Jamberoo Fan

Thanks @Skeeta. I think you are correct. I wasn't even aware that the height restrictions were altered given their significance of them on The Spit. Theme park rides are now exempt from height restrictions which are, on Sea World's land, currently a maximum of 15 metres or 3 storeys. However, depending on the height of the "Star Flyer", this doesn't mean the community won't argue against the development (I realise they can't submit a submission due to the private certifier process though). I wonder how high the "Star Flyer" will go? 122 metres? Impressive if they did and serious competition for DW but maybe too high due to The Spit's nature. 50 metres might be the most realistic height now that height restrictions have been amended. That is, to keep the ride from affecting The Spit's nature as best as possible. However, according to Funtime, a standard StarFlyer is about 70 metres high. Regardless of the final height, I now believe it's very likely this will be Sea World's tallest permanent ride ever. Rescue Point isn't exactly a "far flung corner". It's highly visible particularly if a ride is now going to occupy the space. Castaway Bay is in a "far flung corner"; Dolphin Beach/Affinity is too. Seal Harbour can be considered as also being in a similar corner. If a "Star Flyer" is to be located on Rescue Point, I'd expect the Point will suddenly become a high pedestrian traffic area very quickly and might give them an attendance boost depending on how much promotion they give this ride. Rescue Point has only been a low pedestrian area over time because firstly, there is not much to see there and secondly, the alternative route of going past the Dolphin Nursery was always the main walkway around Sea World. It can't fit "practically anywhere". The tower can but when in operation, the ride swings with a radius of about 20 metres so it needs to be 20 metres away of any structure. Stationary, the ride requires a 10 metre radius. Depending on what height the ride starts rotating fast enough to extend the radius to 20 metres, any structures surrounding the ride must not be the same height. But, in case the ride lowers without slowing down, a 20 metre radius would probably be the safest to apply. The only locations that fit this radius are: The Viking Castle (if they decide to close the 4D Theatre permanently when they remove Viking's Revenge Flume Ride so they can also demolish the Castle and re-arrange the area), The former Sea Viper site and Creatures Of The Deep outdoor section including Rescue Point Lighthouse (if the area is being re-arranged apart from the Lighthouse's demolition) In relation to your latter statement, there is a flaw in that location for the "Star Flyer" compared to the Lighthouse. The Lighthouse is only about 15 metres high and entering Sea World involves walking in an undercover area until you reach the former Skyway station. The ceiling was just high enough to allow you to see the Lighthouse. If the "Star Flyer" is built in this location for this reason, when you walk into the park during the ride's operation, all you would see is a tower as most of the ride will be very high in the air.

Sea World is to demolish shortly the iconic Rescue Point Lighthouse, which has been a feature of Sea World and it's lake since 1972, the year Sea World opened (or more precisely, got renamed from 'Surfers Paradise Ski Gardens'). It's one of the first things you see after entering the park, immediately across the lake, and gives an immediate sense of the park's maritime theme even though over the years, the Lighthouse has been a low-key attraction at the park featuring mainly exhibitions such as to promote Sea World's Research & Rescue Foundation and their work. It's most recent usage would've been to form part of the outdoor section of the Creatures Of The Deep attraction. In other news, a "Star Flyer" will be built at Sea World - probably the well-noted 2019 attraction publicised when the park's Viking's Revenge Flume Ride was closed shortly after the Thunder River Rapids incident at Dreamworld in late 2016. All of this is described in a recent application made to Gold Coast City Council (not a link to the application - see the paragraph after the embedded YouTube video) in late September: Whilst the application doesn't state it, this highly likely means the outdoor section of Creatures Of The Deep will be removed as well. Currently, according to Sea World's Maintenance Schedule webpage, that attraction is "closed for maintenance until further notice". If it is being removed, that's not exactly 'maintaining' it. However, they could be actually 'maintaining' it with "Star Flyer" being located elsewhere in the park. The application also doesn't specifically state that the "Star Flyer" will replace Rescue Point Lighthouse but it is highly likely. Likewise, it doesn't specifically state that this is the attraction replacing Viking's Revenge Flume Ride, which was promoted as the ride being replaced by the '2019 attraction'. For those who don't know, this is Rescue Point Lighthouse: And here it is in conjunction with the outdoor section of Creatures Of The Deep: The "Star Flyer" is highly likely referring to a StarFlyer, a ride manufactured by local company Funtime, who operate an amusement park in central Surfers Paradise on the Gold Coast. For those who don't know, details about this ride can be found below. These types of rides are known to be tall. Thus, the height of this ride will be interesting given Sea World has strict height restrictions. However, the simplistic look of the ride may allow them an exemption. Sea World's tallest ever ride was a temporary 60 metre high ferris wheel called the Sea World Eye which was installed in the late 2000's. All of Sea World's permanent rides have never gone higher than 30 metres though. Funtime's website's section on StarFlyer is very detailed but here are some quotes from the 'About' section of the ride for a quick summary: Here is a YouTube video of one of their tallest installations so far, reaching 122 metres high. If Sea World somehow reaches this height, Dreamworld's The Giant Drop may have some competition, even if there are 2 completely different rides, as the latter reaches a height of 119 metres. It's most likely though that the "Star Flyer" will be about 30 metres high to meet with the height restrictions. But given these types of rides are known to be tall, is 30 metres an acceptable height for it or is it too low? I'd add a link to the relevant Gold Coast City Council application but from previous attempts to link applications from there in recent months, I've found it will just lead to an error message for you all due to the recent information technology system upgrade the Council implemented. Regardless of how you feel about Sea World's plans, it's nice to see 2 Australian companies in the amusement park industry working together particularly during the effects on the industry from the Thunder River Rapids incident. As far as I am aware, Sea World's plans have not yet been approved by a private certifier but according to Gold Coast City Council they are "in progress" of being assessed by the private certifier. So let the theming guessing game begin!

