DaptoFunlandGuy

I'm not denying my involvement. And sure, I do relate it to topics where it is relevant - but that's because its a park i'm most familiar with. It's not like i'm just randomly starting threads about the park all the time... that'd be weird.

Who said anything I said was concrete? Am I not allowed to express an opinion different to yours? And I never said the MI series would 'stop' (although I do think they should stop with the whole 'MI' thing and just announce a new ride when it happens. As you say - you don't know either - so your opinion is just as educated as mine, and we're both entitled to express them. Nowhere in there did I say "stop". Nowhere in there did I say it was based on anything solid, but just my own views an opinions after visiting parks, working in parks, and talking to people who know things. I'll agree that AW Is a different model to most parks given it's funding arrangements, so sure, much of what I take into consideration may not apply to it in the same way, and i'm happy to be proven wrong. I'd love to see the little park grow... however as @Roachie points out - rapid massive expenditure cannot be sustained, and i'd hate for the park to suffer because they spent beyond their means. I have no ending for this so i'll just leave off with this.

Dude, it's a park that no longer exists. Its very different to critiquing current and ongoing operations. I wasn't saying you had a bias, I was pointing out that you just showed very good reasons why some people think you do.

I just don't see them being able to sustain their current growth is all. Even VRTP we typically discuss how 'this is sea world's year' or 'movie world got X and Y so now it's Sea World's turn for something new' - and that's three very high profile parks in one of the biggest tourism (especially domestic tourism) hotspots in the country. I wouldn't say what i've been saying is 'dire' (once again the defence against even the most reasonable arguments) - i'm simply saying that i can't see them maintaining their current stamina, and I envisage a slowdown. Dire would be that they're selling off the land, demolishing the park, and putting up a parking lot... or something... so i don't think "i predict they'll ease off the pedal a bit going forward" can be classed as dire. Have you ever tried glass? I hear its far more effective than rose coloured glasses... not every comment about AW needs to be defended like I just called your mother a dirty word.

^And you wonder why people think you have a bias...

As I usually do - facts and research. All the figures quoted come either from Parkz or the manufacturer. Yes of course, there are many towers out there. Tim made the suggestion that he'd like to see them get an Intamin version like falcons fury. It's quite at the top of the scale in terms of the range, and realistically is probably not something within AW's budget. (I mean - yes, they can probably fund\finance it, but would it deliver the bang for buck that they're getting in Busch Gardens. The ROI just isn't there yet. I don't want to turn this into yet another debate of "AW is or isn't this or that" because i've already reached the conclusion that you're very protective over your local park, and always defend it against even the most well reasoned arguments. But it's no busch gardens. And I don't consider the Larson tower to be a 'downgrade'... at least it would work! (and for the general population of the park, replacing an old ride that breaks down constantly with a new one thats shiny, and has a pretty impressive LED lighting package that AW could really make use of - that would honestly be an ICON on the skyline of the park (and be seen all around too) - I don't see why you'd consider it to be a downgrade. It's affordable in comparison, and similar enough that you could plonk it down, call it 'inferno 2', give it the same colour scheme, go all out with the LED light package - and I'd challenge you to find a single person in the park who would consider it to be 'inferior' (besides tim or yourself).

But surely not before they've completed the currently announced construction? Case in point: I'd say it's probably on the cards they're holding - but not a card they plan to play 'in the near future'... The trouble is (and this is on both sides of the highway) that many angry responses on social media show that they let this run too long. For years, many of us have bemoaned the $99 tickets (in whatever seasonal variation they have) and it's given many a sense of entitlement - that the theme parks are a place to go after school several times a week. I grew up not far from a theme park, but never had an annual pass growing up (until i could work a job to afford my own) - not even as a christmas present. we went there for a single day every couple of years, and it was an amazing treat - a fun filled day, where we raced from one ride to another trying to fit in as much as possible. When I see locals posting on the social pages of the parks complaints that the park has made the fast track too expensive for them to buy 'every time they visit' and getting pissed that 'they're only offering them at prices tourists can afford' it makes me extremely happy. At least in America - you've got to pay hundreds of dollars to be considered a passhole. Down under - you could do that for $79 summer specials (until june 30). Can someone tell Dr Weiss that since they merged WWW back into DW that the use of the plural is probably no longer appropriate?

