a small park with only a handful of old and mediocre rides, unless of course it's easily accessible or on the way to something else, so I could get the creds!
 
I lean more towards B I guess. A ride like Cyclone at Coney Island is fantastic to me for both its great ride but also its extreme historical significance. However, the oldest ride in my top 10 is from 1994. Almost all of them are from 2000 and onwards though. I just think that newer coasters are generally better, save for a few exceptions. I don't believe that RMC should take over every old wooden coaster. I think older wooden coasters have an important and fun place in an amusement park. The historical importance of a park doesn't really matter to me. It can. For instance, I love Disneyland largely because of the historical significance of it. Every corner of that park is chock full of history! However, without the amazing new rides like Indiana Jones and Splash Mountain, I doubt the historical significance would matter. At the end of the day, history is a tiny factor compared to aspects like thrills or theming. Disneysea is much, much better than Disneyland despite having very little history to its name. So, ya, I'm going to go B.
 
Jarrett said:
A

Outdated technology is for museums, not to be used in practice. With the exception of a select few that are still very good, I will always find outdated rides to be inferior to more modern, technologically advanced rides. I'm the biggest advocate for technological progress in the amusement industry you'll ever meet. If a park wants to operate as a museum for the amusement industry like Knoebels, fine, but for a park that's supposed to be relevant, I would gladly be the guy to bulldoze everything pre-1972 and replace it with something modern. I'm a complete supporter of the RMC conversion on almost anything before 1972 and about half of what exists between 1972 and 1980. It's kind of interesting to see the stuff that was built before CAD and CNC technology to see how it was done back then, but I'd far rather see that space used to demonstrate something cutting edge and state of the art.
Click to expand...
Strong words coming from the person with closest relation to the quintessential 1972 wooden coaster. ;)

The thing to bear in mind is older roller coasters, while aggressive thrill machines back in the day, are now the bread and butter of so many parks' family-friendly options. Believe it or not, not every guest wants to be accelerated at 80+ MPH, inverted 7 times, and climb to extreme heights. Older coasters still have their place in the lineup; especially when you calculate the cost that would mount for replacing old roller coasters with new, similar-specced rides.

For myself? Definitely C. If anything, it can help you appreciate an otherwise mediocre roller coaster as having contributed just a bit more.

... Or at least it makes you a bit more comfortable riding crap rides. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top