In relation to today's news, which saw the word 'divestment' appear prominently, the booklet did refer to 'divestment' once in a similar quote to the third quote in my previous post in this topic however this quote (below) doesn't specifically refer to theme parks: The "future corporate arrangements", in the above quote, also, without specifically mentioning theme parks, refer to "mergers and acquisitions" but not (mentioning) "future capital expenditure". It also refers to "financing arrangements" (which, according to the booklet, will be more reliant on Main Event revenue because that is Ardent's major (50%+) revenue/profit stream). The question is what scenarios did Ardent find to be optimally flexible under the proposed new structure?

Ardent issued a booklet on their "alternative structure" back on the 10th of October. Below are some quotes of note. Following on from the quote I posted on the 23rd of August stating Ardent is now receiving civil claims due to the Thunder River Rapids incident, there is just this new quote relating to those civil claims: Other quotes of note include this one below: Their tax classification/status is, in the current structure, "flow through", which is mentioned elsewhere in the booklet. So according to that quote above, development of excess DW land is being held back due to taxation laws. Can someone explain to me how? After all, their last major expansion in 2006 was for a whole new park. And also, what types of development are limited under the current tax classification/status? This last quote: Possible mergers of DW or the whole of Ardent's Australian Theme Parks division with another company might be on their mind. Regarding acquisitions, whilst that also might be on their mind, I really hope they aren't thinking of acquiring more theme parks... Finally, here is a diagram of the proposed new structure ("alternative structure") compared to the previous one, which was slightly incorrect in the diagram I posted back on the 23rd of August (DW wasn't linked to Ardent Leisure Limited in that diagram) :

