What is next for our parks?

[Tricoart]

2 hours ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

I think you're overthinking it. DCA runs the red car trolley through California Adventure park, and while they have at least two, i've seen them run only one on some busy days. Capacity isn't a huge concern as it is self-controlling - if people queue up at a trolley stop and it's full or there's already too many people waiting, they continue on to the next attraction. If its empty, or its a quieter day, its a great opportunity to tour the park from a different vantage point and rest those weary legs.

The park is already set up with a parade route with vehicle clearances, and they've brought vehicles in from both Western and Tunes ends for shows and the like. You'd have to check clearances but I reckon you could run this circuit pretty easily with a trolley vehicle or similar. (The WB Kids tree is my main concern, but you could easily just circle the grass at Ricks to have a "WB Kids" stop if you really wanted to)

 

And the best part is - they've already got the vehicle!

(Though I would like to see them add a few other "main street vehicles" for this purpose.)

When I said capacity, I meant the opposite of it being too on-demand. This configuration would be rather pointless as a transport option (Main St is about the only straightforward path in the park, and adding stops there would more or less ruin that), and there’d be near to no reason to ride it outside of if it were a viable transport option. Not to mention, even if people were to ride it as a transport option, it’d be directly taking away from Main St’s already hurting midway capacity as it’d be running both ways through the park’s main bottleneck.

Disney’s seems to work via many systems/features that a themed Brisbane Metro wouldn’t have, such as:
          • Tram lines/track, which both means that the vehicle doesn’t need to be steered by a driver (so every trip easily travels the same route w/o a risk of deviating), and that visitors can easily see exactly where the vehicle is going at all times, as well as its width throughout via different coloured pathing around the tracks.
          • (For Disney) Thematic cohesion, them going all in on it looking and feeling like a trolley system from the era that section of the park is themed to means to them that, no matter how adequately it fits the role as a transport ride, it’s a themed experience that their guests’ll ride, and adds to the overall feel of that section of the park.
          • Novelty. Trams/trolleys like Disney’s are a novel thing (i’d imagine, especially in California), and, in setting, would still be for international guests. Even on the Gold Coast where trams are now a part of commuting, having a vintage tram/trolley with a pleasant, old-timey bell would still have some novelty. A car themed to a taxi, or a bus themed to a trolley, with staff members walking in front shouting at stubborn guests to move out of the way, doesn’t contain the same novelty (apart from maybe by laughing at it’s implementation).

Edited August 7 by Tricoart

[Smol bean]

A proper aquarium at SeaWorld would be really nice to have to help increase the lineup of animals at the park. I would personally place it where Sea Jellies Illuminated is now while also having it take over the land left over by the defunct monorail station to the left of it (if foundational or clearance issues don't make it impossible) to create a more fleshed out aquarium to showcase more fish species and other smaller sea animals not currently at the park.

[themagician]

53 minutes ago, Smol bean said:

A proper aquarium at SeaWorld

Shark Bay “Am I joke to you”

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

3 hours ago, Narra said:

But they also have to move guests off the street to do the parade, they would need to have extra team members to walk in front of the vehicle to make sure guests don't get hit and for such a low capacity vehicle I just can't see village doing it

A parade involves contra-flow with wide vehicles that can barely pass each other. When a single vehicle tours main street (such as when the Mystery Machine does the rounds) a single member of Mystery Inc walks in front of the vehicle to ensure safety. This is no different. 

I'm not sure Village would do it either, but the idea was put forward, and it was shot down based on the supposed work involved to bring it online. I simply responded to show that an (albeit simple) version of the idea could be put into practice with VERY LITTLE effort - the assets are already in place, there are cast members already trained in how to operate the vehicle. They would need procedures for guest loading and operations, and as a passenger vehicle there may be some regulatory requirements, but my point is the vast majority of the pieces are already in place, if they had chosen to do something like that.

3 hours ago, themagician said:

I think something simple like this would be great for MW, but knowing VRTP, they’d probably charge for it (If it was only $5 pp then I wouldn’t have an issue with it). 

Sea World needs it more though because that park is in desperate need of some kind of transport option. The parks layout and inclines probably means it wouldn’t work, but come on Village, you need to do something.

