What is next for our parks?

[Tricoart]

17 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

Also, The castle was not originally a theatre. The facade was built with VR but was originally open air inside the castle walls.

When it originally gained a use, it served shortly as a play area (according to Wikipedia, at least), then became the theatre. And, again, I just don’t think they need a major attraction to pull people in at that location that already has a lot of guests there, especially so soon after New Atlantis (which is still suffering from its own ‘teething problems’). And, in the case that they were planning on using it for a major attraction, you’d think they’d have the foresight to use the rest Vikings Revenge’s plot for something better than for a basic pathway & some lawn. They very much seem to be using it all as a rest area, or an easier route to Storm or Jet Rescue, for the time being, and having a nice small aquarium for families to duck into on the way is a more than adequate use for the building/the space it occupies.

Edited August 8 by Tricoart

[STRAWS]

57 minutes ago, Gazza said:

What's the lore of WWF?

The Town area of the ride is apprently suposed to be a ghost town. At the end of the ride during the final chain lift its supose to make you think the mine is going to blow up with the guy screaming at you to get out. Unfortuntely this effect has been broken for over 3 years which ruins the entire part of the end storyline. I had my hopes it would be fixed by now but like much of Movie World its been left to rot. 

[jjuttup]

21 hours ago, HarryHeHe8 said:

There are signs, but i feel like they are not adequate, and its very difficult to determine a certain type of fish.

Exactly this. I had to ask in one of my zookeeper groups what that discount Lungfish/Trout hybrid was the the top of the tank was as i couldnt find it on any sign and there was so many of them. It was a Cobia.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

1 minute ago, Tricoart said:

you’d think they’d have the foresight to use the rest Vikings Revenge’s plot for something better than for an uncovered pathway & some lawn.

Just like Wipeout > Kickback Cove, it is better to have a nicely landscaped and eye-pleasing 'rest area' than an old rotting attraction structure or empty ride pad that clearly shows something missing that used to be there when its in the middle of your park.

Rides should be interspersed throughout the park. If you look at 'original sea world' in the postcard in my post above, you had attractions dotted all along the spit. Many of those attraction areas have already been given over to animals already. 

I can count approximately 17 non-animal attractions in that postcard, though do note that i'm not counting any kiddie attractions aimed primarily at kids under 10 (mainly because I can't see them \ don't know if there are any) I've included the circus tent without knowing what is inside it - it may be an animal presentation or not - I don't know.

Today - I count 14, IF you include all 8 children's attractions - including the kid's showstage (splashpad should be coloured also).
(I'm sure i've missed some things or made a mistake here or there, feel free to let me know, but I think the imbalance is still quite obvious)

We've lost a not-insignificant number of all-age attractions. We've also used a very significant chunk of land for animal habitats that we didn't previously have. All of the non-kids attractions we have now are prohibitive in some way - either high-thrill, restricted restraint, very unreliable, or are water attractions that aren't hugely popular for half the year.

Now i'll grant you a lot of retro sea world's attractions were water based, but the remaining 'dry' attractions still offered variety.

In both images, red notes non-marine-animal attractions, and blue indicates marine animal attractions.

 

[HarryHeHe8]

4 hours ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

Just like Wipeout > Kickback Cove, it is better to have a nicely landscaped and eye-pleasing 'rest area' than an old rotting attraction structure or empty ride pad that clearly shows something missing that used to be there when its in the middle of your park.

Rides should be interspersed throughout the park. If you look at 'original sea world' in the postcard in my post above, you had attractions dotted all along the spit. Many of those attraction areas have already been given over to animals already. 

I can count approximately 17 non-animal attractions in that postcard, though do note that i'm not counting any kiddie attractions aimed primarily at kids under 10 (mainly because I can't see them \ don't know if there are any) I've included the circus tent without knowing what is inside it - it may be an animal presentation or not - I don't know.

Today - I count 14, IF you include all 8 children's attractions - including the kid's showstage (splashpad should be coloured also).
(I'm sure i've missed some things or made a mistake here or there, feel free to let me know, but I think the imbalance is still quite obvious)

We've lost a not-insignificant number of all-age attractions. We've also used a very significant chunk of land for animal habitats that we didn't previously have. All of the non-kids attractions we have now are prohibitive in some way - either high-thrill, restricted restraint, very unreliable, or are water attractions that aren't hugely popular for half the year.

Now i'll grant you a lot of retro sea world's attractions were water based, but the remaining 'dry' attractions still offered variety.

In both images, red notes non-marine-animal attractions, and blue indicates marine animal attractions.