To avoid any confusion, what I meant when I wrote: I meant if the DA exemptions weren't for temporary rides but to allow a replacement but identical Ferris Wheel on the site or a reconstruction of Coney Island etc. "long-term" as in the past, not in the future. For example, Coney Island is "long-term" heritage as it's been there since 1935 but Hair Raiser isn't as it's only been there since 2013. The Court clarified the DA process easily earlier this year - they need a DA for every single new ride, permanent or not. The NSW Government's proposal though would allow some permanent rides to skip the DA process by just being granted a certificate if they 'comply' with certain conditions There are 3 essential conditions to just need the certificate: No more than 6 permanent rides can be higher than about 25 metres (including existing permanent rides) at any 1 time and no new permanent ride can be higher than 36 metres except on Lavender Green, where it can be no higher than 16 metres. All heights are from ground level. All new permanent rides cannot be indoors. If they are indoors or don't meet the height limits, then a DA is required (unless there is an existing height limit at Luna Park, of course). Simiraly, temporary (that is, at the park for no longer than 4 months during a 6 month period) rides that are outdoors, no higher than 16 metres & not located on the Midway don't need any certification or approval. The Midway has similar but different conditions regarding temporary rides (maximum 3 months duration; no bigger than 100 square metres in size; emergency vehicle access maintained and Midway to remain at least 8 metres wide except between the Ferris Wheel & Carousel). If they fail to meet any of those conditions, see the 'complying' development conditions above. As I don't know the rest of Luna Park Sydney's future permanent rides, all I can say is I think The Flying Carousel can be built if it is no higher than 36 metres from ground level to the top of the ride & the certificate thus is granted by an accredited certifier. So it likely will solve The Flying Carousel issue at least but won't solve issues with all future proposed new permanent rides. Going back to the court case judgement, sometime after May 2002 until Hair Raiser was built Luna Park Sydney thought they had DA exemption for all new rides including temporary rides. Simply, no one from outside the park's management noticed the temporary rides were added without approval (surprisingly not even the Milsons Point residents). Temporary attractions are difficult to notice particularly if they were there on opening day in 2004. They blend in. Someone in the NSW Planning Department obviously noticed Hair Raiser was built without approval (particularly as it was the 1st major attraction since 2004). Then this year, a private certifier noticed it again when considering a construction certificate when Luna Park Sydney tried to build The Flying Carousel without approval. Why the conflicting opinion between planners/certifers & Luna Park Sydney? Because Luna Park Sydney applied in 2002 to have new rides built with & without DA's (a drafting error - the correct draft is anyone's guess now). The Planning Department, however, decided to make it with a DA by placing a condition on the approval, which the Court ruled took precedent. Luna Park Sydney thought because they had DA approval, their "without DA" drafting error could count regardless of the conditions placed on the approval. However, as I pointed out earlier, Luna Park Sydney was aware of the correct interpretation back in May 2002, a few months after approval was granted. Someone forget, misunderstood or decided the conditions don't count sometime after May 2002. There isn't suddenly an "onerous and ill conceived interpretation" as, like I pointed out earlier, approvals from local government are required to "install or operate amusement devices" even if they are temporary from as far back as 1993 at least. The only incorrect interpretation was from Luna Park Sydney or a manager/employee of theirs who accidentally misunderstood the approval & it's conditions sometime after May 2002. I wouldn't mind the DA exemptions for temporary rides at all if it only applied until they don't need to 'rely' on temporary rides anymore. Under the current proposal, it is permanent. After all, this issue only arose because their next permanent ride 'suddenly' needed a DA. If they were ready to build The Flying Carousel then they are ready for new permanent rides (well, at least 1 as far as I know) and thus don't need to 'rely' on temporary rides anymore. Either way, as much as I believe that people wouldn't visit Luna Park Sydney for the temporary rides and thus not receive most of their revenue from those rides, again if that is really their main revenue stream, like I pointed out before, it would then mean people don't visit the park for it's heritage. There are, as you say, "volatile" residents - they just don't live in high rise apartment towers. At least Jamberoo has no issue with noise though.

