djmcbell

Well it seems Universal has just bought 500 acres of land nearby, with rumours swirling about a new park and a resort-type area, so chances are they just didn't want to deal with Skyplex, yet another - admittedly minor - competitor. Note - this is minor in that any custom lost to them will probably be within a few million dollars, for a company that makes billion dollar investments. So yeah, either way I can understand Universal getting in a strop, though I'd have preferred it if they were more honest about their reasons. I take it they'll have a long, hard think about how their new property is going to impact the locals and whether the community wants it or not. (though chances are the locals will welcome it, as they mostly seemed to welcome Skyplex - more business, more jobs, more investment)

Yeah, just heard about that. Sounds like Universal were the only ones objecting (apparently they wanted the land for themselves, or didn't want the competition, but just said it would "be an eyesore" or something). I like Universal but my respect for them has just dropped. Will definitely be visiting the Skyplex next time I'm in Florida (providing it's open of course). And, just to make you happy Universal, it will not impact on the time I spend visiting you. I wonder if the Skyplex will be open at night...

Hmm... the Smiler IS a good ride (went on it just before the accident - everyone at work was shocked when I told them). It's quite compact and, if designed well, could definitely be a big draw. But from my (admittedly limited) experience with Australian theme parks, I'd want something bigger that would take up a lot of space, preferably not inverting. My dream coasters would be along the lines of the Big One from Blackpool Pleasure Beach, or El Toro at Six Flags Great Adventure. Possibly go even bigger and say Shambhala from Portaventura, but I doubt we'd see anything like that. I guess a major plus for something like Smiler is the height - does Movie World have any height restrictions on the roller coasters it can build? As for what the precinct could be, a Legoland centre (as pushbutton says) could be good. Maybe put in a few other shops as well, something more to attract people who aren't necessarily doing the parks on that day? I don't know. I said the hotel because a few other people automatically said "hotel" but in retrospect it sounds silly - I don't think the Move World area is popular enough to warrant "resort-style" hotels, and there's going to be plenty of choice in the surrounding area anyway. Not to mention that, unlike Florida (where there are basically two theme park areas - Disney and I-drive), the Gold Coast attractions are fewer and more spread out - someone going to Movie World will most likely go to Sea World as well, even though it's a bit of a drive away. Hmm... a Warner Bros shop, as well as the Legoland Centre, a handful of other shops and restaurants to hopefully attract people to the area a bit more, and of course give more custom to the current four attractions. Dare I hope for mini-golf?

I don't know how possible it is, but there are three attractions there (Movie World, Wet 'n' Wild, and the Outback Experience or whatever it is) so they'd want to ideally build a precinct with access to all three. It could be quite big and whilst that would have its drawbacks (cost, mainly) it could also be a great draw for people. When we were in Florida we really enjoyed Downtown Disney in the evening - mainly going to the cinema and wandering around the shops. So if there's space to do something similar (admittedly not on as big a scale - Downtown Disney is pretty damn big), possibly with a hotel as well...

Hopefully you'll find out soon - if you've submitted an application form and they asked you for an interview then at least it shows that they thought enough of you. Mind you, I can't comment that much on how the job situation is in Australia as I'm in the UK. At the company I work at, we had some positions for seasonal manual labourer jobs a few years back and got over 300 applicants (including people who had just been made redundant as teachers, estate agents, even a doctor would you believe!), and with the open day we were having, we had to interview each and every one (I helped out by interviewing alongside other management staff - there were some really good applicants, but also some right idiots who were just there so the job centre wouldn't stop their benefits - if there's an interview then you have to try and get the job, or get no money, and they sent LOADS to us that day). With that amount of applicants, we couldn't justify notifying each and every one that they didn't get the job, but that was a pretty specific and extreme scenario. With yours, I should imagine you would have been in the final 10 (maybe?), but they still may have other people to interview. If you're finding out by post, then I'd imagine it'd be at least a week after your interview until you should start worrying. However, all the jobs I've gotten so far, I've found out by them phoning me.

