Leaderboard

I typically look where I’m going and then hitting my head gets harder to accomplish… If you didn’t learn to adapt from the actual experience and pain of hitting your head multiple times, I doubt some form of verbal announcement is going to change anything

Absolutely not, no way, nup, never! Not only is it a park institution, but actually has a connection to an A-List Hollywood legendary super star from opening day, and when was the last time one of those visited the park? Don't touch Dirty Harry Bar!

It's amazing how I manage to get into my car each and every time without an announcement reminding not to bash my head into it! Crazily I even manage whilst talking to people and looking where I am going instead of up 😛

Geeze you lot love a winge about anything you can find. Who cares what 'spin' marketing use? Clearly it's not for any enthusiast (or any of your friends) because you already know about the ride. It's for people who literally see theme parks as a maybe activity in their 'normal' lives. I totally appreciate this is a theme park enthusiast forum so people here will base their opinions around the own person perspective, which is fine. But time and time again these posts come up along the lines of "they are stupid, NO ONE would want this, bla bla bla" and that's just not the case at all. Part of having an interest in the business side of theme parks is understanding the perspectives that are out there that differ from our own. And that does't just mean the perspective of 'people you know' because just by association they are going to be skewed towards your own opinion. I couldn't give a toss if they advertise "World's first coaster with 28 wheels instead of 26", if it sells a couple tickets, great! I'm concerned with what the final product looks and feels like. But mostly just happy a company is continuing to invest big dollars in theme parks in our own backyard.

I appreciate what you're trying to say but I doubt that anybody is actually upset about their marketing. Others are free to chime in, but speaking for myself, I was taking the piss because if you're even remotely in the know then Village's marketing is simply hilarious. My favourite example is that their hero statement for their announcement is that this is the world's first Wizard of Oz land. It's not.

The intimidation factor is huge... but as someone with a 6 year old who only just reached the (increased) Roadrunner height requirement earlier this year - THIS is a big problem: These new rides will be able to accommodate smaller kids well before they are tall enough to ride Road Runner. The intimidation factor might play, but I can tell you, plenty of kids can't wait to be tall enough to ride all the big rides, and many are keen to ride as soon as they're tall enough to go. Road runner will still have an audience, but it is going to get smaller. And we all know what happens to rides when ridership levels decrease.

Very wet day at Dreamworld today but had some time to check out the train for the first time. Some park pics around 1230 for you... Surely DW is hemorrhaging money with mid-week turnout atm. Makes me sad to think of what the future may or may not hold for the park. Train time... I smashed my head incredibly hard on the overhang getting on. Conductor didn't ask if i was ok. About 10 seconds after doing it a prerecorded safety spiel saying 'watch your head' played.... Not sure if it was just bad timing but goddamn it hurt and is still hurting now. Train trip is pleasant although some areas that were previously back of house need some ...ahem.. tidying. Also noticed a few signs for winterfest still up... Anyway... Everything was a walk on. Park was neat and tidy and staff for the most part were great. A little concussion never killed anyone right?

@DaptoFunlandGuyand all along I thought you had preternatural powers.

I must admit, it's been pretty hard. Try proof reading your own ramblings. "I think all 5 mazes will be new" - your thought "as IP licences would've expired" - reason number one for your thought "and set designs would need replacing / refreshing" - reason number two for your thought. You had the option, you chose to double down. I'm not keen on dragging threads down into bullshit, but I also won't stand for someone re-inventing reality when they realise they goofed.

should be good...wide age appeal...endures...

it's sad to admit this is just part of the vernacular now. I do hope somewhere along the line MGM \ Turner \ WB insist on certain quality standards, similar to what we saw with Dreamworld and Dreamworks.

People online are way more excited it involves Wizard of Oz over some new coasters.

TL:DR - Return To Oz is owned by Disney and it's unlikely you'll bring those characters to Movie World. If you don't want to read a century long history of the land of oz, skip the rest. If you want to read a page long rambling summary of the even longer Wiki article then settle down and read on... (Don't complain and say you weren't warned. If I could still use spoiler tags I would have.) All of the original L Frank Baum stories entered the public domain throughout the 80s and up to 1995, although several other writers have written Oz based works later than that, 27 of them (including Baum) are now public. There are still 19 different stories released later that are still protected by US copyright, with the last to expire owned by a still-living author, which won't expire until 70 years after they die. All that said, since the original works are out, so long as you stick to the concepts presented from the originals, you'd be fine, but any imagery from film adaptations that is a trademark of the film may still be subject to protection - which means no Green Wicked Witch, and no Red Ruby Slippers. (it's why Winnie The Pooh can now be used by artists at will, but not if he has a red shirt, which is a disney trademark still protected by law). The first films for Oz were silent films, all of which entered the public domain by 1954. Imagery from the MGM 1939 film (Judy Garland) was renewed in 1967 for a 95 year term, so won't expire until 2035. The Disney film 'Return To Oz' mentioned above wasn't even the first sequel - as 'Journey Back to Oz' (1974) was an animated sequel loosely adapted from one of Baum's original sequels. Disney owned all the film rights to Baum's books (except the original Wizard Of Oz). Like many of the current live action films we're seeing produced by the mouse house, the Return to Oz film (1985) was an attempt at extending their rights to the stories by producing further derivative works. It was a critical failure and so they abandoned further Oz films. Disney even used Ruby Slippers - which aren't in the original Baum story, but were a creation of the MGM 1939 Judy Garland version, but by 1985 the Ruby Slippers were so synonymous with the story that they paid MGM for the rights to portray the ruby slippers in their film. Likewise the Wicked Witch of the West is portrayed as a particular shade of green, despite her not being green in the books. (And interesting side note, but I learned just recently that the Margaret Hamilton character was portrayed on an episode of Sesame Street - I think back in the 70s, that aired once to much controversy and was buried by the childrens television workshop, and it has only just recently been released to the public after almost 50 years locked in the vault.) As for the James Franco 'Oz the great and powerful' (2013) by Disney - it was billed as a 'spiritual prequel' to the original 1900 story and loosely based in the world 20 years before the 1939 film. Disney had no permission from MGM or the rights to use the still-protected works or imagery - so the film retained a copyright expert to ensure that the wicked witch's green was distinctly different from the protected shade used by Margaret Hamilton. The Emerald City had to be distinctly different also. While WB and Disney didn't directly battle it out over this film, they did file rivalling trademarks to the name 'Oz the Great and Powerful' however the US patent office suspended WB's attempt as Disney had filed a week earlier. I know. it's tenuous at best but I knew the Disney film was still protected and off-limits to Village for use in the park, but in researching and fact checking this I found a far more interesting story with very complex rules and dates for various different written and film works, and I find this interesting, and thought i'd share it in case others found it interesting. If you did actually read this far - let me know by a reaction to the post! All that said, clearly the park has licence to the characters in main street, but as we've discovered, IP rights in parks can vary, and roaming characters, and ride themes, and shows can all be very different licences. The copyright on the film adaptations (those for which MOVIE world would likely want to attach) are a little complicated, so I would suggest which characters and what elements are used within the rides and theming would be very carefully curated and controlled.