Guest 239

No child shall suffer again.

Fair!

Why is this thread still called Mystery Sea Container and not the actual events name?

Pictured: Reporters as they start typing the sentence "this comes just X years after the tragic Dreamworld incident that claimed four lives". In all seriousness though, I hope the child is doing okay and my thoughts are with the family.

Sea World Car Park.

Ansett collapse, 911 and the SARs virus are all confirmed for causing Leviathan delays.

I get the vibe that @Cactus_Matt is essentially voting with his wallet in this instance because of the changes made to Dreamworld and I think that's completely fine when you're a passionate consumer. Based on all of this, grabbing a 3-day VRTP pass would make the most sense to me. I get what others have said regarding operations at MW and SW, but if you're just going to experience the new attractions that Village has to offer then I think you're probably not too concerned about min-maxing your rides on each day. Hopping over to Dreamworld does add some awkward financial weight to your trip if you're wanting to visit for their one new coaster. I'm in the same boat regarding trip planning and I'm trying to take a backseat towards theme park plans because I don't want to infect my family with my disgusting thoosie bias virus so I'm genuinely curious to know what the current discourse is regarding the best parks. We have about three days in April and honestly I'm stuck. I'm leaning towards going down the SW, MW and WnW route because I think the family component of those parks is a bit better at the moment, but I also know that runs the risk of entering the VRTP operations twilight zone of mystery last minute ride closures. I'm hoping that with it being school holidays that they'll be on the ball regarding these things, but it's still a risk. I don't really want to property hop with two different passes cause it's a lot of money for the family, especially those with kids. @DaptoFunlandGuy I hadn't thought of this but it's a really good point. I'm still not sold on Dreamworld for the family, but this might make it a little easier to justify if we get some more updated schedules regarding attraction closures, etc.

I didn't realise Gazza was my ex.

Genuinely curious to see what people think about this. Let's say you have three days at the Gold Coast and you want to do theme/water parks. You don't have any season passes and need to buy everything from scratch. You're going to the parks within a month of whenever you read this which means that you should factor in how they're presently operated and presented, not the ideal scenario. Where do you go and what's your plan?

Can't be real at all. There is no mention of it being world class.

The only time people voluntarily rode AA was when they wanted their spine readjusted. My favourite in-park photos have always been on that ride because I look like I'm ready to embrace the sweet release of death.

Absolutely agree with you. WWW feels like an extension of Dreamworld and not it's own thing despite being a great water park. I know people who have gone to WnW for a day trip and that's it for their park visits, but I can't think of anybody who has just gone to WWW. I agree that it would be wise to give it its own identity, and that might even benefit their value proposition in the long run as well.

I'd imagine everybody's idea of classic is a little different, and I think your depiction is a good one! I just can't really imagine Movie World without Superman, so I lump it in as a classic despite being older then it. Maybe staple attraction is a better description instead of classic, cause I agree that the image of a classic attraction does inspire thoughts of Ferris Wheels, carousels, golden oldie woodies, and 1964 world's fair dark rides.

I feel like bundling WWW and DW together is a smart choice, just because I doubt you'd have many people justifying $129 + whatever WWW on top of that with Dreamworld in its current state. Maybe once everything is back open and they're back in full swing post-pandemic, but without the international tourists half of the park is just dead. Though how is it still cheaper than LPS?

Here's hoping it's all up and running for the Easter school holidays. I'm heading there with family later in the month and I'm really excited to show my niece and nephew the all rides at Movie World now that they're a little older, especially some of the classics like Wild West and Superman!

Take a seat, my friend. That post has changed since you posted it, but it doesn't say that it's edited for mods. Anyway, I respect your updated conclusion and I get where you're coming from, but I still don't agree that fence choice determines the validity of a theme park. Perhaps in the context of Dreamworld it does? But it's fairly standard for theme parks and amusements park to have practical fencing for practical purposes and often that's okay.

It wouldn't be a real enthusiast community if we weren't throwing fisty cuffs over queue handrails. Personally I think well worn galvanized steel adds real character to a theme park. Anybody who thinks otherwise is the enemy.

