JoshC.

Yet again, I disagree.Firstly, when I say lust, I don't mean it in the slightly more conventional way, as an to do with sex. I mean it more to crave; want and have. That doesn't mean just for the pure sexual purposes. So basically, our definitions of lust differ.Also, whatever way you want to put it, fancy, like, crush and so on, in my eyes, it still involves having to know them. For example, I have no idea what the personality is of, to use a completely different celebrity, Nicki Minaj (or whatever she's called). However, if I see a picture of her and thinks she's fit or whatever, then I'd say I'm lusting over her, not fancying her. Same would apply for Cheryl Cole. Her on screen personality could very easily be different to her true one. And all those people you mention, ordinary people aren't guilty of lusting over them in the sense you describe it as...Basically, people have different opinions on what is classed as fancying someone. Oh..my..gosh...

Blimey, I didn't think the day would come either! Exactly! To actually 'fancy' or like someome, you need to know them personally. Basing it on looks and that is just lust!

Well, as I said, I don't class it as fancying them, but more just lusting over them. And yes, I will probably never fancy a celebrity. Oh woe is me, however will I cope?

I totally disagree with this. Meeting them and getting to know their personality, blah blah blah, then you fancy them. See someone on the TV or in a picture and liking them is little more than lusting over them in my eyes.

I fail to see what someone having malaria does to take away from whether you'd want to be with them or not...Anyway, stupid celeb culture. Why would I fancy someone I've never met?

Maths was my favourite. Simply the best subject ever. Worst, definitely PE. I just hated it, so boring, plus the teachers were always disorganised and just blergh.

I'd say they'd be more busy, y'know, people go to Storm Surge, then rides nearby. I'd say it's far too early to say what opening day will be like this season. Depends on the marketing prior to opening, the weather, etc. etc.

Yeah, because WillIAm is the greatest music legend ever. He can barely sing Cher, off of X Factor. WillIAm. From Black Eyed Peas.I still have no idea who Nicki Minaj even is, so...

Pretty sure it was working on the family and friends preview day and on celebrity events, but could well have been. Sometimes it doesn't close fully, just like any ordinary gate. People with pacemakers / heart conditions would be (I think they actually are on the entrance sign?) warned that the maze is not suitable for them and they should not enter. And it would hardly have been an electrocution, more a little pop - like you get from the novelty shock pens..

Better edit that to 205ft Much better

As far as I'm aware, the electric shock was just a no no by Health and Safety, for whatever reason. The shock was just a little pop, yes, and was perfectly safe, but H&S usually have some silly reason or another. I think it had only been used for celebrity events and the family and friends day. The electric shock stuff was mentioned in the Press Release online and on a notice to the celebrities at the celebrity event. However, there are still signs in the Saw II scene of 'Danger Electric Shock' or something, that were intended to warn people of it. That, coupled with the loud vibrations from the gate really do make people believe it is electrically live. Not a bad effect I guess, though probably does leave people a bit disappointed.

The ride has a story line, though it is somewhat unclear and disjointed. Outside, we are police officers exploring a warehouse. Inside, we become thrill hunters who don't respect our lives. Then, we board a 'mechanical device, from which there is no escape'. The pre-show that you receive seems to hint that the ride is 'what happens if (we) lose', though at the end, 'we survive'. The TVs at the exit stairs say that the game has just begun, alluding to something else (ie, Saw Alive), which ends up exploring Jigsaw's warehouse further, and seeing others subject to traps (or something like that). So yeah, the storyline isn't great, but there is one. Remember, the theme had to fit around the ride, the queue and everything else, not the other way round.

The thing with that particular scene is that it was meant to have real electric shocks in there. If that had have been the case, there would be no need for actors in there, as the effects would have done that scaring. That's why you rarely get actors in there. It's not really designed to have an actor in it, making it much harder for them to act there. It is a shame really.The thing with Saw Alive in general is that they're always going to be in two minds. Should they keep it true to the films and leaving little scares, but create a wonderful atmosphere or should they break the roles and just try to create a BOO scare? The traps were chosen carefully in conjunction with Lionsgate, so that it could be true enough to the films, but also create a scare. Yes, some of the traps could be better, but we've got what we've got. Whatever is chosen, they'll make some people unhappy and it will have it's flaws. Case of damned whatever they do with it.