@AlexB, I read the whole judgement on The Flying Carousel court case a while ago. This whole current situation wasn't initiated out of a need for clarification after Hair Raiser. Even though Luna Park Sydney built Hair Raiser without a development consent and subsequently were told to apply for one by the NSW Planning Department, they still went ahead and tried building The Flying Carousel without one, which has caused the current events. The issue regarding temporary rides wasn't also sudden - to "install or operate amusement devices" requires approval from local government. There are exemptions for some temporary uses and structures under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 but "amusement devices" are excluded as that is not listed in the policy. Since 2001, approval shifted to the Planning Minister for Luna Park Sydney only and when they approved Luna Park Sydney's masterplan back in 2002, they only approved the park's future 'use' (like zoning) rather than the park's future 'development' (like construction). The latter the Planning Minister put a condition on the approval for as requiring subsequent DA's. The Court even found Luna Park Sydney was aware that they needed DA's for every new ride as early as May 2002, a few months after they were notified of that decision from the Planning Minister of the time (You may need to read the whole judgement to get the quote's full context though) : Also, the most noticeable issue in the media wasn't the potential lack of temporary rides in the future, it was the threat of closure. The State Government only reacted because of the threat of closure not because of the lack of temporary rides. In any case, I don't think Luna Park Sydney would've closed because of a lack of temporary rides. Lastly - Yes, Kangaroo Island is not temporary but the issue at the heart of the matter is similar (the DA process). Here is a quote from Jim Eddy, Jamberoo's managing director, which was in the Kiama Independent news article I linked to earlier: Doesn't that sound like what Luna Park Sydney have been saying recently? Particularly when you add this quote: That's definitely akin to Luna Park Sydney (like operating hours, noise, lighting etc.). Jamberoo may have been referring to permanent rides but the DA process is the same. I just was trying to say if Luna Park Sydney could get an exemption for temporary rides by complaining about the DA process, why can't Jamberoo get the temporary ride exemption as well? Imagine if Jamberoo suddenly wanted to install a temporary giant inflatable waterslide, that would require local government approval but like Luna Park Sydney, it might drag out for months or years because residents are complaining about the colours etc. Luna Park Sydney may have heritage value (which is why it has political influence) but the heritage & operation of the park isn't reliant on temporary rides otherwise like pointed out earlier, it defeats all heritage arguments. After all, despite the amendments, they will still need some sort form of approval for permanent rides and park refurbishments and that is what keeps Luna Park Sydney relevant and part of Sydney's heritage into the future: Rides & attractions themed around the 1930's (like Hair Raiser with development approval) - not temporary rides hidden behind Coney Island. If the DA exemptions were purely because it affected Luna Park's long-term heritage (like Coney Island), then I would be 100% for a Luna Park Sydney-only exemption. I'm still 100% for temporary ride DA exemptions but only if it was for all theme parks & community events in NSW - not just Luna Park Sydney - as the temporary rides individually don't form part of the long-term heritage of Luna Park Sydney.

For all those who responded to this question, I had intended that question to be a rhetorical question. It was given as an example as Jamberoo's owners were more angry 5 years ago about the DA process than Luna Park Sydney has been in the past few months even though the latter threatened closure and started a petition. Luna Park Sydney, being historic & iconic, has more political influence (particularly after the Big Dipper drama in the mid-1990's) hence why they threatened closure. I don't know about most people but I don't travel to Luna Park Sydney for temporary rides. To me, if Luna Park Sydney had no temporary rides, it would be no big loss, the attendance would not have dramatically changed to the point of closure plus valuable resources would have been saved, which could be added to a future permanent expansion program. If Luna Park Sydney says temporary rides are the reason it is currently still operating then they are (assuming accidentally) implying that the historic and iconic aspects of Luna Park Sydney like the entrance, Coney Island and the Ferris Wheel aren't the reason why people go to the park, which would then (assuming inadvertently) mean the reason that the park is important to Sydney's heritage is completely irrelevant. Jamberoo may not be as iconic & historic or as well attended as Luna Park Sydney but this issue isn't about long-term heritage protection, it's about DA processes for temporary rides. After all, where is the heritage value in temporary rides??? You can argue that the heritage value of Luna Park Sydney overall justifies them having exempt development for temporary rides but, whilst not a theme park, what about the Sydney Royal Easter Show? (I'm not 100% sure if the Sydney Royal Easter Show needs to put in DA's every year for their Carnivals though) Unlike Luna Park Sydney, I'm sure if the Sydney Royal Easter Show didn't have temporary rides there would be a huge drop in attendance. I'm all for heritage protections and streamlined DA processes for Luna Park Sydney but when other theme parks have complained about the lengthy DA process for very similar reasons, why can't they be allowed similar streamlined DA processes as well? The theme park industry of NSW as a whole would then benefit and not just Luna Park Sydney, who in my opinion, doesn't need temporary rides (or exemption from DA's for temporary rides) to survive. After all, it's just temporary rides. If the DA exemption for temporary rides at Luna Park Sydney was broadened to all theme parks in New South Wales, it wouldn't affect much so why not broaden it? There aren't that many theme parks in New South Wales anyway let along any that would utilise the DA exemption on a constant basis like Luna Park Sydney seemingly needs to do. After all, excluding Luna Park Sydney, how many theme parks are there in the entire world that rely on temporary rides for business? Temporary rides are only best for community events not theme parks. Plus, temporary rides have to be hired - no guarantee every single NSW theme park can hire one due to either availability, cost or distance required to travel to deliver and pick up the ride to/from the theme park. Also, the noise of Luna Park Sydney is irrelevant in this case. They haven't done temporary rides in nearly 2 decades I believe. It is referring to temporary rides.

