The Pirate Ship was removed ~2 years after the Surfrider was installed. Surfrider was destined for Sea World but the timeframe is wrong.

Pretty sure surfrider was headed for the Pirate Ship's spot. not sure on the timing of removal \ installation etc, but that is my recollection.

Thats was my assumption as well. I know I've said before but I'll say it again I would love to see a Screamin' Swing here and that spot could be a great location for such a ride. What I would love to see is now that MW has gotten some love and WnW has seen A LOT OF LOVE in recent years that SW could maybe get some now. I know they have a great new parade/show and the battle boats were great, but now I'm really looking at seeing something new for BT. I think it is such a pretty park, great seaside feel and great atmosphere. With a few more attractions I think it would be a great well rounded park, great day out and something for everyone and back to being a personal favourite of mine. A little off topic, I know they said Sesame Street was going to co-exist with Nickelodeon; however, someone asked on their Facebook page if SS was still there and they answered no. Can anyone tell me whats going on now with the whole SS and Nickelodeon thing now??

As far as im aware SS was never ever going to Co-exist with Nick. It would be a clash or contracts. I dont think the park ever stated that was the case either it was more so a assumption made when the quote was given that no changes would be made to the kids area.

Im glad surfrider went to Wet n Wild instead of Seaworld, its a great addition to WnW and really fits into the park. It would just seem a bit out of place in SW imo.

It's funny you should say that...When the ride was under construction people tended to think the opposite. There was a desire for more rides at SW, and a notion that a roller coaster didn't really fit in at a water park. They did make early attempts to tie it in by having the water jets spraying at the ride, but when they went, so did any sort of link to it being a wet attraction. It's not a bad ride or anything, but it could have suited SW well, being a "not too intense" thrill ride. And of course, surfing is related to the sea, so that's a logical tie in for SW.

Im glad surfrider went to Wet n Wild instead of Seaworld, its a great addition to WnW and really fits into the park. It would just seem a bit out of place in SW imo.

Are you serious? This comment doesn't make sense at all! How can you say that a rollercoaster fits really well into a WATER PARK and yet wouldn't fit well into a THEME PARK? Surf Rider would have been much better suited to Sea World

I don't think any ride with a height requirement higher than 125cm would fit Sea World. The theme park water thing doesnt bother me, and Surf rider fits with the thrill seekers at wnw better than it would fit the families with small kids crowd at sw IMHO.

so you dont think Sea Viper and Jet Rescue fit in at seaworld?? in fact seaworlds "thrill rides" have the highest height requirements of any park I took my 8 year old niece to all the parks early this month, she went on TOT2, Cyclone, Claw, Batwing, Scooby, WWF, MDMC, but couldnt get on Sea Viper - go figure!!

Corkscrew's height restriction used to be 122cm, and kids who just made the mark would often ride and then reride. 130cm is the restriction for Sea Viper, which is IMHO too high for the ride, and is another reason why I wouldn't be said if the ride were to go. Jet Rescue has a restriction of 125cm, which is why I chose that number; the most thrilling rides at SW should have as low a height restriction as possible, because SW attracts more families with young kids, and as many of those kids as possible should be able to go on as many of the rides as possible. As for which park has the highest, well I can say, DW has the lowest height restrictions (120cm for 5 of the big 7) and Movie World has the highest with 140cm for SM, GL, and LW. Anyway, I don't want this to turn into a height restriction debate, all I'm saying is the restriction should be an important factor when deciding what ride a park should get, and for that reason I say Surfrider fits better at WnW, and you'll have to do an amazing job to convince me otherwise.

Are you serious? This comment doesn't make sense at all! How can you say that a rollercoaster fits really well into a WATER PARK and yet wouldn't fit well into a THEME PARK? Surf Rider would have been much better suited to Sea World

Its just an opinion. I just think that Surfrider fits into WnW as it gives the park a small range of "dry" rides (along with Skycoaster and Zipline) to compliment their slides. Seaworld needs a flat ride, not a new coaster, as a new ride. Also, I believe Wet n Wild is more to do with thrill, and the "thrill of surfing" fits more into a Waterpark then a Marine Life Park (Seaworld is NOT a theme park). Just my opinion.

Edited January 31, 201214 yr by alex_1

Its just an opinion. I just think that Surfrider fits into WnW as it gives the park a small range of "dry" rides (along with Skycoaster and Zipline) to compliment their slides. Seaworld needs a flat ride, not a new coaster, as a new ride. Also, I believe Wet n Wild is more to do with thrill, and the "thrill of surfing" fits more into a Waterpark then a Marine Life Park (Seaworld is NOT a theme park). Just my opinion.

Sorry. In this I believe you are wrong. Seaworld is a themepark in every sense of the word. Just because it also has animal attractions does not dilute its theme park genes. It has a collection of rides that are heavily themed , something that no pure "marine park" would have in great quantity. Dreamworld also has fairly extensive wild life exhibits, yet I am sure you do not question its status as a theme park??

