**NEWS** Little green martian to be replaced by big green ogre **NEWS**

[taronga]

Again i agree with matty - they named the park for the studio. The reasoning for Hi-5 is the Nine Network have been partners/sponsors of WVTP for more than ten years (they cross-promote which also explains wide world of sports @ Intencity, WB characters on tv, etc.) & the pokemon promo was a WB movie , i could go on about the rest but i don't have to.

[LunaParkFanatic]

Screw the Sherk idea! I saw FINDING NEMO!!!! I LOVE THE MOVIE... hehehe

[rappa]

Well you should buy yourself a ticket to Disneyland Luna This is really crazy, first of all everyone knows that the park is getting it, so why bother to keep trying to prove a point otherwise? To be honest I never knew Superman was a WB character and I didn't have a problem with them getting the coaster, I just went with it. Similarly the public that may not know about Shrek won't care either. It's a movie, this is a movie park, DONE DEAL. The fact it's called WBMW is because THEY OWNED IT! Nothing to do with what was in it, just who paid the bills and the credit for it, that's about as simple as it gets. If we didn't get Shrek then we would probably get a half arsed attraction of a movie that wasn't that great. This was we are getting a KICK ARSE attraction on a movie that is FANTASTIC. And I'll agree that this would have to be the best non-disney 4D there is, why aren't we all jumping for joy over how great the park is becoming? You're argument about Disney is silly, that is Disney, Disney will always be in a category of it's own (and for good reason!), the normal rules just don't apply. When WB starts building 100 to 200 million dollar (US mind you) totaly imersive attractions, perfect in every sense as opossed to really well done for the money 12 million dollar AU attractions then you can put the two in the same category. It's a pretty simple arrangement, Universal (and FOX) are now shooting in the Gold Coast studios, that relationship has allowed deals like this one to take place, so there you go. Funny, I was having a conversation the other day about when people would get all anti Movie World over Shrek, we actually thought it would be someone else who would do it.

[taronga]

Well you buy yourseld a ticket to Disneyland Luna The fact it's called WBMW is because THEY OWNED IT! Nothing to do with what was in it, just who paid the bills and the credit for it, that's about as simple as it gets. It's a pretty simple arrangement, Universal (and FOX) are now shooting in the Gold Coast studios, that relationship has allowed deals like this one to take place, so there you go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It looks like YOU don't get it! Other studios don't get attractions @ Movieworld because they film there, they DON'T get attractions at all, because Warner Bros approves every attraction at any of their parks. That is the real reason why it's Warner Bros Movieworld!!! Duh

[rappa]

Okay first of all please refrain from replying to me in that nature because I never attacked anyone and to say "looks like YOU don't get it" I think is a bit harsh and uncalled for. I really don't understand what you are saying in that post (and I'm not the only one). I never said that they automatically get them, I said that it has opened up a relationship allowing WB to source attractions from the other companies. This is what they have done, clearly if they are getting this Universal attraction WB has approved it. By your very own logic it is called WBMW because WB approves the attractions in the park. WB have approved this attraction so it is going in. This falls under your stated guidelines for the park being called WBMW so therefore by your own logic I do not understand how you can have a problem with the attraction. Warner Bros Approval + Attraction in Park = Warner Bros Movie World Park = Warner Bros Attraction. Warner Bros Approval + Shrek = Warner Bros Theme Park Attraction Doesn't make all that much sense to me but it would appear that it makes sense to you seen though you wrote it

[D.C.]

Okay, let's change the tone of this thread a little. Shrek's gonna rock. I had fun on the attraction at Universal Studios Hollywood and am looking forward to experiencing it again. I wonder if it will have the same pre-show movie that the Hollywood version has before you go in...

[rappa]

SHHHHHHHHHHHH DC As someone who shares your opinion of the attraction I recon we should keep quiet about the pre-show. Would be a nice surprise for those that haven't seen it don't you think

[rappa]

Okay I have an excuse for double posting so quiet you guys Just thought I'd point out that I just saw quite a lavish ad on chan 10 for the new Shrek 4D attraction. Guess that's a risky move for an attraction that some say we aren't getting LOL What I will say is if this is the ad for a minor attraction like this I CAN'T WAIT to see what they pull out for Superman.

