Richard

Regardless of what you think of this idea, I don't think there's any call for the aggressive / abusive tone some of you are taking. Say what you want to say without the inane Internet posturing please... or we'll delete posts.

Firstly I think that complaining on Facebook is an increasingly cringeworthy act. Good companies will try and resolve complaints privately if you give them a chance. That said, no ice on a hot day is a pretty valid complaint given the $6 or $7 that they're charging for a few cents of syrup. If the machine is broken or overworked then not charging for drinks for a while would cost nothing in the scheme of things but completely turn the situation around. I've not seen the FB complaints but it does sound like pretty bad service.

Right... in an attempt to protect those that are innocent, fragile or easily confused, we're implementing mandatory use of a new [ sarcasm ] [ /sarcasm ] tag (sans spaces) in any and all instances of sarcasm. Simply wrap your post in the tag when you intend to use sarcasm... or humour in general, just to be safe. Start of sarcasm Wow what an awesome, useful feature. Thanks Parkz! End of sarcasm

For my part, it's really that Dreamworld has become a tired place. New things always look good but often out of place while older things tend to be left to rot. That said I would almost say Dreamworld still scrapes by as a good park... if it weren't for the fact that there are two parks down the road doing just about everything consistently better in both the teen/thrill and family markets these days. (I've merged together a few threads into one here so that this topic can be discussed in one place... enjoy!)

You'd hope that Movie World have outsourced only the driving components of the show, allowing their own cast and crew to focus on stunts and acting. Hollywood Stunt Driver's plot was still cringeworthy after five years of tweaks and refinements so I wouldn't hold my breath for theatrical gold, but I'd hope that they can work out something close to an interesting storyline this time around.

The to that concept seemed to be that it was at best an average looking ride and most members thought that Movie World could do better. I don't recall any gushing over the idea from anyone...

The 23% figure comes from a study in New Zealand waters that found that of 30 males observed, 7 had abnormal dorsal fins -- abnormal including other damage that obviously stems from fights, entanglement etc. Only one male in the study had a fully collapsed fin and the paper specifically states that "complete collapse of the dorsal fin of killer whales does not appear to be common in any population." http://www.aquaticmammalsjournal.org/share/AquaticMammalsIssueArchives/1998/AquaticMammals_24-02/24-02_Visser.pdf On the age issue, there's a multitude of websites out there that keep tabs on all orcas in captivity around the globe and they present some pretty startling median and average figures if they're accurate. 30 and 40+ years in captivity exist, but these are the outliers -- in the same category as those 80 and 100+ years in the wild. I suspect SeaWorld's unwillingness to comment stems from potential legal ramifications as much or more than it would PR -- though whatever the reason, their recent rebuttal was too little, too late to stem the negative reaction. The whole controversy is just about as interesting from a PR perspective as the issues of the film are.

1% of orcas in the wild exhibit dorsal fin collapse. Every male in captivity exhibits it. Those are pretty clear-cut statistics. Whether it's a sign of physical or mental distress is another matter, but it's clear-cut evidence that their captive environment is at odds with how these animals grow and develop. With our Sea World I was referring specifically to the dolphin surfing/riding stunts performed in the show. These sorts of cheesy circus tricks seem more about the trainers than the dolphins and detract from a show that is otherwise about education and conservation.

I wouldn't advocate for something as reckless as releasing the captive population; by and large what's done is done. And given my own animal rights activism doesn't extend much further than buying free range eggs, I think it'd be mighty hypocritical to suggest something like this. SeaWorld have built a brand on the orcas and there is certainly merit to their conservation work as a result of their success. I don't think they'd fail without them, especially as the parks have diversified to offer much more than the daily Shamu shows in recent years. There is something awe-inspiring about seeing these whales in the flesh at SeaWorld. Truly unlike any other creature you'll ever see. But to see them kept in plain concrete pools that, though large, are still tiny for the size of the whales, and to see all the collapsed dorsal fins and know that this isn't normal, it leaves an overall off-putting feeling. The tacky circus aspects of the show -- trainers riding the whales etc. -- are cringe-worthy and I believe unnecessary to the spectacle of just seeing them in the flesh. And on the subject I think this is also one of the worst things about the Gold Coast Sea World's dolphin show -- it destroys the "these are only natural behaviours or those taught for their well-being" narrative that they try and sell.

My feelings on Blackfish after watching it was that it tells a story that overall fits with what my own research on orcas in captivity has told me -- that these are creatures that probably shouldn't be in captivity. Where it falls short is its inconsistencies, namely in the two conflicting positions that Tilikum was a victim of psychological tormenting in his pre-SeaWorld years and should have never been interacting with humans the way that he was, but also that he was genetically predisposed to violence and as such should not have been SeaWorld's primary breeding male. A few SeaWorld whale trainers have come out and disputed the accuracy of the film saying either their own interview quotes were taken out of context, or that the trainers that were interviewed were disgruntled or inexperienced. What I've taken from the film and the rebuttals is that SeaWorld orca trainers all have big egos and there's loads of in-fighting. SeaWorld issued a press release only recently to counter the film that seemed to be more misdirection than anything. Talking about the restaurant quality fish they provide, their efforts with marine conservation, and also giving a very weak rebuttal to the issue that orcas in captivity have about half the lifespan of those in the wild. Most US theme park websites seem to have jumped to the defence of SeaWorld, debunking the film based on one non-qualified trainer saying that what another non-qualified trainer said was incorrect. I've not seen anyone debunk the film based on the scientific evidence it provided regarding lifespan in captivity vs wild, dorsal fin collapse, the fact that the enclosures are woefully small, or the evidence of psychological stress that the film presented.

