DaptoFunlandGuy

Oh for fucks sake. and if your aunty had balls she’d be your uncle. now we’re wishing instead of wanting. Nope. Never walked through a park in freezing weather and said “man I wish I could get soaking wet!” based on your logic, wet and wild is australia’s Most popular park, because everyone wishes it was warm enough to swim. thats not how it works. now, I daresay, nobody else wants to scroll past another long response from either of us, and clearly nothing either of us says is going to convince the other, so unless we can do this in 50 words or less, let’s just leave it there, shall we?

How do you know it was profitable? despite being a sellout, it could have run at a loss, intentionally to bring back visitation, and then not been viable to run profitably...

After watching Richard's capture - i tried to replicate and did indeed get the same. The fact that the article says 'first result' is technically true, but when you have to scroll past a page of news feed results first, you don't see it on anything smaller than an iphone plus without scrolling. Its still funny, but I think its still a long bow to criticise the park.

I've had quite the offline discussion about this. I've tried firefox, explorer, firefox nightly incognito, safari, and the ios google app - not one of them returns this result. I've asked quite a few people if they could get it to happen - so far, nobody outside of Parkz staff has told me they got it that way. let me be clear - i'm not suggesting its shopped, faked or otherwise not real. I believe you got it to happen that way, and i believe other parkz staff could too (one could suggest perhaps the google profiles of Parkz staff could do with a cleanout, but one won't because a. it'd be a poor taste joke, and b. thats below the belt) I'm just saying it seems to be a very small group that could get that particular result, which leads me to my view that its probably an overly reaching statement to base a headline on "park names ride after porn star" if i may paraphrase. "Writing a few words on it" and "lambasting the park for another misstep in a series of missteps" is a far cry, especially when, in all likelihood, nobody within Ardent or Dreamworld could reproduce the search results you've gotten, and therefore they weren't to know, because there are more than 60 Million search hits for your search alone, and since its spelled differently, they probably wouldn't have found it - and nor would their target (family) market. Edit: i found someone outside of parkz staff able to replicate it - although the porn star is below the sky sports headlines instead of above.

You made the better choice.

If they need help with ride signage, I know a guy... Are you sure? "Many" as in, many people on Parkz? Or "Many" as in "many" general punters. Because i'll be honest - i don't even think many on Parkz remember that in that much detail - I knew MDMC had VR trialled, but I never knew it had a name... I'm curious as to how many of her supposed 92 titles the mod team at Parkz went through before deciding to lead with that one... Funny as it is, this story is a little more low brow than usual Parkz standards... I don't really think you're being fair here. Sure - getting the right combination into google produced a porn star. hahahah thats funny! make fun of Dreamworld everyone! The problem here is that everything else is so particular when it comes to trademark. As Parkz rightly points out at the start of the article, the name registered is SkyRyder. No space, uppercase R. The google search you did was "Sky Ryder" with a space. When I click your link, all the results I get are for the Ryder cup golf tournament (on Sky Sports channel). Interestingly enough, and again on YOUR google search link, the front page also links to the Sky Ryder zipline at 'The Waterfront, Okoboji (that's in Iowa). Nothing on this first page of results returns a porn star for me - and that's with 'safe search' switched off. As a matter of fact, try as I might, I can't get google to bring that particular personality up without spelling her name correctly... with an 'e'. When I try googling the actual registered trademark "SkyRyder" without a space, the results returned include a Metal band by that name... but even in that search, google assumes I spelled it incorrectly, and suggests "SkyRider" which - when you click through, then links to the Sky Rider at Luna Park Melbourne. As easily as I could have - with safe search off, and using your search terms, I still couldn't find it without the 'e'. I'm sorry guys - but i think you really missed the mark this time.

...on mute. @Jdude95's accolades keep rolling in. When is the network going to give him his own spin-off? years and years and years and years and years. I went hunting the scape for Wonderland content that I knew existed but it looks to have been removed now. I did however find a 2002 reference to a screamscape wonderland update on themeparkinsider - with our own @Richard Wilson debating the finer points of whether Wonderland closed... Missed it by a year Rich... https://www.themeparkinsider.com/news/response.cfm?ID=297 For those curious individuals, the intelligent seasoned CEO, Stephen Galbraith, is now CEO of Ekka. On topic, I follow a lot of YouTube channels to kill time on things disney - DisneyDan, TPMvids, Yesterworld etc - but I don't really use them to keep up to speed - Parkz is my primary source of park related happenings, and RCDB as mentioned - the bible for coasters.

