DaptoFunlandGuy

I had the opportunity to ride this a week ago, and I must say I find the restraint to be quite ridiculous. The pivoting leg bar is fine, but when you add an additional bar below it (forming a box in each seat) it practically crushes your legs - especially the person sitting on the outside, as the pivot point means the corner of the 'box' digs in lower as the bar is brought down. Has anyone else experienced this?

I see where you're going with this, but I'm not sure I agree. Take magic mountain as an example - yes, many of their more recent additions do take more of a 'plonked' attitude, but their 'Justice League' area is tied in well - with Green Lantern, Batman, Riddler, Flash, Wonder Woman all gathered together with a cohesive theme, including the food outlets, etc. Superman for obvious reasons is located a fair way away, but the towers (including Lex) stand at the entrance to the Justice League area too. Their WB children's area is also really nicely done. There are many other areas of the park that have great theming - even if it's just a small area with one ride. Although clearly on a larger scale, I wouldn't consider them any less a 'theme' park than say - Movie World. I'm sure comparisons could be made for many other SF or CF parks.

The off topic topic has again raised the great debate - what actually constitutes a theme park? Based on the above, I respectfully disagree with the assessment. Firstly, let's set the scene and a few ground rules - I'm sure we all agree Disneyland is undeniably a theme park. Uncle Walt practically wrote the book (of course, utilising ideas of others), and Disney Parks are usually well regarded as 'theme parks'... however, to set the bar at "disney level" or "$100Million per attraction" level is a bit unachievable for all but the big guys. Now - based on the definition above we take a few things - firstly - Disneyland isn't a park with a single unifying setting. It has different lands, but - each land DOES have a (for the most part) unifying setting. Movie World certainly has different areas or lands, and each has a unifying setting or idea (although those waters have been muddied in recent times). Dreamworld likewise had different areas or lands each with their own unifying setting or idea. Again, muddied waters more recently. So, in my opinion - an amusement park is a collection of attractions, where each attraction is essentially 'plonked' into a space that will fit, with no thought given to the surroundings. You can certainly "theme" each attraction and give it elaborate props and styling and signage, but if it doesn't relate to the things around it, it fails as a 'themed land or area'. This is where I tend to disagree with those Perth based fans of adventure world. Mostly, each attraction in it's own right is themed well to a cohesive theme, but those themes don't tend to interact well with the other things around it. Sea World, on the other hand, does well to keep it's theme. It's a marine park, yes - but see, that's the theme - the unifying setting or idea is that of water, ocean, marine life, the "Sea". It does make one scratch one's head when looking at previous attractions like the Dinosaurs, and of course, not everything Nickelodeon is 'sea' themed, but they've at least made the effort to have spongebob related attractions (at least 4 by my count) along with a Nick-theme applied to their other kiddie attractions. Wet N Wild (GC) is a hard one to answer, but it's usually easy to exclude them as "water park". Although they've tried to have unified settings for attractions in close proximity in the past (Extreme H2O zone, Calypso), lately its become a matter of 'plonking' wherever it fits. Are the GC parks "well themed" theme parks? Not when compared to Disney. Are they theme parks? in my opinion (and with the above caveats) - yes. So... over to you. What do you think makes a theme park?

Push, in all honesty - it's not that i don't like you as a person - as you pointed out, we've never met - so to take a dislike to a person i've never met seems a little odd. On the other hand, I find many of your opinions objectionable, and as you so rightly pointed out to @T-bone recently - everyone is entitled to have and voice their opinion. This means you are free to express your opinion, and I am free to express my opinion of your opinion. You are of course free not to comment in reply - that is your prerogative, but i'll certainly call a spade a spade, and bullshit bullshit, where I see it... this means I will continue to comment on or about any of your posts where I see the need. If a mod feels i've crossed a line, they'll certainly address it. If they don't, then clearly, it is acceptable to post! I'm not keen to derail another thread on your whinging, so if you do feel the desire to take the (de)bait, feel free to send me a PM. As for this particular discussion regarding theme parks, although this is the 'off topic' topic, i feel a discussion on theme parks (and what they are) probably deserves it's own topic - so i'm off to create one. See you there!