But I also think a trolley would be awesome to see at DW. Would suit the park really nicely and chime in to that nostalgia.

A decision to charge for a 'main street vehicle' would almost guarantee the concept would die from lack of use. I'd like to see SW have a transport option as the park is a long boi, but a road tram style option isn't viable as there is nowhere to turn around currently - hence why the monorail and train were always great options (as was the skyway). I'm not sure DW could do it - main street is accomodating enough, but the bottleneck around claw, and lack of turnaround space near Gold Coaster would kill it. They at least have a train to fill the 'transport ride' hole in their lineup.

1 hour ago, Tricoart said:

When I said capacity, I meant the opposite of it being too on-demand. This configuration would be rather pointless as a transport option (Main St is about the only straightforward path in the park, and adding stops there would more or less ruin that), and there’d be near to no reason to ride it outside of if it were a viable transport option. Not to mention, even if people were to ride it as a transport option, it’d be directly taking away from Main St’s already hurting midway capacity as it’d be running both ways through the park’s main bottleneck.

Disney’s seems to work via many systems/features that a themed Brisbane Metro wouldn’t have, such as:
          • Tram lines/track, which both means that the vehicle doesn’t need to be steered by a driver (so every trip easily travels the same route w/o a risk of deviating), and that visitors can easily see exactly where the vehicle is going at all times, as well as its width throughout via different coloured pathing around the tracks.
          • (For Disney) Thematic cohesion, them going all in on it looking and feeling like a trolley system from the era that section of the park is themed to means to them that, no matter how adequately it fits the role as a transport ride, it’s a themed experience that their guests’ll ride, and adds to the overall feel of that section of the park.
          • Novelty. Trams/trolleys like Disney’s are a novel thing (i’d imagine, especially in California), and, in setting, would still be for international guests. Even on the Gold Coast where trams are now a part of commuting, having a vintage tram/trolley with a pleasant, old-timey bell would still have some novelty. A car themed to a taxi, or a bus themed to a trolley, with staff members walking in front shouting at stubborn guests to move out of the way, doesn’t contain the same novelty (apart from maybe by laughing at it’s implementation).

To hell with capacity, The main street vehicles are more about kinetics than 'how many guests it can take'. Stops along main street wouldn't ruin Main Street. A stop outside Batwing, Another near sweet treats, a third near West Burgers, a fourth near Rick's - all places where the pathways widen or there is a secondary path around the obstacle.

Disneyland has track-bound vehicles like the horse drawn trolley, but also freely-driven vehicles such as the fire truck and the omnibus (or by your apparent standards, the Anaheim Metro). These vehicles literally run from the front of main street to the Castle and back. Some vehicles don't require a walking escort, and some do (and some require it only when it gets busier, but when the park is slammed, many of the vehicles are taken off main street to reduce the obstructions to foot traffic).
I don't buy your arguments for why it shouldn't be possible to do it.

As I said above though, I'm not sure this is something village would actually implement - but the idea was put out there. Reasons were put forward why it couldn't be possible, i'm just countering those reasons to show not only that it is possible, but that it's been done elsewhere.

41 minutes ago, Smol bean said:

A proper aquarium at SeaWorld would be really nice to have to help increase the lineup of animals at the park. I would personally place it where Sea Jellies Illuminated is now while also having it take over the land left over by the defunct monorail station to the left of it (if foundational or clearance issues don't make it impossible) to create a more fleshed out aquarium to showcase more fish species and other smaller sea animals not currently at the park.

Like Magician, my immediate reactoin was to bring up Shark Bay - especially the 'reef' side - as a counter to this argument, but when I think to other aquariums i've visited - such as Sentosa SEA, Ocean Park's Grand Aquarium, Osaka Aquarium - They've had smaller tanks with different species that can't really exist in the reef. There are plenty of places in the park where smaller tanks could be implemented - including the above ground areas at Shark Bay and Penguin Encounter's lower corridors. There's a lot of work in maintaining them and BOH equipment to look after also. But that's a fully-fledged aquarium.
There aren't a great many "small tank" aquarium spaces in places like Sea World San Diego either - large tanks for dolphins, whales, smaller ones for Seals and SeaLions, but not really many for smaller exhibits, if any, that I can recall. I'm not sure this is where I want Sea World to put their efforts into the future.