Yeah the angle of them suggests the wheels were located on the tower side of them, not the station side of them. So i'm with Red Dragin - i'd say the chocks were there for lifting, and after they removed the car, they just leave them there so they can be used again when the car goes back on the track. If they wanted something to indicate work was being done, they should put something a lot bigger on the track.

I think Gazza's intention was to take words previously posted by Pushbutton and use them against him, rather than any serious meaning on his own behalf...

As usual you've missed the point. In summer, when the snow has melted, Ski Resorts repurpose much of their space into activities that can be done in the summer to try and attract the crowds. Nevertheless they are less popular during the warmer months, and tend to reduce staff, close sections of the park, and they also make less money. A water ride is not universal because it is affected by external factors. You've listed your argument based on people wanting to ride them. Fact is, I (and i'm sure a lot of other people) dont want to ride water rides when it's cold, windy, raining etc. The fact it has universal appeal only applies when its a hot day because people want to get cool. No, I didn't. And I never said that. One could easily say ...is a high thrill ride, and as such is one that we would often skip unless we hadn't eaten lunch before arrival AND we had someone to look after the kids.

I had always thought that TI had a double row fence to ensure guests couldn't lean over the fence and end up in the moat. Most big-cat enclosures have a double fence to ensure separation, in theory since if the animal could get to the fence they could grab you through it. I realise the moat may prevent the cats from reaching the fence (and hence, why its such a low one) but i'm just a little concerned that the reserved seating area may see issues arise from those guests being a little too close - mainly dropping things into the moat, etc.

Thanks Jobe for the well reasoned and thought out response. Firstly, i'm curious as to what external forum has raised my thoughts as a discussion point? care to share? As for the park's history of rides in, out and moved around, if it is a mobile (trailer mounted) ride, or an inflatable, it shouldn't require it - it shouldn't meet the definition of a 'structure' in that context. Luna should be free to engage temporary rides so long as they retain that character - temporary. Unfortunately, historic approvals don't get to stand in ad infinitem. Later revisions, legislative changes, and even the administering body can change. If I recall (and i'm not the LPS buff you are) the North Sydney Council don't exist, and even so, the park now falls under state approval... please correct me if i'm wrong. If that is accurate, then the previous approvals granted by the former council don't have to be upheld or enforced by the current administering bodies where their own policies or legislation say otherwise. The fact that public opinion, studies or polls indicate the park should remain viable as an amusement park doesn't mean the normal rules don't apply. The public wants it to stay - great - that should ensure the park is profitable due to the number of people who wish to visit it. Public opinion doesn't exempt them from following the same rules everyone else does. It's an interesting point you make regarding 'poor drafting'. It happens a lot more than you realise, where legislators don't envisage a particular mischief when writing the law - and this is why courts are relied upon to make determinations on how the legislation should be read. Where a court determines legislation should be interpreted in a way that the government does not want, they then can use that court's guidance to amend the legislation to correct it... but we should not be bemoaning a poorly drafted document and stomping our foot that it's been interpreted wrongly - if it has in fact been interpreted incorrectly, then the government who enacted the legislation should step in and change it. If they don't, its indicative that the government accepts the court's interpretation - even if it means that the legislation isn't operating how people thought it would. As for my statement that the park could install 'whatever they want' - to be clear I had meant that conditional to the knowledge that they couldn't hurt the current heritage requirements. If the position is correct, that a DA is not required, there is technically nothing preventing them from installing a ToT ride down the boardwalk, provided it doesn't interfere with the heritage aspects of the park. It could IN THEORY be done if the park required no oversight to bring a ride in. Yes, they do a lot to try and keep the park's aesthetic, and do the right thing, but protections need to be in place to ensure oversight is present, as an unscrupulous operator COULD theoretically install anything they wanted if nobody was watching over them. Just because they wouldn't, doesn't mean that they couldn't. It's not surprising that the park has been able to bring temporary attractions in for over a decade, and its interesting that the recent decisions have indicated that they require a DA for these temporary attractions - as clearly nobody else thought that was an issue for more than 10 years - including the NIMBY neighbours... otherwise its an issue that would have been pulled up much earlier. I fully support the park operator campaigning to have the decision overturned either by elevation to a higher court, or by enacting amended legislation to permit them to continue their good work with as little red tape as possible - however the park has had notice for a long time now that they would need to apply for a DA for the new ride, and nothing has stopped them from submitted a DA application in the interim, whilst they fight the decision. If the DA were approved, they could be building now in conformance with the current views, whilst campaigning to change those views for future attractions. The delayed ride at this point is all their own doing. As for 63 percent of people thinking the current decision is 'unfair' - this is likely because they don't understand why the law stands as it has been interpreted. Every person who gets a speeding ticket thinks its unfair. That doesn't mean that their view is the correct one. In general it just means the public at large aren't educated enough on the reasons why.

