Reviews & Reactions - Scooby Doo Spooky Coaster: Next Generation

[Gazza]

12 hours ago, pushbutton said:

Don't you think that spoils the experience for people who haven't yet been on?

You just made everyone scroll past the spoilers a 2nd time then.

[jjuttp]

So instead of the hologram courtyard being the final scene, it's now Dead Mikes?

Does the discoball have fire eyes?

[Gold Coast Amusement Force]

Tried to get some footage

 

[Flynn_Smith]

10 minutes ago, Gold Coast Amusement Force said:

Tried to get some footage

 

Oh my god that first projection mapping scene looks terrible..

[jjuttp]

Jesus fuck that's insulting to the brand. Doesn't stuff like this need to be marked off by the rights holders? Despite being the same company, surely they would have thrown a tantrum about this Six Flags level theming.

[Gold Coast Amusement Force]

updated link

[webslave]

[jjuttp]

Atleast we know what the work experience kids been up to lately.

[Santa07]

Did MW think Universal was doing the right thing with screen-based attractions?

 

(p.s. - they weren’t, but at least Universal’s animations aren’t as choppy as some of the animations in that video...)

[Gold Coast Amusement Force]

15 minutes ago, Santa07 said:

(p.s. - they weren’t, but at least Universal’s animations aren’t as choppy as some of the animations in that video...)

 

Well it was out of focus to be fair, but it honestly makes it look better. The monsters have no detail on them and in the mirror scene, they attack your car and morph and cut through the image of the car.

[themagician]

Just watched the video, and wow those animations are terrible. And honestly I would preferred they kept the original sets instead. The lasers looked pretty cool in the disco room. But couldn’t really tell when the projection mapping is or how it was used.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

On 15/12/2018 at 12:08 PM, pushbutton said:

Oh and the door from the queue area into the first part of the ride are once again not working. They're just automatic doors so can’t be that hard to keep them operational.

Since noone else has mentioned it - they're not 'just automatic doors' - they're an object within the ride envelope that can cause a collision with the car, or else cause the ride to fault if they aren't 100% reliable. If in doubt, leave it out.

9 hours ago, Gold Coast Amusement Force said:

Well it was out of focus to be fair, but it honestly makes it look better. The monsters have no detail on them and in the mirror scene, they attack your car and morph and cut through the image of the car.

Thanks for the POV. I know the low light environment makes it hard to film, so kudos for doing as well as you did.

FYI - (c) Parks on the coast - nothing in that video is something you can copyright - the park owns the copyright on every single part of that ride... and that applies to everything else inside the gates too - photography and videography inside the parks is for personal use only, and definitely not something you can slap your own brand and copyright over.

[Gold Coast Amusement Force]

1 hour ago, AlexB said:

and definitely not something you can slap your own brand over.

Isn’t this the same thing?

[Flynn_Smith]

disregard this

Edited December 17, 2018 by Flynn_Smith

[-nick.white.1543]

3 hours ago, Gold Coast Amusement Force said:

Isn’t this the same thing?

Do you see any (c) symbol in that picture?

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

3 hours ago, Gold Coast Amusement Force said:

Isn’t this the same thing?

No it isn't

10 minutes ago, -nick.white.1543 said:

Do you see any (c) symbol in that picture?

Got it in one Nick, thanks.

A few things that might help:

Quote

https://themeparks.com.au/terms-conditions-policies/conditions-of-entry

Photographs or videos taken by you must be for your own personal use and enjoyment and not for any commercial purpose.

Quote

https://www.dreamworld.com.au/general/terms-and-conditions

Design and systems of Ardent Leisure Limited (The Company) are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You must not infringe those rights.

Any photographs, videos or sound recordings taken by you must be for personal use only. Any use, reuse or production for commercial purposes without our express written consent is strictly prohibited.

 

Have a read of this, and feel free to PM me if you have any questions about it.

Its important, if you're going to start stamping the copyright symbol over stuff that you have a good understanding of how copyright law works. If you assert a copyright over something that you have no right to, you can wind up in a fair bit of trouble - especially since 'public display or exhibition' these days constitutes "uploading it to the internet".

Consider this, which has been in the news a bit recently:

It is illegal, under copyright law, for a photographer to take the photo on the right. It is perfectly legal to take a photograph such as the one on the left. Do you know why?

Because the copyright of the building - the architectural design - is no longer in copyright as it has expired, however the lights were added to the tower later, and the designer of the lights holds that copyright, which is still current.

The safer thing to do with regard to the theme parks is to disclaim ownership (You'll no doubt have seen people disclaiming ownership of songs and such used as soundtracks to their youtube videos and so on.) To start with, stop using the park's official logos as part of the preview images and such - use your own brand, and give credit to the park if you use their images (ie: "image source: themeparks.com.au" or similar)

Another simple way to get around usage issues is to comment \ news report, rather than strictly just filming it and showing it. It comes under fair use provisions - which is why news media can show footage.

I think i've sufficiently derailed the thread - and now back to our regularly scheduled shit-show.

[pushbutton]

I was expecting the disco room to feature projection mapping throughout. 

