Viking’s Revenge Flume Ride Removal

[Jobe]

2 hours ago, themagician said:

Really? I didn’t find vortex intense at all, it was just jolty, uncomfortable and made you want to get off because it’s not enjoyable. Leviathan is going to be one of, if not the most intense ride in the park (Jet Rescue being the current winner)

Ah. Fair enough but whilst I think Jet Rescue has its moments , for mine , it just falls under the “fun” category. I think Leviathan will certainly have its thrilling moments as well but think itI will also be intensely fun but not overly extreme.

Top Spins are a different beast IMHO It all depends on the cycle. I have been on some Top Spins overseas where the cycle can only be described as insane. Sure Vortex is run fairly placidly but the ride type certainly has the capacity to be run very extreme.

But as stated before, I think that neither is not a reason for not having Vortex nor Surfrider for that matter, in the ride line up at SeaWorld. It’s ride offering has required deepening for years and the addition of Surfrider would be a very positive step. IF it happens which unfortunately it more than likely won’t. But it should in my opinion. It would be best for both SW and WNW and would correct  an experiment  that was deeply flawed and ultimately a fail, in my eyes.

Edited August 21, 2022 by Jobe

[Tricoart]

2 hours ago, Rivals said:

Besides this, they need a big stand out coaster (Leviathan could be but we don’t know how it rides yet). I think a Launch Coaster or Raptor is what the park needs, they have a low to the ground “twisty” coaster (JR), kids coaster (SpongeBob), Water Coaster (Storm) and now an airtime filled coaster (Leviathan). adding SR would fill the “unique” gap by having the spinning aspect so by also adding a looping coaster they would be set.

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?

Edited August 21, 2022 by Tricoart

[pin142]

Comparing Surf Rider to Vortex is like comparing a washing machine to a dishwasher, sure they kinda do a similar thing but they are nothing alike for what they actually do.

[Tricoart]

54 minutes ago, pin142 said:

Comparing Surf Rider to Vortex is like comparing a washing machine to a dishwasher, sure they kinda do a similar thing but they are nothing alike for what they actually do.

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.

Edited August 21, 2022 by Tricoart

[joz]

8 hours ago, Jobe said:

Sorry I disagree entirely with this opinion. Adding in Surfrider would only round out SeaWorld's ride offering, NOT limit it

SW by nature, will always attract families. So how many rides should SW have with a height restriction of 140cm? 1. MAYBE 2? You really don't want many more than that as it will never be a ride heavy park, so you need to keep it accessible. You move Surfrider to SW, that's your 2, and in the context or a dry park, they're both shit. It's filler that excludes large chunks of the audience, so when down the line you say 'Next big coaster; B&M Dive Coaster' that's 3 and your attraction mix is up the shit. Surfrider and Vortex should both be at WnW where they work as big headliners/ a point of difference. Yeah they're dry rides but so what? They seem pretty wild which strikes me as being on brand.

[Tricoart]

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.

[Baconjack]

Sea World already has their Corkscrew replacement lined up in Leviathan - they don't need really anything else in the thrill bracket considering they already have Vortex/Leviathan in that category. Anything higher in intensity than those two just isn't going to be popular with the type of guest Sea World attracts and would be a better suited investment for MW, and Vortex is pushing that threshold a little.

Their next attraction needs to be a direct replacement for Vikings - either a dark ride, modern flume or a shoot-the-chutes.

Sell Surfrider out of the chain, it doesn't belong at either wet n wild or sea world. A few parks I can think of would show interest in buying it.

Edited August 21, 2022 by Baconjack

[Tricoart]

23 minutes ago, Baconjack said:

Sea World already has their Corkscrew replacement lined up in Leviathan - they don't need really anything else in the thrill bracket considering they already have Vortex/Leviathan in that category. Anything higher in intensity than those two just isn't going to be popular with the type of guest Sea World attracts and would be a better suited investment for MW, and Vortex is pushing that threshold a little.