Are you serious? This comment doesn't make sense at all! How can you say that a rollercoaster fits really well into a WATER PARK and yet wouldn't fit well into a THEME PARK? Surf Rider would have been much better suited to Sea World

Yeah I have to agree with you here GoGoboy. Surfrider is an uncomfortable fit in Wet and Wild IMHO. It would definitely have been better served to have been placed in Seaworld as was originally planned. Despite some heroic attempts at theming to try and integrate it better into WW ( water sprays as has been mentioned ), it just does not really work. A water park is the LAST place you would expect to find a dry coaster and I feel that the majority of the paying public goes to Wet and Wild for ONE thing -thrill slides!! If Surfrider was removed I am betting that this would hardly register on the public perception of the park, as it is mostly focused on the water slide offering, which is intrinsically what WW is famous for. To try and alter that offering is pointless, especially when you own 2 other thrill ride based parks in your portfolio. Surfrider would have sat very well next to Seaviper and Jet Rescue and would make a very nice addition to a park, with limited space to begin with. Of course, we are all ignoring the fact that the original plan to install Surfrider was the real reason Pirate Ship was deleted from the attraction list. Since that was changed with it going to WW, Seaworld was left high and dry with a perfectly good ride removed with NO replacement. Seems to me to be a very bad managment decision at the time- one that has yet to be rectified.....sorry AlexB , I feel that the issues currently facing MW and SW ARE directly linked and clearly show decisions that can be attributed to management at the time as being "poor" Also, surely Pirate Ship could have been considered to be moved to another position in the park at the time?? Just thinking......

From memory what i heard about Surfrider was they delayed the instalation to test the viability of the coaster being installed into Wet N Wild instead of Seaworld. Whitewater World was only still just opened and Surfrider was was placed into Wet N Wild to concrete their dominance of biggest and best water park. The installation of the ride was seen as an experiment installing a more traditional theme park ride into a water park. It paid off for them in the end, it still gets a massive line up. I reckon you could put a roller coaster into Wet N Wild and it would go off! I dont really like many other water parks around the world have attempted this. Makes you feel proud that our parks whilst small and limited in budgets etc. can still stand tall and proud on the world stage.

It paid off for them in the end, it still gets a massive line up.

Though, I think that's more a sign of limited capacity versus demand. It only takes 12 people per go, the floor needs to be raised and lowered, and harnesses checked, resulting in long lines. Mammoth falls can take 12 people in a single paired dispach, which happens at quick intervals (one raft down each slide) Or 12 people can be done in a race and a half on Super 8, again which happens very quicky. Or 3 groups through Tornado, which they can pump through fast if the lifeguards are on the ball.

Edited February 1, 201214 yr by Gazza

I love being able to read one thread I complaints of not having attractions and then jumping to another for complaints of adding them

Sorry. In this I believe you are wrong.

Like I said, its just my opinion. I'm not right, or wrong, its just how I see it. And you see it differently.

Ok everyone! You are all saying how surf rider does not fit into Wet'n'Wild and some of you are saying how rides don't fit into sea world. A theme park is a theme park! Admin choose which park they want a ride to go into. Sufrider adds to the thrill rides of Wet'n'Wild! The wild part in the name means that the rides can be wild without being wet. Surfrider adds to the thrill! Who cares what park it goes into! Everyone on here wants a thrill so just ride it! Just accept that they put a thrill ride in a park for thrill rides! Yes it would have gone fine in sea world but it goes fine in wet'n'wild because wet'n'wild is a theme park! As someone once said on here it is in a theme parks genes to have rides so just get over WVTP putting a relatively dry ride into a thrill park!

Thrill?

How did this debate start?

Like I said, its just my opinion. I'm not right, or wrong, its just how I see it. And you see it differently.

Mate I respect your opinion.I truly do. However I just wanted to gently point out that it is in essence, wrong.The evidence is out there for all to see- its irrefutable! Seaworld is marketed as a "Theme Park" by its owners. Everywhere in the media, to marketing, to this very website, it is referred to as a "Theme Park" . Sure it has marine attractions but that is just one (albeit very important!!) aspect of the park. This is not opinion. Its fact.

I love being able to read one thread I complaints of not having attractions and then jumping to another for complaints of adding them

It is not quite as simplistic as that djrappa. My issue with Surfrider going to Wet and Wild is because it came at the expense of The Pirate Ship being deleted from the park, which is where Surfrider was originally intended to go. At the 11th hour this was changed but this has left Seaworld without a flat ride, one that it could ill afford to lose. Given the knowledge that this has still not been replaced in Seaworld several years after the fact is, in my mind, a serious issue. I love knowing that a Half Pipe coaster has been added to our parks lineup...think its great!! Its MY OPINION that it is wasted at Wet and Wild and would be better suited to Seaworld. I am not bemoaning the fact that the actual ride was introduced..just its location. The decision to do this and not replace Pirate Ship with anything else is symptomatic of several of WVTP recent decsions regarding rides in the parks that I do not support or feel was handled "in the best possible way". I love the Gold Coast parks and our theme park industry but that does not mean I blithely agree with everything they do. Its great to have these forums to discuss these aspects of our theme parks. I think most will agree with that.

How did this debate start?

Hehehe..I think I inadvertently did.....sorry but the discussion revealed the crucial reason why Pirate Ship was removed. Its great to see everyones opinions though!!

If what you said about pirate ship being removed form the park for a ride that ended up going to another park than I'd agree with you. Thing is though, Pirate Ship was removed long after Surfrider opened. I'm not aware that Surfrider was ever destined for that location. I wonder does that change your opinion in any way?

Like I said, its just my opinion. I'm not right, or wrong, its just how I see it. And you see it differently.

Dood! It totally IS a theme park, coys it has rides!!!

Dood! It totally IS a theme park, coys it has rides!!!

So is the Sydney easter show a theme Park because it has rides? Theme Park does not mean that at has rides. It just means a park that is themed.

Edited February 3, 201214 yr by Cruiseshipfan

Theme Park does not mean that at has rides. It just means a park that is themed.

Ah I might be a bit of a pain here haha but does that mean my local council park that has a pirate themed playground in it count as a 'theme' park? Just a joke

Edited February 3, 201214 yr by Jamberoo Fan

Hmm, does it? lol

Edited February 4, 201214 yr by mba2012