Your guiding star is a great basis, but it's naïve and innocent. It implies an inherent goodness in things and that money will always be flowing, but that's not the way the world works. This has been discussed ad nauseum with the 'how do we bounce back after Dreamworld killed people'? discussion. Sometimes you have to problem solve with what you've got, and the interpretation of 'better' can be the difference between having something versus having nothing at all. For example is it 'better' for Disney diminish their guest experience with Genie+ so that they have the additional cashflow to pay for more workers? Better, in this instance, is open for interpretation. So in Dreamworld's instance, what is better? It'll differ for each person, and aesthetically the fence looks like garbage, but is it better for them to have this fencing up so that they can get the railroad up and running quicker, or is it better to spend more time and resources making a more aesthetically fence whilst delaying the railroad? The definition of 'better' would be determined by variables we have zero access to and an outcome that only time will tell which is the irony of having these discussions in the first place in an enthusiast forum. So with this guiding star expect to bump heads, because 'better' is inherently subjective. Call them what you like, but you're addressing my perceived intent, not content. Genuinely, I was curious about what the park should do because I can't get a read on it. Consider what I'm asking before seeing it as some sort of attack or 'gotcha'. This is the nail on the head. The original argument, which we've strayed very far away from with some fairly bad faith commentary and personal quips was that the validity of a theme park was brought into question because of their choice of fence which I thought was a silly argument. A fence is a fence, and the point of my posts was to show that fences are fences. Some are good. Some are bad. Most are fences. None determine the validity of a theme park.

You're coming to your own conclusions about my argument that were never made. I showed other theme parks on the Gold Coast in direct comparison to Dreamworld. If you believe that is Village vs Dreamworld then that's your own conclusion, but it's not mine. The initial argument you made was 'It's a theme park, it should be presented way, way better because, and I can't stress this enough, it's a theme park.' and my response was showing the standard set by the rest of the industry on finalized, public-facing activations. I even gave some of Disney theme parks which last I checked weren't operated by Village Road Show Theme Parks (but they're edging closer with Chapek). You're more than welcome to come to your conclusion about the fence as there's no right or wrong to opinions, but when you mock the communities critical discussion regarding the value and quality of the Gold Coast's #1 theme park as 'going deep on minor details being missed' and conclude that anybody who accepts the fence is making huge sweeping passes on mediocrity, then you're opening yourself to criticism. I know that you'll continually argue that you're just concerned about Dreamworld's falling down the route of death by a thousand cuts, but it's hard to take that seriously when at seemingly every given moment you're waiting on the side of the road ready to throw it's still kicking body into the funeral wagon just for the opportunity to turn around to those grieving the loss and say "I told you so". This is stunning and I wish our parks could go back to this, but rebuilding something like this won't drive gate which has been the argument behind criticism towards many of Dreamworld's recent efforts beyond Steel Taipan. It's part of the reason I get so confused because @Slick has said in the past that similar endeavors would be a of waste money and embrace nostalgia for nostalgia sake. So it's hard to come to conclusions about what the park should do. Should it spend its scarce money on themed fencing to embrace the old vibe of the park and prevent aesthetic decay, or build quick and affordable fencing to save money for critical projects that drive gate?

Thank you! This was never about theme park vs theme park, it was about the absurdity of questioning the validity of a theme park based off their choice of fence. The industry as a whole has decided that if its practical and affordable then it's a-okay, but if you want to add some extra flair then that's cool too, but at the end of the day I doubt it's what Aunty Sue is going to write about in her post-park criticisms on Yelp.

Oooh, a challenge! It's a little harder, but I found some!

Big ugly fences are just as much of an Australian staple as big ugly sheds. Bonus points for if they have the 'you will die a painful death jumping over this fence' sign posted on them. And my favourite; the entrance to our theme parks premier resort!

It's not like they had a more efficient system that was taken out due to a lack of popularity so did they construct this ride with an inefficient setup knowing that it'd be unpopular? That seems like a huge waste of money and land for a park that notoriously needs more attractions. I'm just kind of baffled. Shouldn't you design the ride for the optimal throughput and then tone it back if it's unpopular? That you've got the option to accomodate for a higher capacity even if it is rare. Otherwise if the park suddenly becomes a smash hit and is drawing tons of people thanks to New Atlantis, you've essentially got a lemon that can only do 798 guests on a regular operational day that is the first attraction you see on a major thoroughfare towards your premier coaster. I just can't imagine a scenario where from the top down everybody working on the attraction would agree that 114 riders per hour is a reasonable investment.

I enjoyed the ride experience but I agree that the cycle isn't very good. It's very intense being flung and spun, but it's not particularly fun if that makes sense? Random tangent but something that blew my mind is that Vortex doesn't have any guest staging with numbers to stand on that allocates you to a numbered seat and instead the operators need a headset to communicate how many guests they need and where people need to go. It seemed wildly inefficient and increases staff overhead by a lot. Is this standard for this ride model?