I really don't understand people defending this...
Like... why?
It has about zero merit.
What compels you to defend it?
Like... why?
It has about zero merit.
What compels you to defend it?
I agree. It's a stupid way to spend money. The only bright side is that it's a part of a bigger land that will have a coaster.I really don't understand people defending this...
Like... why?
It has about zero merit.
What compels you to defend it?
I really don't understand people defending this...
Like... why?
It has about zero merit.
What compels you to defend it?
At the same time I'm finding it very hard to get worked up about this. It's not worth my time and the attraction itself is what it is: not aimed toward you.I really don't understand people defending this...
Like... why?
It has about zero merit.
What compels you to defend it?
At the same time I'm finding it very hard to get worked up about this. It's not worth my time and the attraction itself is what it is: not aimed toward you.
Kids.Who is it aimed at?
People who hate fun?
I'd answer this question, but I'm petty sure it was rhetorical. Right?Who is it aimed at?
People who hate fun?
Kids.
Just like the high in the sky trolley. Both are lame, but doesn't mean a kid can't enjoy it.
There's better ways to spend money certainly, I just have a hard time caring about this.The trolley has scenery and such though. This is a terrible terrible attempt at making an interactive ride.
There's better ways to spend money certainly, I just have a hard time caring about this.
Im not defending it, im simply saying, as i have now stated three times, that I have a hard time getting worked up. That's it.You say that, but you keep posting to defend it.
I like Sea World, and the area does look well landscaped, but as an attraction, this is pretty bad. We're outside, but we're also underwater? We're outside, so let's enjoy the view (snort), but also look at the screen? It just makes no sense. It's like they already knew they had to put a dress on a pig.
That said, I do think a bad dark ride is better than none at all. And will give it credit for having various speeds and a stop in the middle of the ride, that's a bit unusual.
But really to me, I'd view it as a low budget PeopleMover type attraction, and on that level, it'll do (barely). I can't imagine it'll ever have much of a line, so it also has that going for it. Points for trying. But it's certainly not going to win anyone over, so it does really make you wonder why they bothered. I think it's one of those things that looked good on paper to execs that have never been on a ride before.
Because both utilize an elevated rail, similar to the Peoplemover, but there's no railings along side parts of both rides, unlike the peoplemover, meaning a height requirement needs to be put in place for a certain height so there isn't a tragic incident.The only part I really don't get is why this has a 42" height requirement, the same way Seuss has a 40". By the time you're tall enough to ride, you really don't care for rides like this.
SeaWorld or not, I don't think any new additions at parks, especially a gentle transport outside a land aimed towards kids should be met with such disdain.
The only part I really don't get is why this has a 42" height requirement, the same way Seuss has a 40". By the time you're tall enough to ride, you really don't care for rides like this.