[HarryHeHe8]

13 minutes ago, themagician said:

Shark Bay “Am I joke to you”

Although that is true, I would definitely at least like to see a renovation, or an aquarium in the castle with smaller tanks. If that can't happen, maybe more info on the species in shark bay would be nice.

[Smol bean]

26 minutes ago, themagician said:

Shark Bay “Am I joke to you”

Shark bay is a good space for different fishes but a location more focused on smaller sea animals outside of sea jellies I think is a good fit for sea world.

[Tricoart]

An indoor, themed aquarium with smaller tanks for individual aquatic species (octopus, fish, eel, etc.) is what we're talking about. Shark Bay is a great outdoor tank for sharks & reef environments, but a quaint little zone with species that don't fit in Shark Bay could serve as a pleasant little educational walkthrough building. Like a Sea Life (but hopefully not too much like one).

Edited August 7 by Tricoart

[Naazon]

50 minutes ago, HarryHeHe8 said:

Although that is true, I would definitely at least like to see a renovation, or an aquarium in the castle with smaller tanks. If that can't happen, maybe more info on the species in shark bay would be nice.

Its been a little bit since I was there, but isn't there signs all along the front of the tank for the different fishes? 

31 minutes ago, Tricoart said:

An indoor, themed aquarium with smaller tanks for individual aquatic species (octopus, fish, eel, etc.) is what we're talking about. Shark Bay is a great outdoor tank for sharks & reef environments, but a quaint little zone with species that don't fit in Shark Bay could serve as a pleasant little educational walkthrough building. Like a Sea Life (but hopefully not too much like one).

Man, its Sea World, not Tank World. Last time I went to Underwater World or Sea Life or whatever its called now, they had small tanks and they were breezed past. Everyone went to the shark tunnel, seals and otters.

[HarryHeHe8]

19 minutes ago, Naazon said:

Its been a little bit since I was there, but isn't there signs all along the front of the tank for the different fishes? 

 

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

[Tricoart]

1 hour ago, Naazon said:

Man, its Sea World, not Tank World.

I don't really get the point here. It's Sea World, and animals that live in the sea are held in captivity via tanks, that's the way it works.

1 hour ago, Naazon said:

Last time I went to Underwater World or Sea Life or whatever its called now, they had small tanks and they were breezed past. Everyone went to the shark tunnel, seals and otters.

Not every section like these need to contain a keystone species, something like Sea Life Sunshine Coast faults because they've had to fill their cramped building with as many of those as possible to market the failing aquarium, meaning the smaller species are treated as nothing more than paintings in the hallway that leads to the species seen in advertisements. The purpose of areas such as these, both in a park like Sea World & in larger specialized aquarium buildings, are to flesh out the attraction & have a nice thing for families to explore in-between the larger scale exhibits/experiences, and with Sea World having a building in the middle of the park (where guests generally loiter between larger-scale things anyway) that's begging to be reused, it's hard to think of a use for it that suits the park more. Dreamworld's done the same with their Twilight Trail (which is similar in purpose, but more mammalian-focused), and Taronga on a larger scale with their Amphibian & Reptile Conservation Centre (similar purpose, but for herptiles) because it's simply a nice thing for people of all ages to explore, & introduces younger generations to perhaps lesser-appreciated species in a way that, if done well, serves an educational purpose. 

Edited August 7 by Tricoart

[HarryHeHe8]

39 minutes ago, Tricoart said:

I don't really get the point here. It's Sea World, and animals that live in the sea are held in captivity via tanks, that's the way it works.