From The Sydney Morning Herald: The exhibition of the new NSW Government policy can be found here. The big question is how will other New South Wales theme parks react? Luna Park Sydney is being treated differently from the rest of New South Wales' theme parks even if Luna Park Sydney is the most attended and iconic theme park in New South Wales. Jamberoo's Kangaroo Island expansion had a lengthy development application process lasting about 5 years and a few court cases mainly due to nearby residents being unhappy with the colours of the waterslides. Should Jamberoo be allowed to receive 'exempt development' on temporary rides as well?

Here is a bit of that ASX announcement that I edited out of the quote:

The latest Google Earth satellite image of Jamberoo Action Park does contain The Perfect Storm. It is from the 8th of April 2017. However, that image contains a fair amount of cloud even though you can still Jamberoo's rides and attractions in the image. Try the 'Historical Imagery' function on Google Earth to get satellite images of Jamberoo from the 24th of February 2016 onwards.

The coronial inquest into the Thunder River Rapids incident resumes in Southport on Monday the 8th of October. It will be held everyday (presumably excluding weekends), starting at 10am, until Friday the 19th of October where it will presumably adjourn again until the 12th of November. The Australian Associated Press via 7 News reported today:

Ardent Leisure Group today announced their "alternative structure". Key quotes can be found below:

It's not confusing for me either and I didn't say all of your analogies were incorrect.

@AlexB, I know it's confusing and due to it's confusing state, I'd agree we will disagree so yeah, let's leave it at that. Some of your analogies are incorrect though by the way.

@AlexB, I didn't miss your point and my comparison wasn't with ski resorts but just with the activity of skiing. Like you said, my argument is based on people wanting to ride them. Seasonality is a factor that affects whether a person would go on a ride even though they wished they could at that point in time. That's why there is a statistical method called seasonal adjustment, which if used in this case would remove the factor of seasonality & would show Thunder River Rapids and Rocky Hollow Log Ride as the most popular attractions in DW's history. When counting the number of people wanting to ride a ride at a given point in time, to sum up the universality/popularity of a ride, it's probably best to just adjust the statistics to take into account any objective ride factors (like the weather/seasons) that are causing someone to currently not ride the ride. Otherwise, you would never get agreement on what is the ride most people want to ride as there are infinite possibilities of subjective factors influencing people's decisions to ride a ride at any given point in time.

Well, at least the show's title is still relevant then! However, based on @red dragin's & @themagician's posts, it seems whether the show has or hasn't got any stunts anymore (particularly driving stunts) is still up for debate.

Whilst I understand what you're saying, in the end, you still wanted to ride Thunder River Rapids & Rocky Hollow Log Ride. The rides themselves were fine but external non-ride factors made you decide to postpone your participation. Think of it the opposite way around using skiing as the example. People want to go skiing but they can only do that in the winter. Skiing is still popular and universal but it has low statistics due to it only being possible for roughly 3 months a year. So whilst the statistics show that, in 1 year, not many people went skiing compared to say playing basketball, skiing is still a universal activity. Again, that's why the level of 'ridership' shouldn't be used as an indicator of popularity. The other 2 'indicators' I was arguing against - capacity & queue length - can be illustrated again using the skiing example: Closing long skiing runs doesn't mean skiing is less popular - maybe they couldn't afford chairlift maintenance? Short queues to chairlifts doesn't mean skiing isn't popular - maybe they are high capacity chairlifts? And back to the 'ridership' indicator, no one at a ski resort doesn't mean skiing isn't popular, maybe there is no snow? You note the "low or non-existent" restrictions are more of the reason why Thunder River Rapids & Rocky Hollow Log Ride are popular but that is exactly the first criteria in determining a ride's universality: How much of the market can ride this? The ride's quality (perceived entertainment value) then narrows that universality down followed by the experience (perceived intensity), which narrows it down even further if it is high intensity. Then you have the amount of the market who want to ride this. Clearly, the latter 2 requirements could change after your 1st ride. Using that methodology, you can see how Thunder River Rapids & Rocky Hollow Log Ride are the most 'universal' whilst Tower Of Terror II isn't. I agree with everything else you said though but i-Ride, which I agree would have been the perfect Thunder River Rapids replacement for DW, isn't that in my opinion anymore because of it's proposed exterior and future expansion around Australia & New Zealand. A lot of the non-Gold Coast Australia/New Zealand market would not visit Dreamworld for the i-Ride if it becomes available in their nearest capital city and it's exterior doesn't help you feel like you're on a holiday. It reminds you of your daily visits to a shopping centre and walks around a bustling city on a work day to business conventions. It does everything to make you forget you are on a holiday.

