Richard

There's an article on the main page now which answers this question: http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/index.php (or direct link here) The Dreamworld Water Park will be known as Whitewater World when it opens in December.

Yeah that's pretty much it - in theme park terms it's a pretty irrelevant figure. The only reason it's a headline article at the moment (aside from it being the closest thing to anything happening at the moment) is because I think that it's really interesting to see how much it has increased in value since Macquarie Leisure purchased it. It's also very interesting to see just how effective the water park and future developments will be for increasing Macquarie Leisure's overall profile. To me (and I'm sure Macquarie Leisure) a 30% jump in just one year suggests that they're going down the right track for long-term viability. At the end of the day capital investment into the park is paying off by exponentially increasing the park's value. This should give them even more confidence to keep on pumping the park full of new rides and attractions.

I've put an article on the main page which gives a bigger picture of the whole situation: http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/index.php

I think we're onto something here. If you look at the Superman logo and overall theming used throughout Superman Escape you'll note that it's distinctly different from the styles used in the new film. A simple comparison of the logos shows how it differs: Superman Escape's logo: http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/gallery.php?gid=125 Superman Returns logo: http://www.monitorduty.com/mdarchives/supershieldfanzing.jpg The new one is more curved, has greater beveling and the S is significantly different, especially towards the bottom. This suggests that Warner Bros. Movie World only has the rights to the DC Comics Superman character, not the Warner Bros. Superman character (which is of course based on DC's). This makes sense because WBMW have had DC comics licensed since day one, and it would have been a lot less fuss and perhaps even less costly to use this character rather than go through Warner Bros. to get licensing for the new one. It's a strange one, because in the past new films have been very closely tied to their ride counterpart in terms of advertising. The true legal reason beneath it all would be very interesting, because there's no way WBMW would opt to not cash in on the new film. Of interest is that at Islands of Adventure, Universal holds no licenses for the modern adaptations of the Marvel Comics used in the park. Hulk and Spider-Man are both very "comic booky" attractions with no ties to their respective films - you'll note that the Spider-Man films aren't even Universal productions, but rather Sony Pictures'.

I'd pretty much guarantee Model T Lane won't be around (at least not as it currently is) to see the decade out. Fact is it's a low-capacity, maintenance-intensive attraction sitting on one of the park's few remaining prime parcels of land. There's very few other spots - if any - within the park which could become home to new major attractions with such minimal clearing and excavation costs.

Well now, it wouldn't be a WVTP attraction if it wasn't running behind schedule. It seems to be a given with just about everything they build these days.

The recent Coke competition advertised Superman Returns alongside Superman Escape with footage of the ride does it not?

Dr. Dooms is well themed in that comic book kind of way (as you'd expect) - the entire queue convincingly looked like something out of a kids' sci-fi cartoon. I personally that, thought though well done, it was a bit over-the-top and didn't pull off because unlike rides like Spider-Man or Hulk, where the pre-ride theming added tremendously to the storyline, it serves little purpose on a 20 second ride. I'm all for immersive themes when done properly, but when you're talking a simple little thrill ride like this it's not necessary. We all know Movie World has neither the budget nor the creative manpower to pull off a Universal-standard attraction (certainly not on a non-major ride like this), so lets hope they don't try.

My guess is the company that designed the ad wanted a picture of riders screaming. The closest photo in Movie World's stock photo catalogue must have been a WWF photo. Of course, that far from makes it anything short of dodgy.

Exactly right. Let's not forget one thing - we're talking about an S&S Tower. The worst thing you can do with such a simplistic ride is overthink the theming. Sure, make it fit the theme, but don't go crazy. Six Flags style theming would be more than enough, and doesn't at all detract from the ride or the theme.

How subjective do you want to be? Dreamworld: http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/park.php?pid=1 Movie World http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/park.php?pid=2 I'm not sure I'd say Dreamworld are on top, but I don't think in terms of overall variety of quality thrill rides they're certainly not behind Movie World. Further to this, I'd guarantee if you asked people on the street which theme park to visit to ride thrill rides, the majority would say Dreamworld.

I think Dreamworld's really only discovered what USA theme parks discovered a decade ago and have since moved on from, and that is the value of upcharge attractions. They're definitely on a mission to increase operating margins - Dreamworld would have to be one of the most profitable parks in its attendance bracket, and it's going up each year, with or without new thrill rides. We definitely haven't seen the end of major rides because they are the only way to drive up attendance in the long-run. Rides like FlowRider will have a short-term impact on attendance, but their real value is, as joz said, to drive up in-park spending. With WVTP hot on their tail with no less than two thrill rides planned for the next 6-12 months, this will put Dreamworld in a position where they simply have to invest in new major attractions or suffer hits in attendance, but this won't stop them trying to distance themselves as much from WVTP, especially now that they're coming after the thrill market.

