Shane's Amusement Attic

[Rollercoaster RiderI own the website www.donkey.com]

Shane, You said that Paramount Parks had to buy rights for usage of Paramount Names, Does Six Flags have the same Policy with Warner Bros?

Hmm--theming a coaster to Frasier's love life would've made sense. Too bad they never built that hyper.

Again, it's cool to see all this "Great America that never was" stuff, Shane.

It is a shame that a lot of these potential concepts never came to life. Like I said before, if Paramount had invested a bit more in these projects, the park might have been in a different state than it is now. As much as the park didn't want to compete directly with SFDK, a major thrill ride every once in a while would've been cool for the park.

I really prefer the original Coney Island theme over the movie/TV show tie-ins (as much as I do like the names - Speed Coaster is too generic for me).

[RoCoBonafide Donkey Expert]

This is museum-quality material. Just awesome. Thanks so much for sharing all this.

Personally, I think the "Beavis and Butthead Do Great America" concept is hysterical and brilliant, and considering that new episodes are coming soon (can I get a HELLYEAH?!), it would have held up well as a theme. But that's just me.

Burning question: Was "Stealth" ever really intended to have a "Mission: Impossible" theme, as has long been rumored?

[CorkscrewFoleyReeks of Books]

Shane, I had been pissing my pants waiting for this update, and it was worth the wait! I wish they would've gone with the Coney island theme myself, as well as the Morgan hyper and Beavis and Butthead (I was a teenager when they first came out). Thank you as always.

[XYZA village is missing its IDIOT!]

It makes me sad that my home park, CGA, could've had awesome rides put in but never did, such as:

-This Morgan Lift coaster
-Hypersonic XLC
-GCI Wooden Coaster

Though, it seems Invertigo "replaced" the Morgan Lift coaster.

[montezooma"Can I get clamshells out of this ATM?"]

This is museum-quality material. Just awesome. Thanks so much for sharing all this.

Personally, I think the "Beavis and Butthead Do Great America" concept is hysterical and brilliant, and considering that new episodes are coming soon (can I get a HELLYEAH?!), it would have held up well as a theme. But that's just me.

Burning question: Was "Stealth" ever really intended to have a "Mission: Impossible" theme, as has long been rumored?

It was discussed for Stealth to be a Mission Impossible theme. As a matter of fact "Stealth" was the name given to the project while negotiating was done to get the license. Tom Cruise is a major partner in that franchise and he is the one that killed the deal not Paramount.

[ValleyfairFanWhat's with the donkeys anyway?]

Shane,

Based on your experience how often did the city of Santa Clara kill projects like this and provide roadblocks versus a lack of "want" (for lack of a better word) from Paramount to invest in big attractions the park?

[montezooma"Can I get clamshells out of this ATM?"]

Shane, You said that Paramount Parks had to buy rights for usage of Paramount Names, Does Six Flags have the same Policy with Warner Bros?

Of course. They pay an expensive license fee for every intellectual property they use. After the newness of the attraction wears off the license fee can continue to be very expensive that is why some of the branding gets dropped after a few seasons such as "Outer Limits" Flight of Fear.

Even in studio parks such as Universal I would imagine that even though the movie based attraction is a universal property thaw actual movie is owned by producers, writers and the stars themselves and license fees must be paid for them. You can bet that Universal Studios is paying huge license fees for most of their attractions ( Joey would be more the expert on this since he works for them). The one exception to this might be Disney with their movies. Anyone know how that works?

^ Same thing goes with other film studio licensed products, When i was a Producer for MGM and Disney, we had to pay heavy licensing fees, and get permission on subject matter for properties you would think the studios owned. For example, when working for MGM, and I was the interactive Producer of the James Bond franchise, and even though MGM distributes those films, we still had to pay several entities for the rights. That included Danjaq (the production company), Pierce Brosnan (who played Bond at the time), and several other writers, actors, etc, etc....

And they all had a "say" in what content we produced, and if they felt strongly enough, they could change or even kill an entire project. For example, I clearly remember one very important Bond meeting where we were all flown out to Pinewood Studios for a meeting with the director, actors, and production company of "The World is Not Enough" to discuss "the effects of Columbine" in video games, where the producers of the Bond franchise suggested that the video games not have any weapons in them, so as to not to promote violence, and instead be "gadget based puzzle games." Yes, this was actually suggested, and the entire project was nearly cancelled.

So yeah, I can totally relate to what Shane is saying....