 

That’s what I’m trying to say here. Sea World has plenty of animals. I feel like they need a good new water attraction like a slide of some description as they haven’t done that in so long. I also feel like grouping the animals better would help guests know where to go for animals and where to go for rides.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

I think the wet\dry park ship has sailed. Sea World Water Park was turned into battle boats and a splash pad because bringing your swimwear, towels etc and lugging them all around the park (as well as losing an hour of more of your day to the waterpark when there were so many other things to do) just wasn't a popular idea.

If you want to swim, there's two waterparks that have you covered. Waterslides do not belong in a non-waterpark.

Water attraction, maybe - but i think battle boats and storm already have the 'get wet' situation covered, and the park really needs fleshing out with some high capacity dry attractions to soak up the crowds. It's been said hundreds of times before, but what sea world really needs is an observation attraction, preferably a giant wheel (towers are impacted by winds - just like trident is, so a wheel with a semi-continuous load would be preferable).

Heck if every two-bit japanese town can have a ferris wheel, there really isn't much reason why Sea World can't... especially as the spit height limits are no longer a thing.

[Tricoart]

1 hour ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

sea world really needs is an observation attraction

That I can agree with in lieu of the aquarium idea, that plot of land just doesn’t need a ‘ride’ ride. However, is there enough space there to fit a moderately sized Ferris Wheel?

Edited August 9 by Tricoart

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

3 minutes ago, Tricoart said:

However, is there enough space there to fit a moderately sized Ferris Wheel?

Brisbane Wheel is just over 50m diameter, and the footing requires around a 25x25m pad

Melbourne Southern Star Observation Wheel is around 110m diameter, footing goes about 55m wide, not sure on the overall footprint though as the supports dont appear to be symmetrical...

The castle space could absolutely accommodate a wheel, though the size would have to be carefully considered as its not super straightforward - the widest clearance  (the diameter of the wheel) required is only halfway up the wheel, so you can potentially build over top of some other facilities or attractions. The castle space is also elevated from it's surrounds, so it's already clear of almost every nearby obstacle that you could probably fit a Southern Star sized wheel in easily, giving more spacious cabins than what Brisbane offers. While the footprint is not big enough for what is in Melbourne, the majority of the footprint is open space, with a support column near the corners - this could easily be worked around the existing pathways in Sea World without much impact or redirection.

Personally I think it would be best in an East-West orientation (top to bottom in the picture below), giving views up and down the park for the majority of the ride, rather than primarily looking at water on both sides.

(And if the monorail station is removed, there's even more space - plus those bathrooms underneath it could do with a refresh)

[HarryHeHe8]

2 hours ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

Brisbane Wheel is just over 50m diameter, and the footing requires around a 25x25m pad

Melbourne Southern Star Observation Wheel is around 110m diameter, footing goes about 55m wide, not sure on the overall footprint though as the supports dont appear to be symmetrical...

The castle space could absolutely accommodate a wheel, though the size would have to be carefully considered as its not super straightforward - the widest clearance  (the diameter of the wheel) required is only halfway up the wheel, so you can potentially build over top of some other facilities or attractions. The castle space is also elevated from it's surrounds, so it's already clear of almost every nearby obstacle that you could probably fit a Southern Star sized wheel in easily, giving more spacious cabins than what Brisbane offers. While the footprint is not big enough for what is in Melbourne, the majority of the footprint is open space, with a support column near the corners - this could easily be worked around the existing pathways in Sea World without much impact or redirection.

Personally I think it would be best in an East-West orientation (top to bottom in the picture below), giving views up and down the park for the majority of the ride, rather than primarily looking at water on both sides.

(And if the monorail station is removed, there's even more space - plus those bathrooms underneath it could do with a refresh)

I feel like that's a good idea. There isn't really any relaxing "ride", in the park (Unless I'm mistaken), and no gold coast park has done a ferris wheel for a very long time (no the abc kids ferris wheel doesn't count). SeaWorld could really benefit from an observation style ride, as the views you can get from the park are amazing. On top of that, space is obviously not an issue. The only thing that i guess can give you a view is the old skylift, which closed years ago. I remember being able to see the sea and lakes at one point, but it wasn't designed to see things. The ferris wheel at Luna Park in Sydney provides one of the best views I have seen on a ferris wheel, with a great view of the bridge, opera house, and the rest of the park. I think SeaWorld would really be better off because of it.