Ideas? I think the girl at the front is lost.

What. The. Actual. Fuck. I did not say a word in criticism of themeparkaddict. I never said he did anything wrong. If people actually READ things before slagging off, they'd note that I quoted Mickey, suggesting the aviation theme possibly originated here. All I said was describing how the theme could work aviation wise. I said it could have been me who raised it initially, but i may also have taken someone else's suggestion and expanded on it too. In no way did I direct anything at themeparkaddict, nor was it in any way a disagreement with anyone. So TPA - I don't think anyone was suggesting you did anything wrong - you shared info given to you by a staff member. We all know that staff info shared publicly isn't always reliable, and Mickey rightly pointed out that the aviation suggestion had been raised on Parkz prior to you hearing that. As usual, @pushbutton sticks his giant nose into something that has nothing to do with him, reads it wrong, and stands on his high horse over some fanciful imagination of whats in his head, without any check or balance with regard to reality. Since nobody else can be bothered doing the legwork - here's how it went down: TheMagician first suggested the rendering of i-ride looked like an airport. Pushbutton quickly backed that viewpoint up Glubbo then wondered how they would transition that into the previously-goldrushed land: Pushbutton doubled down on the previous suggestion - that the i-ride theme influence the land: Cheski also wondered, as did Glubbo, how they would blend the area around i-ride: Which brought us to my 'fuller picture' suggestion on how the whole land could be themed to aviation: To which Pushbutton agreed: Themeparkaddict's info from the staff member came to us a full week later...

I think that would possibly infringe on the film's copyright for public broadcast use - and would probably require a different licence again. To be honest, rather than showing the video on two big screens in the queue, i'd rather they devoted their time to small interactive elements throughout the queue. Things that keep guests occupied will prevent wanton vandalism and destruction...

Might have been mine originally, but I could very well have taken someone else's one-liner and run with it too. Its funny how many staff members tell guests things that are very similar to the ideas shared here... its almost as if the ride ops read these boards and then spread the rumors...

Looks to just be for roof access - the wrapping suggests its finished and they aren't going all the way round the building - so they'd have used the standard wrap probably provided by the scaffolding company... Purists will disagree, but for the sake of a stairway, i don't think a custom printed wrap for just that is necessary. It would be nice, if they eventually erect a full scaffold around the building, if they took the time to do a custom wrap for it - but given Batman's flying fox down main street was wrapped in plain green material for years, its really not the worst thing they've done lately.

Legislation? ok. First the Luna act: And from the EPAA 1979: I'll leave it there. My understanding of Brookfield's argument was that they built Hair Raiser without a DA because they claimed it didn't meet the definition of a 'building' - however the last two quotes above from the EPAA show clearly that it includes 'any structure', and a development includes the 'erection of a building' - ergo - 'the erection of any structure' - for which hair raiser was. I'm quite happy for you to counter with any legislation you believe is contrary to these points above. Among other things, the EPAA's objects include: to promote the sustainable management of built and cultural heritage (including Aboriginal cultural heritage), to promote the proper construction and maintenance of buildings, including the protection of the health and safety of their occupants, to promote the orderly and economic use and development of land, I could go on but I won't. The point is - ANYONE wishing to build something of the nature of a ride SHOULD be required to submit a DA. It is NOT the purpose of a DA to give a platform to NIMBY residents. The legislation on noise, and noise abatement, and the regulations that Luna is required to operate within is clear, as is the legislation specifically stating that complaints about noise within the limits of the development consent cannot be made. But if an attraction, ride, structure or other development within Luna was built without development consent, there would be no baseline on what noise is permissible, what light pollution is permissible. Without the development consent, there is no protection from complaint. So in order to continue to have the protection of the legislation, Luna must submit to a development application, like EVERY OTHER FUCKING PERSON WANTING TO BUILD SOMETHING within the definitions of the EPAA legislation. I want LPS to succeed. I want them to build new things to keep people interested in the park and to keep the park profitable. But I do not want them to be free to install whatever they want - the installations need to conform with the historic nature of the park. Can you imagine if they constructed a ToT style ride, with a giant monstrosity of a tower in Maloney's corner, and a track running the length of the boardwalk? The noise of which (that we know from DW) would be unbearable for all, and ruin the amenity of the park. If your view stands, that a DA isn't required, nothing would prevent them from installing ToT and GD. Nobody wants that.

