webslave

What I found interesting was that the article didn't really make anything of the fact the collection is at Dreamworld.

https://www.whichcar.com.au/news/peter-brock-car-collection-sold-off

Today on the radio I heard them referring to it as Australia's only "flight simulator". Where the fuck do they even find staff for their marketing department?

Haha, take it easy man. I'd be surprised if a cursory search found no such obsession in your posting history. That's without mentioning the 'W' word

"Extravagant" isn't really a word that comes to mind when I see that. Maybe "austere" might be a better fit.

You'd be a big fan of the Ekka, then?

S'alright ol' Skeet - I'm not accusing you of war crimes. You're a good egg.

A good point, but a debatable one. See, I'd have figured that if the park were willing to operate SDSC that they'd have managed to do it in such a way that it didn't dominate the experience (ie; I don't recall too well, but is the now-darker-than-usual dark-ride section over fairly quickly and the rest of it is good?) - but from reading the OP's call I'm now thinking that's not the case.

That really is some fine victim-blaming, but I'm not sure it's grounded in a lot of truth. Allow me to present you with an alternative narrative; the OP has travelled to the park with his partner. Being a park enthusiast it's likely the visit to the park was either for him, or initiated by him which gives him some skin in the game as to the quality of the overall experience by him and his partner. If you'd been telling your partner that you should really go to Movie World because you hear it's pretty good lately I think you'd be a little embarrassed in front of your partner too when you find the staff scarcely make eye-contact, rides are bereft of themeing, and the host of other legitimate issues identified. It's no different to talking up a restaurant to your mates (service, food), and then turning up and getting shit food and service. It's not your fault, but you feel a little embarrassed for having suggested it in the first place. Sure, you might not go to a theme park for the explicit purpose of being greeted by ticket or ride staff, but you should expect that when you have to interact with people representing the brand that they are welcoming, friendly, and knowledgeable as part and parcel of standard operating procedure. You may not expect that lightbulbs are checked nightly, but you similarly should not expect to have an indoor rollercoaster stripped of themeing. Bathrooms are not the reason you go to a theme park, nor is signage, nor is shade, nor is seating - but they are all integral to what you do go to a theme park for.

I reckon you're right on the money.

You're welcome, buddy: https://www.brooklyndepot.com.au/ (Also, the lobster mac and cheese is usually pretty good too)

Last trip to MW I figured I'd rather die than eat at Gotham (long wait, terrible value, shit-house food, nowhere to eat it), Dirty Harrys seemed pricey and didn't really appeal (don't think much of Mexican food in general, so figured Mexican food at MW would be a one-way trip to diarrhea-district) so we ended up at Ricks. It was alright *shrugs*. Would have killed for Ricks versus the crap that Dreamworld served up when we next visited there. I feel about as good about eating at the parks as I do buying food and beverage packages at the cinema. You know you're copping a rod up the rear on price, and you know the quality is far below what it should/could be.

I guess the other option - and this is probably heresy - is to offer worthwhile food and beverage options in the park at reasonable prices?

If you're keen on an animal park you'll go to a zoo or wildlife sanctuary first and foremost. If you're keen on fish you'll go to an aquarium. Sea World is meant to be the point where theme park meets the the first two. Right now it's failing in that mission, on the basis that it's theme park credentials are substandard. By virtue of focus zoos, sanctuaries and aquariums will most-always beat out SW on animals, which is why the theme park section is all the most important. It can only stand on the sum of its parts.

Maybe they meant: "Village Roadshow's already weak visitor numbers were compounded by a wet March and competitors from the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games, the company said in a third quarter update."

I think Roachie's reply goes more to my thoughts on the parks making the most of the opportunity.

The opportunity afforded by full-day television coverage showcasing the area your theme parks exist in.

So there's a good question; have the parks made the most of the opportunity on the table?

Sorry, for the purposes of media I was also including advertising.

When you've got hotels charging upwards of $1k a night, constant media about how travel around the entire area is going to be very painful and very expensive flights I think it's little wonder. What's there to compel even a domestic tourist to go?

Haven't yet read part 2, but wanted to add my encouragement for well-written and in-depth coverage/journalism. Upon reflection on part 1 I wonder in my head whether perhaps you'd written yourself into the story a little more than may have been necessary, but at the same time I acknowledge it was on your own blog (rather than OurWorlds where that would have been a bit more out of place), and it set up some context to how you'd gotten there. As a fellow professional I trust you won't read that as criticism for the sake of it, or even negatively (I wouldn't bother providing a critique if it wasn't worthy of it!). Just some uninformed feedback. ...and now having read part two consider my comments about writing yourself into it completely balanced out. Well done. Read it from start to end and very much enjoyed it.

What was this Wonderland thing you keep mentioning? Some kind of theme park concept?

Yeah, it's tricky to see. This might help:

A smile is often a giveaway.