[Spotty]

Honestly, I'd love to see an observation wheel at Sea World again. The Sea World eye really was the perfect fit for the park and the R60 model (same as the Brisbane wheel) looked very nice and I feel it was the perfect size. I think a wheel the size of the Southern Star would look really out of place on the Sea World skyline, and I'd personally hope for something smaller. I think the 60 - 80m height would be ideal. I think Sea World needs 3 new attractions to round out the lineup, an observation ride (Ferris Wheel), a Transport Ride and another decent flat ride. I don't think they need another water ride, and I think for Roller Coasters they are pretty good for now. Maybe in the future a coaster with inversions would be good (in say 5 or so years though)

[HarryHeHe8]

On 09/08/2024 at 4:49 PM, Spotty said:

Honestly, I'd love to see an observation wheel at Sea World again. The Sea World eye really was the perfect fit for the park and the R60 model (same as the Brisbane wheel) looked very nice and I feel it was the perfect size. I think a wheel the size of the Southern Star would look really out of place on the Sea World skyline, and I'd personally hope for something smaller. I think the 60 - 80m height would be ideal. I think Sea World needs 3 new attractions to round out the lineup, an observation ride (Ferris Wheel), a Transport Ride and another decent flat ride. I don't think they need another water ride, and I think for Roller Coasters they are pretty good for now. Maybe in the future a coaster with inversions would be good (in say 5 or so years though)

I agree with you, SeaWorld does need to reintroduce an observation wheel. However, I feel like a coaster with inversions would be better suited to MW, as SeaWorld is more of a family park than thrill (don't get me wrong, it does have thrill rides, but they are more focused on family). I think MW because they only really have one ride that inverts (GL). DC RIvals doesn't technically invert, which in my opinion is a waste of advertising potential. I feel like MW could make a nice inverting ride if they used the Doomsday Destroyer plot and annexed some of the Wild West Town, including the showcase building. This would leave a large enough plot for a compact inverting coaster.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

While it wasn't the first park on the coast with inversions (Dreamworld opened Thunderbolt in March 1982), Sea World one-upped by having the first 'triple inversion' coaster with Corkscrew, so I don't think it's that cut-and-dry to say what park should have inversions. 

Rivals is arguably the most thrilling coaster on the GC (cue debate from other camps, but remember I said "arguably") - and it has no inversions. The point is that inversions do not necessarily equal "thrills".

I agree with Spotty, I'd like to see a different style coaster in SW later down the track, and inversions wouldn't hurt. 😕

As for MW - there is no way they're taking Doomsday, Showstage and part of west to build a steel inverting coaster. That area would rock if you put in a woodie, but the space is so much better utilised for various applications, rather than solely given over to yet another coaster the park really doesn't need.

[daltma10]

I think an observation tower would be even better. Smaller ride area for better views. Something like an Intamin Gyro Tower. This means Sea World can have more space for further expansion or relaxing areas/greenery.

[Levi]

if Knotts can fit in Hangtime in a boomerang plot of land, i’m sure MovieWorld would be able to fit in a coaster in the villains unleashed area.

Edited August 12 by Levi

[HarryHeHe8]

1 hour ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

While it wasn't the first park on the coast with inversions (Dreamworld opened Thunderbolt in March 1982), Sea World one-upped by having the first 'triple inversion' coaster with Corkscrew, so I don't think it's that cut-and-dry to say what park should have inversions. 

Rivals is arguably the most thrilling coaster on the GC (cue debate from other camps, but remember I said "arguably") - and it has no inversions. The point is that inversions do not necessarily equal "thrills".

I agree with Spotty, I'd like to see a different style coaster in SW later down the track, and inversions wouldn't hurt. 😕

As for MW - there is no way they're taking Doomsday, Showstage and part of west to build a steel inverting coaster. That area would rock if you put in a woodie, but the space is so much better utilised for various applications, rather than solely given over to yet another coaster the park really doesn't need.

I see your point, but what I am trying to say is that for starters Corkscrew was in the 80's, so it's safe to say that was a while ago. I do get what your saying, but I doubt SeaWorld will be getting an inverted coaster in the next ten years.

Although I agree with you on the RIvals part, I wasn't saying inversions=thrill. I was purely saying that some sort of inverting coaster would be cool to see in The old Doomsday plot. That's just my opinion though. I don't think MW would put another wooden coaster in the area. However, either they annex part of WW for a ride, or re extend it and add another ride to the area, which would be nice.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

6 minutes ago, HarryHeHe8 said:

I wasn't saying inversions=thrill. I was purely saying that some sort of inverting coaster would be cool to see in The old Doomsday plot.

You were though.