Their next attraction needs to be a direct replacement for Vikings - either a dark ride, modern flume or a shoot-the-chutes.

Sell Surfrider out of the chain, it doesn't belong at either wet n wild or sea world. A few parks I can think of would show interest in buying it.

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.

Edited August 21, 2022 by Tricoart

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

On 20/08/2022 at 4:12 PM, joz said:

It's also an awkward space.

Even without going through Storm as you suggest, the footprint is a pretty easy out-and-back coaster layout. Put your station where flume station was, lift hill goes roughly along the splashdown route and then layout, return, brakerun, done.

On 20/08/2022 at 7:26 PM, Rivals said:

and the last is family (Trident)

Not sure families would agree with you - Trident is still pretty confronting for people - especially due to the height.

 

[Jobe]

16 hours ago, pin142 said:

Comparing Surf Rider to Vortex is like comparing a washing machine to a dishwasher, sure they kinda do a similar thing but they are nothing alike for what they actually do.

100% agree here. They are totally different in ride experience and even to a casual punter, they would never be compared to being similar.

 

6 hours ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

Not sure families would agree with you - Trident is still pretty confronting for people - especially due to the height.

Again, 100% agree. The height factor and being blwon around by wind forces make rides like Trident actually more thrilling than they appear. I think the term Family friendly needs to be underlined in regards to this attraction.

 

15 hours ago, joz said:

SW by nature, will always attract families. So how many rides should SW have with a height restriction of 140cm? 1. MAYBE 2? You really don't want many more than that as it will never be a ride heavy park, so you need to keep it accessible. You move Surfrider to SW, that's your 2, and in the context or a dry park, they're both shit. It's filler that excludes large chunks of the audience, so when down the line you say 'Next big coaster; B&M Dive Coaster' that's 3 and your attraction mix is up the shit. Surfrider and Vortex should both be at WnW where they work as big headliners/ a point of difference. Yeah they're dry rides but so what? They seem pretty wild which strikes me as being on brand.

I kind of get what you are getting here, but given the previous history of where Seaworld has had a perfect mix of rides and attractions to currently having a  dearth of available rides, surely having Surfrider be installed would not be a detraction? The very nature of the ride and its small footprint means that this could be installed virtually anywhere in the park with minimal issues. 140cm is 4 feet 6 inches- this is not an OVERLY tall restriction and in my mind, still very accessible for the target audience. Small to mid teens would fit this quite comfortably and since families are not exclusively made up of parents and toddlers, this allows for a very broad based appeal. I just think that it would be a win win to follow the original plan and have Surfrider installed back into a park that certainly needs more attractions to give a full day experience. It would only add to the flavour of the park. Please note that I do not think it would happen but I think that the idea has much more merit than what it is being given. Of course, I certainly agree that a new Flume ride and an observation attraction would be ideal for the park and should be a priority. However, relocating Surfrider would still be an attractive option, even under the umberella of requirements that we have just outlined.

14 hours ago, Baconjack said:

Sell Surfrider out of the chain, it doesn't belong at either wet n wild or sea world. A few parks I can think of would show interest in buying it.

I actually agree here- this would not be a bad option at all. Surely the likes of Gumbuya, Funfields and even Luna Park Melbourne would be extremely interested if this ride was put to market.

 

15 hours ago, Tricoart said:

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.

I think you will find that the majority of the issues found with Surfrider at WNW are to do with trying to make it a mixed dry/water attraction with misters and water being involved in its daily operation. I do not think that a different location such as SeaWorld would affect the ride in an overly negative way. 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

26 minutes ago, Jobe said:

the issues found with Surfrider at WNW are to do with trying to make it a mixed dry/water attraction with misters and water being involved in its daily operation

Didn't they turn off the water effects ages ago? Surely that isn't still contributing to it's woes?

[Gazza]

Would moving it attract new visitors to the VRTP chain or sell more One Passes?

