Given its proximity, chances are this might be exclusive to hotel guests? If that is the case it would make a great addition if they lower the price. The queue was a needed addition too IMO, as even with timed entrances it ended up in big groups blocking the walkways, especially when it broke down etc.

rolls eyes

another actor lead attraction and another shipping container to contribute to its industrial aesthetic

So, between Depth Charge, Neptunes Beach and the Flying Fish - possibly the only remaining part of the park they COULD have added something colorful, or family based, they install ANOTHER worn down themed, actor based attraction??

 

Seriously, does anyone at Thorpe know what they're doing? Merlin's choices baffle me. Can't wait for another scruffy looking attraction, that will remain closed more that it is open. YAWWWWWWWWWWN.

I give it all but half a season (and that's generous), before it becomes SBNO because of budget cuts and lack of actors

 

*sigh*

Why not just stick it next to SAW Alive somewhere, at least it would fit in there.

Why not just host it in the saw alive building?

This has to be just about the most negative response to something from planning I've seen. I'm struggling to think of anything to counter the points made.

Has it been confirmed it's planning to actually be there year round, or is it a presumption? Would they need planning for something that is to be seasonal but regularly in situ temporarily in certain circumstances?

If it is permanent I'd expect it to be a peak time paid for attraction. Like IaC should be.

Why not just host it in the saw alive building?

It would be a lot bigger.

My view: Is this just a filler for that delayed thing coming in May?

Is it just me who thinks that once you've paid for entry into a theme park, all rides and attractions should be included?

Yes? Okay.

Is it just me who thinks that once you've paid for entry into a theme park, all rides and attractions should be included?

Yes? Okay.

 

Do we know that this will be a paid for extra?

 

No? Okay.

Did I claim that it was a paid extra?

No. It's a general comment, debating Pluk's view that IAC should be upcharge.

Did I claim that it was a paid extra?

No. It's a general comment, debating Pluk's view that IAC should be upcharge.

 

Maybe quote him next time to make it clearer. Anyway, paid for attractions in theme parks are fine, nobody is forcing you to use them. 

Has it been confirmed it's planning to actually be there year round, or is it a presumption? Would they need planning for something that is to be seasonal but regularly in situ temporarily in certain circumstances?

If it is permanent I'd expect it to be a peak time paid for attraction. Like IaC should be.

  

By applying for planning permission, it means they want to keep the containers there all year round. If the containers were only to be there for a couple of months of the year, they wouldn't need permission.

So it will presumably open for parts of the year outside Halloween, otherwise they would just move the containers. But how often, if there's a charge, etc is completely unknown.

Is it just me who thinks that once you've paid for entry into a theme park, all rides and attractions should be included?

Yes? Okay.

I agree with one price for all attractions idea. However, in certain situations, where you get an exclusive, personal or very long, high quality, experience, I have no problem in there being upcharge attractions at any park.

I agree that exclusive experiences such as lift-hill walks and the like should be paid extra, but rides and attractions installed by the park should always be included IMO unless they are outside the main theme park (e.g. high ropes at Alton).

 

I realise that you don't have to use the pay extra attractions, but I think that theme parks should install attractions that all guests can experience as part of the entrance fee.

See I've always found this argument interesting and until last season wasn't sure on upcharge. But I learnt something from Scarefest. If done properly, an upcharge attraction is something you WANT to pay for! The quality of Towers mazes because they don't need to churn queues as much and the money they produce is shown in the quality of attraction, where at Thorpe you pay no extra to visit FN as a standard guest paying on the gate, and the mazes aren't that great. They're rushed and you just end up queueing ages for them. In a way, Towers you pay so much to do the mazes and don't have to queue so it's like a Fastrack but you also get a much better experience. 

 

Another argument is, Containment won't be for everyone and could have limited slots or something. Do you put the park ticket price up or leave it and make Containment an upcharge for those who want to do it. Just one of those things really, gonna have its positives and negatives.

I don't even understand why they are making it permanent, its a bit random.

 

At least Saw Alive had an existing ride to "attach" itself to if you will, they both shared the brand and were part of its own area. 

 

This though, this is just odd and very out of place. 

That is a very good point about the Scarefest mazes, and I'm not so much against that - but permanent attractions shouldn't be upcharge IMO.

 

Regarding Containment, I'm not sure why they feel the need to open it permanently in 2016 considering that they are opening a multi-million pound dark ride - surely that should be enough?

That is a very good point about the Scarefest mazes, and I'm not so much against that - but permanent attractions shouldn't be upcharge IMO.

 

Regarding Containment, I'm not sure why they feel the need to open it permanently in 2016 considering that they are opening a multi-million pound dark ride - surely that should be enough?

If they have the spare budget for actors then why not? It may even be linked in with the new ride, I remember there was clues to WC16 in Containment last year.

If they have the spare budget for actors then why not? It may even be linked in with the new ride, I remember there was clues to WC16 in Containment last year.

It just seems odd to open a smaller attraction alongside a major investment in the same year, WC16 should be enough to draw people into the park.

I'm not against them introducing two attractions in one year, it just seems strange when one of them is a huge new dark ride - especially when Containment is likely to lose popularity after its first season (if Saw Alive and Sub Terra are anything to go by).  Have they ever opened a smaller attraction alongside a major one before?

They spent £200k on Containment last year. If they need to get actors in for DBGT and IAC then they can probably push the budget to a few more at peak times for this. It saves them having to move the containers, saves the area just looking like an empty plot of land. And if they charge for it, they make a bit of extra cash. I wouldn't see this as it opening alongside DBGT. More like, we already invested in it so we'll keep it and use it more than expected. Kinda like Sanctuary I guess. 

That is a very good point about the Scarefest mazes, and I'm not so much against that - but permanent attractions shouldn't be upcharge IMO.

I get the core of what you're saying, and I do agree with you to a degree. But if a park wants to offer attractions which either require more time, are more personal or go above and beyond what you expect at a park (for example, bungee-jump style attractions, the Wave Ride from a couple of years back, etc.), then I don't have a problem with that. So I guess what I'm trying to say is upcharge attractions are fine if they have their place, and are justified in charging.

If they have the spare budget for actors then why not? It may even be linked in with the new ride, I remember there was clues to WC16 in Containment last year.

You see, if they have spare budget for actors (or spare budget or whatever), I'd much rather they put that towards I'm a Celeb, or just park-wide actors just giving more a feel to the place. Would no doubt be just as well received - perhaps even more - than introducing Containment.

If it's there as a direct link to Ghost Train, then it's more understandable. But then it still circles round to the original point I made that scare attractions just aren't popular outside of Halloween.

Have they ever opened a smaller attraction alongside a major one before?

Yes.

2002 - Colossus and a retheme of Thunder River to Rumba Rapids (plus a new show I think?)

2003 - Inferno and Quantum and Eclipse.

You see, if they have spare budget for actors (or spare budget or whatever), I'd much rather they put that towards I'm a Celeb, or just park-wide actors just giving more a feel to the place. Would no doubt be just as well received - perhaps even more - than introducing Containment..

The way Thorpe see it, an extra attraction is better than having actors around the park etc. They could've quite easily used this budget to have roaming actors, but I'm sure they've done their market research and seen that wouldn't be as popular as some might think.

Nothing says "trying to capture the lost family market" quite like a scare maze eh?

Welcome to Thorpe Park: A bleak island like no other.........

Partaking in geekery since 1985

Thorpe have a large family investment one year, and the next year they get a horror maze and a ghost train.

Seriously, what do TP want? Dismaland meets angry birds land?