Very well said GGB - and sadly - in the time it takes them to reach a baseline - the baseline will have moved due to the continual change required.

Oh do untwist your knickers. This isn't Dreamworld where capacity is desperately needed. A fully functioning hair raiser type tower would still be carrying more guests than a broken down Inferno. At 360pph theoretical, its not too dissimilar to Goliath's 400pph. A 2x8 gondola giant drop is only hitting 500pph. Dreamworld is regularly operating only one side in off peak, so at 250pph - is it really worth the extra money to go Intamin?

I don't think they're ready for an intamin giant drop. for what they are, they're better off with a hair raiser type tower. Mainly because it's cheaper. As for "mi7" and "2025" I predict AW is going to have a very big slow down in their developments... they can still call them "MI" but the M will more likely stand for "minimal"... I don't think they've got the ability to keep their previous stamina going - and anything beyond 2020 is pure pipe dream.

i'd honestly thought part of it might be a bit of a promo \ scoreboard type thing, but advertising and\or showing "the big game" so people can watch while they bash balls isn't a bad idea. obviously unique because none of their other installations have a water tank right beside them, but i do hope that they actually make good use of these things.

It's time to scrap it methinks. with that and the ship though, they're leaving a huge hole in their lineup. they should put in something similar to hair raiser at LPS and be done with it...

indeed - i'd hoped for a much bigger set of panels...

To be fair, the incidence of unemployment was pretty much at a record high level in 1982 when they opened. In just a year, between August 1982 and August 1983, the number of long-term unemployed in Australia more than doubled, from 88,000 to 189,000, which is staggering when you consider that in the prior 8 years, between August 1973 and August 1981, the number of long-term unemployed increased from 4,000 to 80,000... And in the years that followed, From August 1983 and August 1988, the number of long-term unemployed fell by only 36,000 to 153,000... the 80's were a really shitty time to not have a job. So to me it looks like a smart business decision - offer a discount for people who are unemployed, to encourage them to visit at the reduced rate - better for them to have the $7 unemployed admission than to miss out on a full priced adult ticket because it was too expensive to visit. I'm not about to go into the flipside of the coin - the whole 'unemployed shouldn't be spending money visiting theme parks' and such - but for a business trying to make money - its still a sound concept when unemployment is a third of the adult working population... (*i'm not trying to give you an economics lesson, but the stats are pretty shit all over - and this is as much for those who aren't as wise. Info sourced from ABS) I think he was talking about this $7 deal in the video:

That's quite reminiscent of the Wonderland pre-opening posters etc.

^Just as a random aside - this isn't to try and nitpick, i'm not having a go - but i guess just to educate those unfamiliar with them that it looks as though they are using a telehandler, rather than a forklift. Both usually have 'forks', and both can lift (which is why many will just call them a fork lift) one is just capable of basic vertical movement, whereas the other has an extendable (*tele*scopic) boom, so it is a little more versatile in it's capability. Cue flames from those who dislike my pedantry.

if they cannot bring the surfboards back, they should take the one that is a single piece, and mount it on the wave. I know the wave isn't structural, so it'd need some work to mount it - and i don't want them to do it if it means shutting down and dismantling the ride again for any length of time - it'd be cool to see it like that. Even if they can't attach it to the ride structure, it'd be awesome to have them find SOME way of putting them back within the ride area.

Of course not, but at the same time, paying for the rights to screen a film (even a 4d one) is hardly the same thing as installing millions of dollars in hardware. Ok sure - a manufacturer is offering a payment plan for parks that can't afford the upfront cost - sure i'll work with that description - but on that basis I can't see DW passing the credit check...