Not every section like these need to contain a keystone species, something like Sea Life Sunshine Coast faults because they've had to fill their cramped building with as many of those as possible to market the failing aquarium, meaning the smaller species are treated as nothing more than paintings in the hallway that leads to the species seen in advertisements. The purpose of areas such as these, both in a park like Sea World & in larger specialized aquarium buildings, are to flesh out the attraction & have a nice thing for families to explore in-between the larger scale exhibits/experiences, and with Sea World having a building in the middle of the park (where guests generally loiter between larger-scale things anyway) that's begging to be reused, it's hard to think of a use for it that suits the park more. Dreamworld's done the same with their Twilight Trail (which is similar in purpose, but more mammalian-focused), and Taronga on a larger scale with their Amphibian & Reptile Conservation Centre (similar purpose, but for herptiles) because it's simply a nice thing for people of all ages to explore, & introduces younger generations to perhaps lesser-appreciated species in a way that, if done well, serves an educational purpose. 

I see your point there. I guess not many people want to see a tiny fish, they’ve gone to sea world for the rides and main  animals like polar bears, sharks, penguins and stingrays.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

2 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.

These days you'd be better off snapping a photo and using Google Lens than trying to identify a single reference photo of a fish that may or may not match the one you're seeing in the tank due to differences in markings and whatever. I'd bet google was far more accurate and faster.

1 hour ago, Tricoart said:

I don't really get the point here. It's Sea World, and animals that live in the sea are held in captivity via tanks, that's the way it works.

Not every section like these need to contain a keystone species, something like Sea Life Sunshine Coast faults because they've had to fill their cramped building with as many of those as possible to market the failing aquarium, meaning the smaller species are treated as nothing more than paintings in the hallway that leads to the species seen in advertisements. The purpose of areas such as these, both in a park like Sea World & in larger specialized aquarium buildings, are to flesh out the attraction & have a nice thing for families to explore in-between the larger scale exhibits/experiences, and with Sea World having a building in the middle of the park (where guests generally loiter between larger-scale things anyway) that's begging to be reused, it's hard to think of a use for it that suits the park more. Dreamworld's done the same with their Twilight Trail (which is similar in purpose, but more mammalian-focused), and Taronga on a larger scale with their Amphibian & Reptile Conservation Centre (similar purpose, but for herptiles) because it's simply a nice thing for people of all ages to explore, & introduces younger generations to perhaps lesser-appreciated species in a way that, if done well, serves an educational purpose. 

Yeah - that's a dirty word these days - "captivity" and many of the marine parks are tending to shy away from introducing MORE animals into their parks. Land animals can at least have a bit more of a 'natural' habitat - but even the amazing lagoons we have for Dolphins really doesn't cut it compared to the open ocean, and there is more push not to keep animals in tanks... big or small.

Additionally, I don't really want Sea World to be investing in 'paintings in a hallway' and especially not in the prime real estate occupied by the castle. The park needs attraction space first and foremost if it is to survive beyond the life of it's current captive attractions. 

Also, while the dreamworld example isn't that far off, they're still land animals, and have a slightly different exposure from animal rights groups. All your other examples are actual zoos, not sea-themed amusement parks with rides.

(*Caveat here - I know Sea World is a member of the Zoos and Aquariums association etc etc, I'm just inferring the difference between this and say Taronga or an Aquarium where the animals are the primary and only experiences.)

50 minutes ago, HarryHeHe8 said:

I see your point there. I guess not many people want to see a tiny fish, they’ve gone to sea world for the rides and main  animals like polar bears, sharks, penguins and stingrays.

Exactly this. I want Sea World to remember it's roots, but it can't hold onto the 'tank life' and must adapt into the future. 

[Tricoart]

41 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

Yeah - that's a dirty word these days - "captivity" and many of the marine parks are tending to shy away from introducing MORE animals into their parks. Land animals can at least have a bit more of a 'natural' habitat - but even the amazing lagoons we have for Dolphins really doesn't cut it compared to the open ocean, and there is more push not to keep animals in tanks... big or small.