Wow. Is there, at least, still a character who is a 'stunt driver' though, @pushbutton?

The FAQ's does refer to a commentary being done. Whether it contains commentary about DC Rivals HyperCoaster is anyone's guess so far: I noticed they've changed it to every morning between the 23rd September to the 14th October and the attraction's webpage refers to it operating on "selected days" so if it was initially only Saturday mornings all-year round, maybe they have changed their mind due to the reaction to the price and made it only during peak periods, where they assume, due to the larger attendance/interest, demand will increase? However, they have, as a result, increased supply. This is evident as they went from 48 available climbs (that is, per person) to 168 available climbs with 6 (13%) & 7 (4%) sold respectively. 6 of these (for both amounts of supply) were for the opening day climb, which is just over 3 days away. If they changed the days of operation due to the lack of demand, increasing supply certainly isn't a good solution to the pricing problem particularly as pricing hasn't changed. The main problem is that there is low 'value for money' - not that there is less than expected demand for a DC Rivals HyperCoaster climb regardless of how good it is. Their misdiagnosis of the problem is why the demand hasn't increased despite any higher interest/attendance. As already mentioned, adding 'behind the scenes' opportunities is a good way to increase it's 'value for money'. It has been proven to work with the Star Tour - Access All Areas experience (with it's Arkham Asylum - Shock Therapy lift hill climb & MW 'behind the scenes' tour). A DC Rivals HyperCoaster version could be worth it even if it is heaps shorter in duration. Any 'behind the scenes' opportunities should include a focus on the safety aspects of the HyperCoaster which would be a good way to promote the safety of theme parks during the post-Thunder River Rapids incident era particularly as the HyperCoaster is one of the Gold Coast's most intense rides. If the commentary mentioned above includes commentary about DC Rivals HyperCoaster, they should promote it more. The fact you get a photo during the climb isn't promoted well either. The photo could be of you on the HyperCoaster lift hill in front of MW's iconic rides - Superman Escape, Batwing Spaceshot, Arkham Asylum - Shock Therapy & Wild West Falls. Other ways to increase 'value for money' could be to add a meet & greet of DC Comics characters, get the opportunity to ride DC Rivals HyperCoaster forwards or backwards once each when the ride is ready to open & a free ride-on photo and video of you on the ride. Due to the lack of demand as a result of the low 'value for money', the fact they mentioned it will operate on "selected days" & have already adjusted the days of operation once already may indicate that they may, in the future, reduce it's operation to just Saturday-mornings only during peak periods so demand roughly meets supply. However, given the current trend is to increase supply, who knows? They also mentioned on the attraction's webpage that "More climbs may be added", which, in the Climb's current form, I highly doubt as they are struggling to get demand with the amount of climbs originally offered. Then again, they've already added more climbs once already... Personally, the price doesn't bother me - mainly because I like theme parks & rarely visit the Gold Coast so the next time I visit, if it's on offer, I may consider it. A photo atop DC Rivals HyperCoaster with possibly MW in the background might be a great memento. I do understand why many people think it's low 'value for money' though.