2 hours ago, HarryHeHe8 said:

I feel like a coaster with inversions would be better suited to MW, as SeaWorld is more of a family park than thrill (don't get me wrong, it does have thrill rides, but they are more focused on family)

 

8 minutes ago, HarryHeHe8 said:

for starters Corkscrew was in the 80's

What's your point? it was built in the 80s, but it was still operating (as Sea Viper) in 2014 - which is only 10 years ago. You know what's older than that? Storm Coaster. And Jet Rescue. The three coasters from World Expo '88 in Brisbane are still operating, and they came only 6 years after Corkscrew...

If they build the suggested coaster in the 5 year timeframe Spotty gave would still only see 2 new coasters in a 15 year period. In just over half that time (8 years), Movie World will have built 4, with 3 years to spare (2017-2024, DCR, FSF, FoWW and KT).

[Tricoart]

2 hours ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

Rivals is arguably the most thrilling coaster on the GC (cue debate from other camps, but remember I said "arguably") - and it has no inversions. The point is that inversions do not necessarily equal "thrills".

To be fair, most people I’ve heard talk about Rivals at the park assume it has inversions, whereas the main takeaway from Levi is that it’s made of wood. As enthusiasts, we know Rivals doesn’t have inversions, that Sea World used to have rides with them, and that Levi is at least thrilling enough to be put in the same sentence as Rivals, but it’s less about the park’s history or their coaster’s layouts & more about the park’s current optics or a ride’s individual presence in the park for most guests. And Sea World in modern day is catering to more of a family demographic than (at least pre-WoO developments) MW, and having coaster with an inversion/s front-and-centre would be a change in pace for them that I’d not necessarily be shocked to see, but also wouldn’t bet on.

Though, something like a Cheetah Hunt scenario where it strikes a similar balance to Levi between theme & thrill/intensity, but throws in one or 2 unexpected, ‘tame’ inversions would be the more likely way for them to incorporate it IMO. The more surprising part would be them banking on the inversions/intensity in the presentation and/or marketing of a new coaster.

Edited August 12 by Tricoart

[HarryHeHe8]

6 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

You were though.

Unintentionally. Sounded better in my head, but as Tricoart just said, I wouldn't be seeing SeaWorld suddenly going back into the thrill ride era that they ended in the mid 2010's. Leviathan is a lot of fun, but not too thrilling. SeaWorld would not benefit from a coaster with inversions. My point on Corkscrew is that the only inverting coaster SeaWorld has ever had (I may be wrong i have a feeling that i am), was built in the 80's. With it being demolished in 2014, the thrill era of SeaWorld pretty much died. But I do agree I need to work on making my points more clear. I will try that. Off topic though. I do believe SeaWorld will get a new coaster, but I doubt it would be a thrill coaster.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

26 minutes ago, Tricoart said:

To be fair, most people I’ve heard talk about Rivals at the park assume it has inversions, whereas the main takeaway from Levi is that it’s made of wood. As enthusiasts, we know Rivals doesn’t have inversions, that Sea World used to have rides with them, and that Levi is at least thrilling enough to be put in the same sentence as Rivals, but it’s less about the park’s history or their coaster’s layouts & more about the park’s current optics or a ride’s individual presence in the park for most guests. And Sea World in modern day is catering to more of a family demographic than (at least pre-WoO developments) MW, and having coaster with an inversion/s front-and-centre would be a change in pace for them that I’d not necessarily be shocked to see, but also wouldn’t bet on.

Though, something like a Cheetah Hunt scenario where it strikes a similar balance to Levi between theme & thrill/intensity, but throws in one or 2 unexpected, ‘tame’ inversions would be the more likely way for them to incorporate it IMO. The more surprising part would be them banking on the inversions/intensity in the presentation and/or marketing of a new coaster.

I think you've misjudged the park's lineup entirely. While the park's attractions are more than 50% targeted at children that does not make them 'family' attractions. They skew younger, so little kids are well suited to them, Adults can ride them for the most part (albeit somewhat uncomfortably in some cases) but they aren't family attractions at all. (In fact I recall a discussion on the forums here a few years ago where adult enthusiasts were being lambasted for riding Spongebob's Boating School without an accompanying child to ride with).

Outside of Nickelodeon, Battle Boats is the only attraction in the park without minimums that the whole family can enjoy. Trident is next at 105cm and storm at 110cm. What is truly laughable though is an attraction like Vortex at 140cm minimum height. Sure the animal attractions mean there is more for the whole family to experience without inhaling burnt rubber (i'm looking at you HWSD), but to dismiss a mid-level coaster with potentially some small or low impact inversions suitable for the family on the basis that the park skews towards families is, to me, wild.

To be clear, nobody is saying a new coaster should be the headliner. Levi will hold onto that title for sheer presence from any position across the park - and I think our minds have come closer to agreeing with Cheetah Hunt as a suggestion.