[Tricoart]

17 minutes ago, Gazza said:

Would moving it attract new visitors to the VRTP chain or sell more One Passes?

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.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

16 hours ago, Gazza said:

Would moving it attract new visitors to the VRTP chain or sell more One Passes?

Possibly not, but actually opening the ride might.

[Jobe]

On 22/08/2022 at 3:03 PM, Gazza said:

Would moving it attract new visitors to the VRTP chain or sell more One Passes?

Depends on the marketing. It would certainly make Seaworld that much more of  an attractive proposition and  lets face it- who other than enthusiasts actually knew it was at WNW? Of course thats when it was opening and oeprating as well. I think it would be a positive move for Seaworld to acquire. 

[Natti_amusements]

Hi guys I’m new here,

I think adding Surfrider to SeaWorld would be fine as a filler attraction, but not without adding something else substantial a few years after, and let’s face it, SeaWorld isn’t gonna do that, considering the land they have. I feel like this park needs a proper thrill coaster, cause JR just meanders around the track, Storm is a water coaster with literally a 1.1m height requirement, and Leviathan will be a great airtime machine but is still family friendly. Either a raptor, small scale vekoma or sky rocket 2 will fill in inversion gap, and potential even a launch, all while probs stay under a 1.4m requirement.

[Liamengel17]

On 18/08/2022 at 10:31 PM, Ogre said:

About time. The station looked like it was literally falling apart last week (multiple holes in the celling and water everywhere from the rain).

 

I hope not. I think they should keep it (along with the 4d theatre).

 

I wonder if one could say the same for Dreamworld's

I can tell you for certain that the castle won't be standing for much longer. Security usually does sweeps through it every now and again, and have most recently closed it off completely as there has been a report where a guard entered the roof Access at the castle and the floor had caved in. They will replace it with something more exciting for sure, but VRTP is a mystery company in regard to new attractions 

[RobMac]

Hopefully a quality "flume ride" aged appeal is wide and certainly SEAWorld, needs more water themed attractions.....anything, BUT a[nother] "coaster", that's a bad business and entertainment offering spiral to get trapped in!

[Coasterjoe]

Big fat no from me to moving Surfrider to SW, its a waste of money and does nothing to enhance SW. Besides that its a maintenance headache, I reckon sell it off to another park and use the money towards better and newer attractions. 
 

I tend to agree that a big new coaster isnt exactly in SW best interest either, the skyline we have right now looks good and anything more intimidating is just going to kinda dwarf that skyline and nulify Leviathans presence, which is really the parks flagship going forward. Besides as others said SW is not really a ‘big thrill ride’ type park. I’m not saying thrill rides don’t belong here, but it makes more sense to save the big coasters for MW. 
 

So that begs the question where is the gap to fill? For me its a quality immersive family experience. A dark ride that is a bit of an ocean exploration would be very cool. A ride with indoor and outdoor underwater elements would be incredible, like Nemo’s Voyage at Disneyland. 

[Ogre]

On 27/08/2022 at 6:33 PM, Liamengel17 said:

I can tell you for certain that the castle won't be standing for much longer. Security usually does sweeps through it every now and again, and have most recently closed it off completely as there has been a report where a guard entered the roof Access at the castle and the floor had caved in. They will replace it with something more exciting for sure, but VRTP is a mystery company in regard to new attractions 

Oh wow. Hey, at least they can say that they have an authentic dangerous castle ruin!

[Tricoart]

1 hour ago, Coasterjoe said:

So that begs the question where is the gap to fill? For me its a quality immersive family experience. A dark ride that is a bit of an ocean exploration would be very cool. A ride with indoor and outdoor underwater elements would be incredible, like Nemo’s Voyage at Disneyland. 

I think you've also gotta keep in mind that it is still (at least partially) a marine park, and there are definitely some things they could do on that end as well.