Captivity is only a dirty word when it’s referring to animals that are treated inadequately. As you said, Sea World is a member of the ZAA (as are Dreamworld & Taronga), meaning their treatment of animals are regulated to meet those standards, and still generally outdo them. The issue of captivity being inadequate even when treated to meet &/or exceed those standards aren’t as black and white as land animals being okay & aquatics being bad (for example, the same staunchly anti-zoo groups of people that are against cetaceans also see issues with Sea World’s polar bears, as well as elephants at Taronga & tigers at Dreamworld). And, in the case of a small aquarium building, the species exhibited would be some of the least cared for animal groups by both the general public & the staunchly anti-zoo (aside from maybe insects), so exhibiting them with their own welfare & quality of life in mind, as well as using it as an opportunity to educate guests on the species, could serve to overall help with their public perception, rather than being either insignificant food items or pets, if ‘animals’ at all (like what has happened with our native reptiles, partially due to the Irwin family’s advocacy for them).

That’s what makes them more than ‘paintings on a wall’, managing their presentation well, which Sea Life Sunshine Coast just can’t/doesn’t do due to their own pressure to cram the building full of as many of those notable species as they possibly can, and seeing the area between as nothing more than area between. But Sea World doesn’t have that pressure, and therefore could properly manage their presentation.

Going fully into rides is fine if that’s what they want to become, but I very much hope they keep to it being a mix, and they’ve got a good set of rides as-is (especially now that they’ve added so many in recent years) without needing to demolish Vikings Revenge’s building to make another (which, remember, was originally just a theatre, and is already bordered by a good replacement for the ride that used it).

Edited August 7 by Tricoart

[Ash]

All I want is another dark ride like Bermuda Triangle. We are severely lacking a story driven ride 

[HarryHeHe8]

12 hours ago, Ash said:

All I want is another dark ride like Bermuda Triangle. We are severely lacking a story driven ride 

Agreed. Hopefully Jungle Rush somewhat satisfies that need, but I doubt it will be enough. WWF and Scooby tell a story, but it’s just not the same.

[themagician]

13 hours ago, Ash said:

another dark ride like Bermuda Triangle

Or the Looney Tunes River Ride. Or Batman Adventure. Or Gremlins.

 

31 minutes ago, HarryHeHe8 said:

Hopefully Jungle Rush somewhat satisfies that need

If it does, will this be Dreamworld first ever ride with a proper story integrated into the ride. Obviously we won’t know for sure until it opens, but let’s say it does have a well considered and portrayed story. I don’t think any ride at DW has ever had a proper story that’s integral to the ride… unless I’m forgetting something.

[HarryHeHe8]

4 minutes ago, themagician said:

Or the Looney Tunes River Ride. Or Batman Adventure. Or Gremlins.

 

If it does, will this be Dreamworld first ever ride with a proper story integrated into the ride. Obviously we won’t know for sure until it opens, but let’s say it does have a well considered and portrayed story. I don’t think any ride at DW has ever had a proper story that’s integral to the ride… unless I’m forgetting something.

There have been rides with stories to them namely Eureka Mountain Mine Ride, Thunder River Rapids, Big Red Car Ride etc, but i doubt you'd count. that last one haha. But yeah, I do know what you mean, this will be a big first for Dreamworld, and the first new story themed ride since who knows how long.

[themagician]

2 minutes ago, HarryHeHe8 said:

Eureka Mountain Mine Ride, Thunder River Rapids, Big Red Car Ride

I did consider those, but Eureka I think was just themed around being in a mine cart through a mountain. Thunder Rapids had a partial story in the cave where there were two guys trying to escape from jail. And then Big Red Car, not sure if there was a specific story or if it was just you being taken through the Wiggles House.

But in comparison to what Jungle Rush could be (from what I’ve heard), there will be a proper story and that will be integral to the ride experience. Hopefully what I’ve heard is true, but I’m going to keep my expectations neutral just in case.

[HarryHeHe8]

Just now, themagician said:

I did consider those, but Eureka I think was just themed around being in a mine cart through a mountain. Thunder Rapids had a partial story in the cave where there were two guys trying to escape from jail. And then Big Red Car, not sure if there was a specific story or if it was just you being taken through the Wiggles House.

But in comparison to what Jungle Rush could be (from what I’ve heard), there will be a proper story and that will be integral to the ride experience. Hopefully what I’ve heard is true, but I’m going to keep my expectations neutral just in case.

