DaptoFunlandGuy

It wouldn't be too difficult for a community like this to affect statistics like that very quickly though.

Yeah but adding it on to PC would require an associated uplift in cost. Right now PC is great for a 'touch of aussie farm life' for foreign tourists. PC would end up becoming the poor cousin to an entirely different experience, and would be lost quickly. No - theres plenty of land around there for them to do something spectacular without encroaching on the other parks. Draw a diagram and right now the VRTP land at Oxenford has WnW, AOS, the Studios and MW in a line along the highway - then theres a big land buffer between those three, and PC, only some of which is used for pastures for AOS. Rather than tack something onto an existing park - i think the 'Separate gate' suggestion by Joz is horrible in Sea World, but has real promise out the back at Oxenford. Whilst we've all said the GC wouldn't support another theme park that offers the same thing, Wild is something different to everything that is out there at the moment. For such a unique experience, wouldn't a separate gate be worth it (provided some provisions for passholders [even expensive ones] were made?) Think Disney's Animal Kingdom or Singapore Zoo??? This would also add yet another element to the Oxenford Studios offering to bring more film companies to our shores...

^ So that settles it. Amusement park it is!

I think part of their problem 'down under' with a seasonal theme park is that their staff don't have anywhere else to go in the off season, so you're likely to have itinerant workforce that aren't invested in the park, and don't care, because at the end of the season, they're out of a job.

I think his meaning is simply that, to be a 'theme' park, rather than an 'amusement' park, you need to have cohesive themes for each area - eg: not have Start of sarcasm high speed motorcycle roller coaster End of sarcasm next to an area themed to be a riverside backwater. V8 race cars on 'ocean parade' along with an alien>zombie skirmish The park once had cohesive themes with each ride in each area suited to that area. As things have progressed, new rides have been chosen, and then placed based on 'where they fit physically' rather than 'where they fit the theme'. For example - Tower of Terror doesn't really fit the theme of any part of the park it runs through, but it had to be placed there as it was really the only place in the park where a ride-track that length, along with all the associated infrastructure, and not be in a position that would upset animals... Many people are of the opinion that Dreamworld can no longer call themselves a theme park. That, is what he meant.

Wow Joz, You have an incredible imagination! Such wild and fanciful suggestions...

I'm almost certain Jungle River Cruise is something that they're aware of. And I didn't mean Movie World should expand (I'm almost certain GCCC won't approve any more construction as far back as WWF is), i meant they need to think about using their other land differently. Also - WWF is not, and has not been themed to the 'Wild Wild West' movie franchise for many years. It used to be the 'Wild Wild West Adventure Ride' and now is just 'Wild West Falls'.

Why would they hire a security manager (and allow him to hire his incapable partner's security company also) instead of a good one? They don't always make the smartest move - neither do you or I. One thing - and this is separate to the concept plans to what we got - but many people have commented on the lack of landscaping and 'theme' around the park, both here and on facebook. I've seen photos of Wonderland when it first opened (i went to the pre-opening but was a bit too young to remember). I visited Movie World 2 years after it opened also. One thing that strikes me about both is the lack of established trees and landscaping. I don't think Calypso Beach was fully-grown shrubbery when it first opened either. The point is - judge the landscaping in 3 or 4 years when it's had time to establish and grow. Sure they could have shipped in fully-grown plants trees, but the additional costs to landscape such an area are both prohibitive and unnecessary. More shade and shrubbery will take hold over time. The other thing to remember is that they rushed to get this place open for this season, and it's popularity is proving that was a smart move as they keep extending trading hours... but at some stage, they will close for the season, at which point, they can come in, and start fixing up all the little things that aren't quite right, planting, repairing or replacing plants, and by next summer, all the gardens will thrive... Just give it time. When Disneyland opened in 1955, nothing worked.

Come on guys, Richard introduced the sarcasm tags for just such an occasion... Start of sarcasm besides of which you're totally off base and all turbines have been used properly and appropriately. End of sarcasm

i think they've got a good balance around the traps - all the parks are close to a critical mass - there isn't much room left without dramatically altering the park layouts. They need to use up some of the extra land they're sitting on, rather than continuously cramming it all into the same small spaces...

^which will tell you a helluva lot more than actually revealing anything. Given conversations by other members here that AREN'T employees (that were later deleted or edited), there are several people out there that have an idea of what VRTP are thinking, but those people, like employees, are currently bound by confidentiality. In time, when they're ready, they'll tell us. In the meantime, we'll just have to keep speculating.

From what little we know about wild, the reclaimed land was to be mostly animal enclosure. Timeframes around land reclaimation relate mainly to foundations construction, because you need to allow the land time to settle before having it bear solid, dead weight. That said - Dubai have taken land reclaimation technologies to the next level. We don't know what was planned for the guest areas - there was some speculation they were boats - which would mean little settling would be required. Otherwise, if they put piles or other foundations through the sand to the bedrock, then it wouldn't matter about the settlement either. Without further details we don't really have any idea what would have been needed to make Wild happen.

Start of sarcasm Can you get a shot of an ibis eating a Krispy Kreme no more than 6 feet away from a Tiger walking down ocean parade? End of sarcasm

I'm with Brad. They've taken great pains to erase all references to Wild. So far all they've done is reclaim land which they can use for any purpose (a new coaster would go well in there but i think Sea World is a little coaster heavy at present)... We'll just have to wait and see, but at least rest assured that VRTP may leave an area sit for a while, but it's usually because they're working on something fantastic to replace it - Bermuda - storm, Batman - Justice League.... Whatever comes along i'm sure it will be worth the wait.

I doubt it.

Misleading thread title is misleading.

Geocities still exists?

I don't think it was - there was discussion on these boards a long time ago, where someone suggested putting it into the Roxy. I think Gazza did some 'MSPAINT' work to show it wasn't feasible, and that was probably the end of it.

Pretty sure that WAS stingray with a retheme in between.

*cough* insurance job *cough* adventure world *cough*

^ I think the man has it!

I haven't seen the above video (*stupid work gateway) so will withhold my comments on the above until later... I disagree the truck was smaller. At it's travelling width, it's easily 2.5-3 metres wide, and it then has 'fold out wings' which extend it further. My best guess on the fixed ramp would be about 5 metres... so if the truck is 3, and has wings that are 1metre each, thats 5... if its a little less, sure - but this ramp isn't THAT much bigger than the travelling ramp. And yes, if they're using the screen the way it was used for HWSD - as some scenes are done on screen, and others have the live actors interacting with the screen. Green screen effects (as mentioned above) would require use of the screen to show the end result - so yes, a view of the screen IS necessary.

As i've said before, usually you need a much bigger down-ramp because some of the tricks kick the bike sideways - it gives a greater margin for error. They also do ride up the down ramp to gee up the crowd parked at the top - so they do need space to turn around. They have also done 2 and 3 riders consecutively, and each of them 'tangents' off to a different part of the landing ramp so they don't all hit in the same place in case of a crash. The covering is probably better than I expected. It's not great - but it's no worse than the 'door' that the car used to drive through at the end that was constantly blown by the wind... As for NYFA - my guess is - work experience for them, and cheap (free?) promotional film crew for them to do the new advertisements, as well as any 'on-screen' footage within the arena... One little concern I have looking at some of those pics - does this new ramp block the big-screen for guests at the extreme northern end of the arena?

Basically there was the trailer mount base, (with wooden stairs around it) and right-angled triangular trusses similar to this - http://www.funtime.com.au/data/images/flyer7.jpg There was no vertical construction at that time.

Rean, where did you make the connection to the NYFA guys? I looked at the link, I can't see a connection, other than proximity...