[Ogre]

#bringbackthehippos

[Coasterjoe]

27 minutes ago, Tricoart said:

I think you've also gotta keep in mind that it is still (at least partially) a marine park, and there are definitely some things they could do on that end as well.

Hmmm, thats a thought. One thing to consider is the big sister SW parks have been slowly moving away from marine life being the main focus of the park in their marketing with the controversy that comes with the stigma around large ocean animals in captivity and they have become a lot more ride focused in recent years. In saying that, id love some to see some more just aquarium type exhibits. Maybe a walk through aquarium through the castle could be a go with several smaller tanks. Showcasing some deadly marine life like box jelly's and blue ring octopus would be a good selling point too. I agree there is a lot of marine life not on display, particularly marine life unique to Australia. I would also love to see more interactive educational displays an exhibits around the park too. 

[Tricoart]

27 minutes ago, Coasterjoe said:

Hmmm, thats a thought. One thing to consider is the big sister SW parks have been slowly moving away from marine life being the main focus of the park in their marketing with the controversy that comes with the stigma around large ocean animals in captivity and they have become a lot more ride focused in recent years. In saying that, id love some to see some more just aquarium type exhibits. Maybe a walk through aquarium through the castle could be a go with several smaller tanks. Showcasing some deadly marine life like box jelly's and blue ring octopus would be a good selling point too. I agree there is a lot of marine life not on display, particularly marine life unique to Australia. I would also love to see more interactive educational displays an exhibits around the park too. 

They're nowhere near sister parks, the only thing that relates them is a similar name (VRTP's/Australia's = "Sea World", SEAS'/United States' = "SeaWorld"). If VRTP want to mirror SEAS by leaving animals behind, however, then they go right ahead, but I'd be pretty disappointed if that were the case. Even as far as just renovating their current enclosures, some are of course pretty top-notch already (Shark Bay and Polar Bear Shores come to mind), but others are showing their age and/or could really be a lot better if they were to put the necessary funding into them (e.g. Seal Harbour, Sea Jellies Illuminated, Penguin Encounter). And there are always more species they could add, like your usual fish, eels, octopi, (more) jellyfish in a full-on aquarium building, or some singular-species enclosures for unique animals they don't yet have (absolutely unrealistic pipe-dream being Dugong).

1 hour ago, Ogre said:

#bringbackthehippos

Management at Sea World must've been off their rocker if they thought they could just decide one day that they were going to house Crocodiles, Gorillas, and Hippopotami.

Edited August 28, 2022 by Tricoart

[Coasterjoe]

8 hours ago, Tricoart said:

They're nowhere near sister parks, the only thing that relates them is a similar name (VRTP's/Australia's = "Sea World", SEAS'/United States' = "SeaWorld"). If VRTP want to mirror SEAS by leaving animals behind, however, then they go right ahead, but I'd be pretty disappointed if that were the case. Even as far as just renovating their current enclosures, some are of course pretty top-notch already (Shark Bay and Polar Bear Shores come to mind), but others are showing their age and/or could really be a lot better if they were to put the necessary funding into them (e.g. Seal Harbour, Sea Jellies Illuminated, Penguin Encounter). And there are always more species they could add, like your usual fish, eels, octopi, (more) jellyfish in a full-on aquarium building, or some singular-species enclosures for unique animals they don't yet have (absolutely unrealistic pipe-dream being Dugong).

Management at Sea World must've been off their rocker if they thought they could just decide one day that they were going to house Crocodiles, Gorillas, and Hippopotami.

I am very well aware they are not affiliated with the US Seaworld parks, but its a small nich in the marine park/theme park world and they do tend to follow the same model and trends as the american parks. As far as the general public is concerned they tarnish SW Gold coast with the same brush as SW when it comes to the controversy around large marine animals. The shift away from marine life has already begun when was the last time you saw a marketing campaign from SW that focused on the animals? You might see one or two small exhibits and improvements to current exhibits but imo I dont see SW bringing in any new animals any time soon.