Good idea. Don't wanna be let down after waiting all this time for a new story ride. I feel like Woz will be a story ride, but I doubt it will be as integral to the ride as JR will be, so lets keep our hopes up, but not too much

[themagician]

3 minutes ago, HarryHeHe8 said:

I feel like Woz will be a story ride

I think the queues (and obviously the lane) will be heavily story driven, but once you’re on the coasters themselves will just have theming around them but you won’t necessarily feel the story while riding it.

While I think Jungle Rush will set up the story in the land and queue, but the story will be told when you’re on the ride.

[HarryHeHe8]

39 minutes ago, themagician said:

I think the queues (and obviously the lane) will be heavily story driven, but once you’re on the coasters themselves will just have theming around them but you won’t necessarily feel the story while riding it.

While I think Jungle Rush will set up the story in the land and queue, but the story will be told when you’re on the ride.

So I'm guessing you mean to say that JR will be more similar to Scooby Doo Spooky Coaster: Next Generation? If so, then I feel like we are in for a treat from DW

[Gazza]

Quote

 WWF and Scooby tell a story, but it’s just not the same.

What's the lore of WWF?

[themagician]

10 minutes ago, HarryHeHe8 said:

JR will be more similar to Scooby Doo Spooky Coaster: Next Generation?

Definitely not, MWs efforts (whether it’s their fault or not) for Scooby Next Gen were horrible.

I think (purely just my opinion on how it will turn out) it might be closer to the OG Scooby with practical sets, but more story.

[HarryHeHe8]

9 minutes ago, themagician said:

Definitely not, MWs efforts (whether it’s their fault or not) for Scooby Next Gen were horrible.

I think (purely just my opinion on how it will turn out) it might be closer to the OG Scooby with practical sets, but more story.

Fair point there. I'm really excited for the reopening, they better have fixed what the people want them to fix, if it goes further downhill i doubt the ride can recover again.

10 minutes ago, Gazza said:

What's the lore of WWF?

A story of going through a town and into a mine or something like that i think, im not sure the exact story though.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

17 hours ago, Tricoart said:

Captivity is only a dirty word when it’s referring to animals that are treated inadequately. As you said, Sea World is a member of the ZAA (as are Dreamworld & Taronga), meaning their treatment of animals are regulated to meet those standards, and still generally outdo them. The issue of captivity being inadequate even when treated to meet &/or exceed those standards aren’t as black and white as land animals being okay & aquatics being bad (for example, the same staunchly anti-zoo groups of people that are against cetaceans also see issues with Sea World’s polar bears, as well as elephants at Taronga & tigers at Dreamworld). And, in the case of a small aquarium building, the species exhibited would be some of the least cared for animal groups by both the general public & the staunchly anti-zoo (aside from maybe insects), so exhibiting them with their own welfare & quality of life in mind, as well as using it as an opportunity to educate guests on the species, could serve to overall help with their public perception, rather than being either insignificant food items or pets, if ‘animals’ at all (like what has happened with our native reptiles, partially due to the Irwin family’s advocacy for them).

That’s what makes them more than ‘paintings on a wall’, managing their presentation well, which Sea Life Sunshine Coast just can’t/doesn’t do due to their own pressure to cram the building full of as many of those notable species as they possibly can, and seeing the area between as nothing more than area between. But Sea World doesn’t have that pressure, and therefore could properly manage their presentation.

Going fully into rides is fine if that’s what they want to become, but I very much hope they keep to it being a mix, and they’ve got a good set of rides as-is (especially now that they’ve added so many in recent years) without needing to demolish Vikings Revenge’s building to make another (which, remember, was originally just a theatre, and is already bordered by a good replacement for the ride that used it).

There is a growing trend of people who are against animals in captivity of any kind.

But all animals rights issues aside, building a brand new exhibit for animals you literally just referred to as "least cared for" isn't the direction I want sea world to go. It's not going to drive gate, it's not going to increase profits, it's only going to cost money, and it isn't needed.

Also, The castle was not originally a theatre. The facade was built with VR but was originally open air inside the castle walls. (Bonus Fun Fact - it also used to have waterslides coming off the rear of it where the penguin habitat is now)

23 minutes ago, Gazza said:

What's the lore of WWF?

something something tenuous movie tie-in something what's rio bravo something splash.