1 hour ago, AlexB said:

20+? It won't even reach 20 until the end of this year.

Rookie error, ofcourse you are right. Friends?

50 minutes ago, Spike said:

Friends?

I have my residency. I'm afraid that would be a conflict.

Awwww Diddums. Your loss bud!

Loss?

Someone thinks a bit too highly of themselves...

Sadface. I’ve missed you Alexb. Back to discussion of Hot Wheels, is anyone actually going to miss the Hot Wheels Partnership? 

Nope

1 hour ago, Spike said:

Sadface. I’ve missed you Alexb. Back to discussion of Hot Wheels, is anyone actually going to miss the Hot Wheels Partnership? 

The Hot Wheels IP had absolutely no impact on the ride experience. If you want my opinion, it was an absolute waste. 

Edited June 10, 20205 yr by Zanstabar

Any one have any updates on the paint job? I heard they stopped for a while.

On 04/05/2020 at 11:18 AM, themagician said:

Track repaint as of April 20

Work pretty much stopped as soon as the park closed, so these are the most recent photos 

1 hour ago, themagician said:

Work pretty much stopped as soon as the park closed, so these are the most recent photos 

Are they intending to have the colour scheme match the water slide bellow it?

11 hours ago, Gazza said:

At the time though I think everyone was pretty happy that the coaster wasn't going to be scrapped, since most of us hadn't had the chance to ride it.

And despite not really fitting the site, the bargain for a full sized coaster available immediately would be too good to pass up.

This all said, would you even call it a terrain coaster?

Yes it was a bargain and yay a new coaster. But they really doubled down on the bargain by plonking it in the car park. It’s really the Scream (SFMM) of Australia coasters. 
 

I’d consider any coaster that has a custom layout to fit an existing space a terrain style coaster. 
It wrapped over buildings and snuck through gaps that existed between existing structures and the cliff so yes I’d call it terrain. 

I'm not a massive fan of the ride, but I must admit I like really like how the area around it has grown and how it feels like it belongs now. It's neat that the area has filled in, and there's some nice creative elements that make the coaster feel at home in a way it really didn't when it was built. The water slide tower in the middle of the helix being the obvious pinnacle. I agree it should nowt have been the signature coaster for 20 years, but I like how the area has grown to make it fit in.

 

Seriously when it was built you could really tell that the ride wasn't meant for where it was built. 100% a terrain coaster, and as much as it was a good pickup at the time, in the early days it really stuck out in a bad way and didn't fit at all. These days with the way they've built around it it fits in like it's meant to be there.

 

I love when different rides interact, I think it makes things so much cooler. I mean there's nothing exciting about the placement of GL or Arkham, but Corkscrew dove under the monorail track, and it really added something, particularly when you were on it and there was a train going through. The same would be true if they'd stuck with the original plan of putting a ride in Superman's helix.

 

If I had to put it in marketing terms that our parks could understand I'd say 'The proximity of different attractions in any one precinct provides for world class, dynamic interaction, enhancing the experience and providing for organic iconic promotional hero images, and instagramable moments for guests to share, assisting in the creation of sharable viral content. World class. *orgasm noises*'.

1 hour ago, joz said:

I mean there's nothing exciting about the placement of GL or Arkham, but Corkscrew dove under the monorail track, and it really added something, particularly when you were on it and there was a train going through. The same would be true if they'd stuck with the original plan of putting a ride in Superman's helix.

I agree with everything you said, except the GL comment. GL is perfect utilisation of space. Fitting such a compact coaster in that spot is great and it doesn't need to interact with any ride or area as it wraps around itself enough and there are plenty of viewing angles of it.

GL next to DC is an awesome view from the carpark and highway also. But yes, Superman and Arkham leave a lot to be desired.

2 minutes ago, Naazon said:

I agree with everything you said, except the GL comment. GL is perfect utilisation of space. Fitting such a compact coaster in that spot is great and it doesn't need to interact with any ride or area as it wraps around itself enough and there are plenty of viewing angles of it.

GL next to DC is an awesome view from the carpark and highway also. But yes, Superman and Arkham leave a lot to be desired.

Hopefully we don't have to wait too much longer until AA is retired, that will leave a lot of space to work with. So that leads me to my next question for @Bikash Randhawa , in the event that Arkham Asylum retires, is there any set plans for that area that are already in place?

9 minutes ago, Naazon said:

I agree with everything you said, except the GL comment. GL is perfect utilisation of space. Fitting such a compact coaster in that spot is great and it doesn't need to interact with any ride or area as it wraps around itself enough and there are plenty of viewing angles of it.

GL next to DC is an awesome view from the carpark and highway also. But yes, Superman and Arkham leave a lot to be desired.

GL next to Rivals does look fantastic but until Rivals was built, it looked like they had just left a coaster out on the curb for council collection.

A lot like Buzzsaw. I’d argue that Green Lantern was more of a Carpark Coaster than Cyclone. Cyclone has been well intergrated into the park and it’s surroundings. I agree 100% with what Joz said. 

Edited June 11, 20205 yr by Spike

Cyclone was plonked on the carpark and did look fairly out of place until 2006 rolled around and WWW opened. That's the nature of plonking things outside of the park main interior areas

Edited June 11, 20205 yr by Jdude95

Green Lantern, that was just plonked out the front of the park, and doesn't even have it's own bridge across the creek to it and whose exit path haphazardly uses the main entry bridge is well integrated because there's a coaster next to it which totally dwarfs it?

 

I mean you do you, but I think if you think GL is well implemented you're wrong.

18 minutes ago, Spike said:

 I’d argue that Green Lantern was more of a Carpark Coaster than Cyclone.

You think a coaster, that was built over a carpark, the linemarkings of which you can still see today, which only later had other rides and slides spring up around it, is less of a carpark coaster than a coaster that was built over grass?

Cyclone as far as im aware was built over a road, not on the car park. The line markings you refer to are the old road line markings. 

GL isn't a Carpark coaster, GL is an unimaginative lump of meh shoehorned in. Cyclone is largely the same but the area around it fits it now (Northern half is still a bit what ever but the lower southern half works well).

 

Also can we not do a competition on pedantocness on yhe definitions of Carpark coaster v road coaster v grassy knoll coaster because no one cares.

I don't think anyone said GL was well implemented. I believe what was said was that it looks fantastic now that Rivals is there. Mainly because it doesn't look like a curb coaster and from the motorway, the two of them look much better and more exciting than just GL.

GL looks good from the Carpark. I'm not arguing against that.

9 minutes ago, joz said:

GL looks good from the Carpark. I'm not arguing against that.

It's unfortunate that the lighting on the front isn't seen as much as most people would like it to be. 

You know what that sums it up nicely, the most impressive themeing element on the ride faces away from the park