3 hours ago, jjuttp said:

I saw a jellyfish and was going to to say something a la Seaworld should have used that design instead.

Are you sure it's not a tiger?

9 hours ago, jjuttp said:

I saw a jellyfish and was going to to say something a la Seaworld should have used that design instead.

Nothing DW does should be in any other theme park.

Edited December 9, 20187 yr by Skeeta

Heres the official TVC for the ride. 

I think it’s great and marketing idea is pretty cool. Not so sure the music choice was right though.

I think it's pretty much spot on. I can't see anything wrong with the music in it either. Just right in my opinion.

It's a lovely tourism campaign...

Wait, it's for a theme park?  Ah, sod it.

Todays update

 

Beginning of remaining canopy now going up

 

And the upper parts!

 

There's a SkyVoyager branded kiosk in Westfield Coomera at the moment.  If you buy an annual pass there, you get a pass for 13 months (same as online) and also a $20 Westfield gift card.

The guy there told me:

- The new development for next year is an adventure river in Whitewater World, which will include things like Waves and waterfalls.

- They are NOT planning a dark ride for 2019, but it might be happening in 2020 or subsequently.

- They are considering a new coaster also in coming years.

Most importantly, boxing day is still the planned opening day of SkyVoyager. It just can't be confirmed just yet due to construction activity, which of course can be a bit hard to predict.

Exciting times!

What flavour did you choose?

Another day closer!

 

 

Edited December 12, 20187 yr by pushbutton

This building looks terrible.  It does not fit the style of Dreamworld, or have any unique theme beyond generic 'airport' or possibly 'shopping mall'.  This design is going to date quickly and the glass windows housing the stairwells already look like a dated early 90s office block.

Dreamworld increasingly seems to be treating their park like a shopping mall where each store has it's own unique brand and fit out and there is no continuity from one attraction to the next.

While I get that there were no airplanes in the late Victorian era, to theme it to the surrounding buildings, there were ideas for flying contraptions dating back to the 1500s (DaVinci, etc). It's not difficult to come up with a concept that allows you to create a theme park attraction, instead of a generic 'flying' ride. We've all been to an airport, we know what they look like, and we don't go to Dreamworld to see a cheap copy of one.

The theme of the building doesn't have to represent the concept of the ride, but the story attached to the ride and Dreamworld could have made that story anything.

Even if you wanted to theme it to an airport, there are many Art Deco and historic airports from around the world that could have been used to create better theming, that would have sit closer to the rest of the main street look.

Liverpool:

Kallang Airport (Singapore):

Newark:

LaGuardia (New York City):

Jacksonville Florida:

Swan Island:

The building could have been designed to fit the rest of the area and simply had an air traffic control tower element added, and all of the art deco designs would have suited a Sky Voyager theme much better than a modern airport.

To be honest, I'm going to be disappointed with the current Dreamworld design if there are not metal detectors, x-ray machines and 40 minute security lines to get on the ride. If they're going to theme it to a modern airport, why not go all the way?

24 minutes ago, wikiverse said:

It does not fit the style of Dreamworld

Dreamworld's style is tired and is overdue for an overhaul. 

Blah Blah Blah, you don't like change.

they weren't maintaining the victorian facades to the standard required. I've often sat at central station looking up at the ice cream shop wondering just how much the paint was holding together.

They already ruined other facades - the new exit to the parkway, the gaudy paint job on some other buildings.

Ironically, since these buildings were inspired by Disney - I encourage you to "let it go".

Clearly the park is in a state of change right now. The areas you could include as 'main street' would include areas as far east as the train line, south as far as Claw, north as far as the construction fences - and we've got the bloody fairy shop, a modern airport, a giant modern roof canopy, a super modern looking Kodak and Lego store frontage, parts of victorian buildings that are falling apart.

The time to lament the loss of Longhurst's Disney Main Street was long before the thunder river incident. It's not the wrecking ball of progress, rather it is death by a thousand small cuts. Rather than blocking an opportunity for them to install a lower maintenance facade, and an amazing new attraction, perhaps this is just a sign of things to come as they slowly replace old, awesome, but hard to maintain facades with those that are simpler, and easier (read: low maintenance).

At this stage, i'd welcome a reimagining of all the shopfronts within the main street precinct, rather than try to cling to some shred of a forgotten era by insisting that the slowly rotting facades be left untouched and in service until they too fall down and kill someone.

41 minutes ago, Skeeta said:

Dreamworld's style is tired and is overdue for an overhaul. 

Blah Blah Blah, you don't like change.

At a fundamental level, the Victorian-era facades aren't tired, otherwise Disneyland wouldn't still be printing money in multiple countries.

As to what @AlexB said above - there's definitely some truth in there - Longhurst's Dreamworld is well and truly buried (figuratively and literally at that) and trying to hold Ardent to the same bar that Longhurst had ends in major disappointment.

I'm over the whole Longhurst's line.  Truth is he sold it, so it doesn't concern him.

I'm also over let's compare DW to Disney line.

DW is not Disney and doesn't need to be to be a good theme park.

