Slick

At a macro level they're the same thing, you're just focussing on micro detail to justify some sort of good/bad dichotomy that doesn't exist.

You're so close to getting it.

You must be more excited for WOO than some of the Facebook groups I read. 😄

So this'll give Movie World nine coasters by 2025, yeah?

Pre-ride videos fit into a swiss-cheese model of risk and attraction inefficiency mitigators. No one should ever expect one voice-over or one video to capture 100% of everyone's attention. Instead, when you pair it thoughtfully with other things (clear signage, human-centric physical design etc.) what you get is hopefully a situation where ride operators need only assist a few guests with each ride cycle and don't need to be shouting information at everyone in a passive aggressive tone (something our parks do extremely well, IMO.) For Leviathan, I think adding some screens to the circular queue might be the way to go. Probably no VO needed, just some good visuals with subtitles detailing the steps. The stairs would be a great place to pop a booming VO (Leviathan's voice?) that could tell guests to start "preparing themselves for their greatest challenge" etc. etc. etc. Finally, a couple of well-placed physical signs integrated into the loose article bins that don't obstruct the digital displays would be great.

What if they just made the whole thing an at-home VR experience? You could really lower the risk that way.

That's precisely it - it depends on risk appetite. There's also different levels of risk in attractions, and there's a big difference in potential risk between a simulated car ride and roller-coasters. Remember, if it was so risky, they wouldn't let kids drive them. By extension, as I've covered previously, Disney has a different risk appetite and assumes more responsibility to ensure their capacity and guest satisfaction metrics are maintained. You could also deduce that Dreamworld's risk appetite isn't the only point of reference here, and sometimes there's over-reach (see Tiger Island).

The original Model T Ford parts (the lights, radiator frames, wheel flanges etc.) would be easily worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, especially if they were looked after and not trashed. Would be easy to tear out the four-stroke motors and electrify them or rehab the existing vehicles into a new control system.

To clarify it's guest satisfaction and guest perspective of safety.

It was a guest satisfaction/safety thing. Many guests initially complained when the ride did a double cycle, thinking either something was wrong or hated it because it was too much/not what they expected. It was eventually codified into the procedures, which meant there were pretty major ramifications if someone caught you breaking said procedures.

Sure, if you benchmark this against the worst possible design it makes total sense.

I think we can all agree that when it comes to flow and overall park layout design, Movie World ranks as one of the worst offenders out there. Fancy having flow be such an issue that you have to open up access to a closed ride (Arkham Asylum) to offer guests better access to the front of the park. It definitely shouldn't be used as the standard for best-case design principles. It's also sadly a product of its own success - complaints about noise have necessitated rides being huddled awkwardly towards the front of the park.

At a high level the idea makes sense - build the kind of ride that can be opened as an up-charge for night markets that doesn't give away the gate and de-value the park's day ticket proposition. The problem is when you scratch deeper, there's a litany of reasons that should tell you why it shouldn't be a thing. For example, every park planner or designer will tell you why it's bad to concentrate so much stuff into the first few metres of a park. The obvious one is that it hinders crowd flow management in a significant way - on a busy day, Dreamworld will have two rides, a show-stage and a critical photo point within centimetres of each other. Think about this then - people typically move to the first thing they see when they're in a park - as a result, will a guest's first experience of the day be stuck in a line that's overflowing because due care wasn't given to filtering people out first? The second reason is that there's a well-established tipping point between time in park and per capita spend. By extension, if you're concentrating your experience into a few square metres, people don't journey as far through different lands, they don't stop to buy F&B, they're not being immersed in different themed environments (marginal affinity relationship) and so on and they're less inclined to spend more time in retail etc. etc. Thirdly - there's a reason why Disney (yes, Disney) don't have a kiddie ride right when you walk in, they have a train that gets people out of that space - it's out of place thematically. Those that say "well Sky Voyager this" or "it's a different park" are negating the fundamental reality that the park doesn't look the way it did precisely because of a continued culture (or rather, ignorance of culture and heritage) to preserve and plus what they have. Instead, we've got make revenue-first strategic choices that place all else second. Finally, it removes a strategic point to place shows and events. If you're worried about kinetic energy, put in a better fountain display. 🤷🏻‍♂️

I don't recall seeing this online or on the news, how did you come to hear about this?

Let's also keep in mind that after Scooby Doo Next Gen opened to a roaring thud that the park spent a fair bit of coin on lighting and effects to make high-zone (aka the wild mouse section) enjoyable again.

Are they actually the same kangaroo? The proportions are wildly different. The height is the only thing that’s similar.

What's wrong with next-gen Scooby Doo?

Really enjoy reading your trip reports as always - was there a particularly memorable moment from any of the parks that stood out for you this time round?

You can clearly see the question I was answering because I quoted it. Sure is, and I've discussed lots of stuff in this thread and have contributed years upon years of ideas and thoughts about future projects for Dreamworld, and as much as I enjoy seeing Dreamworld both simultaneously lament and leverage this site for commercial gain, even I have my limits. Matthew Ball's paper on marginal affinity paints a great picture of the things I was alluding to earlier and answers the question well. Again, I've mentioned both IAAPA and Google Scholar have some great stuff on the topic if you want to really deep dive on the topic.

That wasn't the question that was asked, FYI. Not really keen to do free consulting/fanfic in any case, Ardent has folks like AEDP to do that for them.

The BBC/Disney agreement is a distribution deal, they didn't buy Bluey.

Bluey.

I'll just leave that there. Both rides are roughly 90 seconds of actually good stuff. Yeah, because it's so new. It's like saying a new puppy will never wee on the carpet only because it didn't wee in the car on the drive home (I could've picked a better metaphor but it's 10pm and it's what you get).

See @New display nameand my confirmation of his post. Dreamworld's current CEO was appointed in April 2021. The board he reports to has been largely the same since 2017. See this post for more information.

It's empirically not true. IAAPA has a ton of resources about how IP can drive a 20% bump in revenue if done well. There's also dozens of research articles you can find on Google Scholar that cover marginal affinity and what defines great IP synergy/execution and how it impacts long term bottom line revenue. I think that's where you might be getting your wires crossed - just because your favourite theme park CEO retires an IP doesn't suddenly make all IP's bad. If that were the case Disney wouldn't be the world's most valuable IP-house. That's not to say the particular Dreamworks IP's they had were tired, but to replace it with really no nationally recognisable IP is ultimately a measure in austerity not growth. Sky Voyager. Lol, you absolutely can't attribute Sky Voyager to the current CEO. That was three CEO's in the making and it didn't include the current CEO. Furthermore, and I can't state this enough, Ardent have had the same key board members for the last four CEOs ranging back to 2017, and whilst I can't understate how tough a CEO's job is, they report to the board and its strategic directives/interests, which have included ride procurement and theming in the case of the current activist shareholders. Therefore, this whole new/old management thing is a misnomer at best. Call it for what it is - you just like this CEO. And that's okay, too. CEOs aren't an island, and the ones that do often fail pretty quickly. People really like this one and I can totally understand why, but revising history and ignoring facts (like saying Buzzsaw was a maintenance nightmare but miraculously runs perfect at Gumbuya World) to suit this second coming of Jesus narrative is a bit cringe. The current strategy has largely purposefully avoided replacing the mix of attractions what was previously closed because current sentiment is that a smaller Dreamworld was the smarter move. And maybe that was justified back when the park was on death's door during the pandemic, but it's clear to see in the current demand across all parks that people don't want the Dreamworld that's being offered. Remember, a quiet park and short queues is a feature for enthusiasts, but it's a bug for profit and a successful long term organisation.