Thing is you can't have a fully immersive themed land which also has an RMC in it just because of how visually intrusive it is, and an RMC is absolutely what 6 Flags would do, not Disney or Universal.

 

So your choice is either an RMC or an immersive themed land.  You could make a compelling case for either and I don't care to debate the advantages of each way you could go.

 

As far as adding a story to Rocky Hollow goes I don't know what you think that'll add to the ride.  The ride has enough as is, it's one of those old logging camps where they float logs down the river and the the themeing for the most part supports that with logging train and all sorts of saws on the wall.  Is it set the world on fire stuff?  No but it doesn't need a story to 'fix' it either.

4 minutes ago, wikiverse said:

Who cares? 

Have you done any kind of business studies at all? 

5 minutes ago, wikiverse said:

If re-investing 3 years worth of profit (~$90M) increases park attendance and generates a profit over the following 15-20 years that those rides could operate, it is a worth-while investment.

And what about in 3-5 years when all those rides are "old" and people are over them? Or are you just expecting the public to go "oh, well 15 years ago they added all that new stuff, so we probably don't need anything new for a another good 5 years or so."

20 minutes ago, Reanimated35 said:

Have you done any kind of business studies at all?

I haven't.  Just in case you wanted to know.

I don't get the whole build 3 rides at once every 20-year plan.  Maybe his from MW marketing.  They don't even think THE BEST RIDE EVER!!!!!!!! being built in Australia is worth getting out of bed for.

3 new rides...

15-20 years...

Sending profits overseas to support other ventures...

Is someone talking about Wonderland?

Just now, Skeeta said:

I don't get the whole build 3 rides at once every 20-year plan.  Maybe his from MW marketing.  They don't even think THE BEST RIDE EVER!!!!!!!! being built in Australia is worth getting out of bed for.

 

No one suggested building 3 rides every twenty years.

 

28 minutes ago, Reanimated35 said:

Have you done any kind of business studies at all? 

And what about in 3-5 years when all those rides are "old" and people are over them? Or are you just expecting the public to go "oh, well 15 years ago they added all that new stuff, so we probably don't need anything new for a another good 5 years or so."

No one suggested not building anything new for 5 years.

Dreamworld profits have been subsidizing the building Bowling Alleys in the USA, it is not unreasonable for Ardent to use the profits from those to subsidise the re-furb of Dreamworld, given their current circumstances.

Also, this thread is called 'Wishful Thinking', not 'Small-Minded, Short-Term, They'll Never Do It Anyway So Why Bother Mentioning it Thinking'.

 

7 minutes ago, wikiverse said:

No one suggested building 3 rides every twenty years.

 

No one suggested not building anything new for 5 years.

Dreamworld profits have been subsidizing the building Bowling Alleys in the USA, it is not unreasonable for Ardent to use the profits from those to subsidise the re-furb of Dreamworld, given their current circumstances.

Also, this thread is called 'Wishful Thinking', not 'Small-Minded, Short-Term, They'll Never Do It Anyway So Why Bother Mentioning it Thinking'.

You're right. You seemed to be suggesting building now and then not building anything for 15-20 years. 

 

51 minutes ago, wikiverse said:

Who cares?  Dreamworld isn't closing down in a year.  If re-investing 3 years worth of profit (~$90M) increases park attendance and generates a profit over the following 15-20 years that those rides could operate, it is a worth-while investment.

Besides, Ardent are spending DW profits building Bowling Alleys in the USA when they could have been re-investing into the park to expand and improve it.

No reason why you can't plan to have three new rides over the next six years. You can map out the land and slowly expand over time. Just think DW would want to play it safe and not get any rides that people would see as risky or dangerous. Why would you be in a hurry to get a new water ride? Same too with big coasters threading Buzz Saw.

Because they could build a new Rapids ride and the chances of a fatal accident is no more likely to occur than what the chances were on any of the thousands of operational days that TRR functioned safely on. 

Just because they had an accident doesn't make it more likely there will be another one, regardless of the type of ride. 

Whilst they certainly won't install another water based ride anytime in the near future, there is nothing stopping them rolling out a massive coaster or any sort of extreme thrill ride if they so chose to

4 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

Because they could build a new Rapids ride and the chances of a fatal accident is no more likely to occur than what the chances were on any of the thousands of operational days that TRR functioned safely on. 

Unfortunately, the chances of the media treating the ride as unsafe are almost certain.

Which is why I wouldn't do it, but that's playing it smart, not playing it safe.

in saying that, what will they say when RHLR re-opens? At some point you need to believe in the message you deliver rather than the media  

Chances are at least one media outlet will say it's the same ride as TRRR

I personal don't think they will be changing the theme, with all the money issues right now. Completely redoing the theme is a lot of money. Getting a new theme after 30 years or so developing that area is unlikely. 

Looking at the way Dreamworld is going. A family based ride is probably our best bet. The one thing we are missing is a solid Wooden Coaster. Wooden coasters are great for the fact that it can be a great stepping stone for all the young thrill seekers who want to do all the big rides on the coast. You can argue that the Mick Doohan coaster is this stepping stone, but that it's being marketed as a thrill ride. But as i was saying about the wooden coaster. Its great for young thrill seekers and thrill seekers alike. 

Also a big clean up of that area is a must.

I'd argue that any decent wooden coaster would be more thrilling than a lot of rides on the coast. I'd hardly see it as a stepping stone unless it was a small woody

I reckon something like Roar-O-Saurus would be excellent fit for a small woody. It's an excellent beginner coaster and apparently has some pretty wicked airtime as well, so it would satisfy us coaster enthusiast.

 

On 12/05/2017 at 0:07 PM, joz said:

Thing is you can't have a fully immersive themed land which also has an RMC in it just because of how visually intrusive it is, and an RMC is absolutely what 6 Flags would do, not Disney or Universal.

[snip]

Lightning Rod, with its' terrain hugging, isn't that visually intrusive. There's a bit towards the front of the ride near the station, but that helps identify the ride as a woody variant. There's a fair bit of terrain variation considering Eureka, TRRR,, lake at bottom of TRRR, BB cafe, & over to Blue Lagoon.

Quote

Thing is you can't have a fully immersive themed land which also has an RMC in it just because of how visually intrusive it is, and an RMC is absolutely what 6 Flags would do, not Disney or Universal.

Maybe not 'immersive' but just generally well themed, but both Europa and Efteling have highly themed parks and areas, with wooden coasters.

Thing is I'm not the one who suggested an immersive themed land with an RMC then went on about how I'd have it all be about story.  No matter what backstory you come up with, when you walk in the area it looks like a roller coaster, and when you're on it it's tall enough that you see thr outside world.  You can't have an immersive themed land with an RMC without a Disney budget.  

 

I think words like immersion and story are enthusiast wank though, so RMC me!