Aviation is more than a small interest group. The tie-ins are vast. For starters, many of the people visiting the park will have been on a plane to get there. Aviation themes work in other parks - and Soarin is just one example of that. Although in Grizzly Peak, the area around Soarin is loaded with airport markings on the ground, shops made to look like hangars - and to be honest its a cheap and easy way to build a 'shed' and make it fit in. If the 'airports and travelling' concept wouldn't interest most people, then Tailspin should be a walk-on. So should Soarin, and so should i-ride when it opens. But it won't be - because only a "small amount of people" really care too much about theming, and the majority of park visitors just want to ride rides. Buzzsaw as mentioned could be 'red baron'. These planes still fly at airshows and joy flights and the like - and the theme means very little about the ride needs to change - perhaps change the train colours. The building can be easily rethemed to an old aircraft hangar, and the sawblades easily changed to propellers. As for what other rides, there's a plethora of rides out there themed to aviation related topics. The following list isn't necessarily advocating that the park get these rides (some are quite old), but just an example that there's plenty out there that has proven successful: Kid's ride - a "red baron" ride - see 'Dick Dastardly's Flying Circus' at Wonderland Paratrooper ride (i think Dreamworld used to have one of these) Parachute Jump ride (think Green Army men Parachute Drop at Disney) A B&M Flyer could find a home here too Centrifugal motion sim (think Mission Space) - there used to be one in Parramatta Intencity Think 'peter pan's flight' as a dark ride opportunity (themed differently), suitable for the whole family Theming is easy too. You could construct a wide body jet, with first class or business class seats as a dining experience. And remember - modern jet aircraft have Turbines - it's like the theme was made for Dreamworld! Plus - you could partner up with Qantas, or Virgin, and have items from their history of aviation as a walkthrough to fill additional space until you're ready to build the next big attraction (like Brock) Check out Aviodrome theme park in the netherlands for some of what they do too.

Vintage cars... I'll assume Stingray when it was a roulette wheel was moved...? What else has been moved to meet the definition 'many' (i'm asking - i'm not as up on my Dreamworld History) I guess, Tailspin could be moved for the sake of consistent theming, but following my previous point about wasteful spending, I can't see the park doing that currently. You need something to occupy its current location - you don't rip it out unless you need something else to go there (case in point - vintage cars). Besides - although Dreamworld may have relocated some rides previously - they've shown that consistently themed areas isn't high on their agenda - motorsport spread between MDMC and Redline\Hot Wheels\Brock, Zombies in Ocean Parade, ToT in every land they have...

The suggestion isn't that far-fetched though. if the land between i-ride and GD was suitably themed with a few flats, and outlets, you could tie the whole area in - the i-ride being the terminal and GD being the control tower for the runway. You could easily pave a path from one to the other painted like a giant runway with other attractions and outlets spaced around it like hangars. See this post for more: And is it really that far away? Both Soarin' and Grizzly River Run in DCA are part of "Grizzly Peak" land. Here's a comparison. (I realise the google scale isn't PRECISELY the same, but its as close as I could get - so imagine the DCA paths are even longer than shown in the comparison) - i've taken the lines from attraction entrance to attraction entrance - DCA from SOarin's front gate to Grizzly, and in DW from the front of the cinema to the front of the GD queuehouse. The red lines indicate walking paths to get there.