Not the first time, probably not the last.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. He's like the BoM, or Higgins Storm Chasing - people only talk about his predictions when he's right. They forget all the times he was wrong.

But you can add sprinkles!

Can we really blame Dreamworld though? (yes, probably). Honestly, there's enough going on on Parkz to drive one to drink, let alone what the parks actually do.

That comes at a cost, and an unnecessary one at that, which can be better spent on improving the venue with other offerings. As the space occupied by the infrastructure becomes needed for other things, part of the construction budget can be allocated to remove the old parts occupying those sites, at far less expense than a single, large removal. I daresay you'd probably have objectors to heavy machinery being moved through some of the lush forest the coaster now resides in too - its grown for years over and around that track, and you'd ruin the area, just for the sake of removing some track which ultimately will simply be reclaimed by the forest. In 50 years, it'll be as much an attraction as the coal mine...

I have memories from age 4 and earlier. We've already made the decision not to take him to the states to do Fl and Ca until he's a bit older, but i'm comfortable he'll enjoy the experience, and remember the trip well enough.

Aren't the Matterhorn Bobsleds technically classed as 'built in-house' ? I mean, I know Arrow are joint collaborators with WED, but it was also Arrow's first coaster, and Disney bought Arrow in 1960 - a year after Matterhorn opened... Sure, they'd contributed to several of the early Disneyland attractions, but it was still a relatively unknown manufacturer, who had never built a coaster before... So, while I agree with you that you don't find them often, I really need to disagree with you regarding Cannibal being the first - 56 years after Matterhorn opened.

More likely, someone took the same copy-and-paste spiel they always use and didn't bother to proof read it to ensure it was up to date...

Fixed.

i think he means the design - like some of the dye-sub printed t-shirts with the full colour all-around imagery they've been flogging a few months ago.

Cue a corny joke by someone on the forum about how its dreamworld and you're supposed to use your imagination about good merchandise... followed by a boxing day countdown.

You should get that looked at by a doctor.

true, but the skyline impact would look amazing, and hopefully iconic enough that when they remove something old, it prompts them again to replenish with something new and just as iconic...

Correct, however prior to the demolition of GoldRush, there wasn't space in the park that would have an impact. We spoke a while back about something over the island, but so far back it doesn't have that 'wow'. Dreamworld recently marketed using a park 'silhouette' (that accidentally had Superman Escape in it) - imagine the Skyline if it had the entrance, flanked by a giant woody on one side, HWSW on the other, with ToT behind!

And two more on the right. How wonderful someone is finally thinking about polos. Unfortunately, its at the park I don't hold a pass to, and they didn't have polos the whole time i did... so screw them.

You only have to ask if there is something specific you're looking for. I don't normally check it unless someone asks if its been updated.

i'd be happy with an off-the-shelf product, provided it is of the type we don't already have here (such as the aforementioned wing coaster). The ride type would speak for itself, minimising customisation costs, and still delivering on wow factor. Vekoma are great manufacturers - even Disney uses them extensively - but they use them because they can customise things EXACTLY how they want - and that comes at a cost. Plus, their ancestors are well known on the east coast (both Arrow and Vekoma coasters have long called Australia home) As stated - Intamin and Mack are likewise long term residents on the coast - and its time for something different. Personally, I think an amazing new woody would impress the market, and give one hell of a WOW on the highway (especially if it were to overtake most of the old goldrush, blue lagoon and BB ampitheatre area) - but they better get in quick before someone else steals the idea...

What about the Kung Fu Panda fountain?

Is the floor still free?

Fixed I'm quite open in admitting i'm lazy. I have more important things to do than iron. I'll happily iron up a set of business clothes when the occasion requires it, but that's 2-3 times a fortnight. A polo is more comfortable, and less time out of my day. Less time ironing is more time working on finishing projects... ;)

Forget everything else! These are the real issues! The number of fountains closed is too damn high! *bangs fist* (i'm not having a go at you GCAF - just had a little giggle that it was something you noticed!)