29 minutes ago, HarryHeHe8 said:

I wouldn't be seeing SeaWorld suddenly going back into the thrill ride era that they ended in the mid 2010's. Leviathan is a lot of fun, but not too thrilling. SeaWorld would not benefit from a coaster with inversions. My point on Corkscrew is that the only inverting coaster SeaWorld has ever had (I may be wrong i have a feeling that i am), was built in the 80's. With it being demolished in 2014, the thrill era of SeaWorld pretty much died. But I do agree I need to work on making my points more clear. I will try that. Off topic though. I do believe SeaWorld will get a new coaster, but I doubt it would be a thrill coaster.

You're the one that introduced 'high thrills' as a criteria here. Spotty suggested a coaster with inversions. I agreed with him and even said that inversions =\= thrills.

Fact check - Corkscrew is the only inverting coaster they've ever had. The only other coaster the park ever had was Thrillseeker, which travels the show circuit as 'Taipan' though I haven't seen it in a few years I did hear recently it was on the move - i'm sure someone here will know more though)

At this point you're just parroting the facts i've already provided without anything new and spinning it differently. The "Thrill Era of Sea World" isn't dead. Jet Rescue was arguably (IMO) a more thrilling attraction than Corkscrew was because of the riding position and launch out of the station (the park calls it "Max Thrill" on their website). Storm was also intended to be a themed thrilling attraction (also 'Max Thrill' on the website).

All three coasters operated simultaneously, albeit for the briefest period. Since Storm Coaster opened in 2013, the only "adult" level attractions Sea World has built has been the three attractions in New Atlantis, all of which have a minimum solo rider height of 140cm, two of which are described as 'Thrill Rides' on the park's website (one family thrill, one max thrill).

[Narra]

10 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

which travels the show circuit as 'Taipan' though I haven't seen it in a few years I did hear recently it was on the move

Correct

[HarryHeHe8]

On 12/08/2024 at 3:11 PM, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

The "Thrill Era of Sea World" isn't dead. Jet Rescue was arguably (IMO) a more thrilling attraction than Corkscrew was because of the riding position and launch out of the station (the park calls it "Max Thrill" on their website). Storm was also intended to be a themed thrilling attraction (also 'Max Thrill' on the website).

 

I'm sorry that I'm not allowed to have my own opinion. Sure Levi is forceful and Jet rescue is fast, but IMO they aren't that thrilling. (maybe ive just been on too many crazy coasters). All I'm saying is I doubt an inverting coaster will be installed in the park in the next few years. (Also I had no intention of parroting your statements, it's just my observations lead me to saying things similar to yours).

[Lakyn17]

Would love if the doomsday section and part of wild Wild West was used as a new Hanna Barbera area. 

[Tricoart]

6 minutes ago, Lakyn17 said:

Would love if the doomsday section and part of wild Wild West was used as a new Hanna Barbera area. 

Especially after WoO, please no.

[Lakyn17]

12 minutes ago, Tricoart said:

Especially after WoO, please no.

Why? More for kids. Look how great the HB stuff looks at the Abu Dabuai park. With WoO adding two new family coasters, give something for the kids. 
More than enough adult rides as is. Add a stage there to have similar shows like sea worlds paw patrol and turtles show. With excellent theming it would be a great draw. 

[Tricoart]

3 hours ago, Lakyn17 said:

Why? More for kids. Look how great the HB stuff looks at the Abu Dabuai park. With WoO adding two new family coasters, give something for the kids. 
More than enough adult rides as is. Add a stage there to have similar shows like sea worlds paw patrol and turtles show. With excellent theming it would be a great draw. 

Disregarding that it’d make the whole back of the park past the roundabout a ‘family’ section, they’ve already got a kids zone, and they're currently making a family zone/debatably a 2nd kids one. Sure, add a stage building for scheduled shows (if they can’t just use the ‘stage’ they already have around the tree for photo ops, and their scheduled Looney Tunes dance shows on Main St aren’t enough), but do it in WB Kids. I’m sure they could sacrifice a barely ridden flat or 2 for the space if they had to, and it makes a whole lot more sense than removing WB Showcase & Doomsday for a whole 2nd/3rd kids area on the other side of the T-junction.

Also, even though it was a bit of a point of contention in the Sea World discussion, it is a park that’s seemed to gear itself to families first, whereas Movie World aims for more of a mix, if anything skewing to the other end. Which, if that is indeed true, then I’ll quote what’s been said hundreds of times ATP: They need a thrilling, good capacity flat.

Edited August 14 by Tricoart