Who cares what Disney does.  100's of successful theme parks in the world that are nothing like Disney.

22 minutes ago, Skeeta said:

I'm over the whole Longhurst's line.  Truth is he sold it, so it doesn't concern him.

 

I'm also over let's compare DW to Disney line.

 

DW is not Disney and doesn't need to be to be a good theme park.

 

Who cares what Disney does.  100's of successful theme parks in the world that are nothing like Disney.

 

There's suddenly a lot of whataboutism going on when your original argument and my reply were awfully specific.

Walt Disney is dead but whether it's new rides or the fundamental ethics of the Walt Disney Company, folks both inside and outside the park care deeply about what his opinion would be, so the "he sold it" line doesn't work as an excuse on meeting the minimum standard of expectations that's been eroded for 20+ years at Dreamworld.

But you're right, Disney isn't the only template for success, in fact both Dreamworld & Sea World owe a lot of credit to other successful operations like Busch Gardens. Both Busch & Universal (another highly successful chain) do a great job in catering to thrill-seekers and less of the "family unit" that Disney does. Same goes for Dollywood & Hershey Park.

Noticing a trend here by the way with those parks? They're all successful parks that look after what they have (what's that? They still have all their steam trains? What a coincidence) and don't do really, really basic things you wouldn't even do in RollerCoaster Tycoon like, say,  plonking a space-themed ride in a western area or, maybe, I dunno, plonking an ultra-modern facade in a Victorian-era main street.

Edited December 12, 20187 yr by Slick

A bit late now because this isn't the first plonking.

I'm also over "you wouldn't even do in RollerCoaster Tycoon".  (not real)

 

54 minutes ago, Slick said:

Noticing a trend here by the way with those parks? They're all successful parks that look after what they have

DW was a successful park even with the train change or the ugly roof erected in Main street.   DW only became unsuccessful when DW started killing people.

 

 

 

 

 

Started killing people? You make it sound like they did it on purpose.

35 minutes ago, jjuttp said:

Started killing people? You make it sound like they did it on purpose.

It's not the sort of remark you'd expect from someone who calls themselves a fan of theme parks is it!

21 hours ago, wikiverse said:

or have any unique theme beyond generic 'airport'

 

Is it an airport?

So far all I'm seeing is "rocket man".

 

and here it is today. Main hoardings most probably coming down tonight. 

 

I'm glad we have your years of construction experience to rely on Push.

On a serious note though - thankyou for the frequent updates as we approach Christmas.

@Skeeta They're referring to it as a 'terminal' and telling you to check for 'departure updates'.

But even this speaks to my point about Dreamworld not being able to pick a theme and stick to it. They can't even be consistent within a single ride.

They have a Stark-Trek inspired logo, A rocket-man TV commercial featuring remote Australian landscapes, a building themed to an airport terminal, all dumped into a Victorian-styled Main Street. The whole concept is a complete mess because Dreamworld have been lazy and not given it anymore thought than 'let's theme our high-tech 'flying' ride to the concept of 'flying''.

When no one is providing creative direction for the park or for the individual ride, everyone involved just starts slapping their take of the 'flying' concept onto the ride.

I don't care if DW want to make changes to the park's aesthetics and style, but those changes should be an improvement and be consistent - working toward a larger vision for the park. At the moment every single ride, store, attraction and show seems like an isolated 'project' implemented by different people working in silos.

It is just my opinion, but I believe that DW needs to hire a creative director whose sole job it is to start overseeing this stuff.

This ride is supposed to be a major, multi-million dollar tourist attraction.  Ask yourself if you think people are going to want to stand outside of this building and take a photo of themselves to share their experience and memories on social media. If the answer is no, it's probably the wrong design for a theme park.

 

4 minutes ago, wikiverse said:

@Skeeta They're referring to it as a 'terminal' and telling you to check for 'departure updates'.

But even this speaks to my point about Dreamworld not being able to pick a theme and stick to it. They can't even be consistent within a single ride.

They have a Stark-Trek inspired logo, A rocket-man TV commercial featuring remote Australian landscapes, a building themed to an airport terminal, all dumped into a Victorian-styled Main Street. The whole concept is a complete mess because Dreamworld have been lazy and not given it anymore thought than 'let's theme our high-tech 'flying' ride to the concept of 'flying''.

When no one is providing creative direction for the park or for the individual ride, everyone involved just starts slapping their take of the 'flying' concept onto the ride.

I don't care if DW want to make changes to the park's aesthetics and style, but those changes should be an improvement and be consistent - working toward a larger vision for the park. At the moment every single ride, store, attraction and show seems like an isolated 'project' implemented by different people working in silos.

It is just my opinion, but I believe that DW needs to hire a creative director whose sole job it is to start overseeing this stuff.

This ride is supposed to be a major, multi-million dollar tourist attraction.  Ask yourself if you think people are going to want to stand outside of this building and take a photo of themselves to share their experience and memories on social media. If the answer is no, it's probably the wrong design for a theme park.

 

You sir win Parkz today.