So you agree that it would replace the existing spooky coaster? Wait - now you're saying a second ride? #Confused So if i'm to make sense of what you're saying, they need to bring the scooby MoM ride to MWGC, and you've suggested it should replace a coaster that is currently having massive works undertaken for a 'thematic enhancement' that they'd surely want a return on investment on, but you're ok with it being within the queue house, even though the themes \ universes clash, unless someone can come up with another place to put it - like in Wild West or WB Kids, or the Justice League superhero area perhaps? Seriously - people have really tried to be nice here, but at this point I think we're beyond that and i'm just going to say it... HAVE YOU LOST YOUR FUCKING MARBLES? Ok. Now that we have that out of the way, let's take stock of a few things... You think the ride system is good you think Movie World should get that ride system you think the theme is good you think movie world should essentially copy the theme and story from the existing MoM attraction. In rebuttal - let me offer a few counterpoints The ride system is apparently very good, however - when you look at what other attractions MWGC has, you'll note the Sally Corp dark ride next to Batwing - Justice League - which is a tracked dark ride. Note also that very soon after this was built, an overseas park built a bigger and better one, with better technology. Although good, having another dark ride similar to justice league would probably result in one of them being regarded as the poorer cousin, diluting your audience appeal and possibly resulting in a much lower ridership on one or the other - negating one of their investments (note - this rule doesn't generally apply the same way on rollercoasters, as the ride system is typically different enough to continue to hold interest and relevance - although older coasters do tend to suffer attendance when newer coasters are installed too) Conclusion - The park probably worked on a lower budget, probably because they couldn't afford to have the budget of an overseas park with much bigger cash reserves - this is also easily translated across to Abu-Dhabi, which also have much bigger budgets and much bigger (oil) reserves. The Scooby theme is relatively timeless. The canon is huge, with movies both animated and live action, cartoon series, comics, video games, books and many more. Of course the theme is good. The issue you run into is what licence the park has to operate it. Quite likely the park has licensed only the live action film, as all aspects of Scooby within the park fit within the live action film canon. To expand into the classic villains or other parts of the Scooby universe, you would likely need to obtain an additional license, or an expansion to the existing one, all of which costs money. Conclusion: Paying more money to essentially have two (or a single, different) attractions with the same theme as you already have is pretty stupid - when the average punter isn't worried about which season a particular animatronic comes from. Does it have scooby doo? Check! Case closed. At the end of the day, and has been pointed out, you aren't likely to get THIS ride brought to the GC anytime soon, given the current investment in the existing ride, and the ridiculous nature of having TWO rides themed to the same thing. You might have an argument to bring in the same ride SYSTEM with a different theme, except as pointed out - similarities would be drawn to Justice League that would see one or the other suffer (Fanboys take note - i'm aware of the existence of trackless dark rides, and tracked shooters in parks like Disney - See Hong Kong's Mystic Manor and Buzz Lightyear Astroblasters) however the execution level of a park such as MWGC would mean comparisons would be inevitable (whereas MM and BLAB would be unlikely to be compared). So the final option you have is to wait until SDSC has reached 'end of life'. Given the current re-theme, and the completely indoor and sheltered nature of the track and ride system, the ride arguably has at least another decade left in it. Do you really want to advocate installing an attraction at that point, when it is already a decade old elsewhere? Surely there'd be more modern ride systems by then? Maybe we'll have floorless flying darkrides in the future working on magnetic levitation?

I assume you're referring to WBMWGC... Yes. They should install a second scooby doo ride, immediately after investing years and dollars into revamping their existing scooby doo attraction.

Yeah look - i've seen these hoarding facades done by disney, both down HKDL main street and also their castle. The main street hoarding was nice (pretty much just as you see in Roachie's post above) but the castle hoarding looked horrible: Even the mouse uses "plain" (figuratively speaking) hoardings in some areas... this was the redevelopment of fantasy gardens and surrounds at HKDL in 2015... and it was only standard hoarding height (just as DW has) - it didn't mask the excavators or other stuff on site: I kinda lean towards Skeeta's argument though - why waste money? The mouse certainly can afford a custom wrap \ print for all their works, but in the cases highlighted by Roachie, those facades covered existing buildings that look identical to the wrap. Work is done on the facade behind the wrap or hoarding, and is reused every time they do maintenance on them. The hoarding can be attached physically to the structure. In the case of the i-Ride \ DW Cinema, the existing facade was to be removed. The new facade wasn't built and is far too complex to be represented by a static 2D wrap, but finally - if the hoarding were to be built to the height of the building - 2-3 stories tall, as it couldn't be attached to the building for support (due to demolition) it would need to be free-standing. Thats an incredibly tall SAIL that could catch wind and risk toppling over onto guests. It'd require significantly more investment of time and money to build, and would need to be SIGNIFICANTLY anchored to prevent it from falling over - meaning it would likely need to be spaced even further out from the building, which would in turn occupy more park space. And while its been mentioned, i'll address the cost point. Sure - small parks and big parks do it. But not parks currently bleeding money and writing down the book value of their park to the bare cost of the land alone. They need to recover, and to do that they need to build something to bring people back, but they also need to do it without being wasteful. This doesn't mean the quality of the attraction should suffer, but it does mean unnecessary things - like completely covering a 3 storey building with a standalone structure (when the dogs balls that is the back of the theatre and other buildings previously hidden by Eureka hasn't been mentioned at all) - is simply an expense they could (and should in their current circumstances) do without.