This has been in talks for a number of years now. With Warner Village having already announced their plans to build a water park on the Sunshine Coast in the future, Aussie World had better know what they're doing, because the Wet'n'Wild brandname could very easily kill any competition. Note that the plans are to include the water attractions inside the amusement park. There won't be two separate parks, but rather more what Jamberoo or Merimbula's Magic Mountain do with integration of rides and slides. This is definitely the way to go, but I wouldn't think for a second that it would in any way be of the same standard that Dreamworld's water park (and I think it is a bit too premature to be passing judgement on just yet - they're not even halfway through the construction period) or Wet'n'Wild is. I do think the terrain is well suited to a water park, much in the same way Jamberoo and Magic Mountain use the hilly terrain to create some great slides.

Don't forget the Park & Ride Database - easily found in the main menu to the left of every page. It's filled with all the info you need on future attractions, including this one. http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/ride.php?rid=197

Take a look at the update on the main page: http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/gallery.php?gid=147 It covers some of the slides and explains what they'll most likely be. I agree that the towers so far do seem somewhat unimpressive in height. The one at the front of the park looks to be the biggest so far, but let's hope they're saving the biggest til last. They certainly come nowhere close to the height of most of Wet'n'Wild's slides, especially their newest.

Dreamworld is a business with the sole purpose to make money, just like every other park out there, there's no such thing as enough money. I don't think it's quite the same as Superman Escape's lockers. This attraction has a very targeted audience that is not at all the same as the standard theme park guest, much like Sky Coasters or other upcharge attractions. They don't have the popularity, nor the capacity to be viable as standard theme park attractions.

Movie World is generally pretty good with repairing vandalism. They've kept Scooby-Doo at a reasonable standard over the years, and it's certainly taken its share of queue damage (people love to pick at the faux stone walls and scratch its paint off). I'm confident that Dreamworld's going down the path they should be. It'd be ridiculous to suggest that this is the end of major thrill rides - after all FlowRider is only the first such attraction that they've installed. I wasn't overly impressed when I first found out the park was getting a FlowRider. I've been well familiar with the attraction for a number of years, but I'd never pictured it in a theme park environment. However seeing it in action made me totally convinced that it'll be a huge success. Maybe it's just the surf/wake/snowboarder in me but it's looking like one of the most fun attractions in the park. It seems to me from the comments that Dreamworld is trying to distance themselves as much as possible from the WVTP notion of "theme parks" which are just that - separate, self-contained theme parks. With the introduction of the water park, it will be a precinct in every sense. We know they're not going to compete with Movie World in the theming department and they'll always be pretty much neck-in-neck for thrills, so it seems logical that Dreamworld needs another unique distinguishing factor. I'd go so far as to guarantee that we can expect some kind of "traditional" thrill ride in the near future (1-2 years) from Dreamworld. Macquarie Leisure have comitted to investing an average of $6 million a year in capital expenditure, and this does not include the water park, so we haven't seen the end of the more grand attractions.

I'd be confident that this news won't mark the end of SFMM. Articles have suggested its value at around $200 million. That's $800,000 per acre, which in this area are said to be worth $750,000-1 million on the market as residential properties. This leaves at most $50 million in profit for the developers, and that's not including development costs such as road, sewage, gas and electricity installations, or clearing the land to begin with. Attendance for the park is around 2.8 million as of last year. I'd expect it to have increased since as a result of Tatsu. Assuming a generous 25% operating margin and per capita in-park spending of $60, you're looking at an operating profit of about $42 million. Interest on a $200 million loan would be less than 5% p.a., so you're looking at a hugely profitable operation that could see itself paid off in as little as 10 years. Cedar Fair would be the park's best option. I really don't see this park as any kind of threat to Knott's because the two parks would (and are) very easily distinguishable and could continue to operate to each others' benefit very easily. If it's a good investment (as I believe it most definitely is), then the fact that they have just acquired Paramount's theme park operation would not be a deterrent.

The thing that puzzles me about the complaints about GhostRider and Psyclone in particular is that I found both these rides to be very smooth. Colossus at SFMM was also particularly smooth, but largely due to the fact that most of the track has been replaced with steel. They are also not nearly as expensive as you might think to maintain. Wooden coasters do require a more intensive maintenance programme, but you'll find that in the short-term (say, 5-10 years), this is easily outweighed by a much lower initial investment. In this period the ride pays itself off. The only reason I can see for this trepidation towards wooden coasters is that there is no precedent. Look at the amount of wariness around here that surrounds Dreamworld's new water park. Want to take bets on how many people are against the water park a year from now - or how much of a failure it will be? Once we've been shown that it can be done it all makes sense. Like Dreamworld installing a second sitdown looper (they can't have two of the same kind of ride!). It's a somewhat interesting trend that if you look back over how the Australian theme park community has progressed. There is always unsureness or negativity towards things that haven't been done here, regardless of their success internationally. Even if there are people with an extreme distaste for Bush Beast, do you really think this would ever cause less than expected attendance for a completely different ride at a different park with some exciting marketing? These rides wouldn't still being built in the numbers that they are overseas if the public's perception was based on their experience with vaguely similar rides at other parks. I'd go so far as to suggest that the average park-goer would not be able to tell the difference between a ride that we consider good and one we consider to be bad.