I figure what is without a doubt the most cynical method of crowd control implemented at our parks in recent years deserves its own topic...

As for the argument that they used the location to its fullest and the ride couldn't possibly be longer with an immersive pre-coaster water section, remember that Mack lead the way when it comes to both elevator lifts and turntables. It's miraculous that they fit a standard model boxed in on all four sides and with relatively minimal modifications to the building, but the idea that there was no room for anything longer just isn't true. The ride is what it is for budget reasons, not space.

The Parkz Update: Sea World, December 2013n nnClick here to continue reading...

The ride features faster-than-gravity acceleration towards the ground; you're never in free fall on Batwing.

The Parkz Update: Sea World, November 2013n nnClick here to continue reading...

I actually originally wrote "one rung above pyramid schemes multi-level marketing in terms of legitimacy" but changed it to call it what it is and avoid the sidetracking. You know exactly what I meant so let's avoid the debate over semantics. But if we are talking semantics, you'll note I said legitimacy, not legality. Yep, Disney do it in their parks. Yep Readers Digest tell people they've won millions all the time. Yep, people who don't read the T&Cs deserve everything they do or don't get. And yep, it's easy to ignore or reject these folks and continue on your way -- I've never once engaged with one. Doesn't mean they're not a negative aspect of our parks.

Handing out scratchies that imply you've won big prizes when you in fact haven't is a fundamentally misleading sales tactic. It's an industry that relies on bait-and-switches, high pressure selling and fine print to make a profit and is one rung above pyramid schemes in terms of legitimacy. I know a few folks who do well out of the freebies on offer in exchange for sitting through seminars with no intention of ever signing up, and also a few who have signed up for these sorts of programmes and get their money's worth. But no one could defend this industry as entirely honest, nor could you say their presence in theme parks is a good thing.

The Parkz Update: Sea World, October 2013n n n Click here to continue reading...

I should preface this post by saying that I don't think our parks as a whole are among the best in the world. As an assertion in a domestic marketing campaign it is the logical proposition to make, but that doesn't mean it's grounded in reality. Our parks are about on par with average regional theme parks around the world. Ignore the parks getting 5 or 10+ million visitors a year and look at the smaller independent or Six Flags type parks catering to 500k to 1.5 million a year. Our parks do sometimes pull off particularly good theming considering the budgets they work with, but there's really not any examples of Universal or Disney quality attractions in Australia. A very small handful of our roller coasters and thrill rides are "up there" by world standards, but in terms of overall variety, quality and quantity of attractions on offer, our parks unquestionably fall short of comparable "average" parks, let alone the big guys. I'd agree that Sea World holds up remarkably well against SeaWorlds, Busch Gardens and similar wildlife/theme park hybrids around the world. It'll never have the offerings of its USA equivalents that attract 3-4 times the visitors, but I do think there is a level of authenticity that is unmatched; everything feels genuine and heartfelt, in particular their approach to balancing education and awareness with experiences. That intangible quality does I think make up for some of the "on paper" shortcomings of the park. Our year-round season, low population and high costs (wages, construction, energy, shipping etc.) don't give our parks much of a chance and they do pretty well all things considered, but I'd stop well short of throwing words like "world class" around.

Sea World welcomes cub Henry to Polar Bear Shoresn n n Click here to continue reading...

The Parkz Update: Sea World, September 2013 Click here to continue reading...

I didn't say it's not thrilling. I didn't say it wouldn't draw crowds. Evidently you don't know what I'm on about... I said it would draw unfavourable comparisons to more thrilling but smaller rides. Of course Superman Escape, Batwing, Giant Drop or Tower of Terror are more conventionally thrilling attractions than this.The concept is confusing itself by trying to please two very different audiences. Note that the description pitches it as a gentle ride that also has a thrill mode, not the other way around. That's not an accident.

120m versus 145m that includes the ~10 metre spire isn't a lot of difference. It will be forever compared to Dreamworld's Giant Drop and Tower of Terror, and it won't win with the demographic that would be drawn in by a "world's tallest" gimmick. The gentle vs. thrill thing is confusing. They're already trying to downplay the thrill element in the description yet at the same time given it a name that -- aside from being a comic book character no one's heard of -- literally means impending doom. It is right in the middle of the 'thrill precinct', dwarfing 3-4 rides that are much more intense and thrilling. It's a really confusing message. It's the sort of attraction that would make sense on a vacant lot in Surfers Paradise. It's not a major theme park attraction.

Disney California Adventure has some great craft beers on tap. If you can overlook the plastic cup then you can enjoy a very decent IPA as you wander around or stand in a queue. Interestingly, alcohol seems to be the one thing that is almost immune to theme park prices.

While I'm always happy to discuss ways that Parkz can branch out into other areas such as this, I can't imagine any scenario in which we allow the Parkz name to be used where we don't maintain control. Definitely nothing against the idea presented — it's a good one — but get in touch with myself or others on the team here if you'd like to discuss how it can fit in with Parkz. On the topic of trademarks, there's trademarks and registered trademarks. In terms of registered trademarks it's expensive to register and astronomically expensive to enforce, particularly as a website that covers and has content from many different countries.