The cynic in me still looks at this statement with skepticism. I mean - we know trolls and the theatre are confirmed in the works, but with Trolls being a 12 month thing, its not a long standing investment in the park, and as has been referred to elsewhere on parkz - we don't know exactly how much of the theatre is actually coming out of dreamworld's pocket? It sort of stinks of Sunway Leisure and Wonderland - minimal window dressing, as far as the trolls thing is concerned, and clearly the suggestions of brogent's contribution \ partnership, although not really something paralleled at Wonderland still has that 'outside contractor feel' to it. Are they really investing? Or is it just window dressing?

How does the arrangement work out then? Unless it is to be an upcharge (which I find completely preposterous) where do Brogent profit from the deal? Dreamworld gives them a percentage of the gate? of course not... When they were bringing it to brisbane, it would likely have been a standalone product that would succeed or fail on it's own - and profits or losses based on a 'per ride' basis. if this is to be included in park admission (and it had better be) then I can't see brogent paying for the entire concept without something in return... what could that be? a chance to demonstrate the tech and sell more of these things around Australia? possibly - but hardly something worth ~$30M in a demo... and if DW are to pay 'licensing' or 'usage' fees - its going to end up costing them the same - just in a long game... and if i were brogent - i'd be hesitant about a 'deferred cost' arrangement over the long term in a park whose long term future is being regularly questioned at present...

yeah many of the sites have since stopped giving google the free link access, so those workarounds almost never work anymore. What i've found is if you search the article title, and snoop around, you can find a UK news-mirror site that publishes the same article because of newswire \ AAP, and they don't have paywalls - so that sometimes works, but unfortunately not every article is republished by foreign press...

Yeah I think the issue is that most people wouldn't read it, but those who did would say 'you said i could wear it - you never said it would fall off! I think they'd need to be very explicit telling them if they wear their hat and it falls off, it won't be retrieved. the problem there i guess is that there is a risk of sucking a hat into a pump, and although the pumps are pretty strong - always a risk that damage will be done, so in the end - stopping people from wearing them is necessary.

^Look I wasn't suggesting that the rest of Australia shouldn't feature, or be skimmed, just looking at some start and end images that could be tied to the park. You make very good points about my thoughts, and they're all pretty fair - but just something tied into the park itself... ideally i'd see it start and end at the park in some fashion, with a full trip around the country being the meat of the ride.

But not a fucking hat in the sun... Like, i totally get they probably have issues with hats flying off on the splashdown, and then have all sorts of issues having to retrieve it because people get insanely angry about something that's their own fault, but can't we just: put up a sign on the final lifthill advising riders to 'hold onto your hats as we cannot retrieve them if they fall into the water', or: just make everybody wear a perspex cover that is bolted to the floor - kind of like a cone of silence - to prevent their hat from coming off?

This. For all those who were crapping on about the increase in prices being a bad idea - this. Look, i'm firmly in the Apple camp as far as phones go - which makes Dreamworld either Android or Nokia\Windows phone... i'm leaning towards Windows phone. This is also part of the answer to the 'why topgolf' thread. Sure, not a theme park, but its all so very in the same vein. They say mid-june but I really hope they chop and change the date within that month just to screw with all these groups that are already announcing launch day meetups and such... Good on you guys for calling them out on a shitty excuse. Shortening the season is probably a smart move given the current loss-making results - but you can always market things differently to encourage attendance in off peak times too. Not spending money on it is a solution that will polarise. But if you consider that just down the road, Wonderland only ran 'the beach' through the warmer months of the year too, it makes sense that getting 'the season' right is important to their profitability. On the other hand, my thoughts for WnWS are this - as a standalone waterpark in an area that isn't hot for most of the year, there is going to be the low periods - we have however seen water park style attractions work in cooler climates as well - so it's not a single solution. What they could do though - is double down. Look to build a dry park within close proximity so that each anchors the other. Shared resources will reduce costs as you can make use of both facilities to support the other's activities (ie - a precinct area - where the professional kitchens in one attraction might support the food service activities in another attraction, for example...) Nothing says they need a fully fledged movie world built on day one - but a start, with an anchor E-ticket attraction or two at the cheaper end, a few flats and some filler, with plenty of room to expand... perhaps with lessons identified, their second Sydney attempt could be even better - and it is something Sydney is screaming for.