Random thought - with everyone saying "Batman vs Superman duelling coaster", how about... TWO COASTERS THAT DUEL?!? The Batman ride (well, Arkham) is an SLC, and this is mostly true I think in Six Flags parks. Superman is an above-the-track launched coaster (though in Six Flags parks is also usually a flying coaster, I think). How about a duelling coaster, where both coasters are different types? Would that even work? Probably not. And there's practically no chance this is the case. If it is, I'll eat a toenail. Or something.

Confirmed - a roller coaster where Ben Affleck and Henry Cavill fight on the front car as it goes around!!! And, as a new innovation, riders get to place bets!

Does Movie World have the room for something big? Or does anyone think it could be a new themed "land" (with a big attraction) based on an upcoming movie/franchise? Are there any new big properties coming which aren't already snagged (Harry Potter, Avatar, Star Wars) and which they can use? I guess it could be a "Batman vs Superman" thing (like Spiderman/Harry Potter, as coasterdude44 said), but if at least some evidence points to a coaster, surely that'd require a lot of room (unless it's a dark ride, in which case it's just another "coaster in a box" like Scooby Doo). EDIT - actually, looking at Google Maps, unless they expand then there really isn't that much space in the park that isn't already occupied by something. Even Green Lantern is sorta just plonked outside. Makes me wonder if something would have to go. I'd love to see a big, long coaster though, but the only way they could do that, I think, is if it ran around/over quite a lot of other things. Still possible - look at Blackpool Pleasure Beach!

Please let it be a traditional, above-the-tracks coaster with plenty of airtime that goes on for ages. As much as I enjoyed the parks on the GC, there's sadly very very few of these coasters. Alternatively, if you want a "world's best", just make an "Ultimate 2" so it is the longest coaster in the world once again!

Strangely, my favourite ride out of Movie World (and the Gold Coast parks in general) was Scooby Doo. That thing lasts a good while and is weird as hell.

We've been to Orlando a lot and wouldn't hesitate to go there again, BUT we live in the UK and it's pretty easy and accessible from here. I remember going to LA a few times as a kid, but would love to go there again since there's just such a huge range of parks. As good as Orlando is, they don't have anything like the roller coaster park that is Six Flags Magic Mountain (or at least, I've heard good things about the place). As you know, the parks in Orlando concentrate on theming and family rides first and foremost. So, I don't know about travel to and from the parks (AlexB and ash.1111 say it's not bad though), but if you've got a choice I would say do LA. You've done Orlando a fair bit recently - time for a bit of a change. If anything, I should imagine LA doesn't necessarily have the "quality" that Orlando does, but it'll have more in the way of variety.

I think that the only way that would happen is if they built a big, secluded theme park resort/complex, like Disney in Florida, where people have enough on site to keep them occupied for a week and never have to leave. Other than that, I think that the existing parks should up their game to compete, but a new park would bring in an influx of visitors.

Seems legit.

In the article, what does this mean? I imagine this park will be themed, but to what? And does this suggest a possible deal with Disney (after all, I believe Disneyland Paris was built and is operated by another company)? Probably nothing though.

I think it could be both good AND bad. The bad - as you say, there's another park to visit. The good - there's another park to visit! This will hopefully bring in more people, and let's face it - who goes to the GC and only does one park? People will be making trips to the GC mainly to check out this new park, and probably do the rest whilst they're there too. A new park, whilst being bad on the surface for competing with the other parks, may well help stimulate the market. Of course, it could be argued that since people would be going to the new park they wouldn't be spending as much time in the existing parks. But the multi-day tickets for the existing parks already seem quite cheap so I'm unsure they'd lose much in ticket fees, but probably in terms of things people buy in the park (such as food). I'd hasten to add that I don't know much about the issue, having only visited the GC once so far (but once we get to Australia, it'll hopefully be a lot more).

See? THAT'S more relevant. I'd hoped you'd offer some proof this time.

What proof is that video offering? What are we meant to discuss about it? May as well have linked to a Rick Roll and be done with it.

