webslave

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.

Gosh, don't the kids/parents look thrilled in that social media photo!

To be fair, given you know Google pretty well you probably also found this link: https://www.sitepoint.com/most-popular-frontend-frameworks-compared/ ...which is the top result on Google for "bootstrap framework popularity". From their notes: "The main strength of Bootstrap is its huge popularity. Technically, it’s not necessarily better than the others in the list, but it offers many more resources (articles and tutorials, third-party plug-ins and extensions, theme builders, and so on) than the other four frameworks combined. In short, Bootstrap is everywhere. And this is the main reason people continue to choose it." Although, you've been having a tough week here so I'm not going to rub it in. Some of what you've been saying I've agreed with, but now it's just turning into a bit of a shit-fight. Just giving you a stir on the Google thing.

We were last at SW just over a year ago, and AFAIK there's not much doing there since. The thinking on DW is that there's enough there to also keep mum and dad's interest as required, whereas at SW he doesn't recognize much in the way of their licenses and if he's in a bit of a mood and therefore decides no rides then it's a pretty ordinary day ahead. MW has rivals, and the little bloke is Batman-obsessed, but outside of a chance encounter with a character on main street there's not a lot doing for him.

You got me - I was being unnecessarily vague to avoid asking you the question directly about Dreamworld in case you didn't want to be that specific. So, I have a family and will be visiting the region in under a month's time. We had planned on visiting Dreamworld because we felt their ride offering better targets my 3-year-old kid, rather than visiting Movie World (mostly because mum and dad want to ride Rivals). Would your advice as someone who has claimed previously (and credibly) to have access to inside information be that we reconsider our travel to Dreamworld at this time?

Fair call, happy to admit I just Googled it. I was not aware the site had stepped back from it, although it would have been interesting at the time if you'd been as public in doing so as you were in starting the campaign. Can understand why you wouldn't. Would you still stand by the claim that the parks are safe and responsible today?

In light of Alex's spirited response to the article I found it interesting to reflect upon that text and wonder if this marks a departure from that campaign.