Leaderboard

Unless their own preferences ARE the right ones, of course. The 'right ones' in this case are the ones that best reflect those of the most lucrative demographic(s) in the marketplace. In which case that sort of attitude is called smart business.

The thing is that theme parks are first and foremost about FUN experiences which are created around a theme. Such experiences can be all different types of rides, shows, and walk-throughs. Since there are a lot of people, most will like some of those experiences more than others, and most will not like a few of them. That's absolutely ok! What's absolutely NOT ok is for anyone to assume that their own preferences are the right ones, and others are wrong to like different experiences. That sort of attitude would make the person arrogant and rude.

He said blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Only theme park enthusiast like to ride woodies. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I don’t know what I’m on about. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I'm thinking higher - Storm Coaster is a similar height (28 metres) to Mystic Timbers (30 metres) and already 'intimidates' a lot of guests with it's perceived height. A higher coaster would allow Storm Coaster to be seen as less 'intimidating' as it should have been when it first opened in 2013. @Brad2912 referred to a "very large investment" in SW's next coaster so I'd doubt something of similar size to Wooden Warrior (14 metres high) will be built which, regardless of Wooden Warrior's quality, is the last thing SW needs coaster-wise: SW has 3 full-circuit rollercoasters currently - all below 30 metres in height. 2 of which are lower than 5 metres in height. SW ideally needs a coaster noticeably higher than 30 metres in height to bring SW, as a 'theme park', back to people's attention. If they can't do that, then a coaster 30 metres in height would be best but it needs to be designed to make Storm Coaster look less 'intimidating' (maybe by adding several airtime hills, inversions etc. just like with a 30+ metre high coaster). In any case, SW shouldn't install something "worse than a Wooden Warrior clone". And lastly, like I initially said, there is no guarantee the coaster type, if any coaster is being built, will be wooden. It may have just been the personal preference of the 'manager'. At this stage, SW is more likely to get a steel coaster. I do think though that if a 40+ metre coaster is being built at SW, that will be that "...1 new thrill ride..." that "...can fit in at SW..." that I referred to earlier this year. After all, a very tall (40+ metre) full-circuit rollercoaster is a drawcard in itself to a theme park. Well that's great to hear! Maybe the attraction does live up to it's name after all!

Hell, within Marvel alone (up to a few months ago where Disney went crazy and bought everything) just the film rights alone for various different characters were owned by 3 different companies. The rights for things such as attractions and theme park characters are an even more complex barrel of monkeys for any IP.

Don't fight it @AlexBI've saved you a seat.

I welcome this news and talk of both the star flyer and a coaster. Whilst it's a bit early to board the hype train, we must remember that we've seen Sea World advertise attractions a few years out, and that turned out to be WILDly inaccurate... so backstage rumors, that don't even have a billboard in park are to be taken with such salt. I would like to see them build something akin to Incredicoaster \ California Screamin - the seaside pier 'woodie' look, but in a modern steel construction. Much as i'd like a woodie, we know what the maintenance requirements are, and I feel like a steel coaster, built to reside close to the sea is probably easier to protect than a woodie with our tropical weather. That's just opinion, i'm not stating fact, and i'm sure a park could make a woodie work on the gold coast - I'd just rather they didn't.

They should fill in most of the river keeping a smaller part from Billabong and in front of the wildlife area adding water features. It sucks that they can't keep the river clean. They do have turtles in there but guests can't see them in the current state. I expect the river to look like that in an abandoned theme park, not an open one.

So some “take it with a dose of skepticism” gossip.. i hired a guy at work recently, and was working with him last night and got chatting to him about his family etc as you do... after a bit of chat it came out that his son worked at SW. We had a bit of a general chat about SW, lack of new and replacement rides etc and he proceeded to tell me about info his son was telling him the other day. - Sea Jellies opened prematurely to what they wanted, and is still a work in progress. Fit out was ready to hit the original launch date but they have struggled to find jellyfish to put in the exhibit and this still continues, they are also not happy with the lighting and want to improve it. - a “carnival style swinging ride” is opening next year (well we knew that.. but I didn’t let on) - there is a major ride with a very large investment set for 2020 and it will be a coaster. The “manager” recently visited the US to see options and was apparently very excited and said if he got his way, it would be a woodie. Take that as you will, but hopefully as a glimmer of hope for SW’s future ride offerings...

Whilst I think VRTP really missed a fantastic opportunity by not rethemeing SDSC to Harry Potter (themeing the cars as "broomsticks" and keeping most of the castle themeing (with minor modification)), surely therevis still the opportunity to retheme the kids area to Harry Potter. I think it would be a huge drawcard for all ages.

It seems based on the options that SW's entry buildings will get a facelift as you suggested but it doesn't specifically say that it will be SW's main entry anymore. It seems the new buildings will mainly contain accommodation in the 1st set of options: "provides additional short-term accommodation linked to Sea World" whilst "low-rise mixed use development" will be the new buildings in the 2nd set of options, which would indicate just a refurbished entry building. Given a 3.7 kilometre boardwalk running the length of SW is proposed in the 1st set of options, I'd say SW would operate like Luna Park Sydney under that option set (as Luna Park Sydney also has a boardwalk running the length of the park) with other entries near Seal Detectives, between Polar Bear Shores and Shark Bay, at Castaway Bay & at the Resort as I'd doubt many people would walk down a boardwalk of that length with not much to do at the other end, which is also a dead end, or along it. The boardwalk's only useful purpose would be as a good jogging route. The view is mostly the same the whole length of the boardwalk after all. This would allow paid parking in the multi-level car park like you said as well as a 'pay per ride'-model to be implemented at SW, meaning their whole future ticketing model may already be under review. Also, the boardwalk between Seal Detectives & Polar Bear Shores may allow SW's Research & Rescue Foundation to have it's own building front onto the boardwalk, further emphasizing VRTP's plans to bring SW's marine research & rescue work to the public's attention. Under the 2nd set of options, I'd say SW would operate as it does now with 1 main entry in the south (but now with an upgraded entry building) and another (insignificant) entry in the north at the Resort unless the Monorail is still operating, which would make it a more significant entry way as it is now.

Well if that goes ahead it's bye bye to any potential there might have been for Sea World to return to its glory days.