Tricoart

Maybe some people that just don't know it's a relocation from WnW and see an announcement as a new ride entirely, but no matter how many people that is, it'd be considerably less people than a new ride would.

If they want to stay in their current market and not venture out, then yes most of those things would benefit them more (as well as hopefully some more animal exhibits). The reason I say 'most' is that, akin to how I don't see an imaginary Sea World that's trying to break further into the thrill market would want to relocate SurfRider partially due to it being too similar to Vortex, I don't see an imaginary Sea World that's focused on keeping the same demographic whilst expanding into the newly freed area wanting to replace it with a modern Log Flume. The main reason being that Storm already functions as the parks' part-water, part-dry ride with a decent focus on theming, whilst mainly serving to wet people at the end via a large drop & splashdown. So, like my earlier points with Vortex/SurfRider, one would probably end up undermining the other, and both wouldn't necessarily add a whole lot to the park. Another, perhaps more corporate, reason may be that Movie World now holds the only remaining Log Flume on the Gold Coast, as well as the best one that's ever been there, so making an all-new Log Flume at it's (effectively) sister park would yet again become a direct comparison and end up undermining one-another.

Having 2+ thrilling non-water rides at WnW seems about as off-brand as Sea World having 2+ thrilling flat/flat-like rides with 140cm restrictions. I think they're both perfect as-is, that being with 1 at each. Messing with that either way'll ruin the mix for both.

Yeah ofc, by no means am I saying (nor do I want to even infer) they are the same ride systematically, anybody with eyes would look at 'em and know they're entirely different in that sense. But, having recently purchased Vortex to fit a certain category ('thrilling flats/flat-likes', for want of a better name), and following it up with a relocated 'coaster' that pulls from the same category, with said 'coaster' already being barely operational at its previous park, of which had comparably low attendance and that was located significantly further away from seabreeze, all adds up to one of the worst decisions they could do with the space IMO.

They've already got a launch coaster in Jet Rescue, and Leviathan is about as 'standout' as I can imagine Sea World going. Under the assumption that Sea World's plans are to become a formidable park in their own right, however, the obvious first step'd just be some kind of inverting coaster (not inverted, inverting, as in containing inversions). A 2nd launch coaster'd be nothing special without being inversion based (and if it is, it'll inevitably be compared to Steel Taipan), and a (typical) 'standout' coaster (as in tallest in the park, perhaps hypercoaster-y in layout) would run the risk of cluttering the park and it's skyline, undermining Leviathan, and drawing comparisons to DC Rivals. Also, if SurfRider is having that many issues at WnW, what would moving it to a seaside park with higher attendance do to help it? And besides that, wouldn't SurfRider (if/when it chose to operate) fill the same role for Sea World as a Larson Loop or pendulum does for other parks, of which Vortex already kinda does anyway?

110% true, portable flats are of lesser 'quality' to that of amusement/theme park rides in a guests eyes, and by all means more permanent flats would be the much better mid/long-term option for parks with a lack of them (both with uniqueness, guest experience, marketing power, the whole 9 yards). Temporary/portable flats should never be the sole solution for that problem, I think no one here would disagree there. But only for the short-term, while more permanent solutions are being planned/worked towards (like Dreamworks, like Atlantis, like hopefully Movie World), and there is undisrupted empty space, I still don't see a problem with the idea. At least, not one that's glaringly and indisputably bad enough to justify the mere idea of it's existence as "gross".

Yeah, dunno why it'd be a bad thing to add some temporary portable rides, so long as they had the space to fit 'em without messing up crowds. It's not like (most sections of) Movie World, Sea World, or Dreamworld are focused on intricate themes that a flat ride would take away from. So, as long as the space is there, it's not in a themed land like WWF, Atlantis, or Dreamworks, and it'd improve the parks lineup, I don't really see a reason not to go for it.

From nothing but a quick Google, WB Abu Dhabi is said to have been designed by the Thinkwell Group (same people that worked on the Wizarding World at IoA), so if they were to truly replicate portions of or themes in that park, completely setting aside money or weather, wouldn't they have to license designs from/consult them about it first?

I don't think they'd be bashed that bad (or, at least, worthy of being bashed in my view) if they were to do either of the things Dean said, so long as they made an announcement at least a couple months beforehand, found a good place for the flats to go, and/or made sure that the maintenance closures didn't become a common occurrence. After all, MW (and every other GC park) is still meant to be year-round, and it becoming common would effectively just make it seasonal. With a MW maintenance closure, were they not being affected by a shortage of available maintenance workers not too long ago (vaguely remember it being mentioned in regards to Superman Escape, but I could be wrong)? I know you've mentioned "if they could have enough crew to complete it", so I'm just wondering if there's even a chance that they realistically could, as, if my recollection is correct, a maintenance closure at current (or close to current) MW could become more of a recipe for adding fuel to the fire rather than putting it out. Far as the temporary flats go, if MW were to attempt that route, where could a decently-sized temporary flat even be placed? Only place I can think of is that concrete queue space (?) beside Arkham, which of course is closed off for WoO's construction. Every other place I can think of that's remotely flat or empty would either cause crowd flow problems, outrage for noise, blocked/removed views, etc.

