Dreamworlds Direction

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

I agree to some extent. But I have also been disappointed with their roll-out of new Goodlife gyms too. I was hoping they'd have enough centres by now to start really competing with Fitness First. But they don't.

Which is quite funny - because i've never heard of them. They shoul dhave jumped on the channel ten bandwagon - and partnered up for the biggest loser - stick the fatties in the big brother house, and make them jog down the ToT track - I bet you they can run fast when that thing is coming behind them! But seriously - that is a dream partnership deal they should have gone for - plenty of seclusion in the compound, accessible to large metro centres - access to all the facilities of the two parks outside of hours for challenges - and cross promotion with their gym.... how no-one saw that writing on the wall - ...and besides - they could then install another spin-and-spew attraction in "adrenalin alley" and call it the biggest (lunch) loser.

[lylefart]

Honestly, I don't think that Dreamworld would go for the cheaper side of things, due to the fact that it is one of the safest theme parks in Australia. There is over 35 rides and attractions and there are multi-million dollar thrill rides.

Edited April 6, 2010 by lylefart

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Where do you get these statistics from Lyle? I don't have any reports to contradict you, but i'm curious as to where your stats come from? WVTP also have multi-million dollar thrill rides, and many attractions too. As a matter of fact, if you've read some of the forums on dreamworld in the past, there are plenty of examples where Dreamworld have gone for the cheaper side of things. It's also easy to say "one of the safest in australia" when if you look at it realistically, there really only are 3 parks you can call "theme" parks in australia.

[lylefart]

How on Earth can you say there is THREE real theme parks in Australia, no offence, and I have to keep saying it. But how can you say that! And if only they did add more rides, but guess what, you'll get a surprise over the next 15 months, I can guarantee it.

[TimMc333]

Is this one of those "I know something you don't know" situations again?

[lylefart]

Is this one of those "I know something you don't know" situations again?

I really hope not, I think I'm carrying on a bit. But there will be some changes. MU HA HA HA! Just Kidding But construction and maintenance is most likely going to occur later this year and further into 2011. I slightly know that alot is going to occur, one thing being, as most already know, a new train/cart for the TOT. This has nothing to do with theme parks but I have just added a profile picture, do I have to add another one for the forumz? I have no clue, I am usually really good with computers Edited April 6, 2010 by lylefart

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

I can say that quite easily - a THEME Park, as opposed to an AMUSEMENT park has a coherent, cohesive and consistent theme. Most of the smaller parks around australia don't quite manage to do that - take aussie world - they do have a theme (aussie) and do well with things such as Mozzie Musta, but I fail to see how an attraction such as the RockNRoll Rebel fits that theme. And thats why I say that there really only are three. WnW and WWW are water parks, not theme parks, despite how well (or not) they pull off a given theme. Movie World pulls it off well. Each attraction is tied in well with their theme - about movies. They don't have different "lands" as such (they do, but it still ties in with movies). Dreamworld has different "lands" and each "land" has a reasonably consistent theme (with some exceptions - such as RedLine in ocean parade - although considering Indy is on the gold coast shoreline - there is a tenuous link). Sea World's theme is - naturally - the Sea, and they also do well to tie the theme in across the park. These are the 3 that i refer to. I'm open to any other parks you can suggest have a consistent, cohesive and coherent theme.... but i'm not aware of any that pull it off on australian shores.

[GoGoBoy]

Dreamworld has different "lands" and each "land" has a reasonably consistent theme (with some exceptions - such as RedLine in ocean parade - although considering Indy is on the gold coast shoreline - there is a tenuous link).

On the other hand AVPX does not fit in with Ocean Parade at all - no matter how hard you stretch it. I personally hate Adrenalin Alley and I hate the fact that Dreamworld allowed one of their theme lands to be destroyed just because they wanted to located all these filler attractions close together

[pin142]

It is bad that they have ruined Ocean Parade a little by putting AvPX in there but I know I would rather be a short stagger between attractions at a private hire than walking half the park to get to one. It would be easier for staff to keep the group under control too with no real in-between areas to wander off track into. Could have been worse, AvPX could have been an upcharge and hinder the entrance to another major attraction

[GoGoBoy]

I didn't want to start a new thread for this so I hope it's okay that I revived this one again. After creating the thread about the new Luna park at Coney Island, New York - which will have all new Zamperla rides - it got me thinking about Dreamworld. So many people have mentioned how disappointed they are that the mine ride closed and at the same time everyone is desperate for new rides for DW. Rather than spending a few millions dollars on new filler attractions like AVPX and Flowrider (which we now know don't really increase attendance) why don't they spend that money on new but smaller, low-cost rides. As an example why not buy a simple off-the-shelf coaster such as a Zamperla mouse or other coaster with a small footprint to replace Eureka Mine Ride with? They could keep the mine theme but say it is a new and upgraded experience. Either demolish the mountain and use that space or modify the mountain to incorporate the new coaster. Or even build a new but smaller mountain. I would imagine these smaller coaster models would not cost a lot of money. The key would be to make sure the ride provides a great ride experience and also ensure it is well presented and themed. There are a number of other smaller off-the-shelf rides Dreamworld could purchase which would surely be very low cost but still provide lots of fun. This would help Dreamworld retain their title of the park with the most rides while also providing guests with what they want. I still think they'd need a new major ride every few years but these sorts of models would be perfect for those 'filler' years. Anyone else agree?