[matty_o_911]

Well I'm sure Movie World had plenty of money to spend on advertising this because they were cheap and weren't bothered to do anything original and just 'borrowed' another themepark's idea. I have yet to see the ad, but if this is the case then I am extremely disappointed in Movie World and they should be ashamed of themselves.

[D.C.]

djrappa: Don't worry... I had no intention of spoiling the specifics of the pre-show movie. If it even exists at WBMW. matty o 911: I'm proud of Movie World for providing another innovative attraction to an Australian theme park.

[matty_o_911]

To D.C., let me give you some synonyms for the word innovative: pioneering, inventive, new, novel, ORIGINAL. Copying an attraction from Universal Studios is hardly an innovative attraction. It is not inventive. It is not novel, it is not pioneering, it is not inventive and is certainly not original. This is why I am not happy with the inclusion of Shrek 4D, because it is not an innovative attraction! It may have been innovative for Universal when 'they' made it, but it definately isn't for Movie World.

[jcgoldcoast]

For Shrek's sake, all of you stop it. MovieWorld is getting this attraction, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. Who cares if you are disapointed, its not your decision if they put in an attraction that will boost the parks attendence, it is the parks decision!

[D.C.]

Shrek's innovative to Australian shores, though.

[Adam]

Congrats Movie World on a fantastic new attraction! Matty, if movie world hadn't 'borrowed' any ideas from other theme parks then we wouldn't have Lethal Weapon, Scooby-Doo, Road Runner, or Superman (the concept of a roller-coaster came from a non Warner Bros. related park) nor would we have the Wild West Falls Adventure Ride (well... it wasn't invented by Warner Bros., it was 'borrowed'). Sharing ideas is what theme parks are all about! Thanks djrappa, can't wait to see the ads!

[Psycho]

...and to Psycho, I don't know exactly what Twister you are referring to, but the 1996 film Twister with Helen Hunt was made by Universal, not Warner Bros. which perfectly legitimises its presence in Universal Studios...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually Matty, check out imdb. I was referring to the fact that the movie was distributed in theatres and on video by Warner Bros and that WB had a large hand in the production side of things...

[matty_o_911]

Well when I wrote that piece of information I was basing it upon the DVD box of the movie that I had in my cupboard and no where did I see a WB logo. However upon rechecking I did see Warner Bros in the credits on the box, so my apologies. However my point about the Twister attraction being legitimate at Universal Studios as far as I'm concerned still applies.

Edited August 29, 2005 by matty_o_911

[GoGoBoy]

This is absolutely awesome news. I am so excited to hear that Warner Village is really getting their stuff together and upping the stakes. I have always been a fan of Movie World but now with Shrek 4D AND Superman - they are showing us what a real theme park is all about. Australian park standards are hitting a new level and it's about time. Let's hope some of the lesser parks out there are given a run for their money

[dreamworld_rulz]

Hip Hip Hooray for Shrek.I love Shrek.

[Flea]

Well said GoBoi, my thoughts exactly. Not to go off topic, but does anyone remember the Wonderland Shrek 4D rumours that came about late 2003? I know this sounds as dodgy as the Cedar Point Lemon Chill guy, but the guy manning the turnstiles at Wonderland pretty much confirmed it.

[joz]

He got everything except the year and the name of the park right lol I'm very excited about this now, I'm sure everyone has been seeing the ads that have started playing in the last couple of days, makes you feel good knowing so much cool stuff is coming up.

[D.C.]

I haven't seen one ad in Brisbane...

[joz]

I've seen it on the Gold Coast, and heaps of Sydney people seem to have seen it... Keep watching TV

[D.C.]

haha, will do.

[GoGoBoy]

So does anyone know how the roll out of these new attractions is going to work? I have heard Superman is opening in December but what about Shrek? And in the commercial is Shrek the only attraction being advertised? Anything about Superman? As with Wet 'n' Wild, Movie World is all of a sudden getting a range of great new rides in one hit and yet they've gone for quite a few years with nothing. Shrek would have enough pulling power to be an announced addition all on its own without needing another ride opening a few months later. I am just very curious (not complaining!) as to why Warner Village have gone about it this way

[rappa]

Umm... because they've decided they want to kick but?? I dunno, but what ever Mr Menzies is thinking, I'm sure glad he is