It would only require smooth cladding to be attached to the walls.

Could have been superb! 

[Gold Coast Amusement Force]

43 minutes ago, -nick.white.1543 said:

Do you see any (c) symbol in that picture?

Yeah I understand that. I quoted the part where he talked about slapping your own brand over something which is what parkz did with that photo. Not the copyright part, re-read.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

6 hours ago, AlexB said:

 definitely not something you can slap your own brand and copyright over.

 

Maybe you should re-read, and perhaps not edit my post to suit your own argument. Otherwise we end up with crap like:

54 minutes ago, Gold Coast Amusement Force said:

Yeah I understand slapping your own something which is what i copied.

*Note - i've not added anything to the above quote, just selectively deleted things to suit my own purpose

In addition - Parkz doesn't claim anything in 'in park photos' as its own - the photos are watermarked the same as a news outlet, such as channel 7 might do prior to publishing.

You'll also note if you scroll to the bottom of parkz, the following:

Quote

All content copyright ©2002-2018 Parkz and its respective copyright holder.

My original comment "brand and copyright" weren't two individual issues. brand and copyright were meant to be read together. By removing the copyright part, you remove all meaning of my reply - as its your brand WITH the copyright that is in issue here (otherwise, wouldn't I have taken issue with every other video you've ever posted for reasons of branding?)

I remember when I was in high school, and I used to steal other peoples stuff, add a little of my own stuff, put it into something else, and then slap my own little copyright mark with it, along with my name. Made me feel so awesome about how much of a pro I was. I didn't have the internet until senior high, so much of this stuff was seen by about 5 people, and hardly damaging to the actual copyright holder - arguably, it wasn't even on 'public' display.

But you put it on the internet? that's a bit different.

I get it - you wanna play big theme park media outlet in your spare time. good on you. I remember lots of kids doing that, many of whom were (and some still are) on these forums. For some, that Dream will Neva happen. They'll never find their Zen, no matter how much they try, they'll end up Defunction. For others, they'll grow-a-go-go, and mature, and develop their teenage fiddlings into a legitimate business angle-chat-live. There are several people in Our World on here who have done just that and absolutely Roached it...

Obviously, its something you're keenly interested in and I wish you all the best of luck in succeeding in that - as the saying goes - if you can find a job doing something you love, you'll never work a day in your life... but I urge you - drop the baby in the sandpit routine of 'why can't i?', and take some time to actually read for understanding. Learn from the lessons of those who have been in your shoes, or seen others who have walked in those same shoes, rather than fire back weak argumentative responses.

[Gold Coast Amusement Force]

@AlexBI’m not trying to make it a job or any social thing. I just post videos and pictures. That’s it.

[AllegroCrab]

The video doesn't do it justice.

It looks much worse in real life.

[webslave]

Yaaaay, my turn to be a pedant!

3 hours ago, AlexB said:

Its important, if you're going to start stamping the copyright symbol over stuff that you have a good understanding of how copyright law works. If you assert a copyright over something that you have no right to, you can wind up in a fair bit of trouble - especially since 'public display or exhibition' these days constitutes "uploading it to the internet".

Consider this, which has been in the news a bit recently:

It is illegal, under copyright law, for a photographer to take the photo on the right. It is perfectly legal to take a photograph such as the one on the left. Do you know why?

You know, if you're going to school this guy on Copyright Law it would probably be best if you did not violate it whilst doing so.  After all, did you get permission to reproduce the picture on the right?

3 hours ago, AlexB said:

The safer thing to do with regard to the theme parks is to disclaim ownership (You'll no doubt have seen people disclaiming ownership of songs and such used as soundtracks to their youtube videos and so on.)

No. That's not how Copyright works.  Disclaiming ownership provides you with no legal protection at all - it's just one of those dumb things that people do now 'just in case' in the same way that they also participate in chain mail.  Copyright is also about more than just misrepresenting who is the owner of a work - it's also about unauthorized reproduction.

2 hours ago, AlexB said:

In addition - Parkz doesn't claim anything in 'in park photos' as its own - the photos are watermarked the same as a news outlet, such as channel 7 might do prior to publishing.

It depends on what we are talking about ownership of - ownership of the photograph, or of the subject (or contents) of that photograph.

[XxMrYoshixX]

Yikes, that animation looks terrible. It looks just as bad as the Arkham Asylum VR. And the 'projection mapping' on the mirror scene looks very poorly made. For something claimed to be 'next generation' this looks like late 2000's animation.

Hopefully when I experience for myself the 'updates' arent as bad as they are seen on video...

[pushbutton]

4 minutes ago, XxMrYoshixX said:

Yikes, that animation looks terrible. It looks just as bad as the Arkham Asylum VR. And the 'projection mapping' on the mirror scene looks very poorly made. For something claimed to be 'next generation' this looks like late 2000's animation.

Hopefully when I experience for myself the 'updates' arent as bad as they are seen on video...

The Arkham Asylum VR is of very good quality.

[Whombex]

10 hours ago, Gold Coast Amusement Force said:

Isn’t this the same thing?

Eureka...