Leaderboard

May well just be me, but I do kinda like bare buildings in places where sightlines don't matter as much. It's like going to a lower budget zoo, or having views of backstage areas at both zoos and amusement parks, where you're able to appreciate the theming or 'beautification' in places it matters (like the Rivertown-facing facade, or the fake plant walls that obscure Leviathan), whilst being able to see the non-glammed parts when function takes priority over form. It's basic sightlines, but it pleases the part of me that is interested in the systems behind keeping rides operational, and the planning/design that goes into them.

Sorry mate, but this right here tells me you have no idea.

From Movie World's Facebook and Instagram: The Kansas Twister's trains are now being installed!

One approach i have seen that works well is on Thirteen at Alton. It's an old castle ruin but the've put Archeological dig/restoration scaffolding and canvas on parts of the building which presumably covers the unthemed parts.

Lol it's not finished yet.

Eight slides closed (excluding Wedgie) is a vibe.

For some reason it really sticks out to me, you have this immersive land with the Leviathan queue and the statues/gardens and then you have that white shed. Surely they could've painted it green or dark blue so it sticks out less? As I said, at least Dreamworld are making the building green that mixes in with the trees around the show building, they could've done a Village where the white shed sticks out like a sore thumb.

It's all good people, I've ordered a new hat for when I visit DW.

Same honestly, why waste hundreds of thousands of dollars on extra themed exterior panels for an angle barely anyone will be able to see from inside the land. We also don't know if they have any plans for something back there that the train might be able to see. Maybe they can put a glass viewing window into the Tiger enclosure?

What about SWs show buildings?

Of course it's not, but if Village using obnoxious sheds is excusable because it kinda matches what Movie World used to be, Dreamworld using green paint instead of detailed facades on the less important sightlines should be given at least that same treatment.

When Dreamworld first opened, it was all about being Australia's Disneyland. Does that make green sheds fine too? Point being, even the most themed parks have some green sheds. It's all about catering to sightlines, and if the sightline that matters looks as good as it's shaping up to be, green walls elsewhere are excusable.

That's true, and I feel like a few of us (me included), are forgetting that. I highly doubt that Dreamworld would let this fail. They wouldn't invest 50 million dollars for a mediocre ride, even if the theming is amazing at the front. There's always a chance they could paint a pattern on or blend it somehow.

Is that the "front" of the temple? it looks like more like the side view you get from the back of the park.

Separating an aggressive dog from it's victim is done by whatever method is available. If a dog has a collar you would restrain it by its collar. But if you could only reach the tail, it would be an acceptable method to avoid the dog being violent. It is not a standard treatment, but a method of last resort. Choice of words intended to be inflammatory aren't helpful either. 'hitting it on the face' sounds much worse than 'open hand taps to the facial area' http://dogscience.org/workshop/cortap.shtml I can't believe we're re-agitating a 7 year old incident and trying to misinterpret actions by trained professionals to suggest the animals suffer worse treatment out of the public eye and imply it is the reason for another incident without knowing any of the circumstances.

Dreamworld responds to Tiger Island footage | Parkz - Theme Parks There's this article posted on Parkz from 2017 where Al Mucci made a statement about it. It's amazing how outraged people get about things they have no knowledge over. The behaviour and treatment is not dissimilar to how one would treat two misbehaving dogs. That's just it though, you've reacted without context - failing to understand that there was a threat. there was a danger. the handlers recognised that well before any injuries occurred and corrected the animal in an appropriate manner. Also, you're outraged about how close-contact handlers deal with behavioural issues where there is a serious risk of injury, and simultaneously outraged that they're "caving to animal activists" and realigning to protected contact. Would you pick a lane?