Well I guess if you're only doing the "big, big" rides at Disney then you could get round with time to spare. Guess it would be similar to when my wife and I do Universal Studios and IoA - we can do them both in a day, with plenty of time for re-rides and going on rides we wouldn't, simply because we know what's what and what we fancy doing. However, with those parks, they are right next to each other and queues (when we go) generally aren't big.

That site overloaded my brain's capacity for pinkness.

As the title says, what parks do you plan to visit in 2016? And what did you do in 2015? Me - depending on when I leave the UK, we'll try to do Blackpool Pleasure Beach (it's a yearly tradition). We also hope to do Europa Park in Germany if we can. Other than that, probably none - next year will be a bit hectic. As for 2015, we did Luna Park Melbourne, Movie World, Dream World, Wet n Wild GC, Sea World, Alton Towers, Drayton Manor and Blackpool Pleasure Beach. Chances are we won't do any more.

I hardly know enough about anime and JRPGs to pass much of a comment, but it could possibly work. It may well get a lot of interest from Japan and round the world, especially if the correct IPs were chosen. Basically, you'd need to have "lands" similar to Magic Kingdom - not themed around properties, but around general themes. You could, for instance, have a "future" land, which would be where the Gundam ride sits. Properties would have to be chosen based on what properties have performed well in the past, and continue to do so. Like the Gundam example - that's been going for years and will always have a strong following. An FFVII land, based around Midgar with possibly a roller coaster themed to the bike bit leaving the city - possibly, but that may be stretching the idea of "lands" too far. What if, after the FFVII re-launch, it all goes out of fashion? I'm kinda worried with Universal's Harry Potter lands that, with the movies and books done, they'll go out of fashion in the next few years, which is why I'd sooner moot Disney's "generally themed" lands, rather than themed to single properties. Still, definitely a good idea and one which could work.

You keep repeating yourself, saying that SWGC is "enslaving and mistreating" their animals. Please provide proof of this. As it stands, the current opinion is that SWGC rescues animals that wouldn't survive otherwise and seeks to free them wherever possible. And yes, that includes polar bears, including I believe a bear that was posing a danger to a small town - had SWGC not taken it, it probably would have been shot, and perhaps killed a few people in the process. So SWGC seek to rehome these animals and, wherever possible, set them free. Which sounds fine and dandy. And I believe they have some of the best facilities in the business. If they are to be rescued, there is scarcely a better place. Is it the "doing tricks for entertainment" business you take umbrage with? In that case, I can partially agree, but reading the article from SWGC's owner, animals are not coerced into performing - they receive some additional food, but aren't starved. They (apparently) only perform if they want to. However, how is SWGC supposed to survive? Shows and so on bring in the crowds. If they didn't have them, then they'd get no money and have to close down. Then what would happen to the animals that need rescuing? Perhaps it is not SWGC that you should be turning your eyes upon, but instead the fact that people wouldn't give it money if it didn't have a dolphin show. As I say, it may well be that SWGC imprisons animals for life, neglects them, doesn't feed them unless they perform etc. If that's the case however, provide proof. Otherwise, all you're doing is unsubstantiated ranting.

Well how else do you expect SWGC to continue, without money? Money is the lifeblood of the world, for us humans at least. Want to eat? Drink? Get warm? Bathe? You need money. SWGC have long maintained that they rescue animals, and attempt to let animals loose back into the wild whenever they can. If you have proof otherwise, please supply the relevant links etc and inform the rest of us. When I was 5 I was taken to hospital for an injury. I stayed there for some time, stuck in a bed, then was let out when I was better. In principle, that is what SWGC is (at least supposed to be doing, I'll give you that one) doing with injured animals.

You take their stories at face value and reject those made by the park itself. At the very least, until proven otherwise, both are as bad as each other. Do you deny that SWGC does good work, rescuing sick or injured animals? If not, then how else do you expect it to make money? If so, please supply your proof. Very well - close it down. Any rescuing that they did - well, tough, isn't it? Happy?

So you're saying SWGC don't rescue animals, or that they plunder them for our entertainment? They never release them? They make them perform daily by withholding food and generally mistreat them? Do you have anything to back up these claims? Blackfish is about a completely different company, after all.