I saw that for SFMM's website too, and they're advertised at $85 currently, whereas most of the other parks are hovering around the $30-$40 dollar region, which was interesting to me. Also, good job with the more reasonable comparisons, that helps. However, That is both inferring something that's entirely false, and bringing up an unrelated thread for the sole sake of adding fuel to an argument you (and only you) want to exist. So, before you reply, read the room. I doubt you're going to convince me otherwise - you've made your point, I've disagreed with it - walk away. As will I (again).

Disney also gets millions of merchandise-fiending attendants at all of their parks yearly, spends and gains an unfathomable amount of money no matter the price tier, and changes their policies faster than Movie World changes a paintjob. And, even if anything I said above doesn't relate to ticket pricing, just compare a Six Flags, independently-operated park, Cedar Fair, Herschend, SEAS, Merlin, and that'd be a much more fair comparison. But pulling from Disney, of all comparisons that can be made, is laughable.

Yeah, I don't see how any early NFP founder could be rolling in it, unless they get a lot of personal donations or something. Also, I'm not going to be combatant, nor respond other than reiterating that I was by no means insinuating that that's what the guy in the article is/was doing, just that I view that sort of twist as something people who generally aren't being totally sincere would do for an ulterior motive.

Dunno where you got me saying it was hard, all I said was that I hadn't seen it personally, so didn't know if it was that much of an issue. And, if it is the case that it's as prominent as what you posted, then I agree that they should do something about it. Which, according to the Local Guide, they have at least been testing rectifications already, with an (albeit small) discount offer at the gate. So, if it continues to stay a point of contention, and it's not just an unforeseen spike in closures like I said earlier, then maybe they will end up deciding to do something more, like an off-season pricing schedule. But I just don't see it being an urgent or prominent enough issue to warrant a switch as a result of the current closures alone, nor the routine closures that have to happen for a year-round park. These are all the comments I could find on their Facebook posts relating to maintenance from the Wizard of Oz announcement til now, sorted by relevancy:

Do people really feel ripped off as it is currently, though? Cause, yeah, rides get closed in the off-peak for maintenance, but (personally, not to say it isn't the case) I haven't really seen anyone feeling/voicing concerns over being ripped off by that. Seems to me like most of the people who'd feel ripped off by a closed attraction are the people that only go on holidays (that being travelling/holidaying families), unless it's a very drastic and unforseeable series of closures.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that person's done that, far from it. I'm just saying that, when these types of articles end with an "Anyway, here's a way to give me money/Here's my business details" promotion, it comes off as insincere to me. And, I've seen that outcome of just lying for the sake of monetary gain at the end happen before. Maybe I've just got a ton of trust issues. Probably.

Yeah, I feel for the guy, but with all these types of articles they tend to pivot into some form of self-promotion at the end, and it just always makes it seem less sincere and more like an immoral marketing ploy than an interview or 'confession' to me.

Though I do see your point (especially with Leviathan, as one of it's marketing points is it's headchoppers), the whole point of gimmick seats is so that they provide additional prolonged revenue from said gimmick seat's sales. People get the normal experience w/ all the headchoppers, views, and theming elements on every other seat, and if they have money to spare then they try out the unique experience after-the-fact.

yeah, a one minute figure'd be literally impossible unless the entire ride consisted of a dispatch, incline, and rollback into station

Yet there'd still be Disney adults raving about how good it is, and going there daily til they've got nothing left in their bank account aside from the money they got from selling a map and a merch item on Ebay.

They really do have a lot of options: - The first multi-type wooden coaster in the Southern Hemisphere - The tallest wooden coaster in the Southern Hemisphere - The most inversions on a wooden coaster in the Southern Hemisphere - The scariest wooden coaster in the world

If I were operating the park, I'd do things much differently, but there's a reason why I'm not. I still can't shake the feeling that there'll be an ABC Kids World retheme sometime within the next few years, with a couple new flats and maybe a dark ride or kids coaster (in response to WoO), then not a lot else besides events and maybe a different Sky Voyager show til at least 2026. Thing is, at that point they may already be decommissioning one of their older rides, or perhaps decide towards updating it into it's own mini-section if they deem it the better option (cough cough Motocoaster).

That is true, but those quick-succession investments have already begun with Sky Voyager and Steel Taipan, both of which were riddled with their own financial problems. When they do more, it'd be safer to assume they'll be gradual, thought-out, perhaps cheaper investments catered towards kids and families than the extensive, aggressive, park-wide expansions we'd all hope for. I'd love to be wrong, but it just doesn't seem like a realistic expectation to me.

Gotta be a B&M Giga

I mean, that'd be ideal, but before Steel Taipan the last thrill ride was Tailspin 7 years prior, with the last thrill coaster being Buzzsaw 10+ years prior. Obviously it'd be ideal for them to ramp up new projects again, but realistically I wouldn't be surprised if it took another 5-10 years.

Yeah nah that's definitely wrong, unless they've randomly decided the lift hill is now a launch and they're actively trying to tear the ride apart, 9News is just advertising the wrong speed. 105ft lift ≠ 100km/h.