Whilst I see what you mean, I would say they can add so much more. For example, look at Saw's queue. They add so much more than metal and sound effects, and it does help add to the experience of it all. Then you look at Amity Cove. Look at the shark they installed this season outside KFC. Brilliant touch of theming there. Then there's the 'Calamity Cove' sign, another nice touch. Whilst I get what you mean, there's much more theming that can be added.

Whilst the stations I've seen don't get gritted (though, to be fair, I only ever see 3) I'll give the staff or whoever the kudos that they actual shovel it or something, cause the snow was pretty much cleared when I saw it on Tuesday, whilst most other places had snow / ice. Also, whilst I'm not the ranting at Ricky personally here (as so many people do it, and his was the easiest to quote ), how hard is it to differentiate between YOUR and YOU'RE!?!?!

I do believe it was at 'Behind the Loops' back in 2008 Thorpe said that they are not a theme park, nor an amusement park. They probably wouldn't even class themselves as a thrill park.They classed themselves as an 'experience park' (can anyone who actually went confirm / deny this?). They aim to give a variety of experiences, not just thrills. For example, you can experience a horror-film themed roller coaster, and a maze based around it. You can then experience being launched up 200ft in under 8 seconds. You can experience this, experience that, etc. etc.If they are an 'experience park', then theming is part of the experience. Theming is part of the experience whenever you are on any sort of ride, even the little fairground rides. So yeah, even if Thorpe aren't a 'theme' park, they still have much reason to theme their rides..

They have outlined in the MTDP that the 2012 coaster will not exceed 50m (~164ft) and the 2015 coaster will not exceed 40m (~131ft), which is at maximum 60ft above the height barrier (or 45ft, if the height barrier to 115ft like some have said in the past). But yeah, they can't go to about 100ft over the height barrier. Stealth was a special, one off thing if you will. Making more 'skyscraper high' rides will dwarf the other rides and make them seem futile. Also worth mentioning that, as the MTDP mentioned, the main island (basically, the entire part currently accessible to the public) probably won't exceed to height barrier, due to the positioning of the rides. However, on the further islands, they can have these specially placed high points, which cause minimal sight pollution to the surrounding area. Again, Stealth was an exception to the ruleAlso, mentioning the MTDP, whilst I was flicking through it a couple of days ago, it mentioned how when the coasters like Stealth (ie - tall ones) are painted to a colour that fits the sky, much like how Stealth was painted white, and this would be likely for other 'high' coasters. Just a thought...

You see, this is an interesting point you raise. Should the actors keep into the roles you see in the films or try and scare you?Whilst being in the role of the film has a very... nice ambience, it doesn't provide what Thorpe advertise the attraction to be - a scare. So, having people jump out at you will be the best way to scare people, and that's how they'll do it.

For a stage, 70sqm isn't that large. They could. However, if this stage gets built, could it be a hint that the arena is leaving? After all, it's a pretty big space that is used for awful little nowadays.Although I think this MTDP did outline the arena to have a refurbishment, though that could more be a second choice...

Oopps, always thought your real name was actually Bill. Ah well, hi Peter. Keep with the Blue, suits you

^ Oh, terribly sorry, where are our manners?Here, have a humbug, on me.

Erm, I think I live closer (or the same distance) to Thorpe than you, been going just as long - if not, longer - as you and I don't bang on forever more about the place. Yes, I love Thorpe and all that and it has been a part of my life, but it hasn't turned me into a drone who only ever speaks about Thorpe Park (and only ever says good things about it at that)...

Bringing this back up, I know...Been looking through the MTDP again. It mentioned in it that in 2012, they are considering an open air stage and whilst scanning through, found a bit more detail:"In terms of the open air stage, it is proposed that it would be used for the purposes of “low­key” ground level family entertainments such as jugglers and acrobats and would be centrally located within the core area, immediately south of the elevated section of ‘Stealth’. The stage would be small (measuring approximately 70sqm)."South of Stealth is that nice grassy bit as shown above. Interesting, good to see them considering non-rides for family entertainment too.

I disagree with this. If the theme is pulled off well enough, then the story could be adapted come 2013. For Stealth and Saw, Thorpe advertised them as a priority for two seasons, and would likely to do that again. Advertise it saying 'The world is coming to an end in 2012, blah blah blah' and in 2013 onwards create some sort of story saying the myth didn't come to fruition, but an explosion is coming... Or some sort of clever idea. Hmm, interesting. But I think it's looking at it a bit too deeply. Not saying it's implausible or anything, but it's just a bit too 'out there' in my mind..