I'd think any doubts about the potential success of a wooden coaster are quickly changed when you see the perennial success of wooden coaster overseas. I don't think the Australian public would dismiss a wooden coaster based on Bush Beast. For one thing I don't think there was that much hate or dislike for Bush Beast out there. I wouldn't go all-out and remove Cyclone, but I'd do it differently - starting by not raising it off the ground like they did but excavate the terrain to fit it. Then there wouldn't be a need for such a ridiculous queue system and exit path.

I think it's about time Australia got a new wooden coaster. Intamin is building some absolutely amazing coasters these days, GCII seems to outdo themselves with their new rides and the Gravity Group have shown that they're just as good as CCI ever were. It's strange how in the past 5 or 10 years virtually every major park overseas has installed a wooden coaster, yet the epidemic seems to have skipped Australia.

There's definitely a difference between a "brand new" coaster and one that's nine months old because there is a natural wear-in process. That said, these rides are designed to last twenty or thirty years, subjected sun, rain and wind every single day. The ride will be just as enjoyable for you in September as it would be for someone in December last year. Coasters can be kept feeling fresh and new for decades with proper attention. Look at a ride like Corkscrew at Sea World. 25 years on and running as smooth as ever.

I thought that sounded a bit familiar... I think the key saving point of Movie World is that it's owned and operated by a company that is in it for the long run. They developed the park and continue to craft the site into a multi-faceted tourist attraction, with now four standalone attractions operating on the site, all relying on each other. The best part is they can't really "pull a Wonderland" because thanks to the fierce competition. If they just left it to rot for six or seven years there'd be no captive audience to reap the profits from like Wonderland could - Dreamworld. About five years ago Movie World closed Maverick and fired about 50 entertainment staff (some of which I believe weren't involved with the show). Fair enough - they're running a business and if they see certain positions not pulling their weight for the company, it's their right to make the necessary downsizes. Though what followed was several years of complete entertainment starvation - absolutely no street theatre aside from the occasional character photo opportunity, only one major show (Police Academy), Gremlins closed for Scooby construction and Young Einstein closed for Harry Potter construction. Scooby-Doo managed to pull them out of that one. Though I wouldn't quite say Superman has put them back in (far from it - the park still has a thriving range of general entertainment), but it's food for thought if they're having to downsize at this point - when everything should be going strong and reaping the benefits of a major new ride.

Well maybe it's just me, but if I had a single bad experience at Woolworths, I'd continue to shop there as long as it was the most convenient and economical choice. I'll save my political stances for things that actually matter in life. If it were a problem every time I visit then maybe I'd do something about it, but yet you freely admitted that it was a single visit to Movie World a long time ago and that things may well have changed, yet you aren't willing to give the park another shot. I'd say that is pretty stubborn and only serves to adversely affect yourself if you're the one who's interested in theme parks. Superman is a much rougher ride than any other Intamin coasters I've ridden, including rocket coasters. I've never raved about its smoothness but we're digressing from the original point - not WHAT is wrong with Superman, but rather WHY the ride hasn't had the impact that other rides in recent years have.

It doesn't have to be an all-out bash on Superman, nor a comparison of Dreamworld and Movie World (not sure why that topic was brought up at all). My point with the quality of Superman was more that they aimed for a "grand" concept, but didn't have the financial side to back it up, which resulted in a lackluster ride. I don't believe this would have been the case if they had either: allocated a larger budget (they spent the same that they did on Lethal Weapon 12 years ago, and it has a fraction of the immersive theming that Superman's concept required), or "settled for less" and built a more "no-frills" attraction (more along the lines of Lethal Weapon or The Claw), focusing more on the actual ride experience. I don't think I need to disclaim this by saying I enjoy Superman and think it is a fun ride, because I would have thought that is pretty obvious - if you genuinely don't enjoy Superman (or indeed any coasters out there) then I'd say you're on the wrong site. I have no problems in admitting I can be objectively critical of even my most favourite things. I'm really not a fan of blind worship. With Superman's intensity, I'm referring specifically to the way it rattles and throws you around. If the world-renowned Swiss and German engineering behind the ride couldn't make it as smooth as all the other Intamin coasters I've ridden then I think the footprint size is a negative point for the ride, given that this intensity comes from the very rapid succession of turns and hills. Now that we hear that attendance has been slumping (after an initial increase over the Christmas period), it suggests that Superman has missed the mark with the public. I can't remember a new attraction at any of our parks in recent years that has had such a short-term impact on attendance. I'd say this qualifies my earlier two suggested reasons for the slump - either its marketing attempts missed the mark with what consumers want, or the ride itself misses the mark. My guess is a bit of both. An unhappy customer is said to tell 20 people about their experiences. A happy one is only likely to tell only a handful. If people genuinely aren't enjoying Superman as much as they would have hoped (and I don't know this for a fact - this is merely hypothesising), then they would be more than happy to let this be known to anyone who asks them about their holiday/visit, and it is far more likely to influence their decision making than those who give all-positive feedback when asked.