Adding on to what @pin142 said about queues, all rides have a capacity so the level of ridership is finite. This means you can't compare rides' popularity based on the number of people who rode it in 1 day. Another factor affecting that method is the amount of people who 're-ride' the ride. You know, those who hop off the ride and immediately re-join the queue. That would cause the data to be exaggerated. A ride's popularity is probably best defined as the amount of people who want to ride it. This is why, apart from the safety concerns, the closure of Thunder River Rapids has & will have such a negative effect on Dreamworld. Unless most people were visiting for a new attraction, that ride was the main reason people visited Dreamworld because they wanted to ride Thunder River Rapids. It was a universal ride. Dreamworld consistently stated prior to 2016, Thunder River Rapids was it's most popular ride (and that opened in 1986!). Rocky Hollow Log Ride was always in 2nd place (and that opened in 1981!) but now clearly takes 1st place. It says a lot about the park that only 1 other ride since 1981 has opened that has proven to be more popular/universal than one of the opening day attractions. Usually, the more universal a ride is, the more popular it is. Simply, theme parks that cater for all with an attraction line-up that aligns with the diversity of their audience is successful. Tower Of Terror II is a high thrill ride so the people who would ride this are usually thrill-seekers, a portion of the market. In short, Tower Of Terror II is not a universal ride as there are a lot of people who would not want to queue for this ride. Tower Of Terror II not being the most popular/universal ride in the park is not a good reason to close it. However, in regards to using Tower Of Terror II's queue length as justification for a future closure, since it's carriage can hold 14 people, if the queue is less than 14 people long when they are loading the ride, then the ride at that point in time isn't currently sustainable to operate. That is, the ride does have “low ridership”. The ride should operate at times when they know there will be at least 14 people in the queue when they load the ride. If there are always fewer than 14 people in the queue when they load the ride then it is definitely time to stop the turbine. However, it would be fine to keep operating it if it became an upcharge and/or with less seating and/or operating at certain hours of the day...or year. So how many people still want to ride Tower Of Terror II?

To theme park enthusiasts, it is obvious. However, the entrance is tucked into the corner and reminds me of an emergency exit or staff entrance so it is possible some visitors may be unsure particularly with a really obvious jellyfish-themed shop next to it. I was just suggesting they should just add either the word 'Entrance' or 'Entry' above the attraction's entrance's doorway or under the Sea Jellies Illuminated sign or on the other wall next to the door (the latter two having an arrow pointing to the door) to emphasise that is the attraction's entrance. Well if there are always people in the laboratory then I think people will care. And even more so since there are also interactive screens and signs stating what is happening.

I haven't seen Hollywood Stunt Driver 2 (but I have seen Hollywood Stunt Driver so I knew the sequel was also not an entertaining show) but are you saying for a show that has the words 'stunt driver' in it's title, they have removed the driving stunts since the sequel started in 2014?

In regards to what people have said about the choice of an airport theme, the airport theme could have worked if they put a bit more thought into it. Being in Main Street, Dreamworld, Queensland, I would've themed the 'terminal' by using the design of the 1940's-built (but 1930's-designed) administration building of Brisbane's Archerfield Airport, the main QLD airport in the 1930's, as inspiration. On the outside of the DW version though would be 1930's-styled advertisements (from a fictional airline called Dreamworld Airways) saying 'See Australia from the air!' etc with each advertisement having a different picture of an Australian landmark seen on the ride. The cylindrical part of the building would be on the corner of Main Street with the rest of the building 'being folded' so to head north and east respectively. Towering over the corner of Main Street would also be an air traffic control tower, inspired by the one which used to be on top of the Archerfield Airport administration building (1940's-built but 1930's-designed). It can also be seen in this photo, which gives an idea of how it would look in Main Street with people wandering around. You walk into the building, under the air traffic control tower, into a room which contains the queue line & access to a souvenir shop. The queue's theming would be inspired by the interior look of the Archerfield Airport administration building (again built in the 1940's but designed in the 1930's), which is rather plain. The staff members would have uniforms inspired by 1930's fashion. At the end of the queue, you are directed to your seat (which may require staircases to access). When you reach your seat, rather than seeing a blank screen, the first frame of the film is already shown - the runways and taxiways of an airport (The real 1940's-built/1930's-designed Archerfield Airport administration building literally is right next to the taxiway - and still is). The film opens with you lining up on a CGI runway and taking off. The flight then begins, with a change of locations occurring when you fly through clouds. The first set of clouds appearing a few seconds after take off transporting you to the Gold Coast skyline. After more Australian landmarks, the film concludes with the plane landing at Dreamworld (again, on a CGI runway) & parking outside the 'northern side' of the 'administration building' (though you can't see it when you actually hop off the ride as you are again facing the taxiways on the screen - it is the same thing you see when you hop on the ride). The 'adminstration building' briefly seen whilst taxiing after landing is CGI too. You then exit the ride (taking the staircases if needed. There are both entry & exit staircases to increase capacity) via the souvenir shop, which also contains tourist brochures for the landmarks featured in the ride.

