Geeze! We're not even half way through the year and they have already hit 1 million, I hope this trend continues...who would have thought the first park here to hit the magic 2 million would have been a water park.

Geeze! We're not even half way through the year and they have already hit 1 million, I hope this trend continues...who would have thought the first park here to hit the magic 2 million would have been a water park.

Yes and who would've though it would be the year when a rival waterpark opened just across the road. Seems crazy. 2 new attractions in one year will only boost attendances further... let's hope WhiteWater World is planning to fight back

I should point out its financial year, not calender year. Interestingly, the competition did congratulate WnW on the succuess, with just a hint of being smug that Whitewater World WOULD grow the attendance of both parks.

Has anyone got a link to the full article?

I'm yet to see a full release. I was notified by the park of the news yesterday morning, but won't be publishing the news until the full story is out. If WhiteWater World can claim they're even partly responsible for Wet'n'Wild's tremendous success, then it's logical that Sea World claim they're home to The Wiggles and Movie World can say they're home to the world's tallest freefall attraction. Wet'n'Wild's success can be attributed to their huge marketing campaign and the way they have changed and expanded their overall image in the past year or so. If WhiteWater World sugest they had anything to do with Wet'n'Wild's attendance figures, then I'd like to see an apology from them should Wet'n'Wild's attendance fall in coming years. Seems only fair.

^Good point. It is pretty unfair for WWW to make that claim. However, you would have to say that in some ways the increased marketing and expansions have been in response to the opening of WWW.

Great Story Rich. Saved me having to do it all out.

A new article in the Gold Coast Weekend Bulletin has put up info on the New Surf Rider Half Pipe at Wet N Wild. I Scanned the Article so you can all have a read. Someone from a Coaster Website has sent in the photos or contacted them. I think it was someone from this site. Anyway Enjoy

Edited May 26, 200719 yr by mattcrombie

I wouldn't be surprised if the paper just went ahead and snatched the images straight off this site. They look really familiar to the shots joz took a while ago.

LOL, maybe the GC bulletin finally discovered R-C & Ozcoaster, bit slow on the uptake though, the ride has been sitting there in the flesh for what, 3 months? Even the G-C bulletin is into plagiarising now, not just the domain for smaller coaster sites and DW managment

Edited May 26, 200719 yr by Gazza

The shots are straight off Ozcoaster. Wonder if it was Ian that sent them in... Otherwise they've removed the logos/watermarks from them... If they took them straight off the internet without permission, does that mean Ian can hit them up for it? Link to Ozcoaster's Pics (Sorry if I'm not supposed to link, let me know). EDIT: Here's the article from the GC-Bulletin website.

Edited May 26, 200719 yr by WnW_Rocks

Steve Peet of Wet 'n' Wild talks about waterparks being essentially a whole new exciting industry (starting off in the 70's) and yet they are now building a dry theme park ride. I don't care if they throw a couple of misters, it's still not a waterpark ride. While I am incredibly un-excited about the 'Surf Rider' I am looking forward to hearing about their second attraction and I'm hoping its a new waterslide. Good on them though for adding so much new stuff

... since they've quoted the source, they haven't ripped them off. As if they would anyway... the owner of the site obviously is a Gold Coast local who would have a very high chance of seeing or being told about the pics being used.

They have copied from everywhere though, i mean the other pics are the ones from RCDB: http://www.rcdb.com/ig1826.htm?picture=8 and http://www.rcdb.com/ig1826.htm?picture=2

Used yes. I'm sure they wouldn't just not ask permission.

... since they've quoted the source, they haven't ripped them off.

Eh? Mind helping me out, I can't find anywhere, both on their website and the scan of the article... Sorry if I've missed the plainly obvious.

Meaning, they have a quote from the source (even though they don't identify who he is).

"A magnetic propulsion system accelerates the vehicle back and forth along the U-shaped track, going higher and higher up the U," said the source. "At the end of the ride cycle, the magnetic system works in reverse to bring the vehicle to a halt so passengers can disembark."

Edited May 26, 200719 yr by Tony Teulan

Well, it has been clarified on Ozcoaster that Ian did not give permission for his pics to be used, nor was he quoted.

I say sue them! I wish you could do that... Is Ian going to let it slip? I find it pretty slack they removed the logos and didn't credit him. Oh well...

Well it could be possable that Ian made a deal with the GCB to print his photos. Woo... 195 posts.

Shame you didn't read the post made two ahead of yours, before typing your glorious 195th post

Edited May 29, 200719 yr by Gazza

2,532 is nothing. But 195 is something to be proud of! Back On-Topic. Yeah Ian could have an agreement with the GCB. And if so, I don't think he would say no. Who would say no? 196 posts now

Edited May 29, 200719 yr by ash.1111

OK look, I think I was too subtle, so Ill just repost what I said in the post you didn't read. Well, it has been clarified on Ozcoaster that Ian did not give permission for his pics to be used, nor was he quoted. Now, how could he have an agreement with the GCB if he didn't give them permission in the first place?

Edited May 29, 200719 yr by Gazza

Next time I'll read a little back more into the topic... (woops my bad) 197 posts. I think Ian should email the GCB and I'm sure legal action could be taken? I'm no lawer but yeah...

This should really be in it's own topic, but considering Ian works for Warner Village Theme Parks as a photographer, maybe he could have something in his contract which says he doesn't really have any say in where his photographs go? Sure they are his own photographs, he took them, but maybe he signed his rights away to these photographs to WVTP in order to post them on his website, and to have exclusive access behind the barriers? And by that I mean that the photographs technically belong to WVTP's, and they can assign the use of the photographs without crediting the photographer? Or simply the case could be that the Bulletin used his photograph/s for the article without permission from any party, in which case I would be asking for some money in return from the Gold Coast Bulletin.