I still believe it is because waterslides are becoming cheaper and thus opening at more locations. The audience for individual water parks are thus becoming more local and smaller particularly for Wet 'n' Wild Gold Coast, who is used to lots of out-of-town visitation. But, similar to what @Skeeta said above, if your whole audience for water parks are now local, reliance on season passes (particular a multi-park season pass) is not good. Multi-park annual passes doesn't guarantee visitation at Wet 'n' Wild and for any type of annual pass at the current prices, whatever the level of actual visitation is at the park, the park is really relying on food and beverage & upcharges for revenue. If your audience is only locals and they all have annual passes, if they don't spend on food and beverage & upcharges, that's a lot of lost revenue. Wet 'n' Wild Sydney's decline was due to a similar situation even though poor park design was also a role in why it declined. Whilst Wet 'n' Wild Gold Coast's decline may seem to be linked to the decline of the Sydney park (which is heaps worse), it probably is due to mismanagement of both parks rather than just Sydney. That is, the overselling of season passes at both parks. Wet 'n' Wild Sydney has a new owner so they may stop the reliance on season passes there but Wet 'n' Wild Gold Coast still has the same owner - could they do the same? Remember Whitewater World's proposed lazy river is completely different to Calypso Beach. It includes a wave machine. Jamberoo's Rapid River is Australia's only themed lazy river with a wave machine and I can say it makes a whirl of difference. I'd ride Rapid River instead of Calypso Beach any day. For starters, it actually makes it a ride rather than just a relaxing form of transportation. The first half of Rapid River is a typical lazy river - slow and meandering. You travel past some fountains shooting over you, you go under a bridge and then travel over some bubblers. You then travel past a gentle but long waterfall & you enter a cave, where the 2nd half of the ride begins. A hole in the centre of the cave's roof has a waterfall dropping from one side into the centre of the River. The cave is covered in Aboriginal art works. A wave machine generates 1.5m high waves that push you back to the exit, which is about 100 metres away - the waves only last about half that distance though. 60 metres after the wave machine, you then travel under Surf Hill, which has it's own waterfalls falling from under the ride, to another bridge. From the cave to this bridge, short but heavy waterfalls fall down an artificial cliff on the northern side. After the bridge, you arrive back at the start. Unlike Calypso Beach which has 3 entrance/exit points, Rapid River has only 1. I might be wrong but originally Rapid River was built as a 'hop on/off as you please'-type ride (like Calypso Beach) but it turned out to be so popular, that the entrance/exit was divided so there is now an official queue line and lifeguards now have instructions that they have to tell you to hop off after 1 circuit. You cannot do laps (unless, of course, the ride's queue is short enough to justify allowing laps). Once you finish 1 circuit, you must hop off and re-join the queue (unless the current of the water forces you past the exit then you get a lucky extra ride). The queue easily gets long but doesn't extend far from the start of the 'official' queue line. Imagine how long the queue would get if the lifeguards didn't have to ask people to get off after 1 circuit! If Ardent put in a decent effort with this lazy river, it would provide some serious unexpected competition for Wet 'n' Wild Gold Coast. But knowing Ardent, they would most likely do what Village Roadshow did with Wet 'n' Wild Sydney - Boomerang Bay (a generic lazy river now called Dinosaur Lagoon as they added dinosaur statues around the ride a couple of years ago) - and that will not do much (even with just adding a wave machine) in re-generating some competition between the 2 Gold Coast parks. You might as well go back to Cave Of Waves (unless you really need to relax). It depends on what the newer attraction is though. If it doesn't appeal to you, then there is still every possibility you would visit the other park with older attractions.

I preferred the original exterior design but the one they went with in the end is alright in my opinion. The actual entrance though needs an entry sign or arrow (unless it's just not visible in @themagician's photos) otherwise The Jelly Box looks like the main attraction due to it's larger entrance. The buildings next to Sea Jellies Illuminated's entrance need to be 'activated' though otherwise all that blue paint stands out too much. If those buildings aren't going to be used in the long-term, paint some more jelly fish on there so it is more aesthetic. I agree with @djrappa regarding the 2nd question but regarding the 1st question, if for most of the time it operates it is like what you see in @themagician's photos (no one in the laboratory), I don't think many people will care. If SW visibly promotes when the laboratories are being used, it will get the attention of people more. In the end though, people might still not care if they do not what research they are doing. Yes, they are researching jellyfish but what are they particularly researching about jellyfish? That would get people interested - even more so, if SW explains how the research is being conducted. Does any of that happen there @themagician?