All Activity

There was no glossing over, and I didn't say disclaimers cover all. What part of didn't you understand?

Makes sense. A lawyer goes to a theme park with their family. The kids are having a great time on the roller coaster, but the lawyer is looking increasingly distressed. Finally, the lawyer yells, "This is outrageous! I'm going to sue! There are too many twists and turns, and I can't keep track of the evidence!

@DaptoFunlandGuy You glossed over it way, WAY, WAY too simply by saying disclaimers cover all though. They simply don't. As far as discrimination goes, they also have a duty of care to identify that you are greater risk of injury or further injury if you were to ride, especially in the case where it goes against the manufacturer's rules or regulation for their ride. They are not required to make expect medical decisions based on what they can visualise or what (lies) told to them, and likewise, they cannot allow you to place yourself in a dangerous position even if you feel it is discriminating. You can twist it to mean anything you want, and it frequently is, but the intention of the act does not overwrite the potential to do harm. So it becomes a case of do what is reasonable and argue the fine points in court. The groundwork for what people can ride comes direct from manufacturers, then external risk assessments are done in relation with SOP's and that draws a very clear line in the sand before it's even handed over to operations to manage. What is and isn't an acceptable risk is ENTIRELY down to how much responsibility you wish to take in addition to these controls. Pro tip, it's usually very little. You are significantly increasing your exposure, and, even in the event that you did everything right, or you felt you did everything appropriately, you can still be sued for injuries. Post early 2000's public liability insurance crisis, there isn't a company in the country that won't ALWAYS err on the side of caution, even if that means becoming more risk aversive and excluding more people. Then, when you throw in it's a potentially dangerous, risk filled environment combined with the operational style of village, clearly evident/demonstrated through years of people questioning why/how they do things (when nobody else seems to), you get what you get. The problem is the world has changed, and stupid people's expectations are completely screwed. Nobody owes you anything. You pay money to enter their world, they tell you what you can and can't do, end of discussion. Unfortunately, it's flipped, and the opposite is true in the minds of a lot of people these days. It's like businesses should bend to the will or the demands of their customer/guests just because they promise to offer a token (paltry) gesture of good will that is so meager in comparison it wouldn't even cover the initial filing fee of application to sue for injury or damages. The more stupid the general public becomes, the more generalised restrictions and controls will be found because it's evident people cannot be held accountable for their own actions anymore, so you have to try to limit your exposure instead.

I personally go to my lawyers for Theme park discussion.

Each one of those "bulbs" are a 3 in 1 SMD. Both displays are custom Vuepix LED screens developed for ULA. The joker head is a custom GM series LED screen. It's still made up of a bunch of modules that connect together, but it was designed with greater LED pitch as it's purely signage, there's no infill panel it's completely open. Obviously more a bespoke design/shape, but they had a lot of problems with the GL panels over the years too, including water damage. Even if you don't lose a panel, you can lose a signal or power module that will take out an entire group and you're just left with a big portion of your sign missing. Wanted to get away from these sorts of issues. Not sure if cost comes into it a lot when you are building a custom 130sqm sign. Thats coverage about half the size of an average house. When you think of it that way, it starts to really drive home how large the sign is.

I love coming to Parkz for legal advise.

You're absolutely right, it's a minefield. there are ramifications for having blanket bans and the GS\FA-RN assessment routes are the best options all round. This is why I said they can assess, they can recommend, and they can absolutely prevent someone riding where safety is a factor. However, they can't pretend that some fanciful suggestion that you "might aggravate a pre-existing injury" is reason enough to discriminate. It is more a matter of degree and a balance of all the factors at play - considering the likelihood of it happening, as well as the consequences (or severity) of what could happen. (or to put it another way - if we stopped people from riding rides because there was the mere possibility they could be hurt - nobody would ever ride anything again!) In the current example, being in a brace that is custom fitted, strapped on with numerous velcro straps and\or press studs - the person is less likely to be injured in it than out of it, and it's highly unlikely to come off and injure anyone else. The assessment at that point likely boils down to whether they have hand grip strength capable for evacuations and\or whether the loss of the use of one hand is an excluding factor. Typically this wouldn't exclude people from all but the most extreme rides. I'm being very simplistic, and this is in no way formal advice or suggesting the parks are or are not doing the right thing based on their alignment with what i've suggested - i'm simply making a very long-winded point that they can't just say "no casts, braces or slings" as this would not meet their obligations under the DDA.

Trouble is, the ride at your own risk thing doesn't really work anymore. Why? 1) Because it doesn't stop people attempting to drag you through courts, which ultimately costs money even if they lose or drop the lawsuit. 2) It all impacts your insurance premiums. Underwriters are increasingly setting the tone for what they will consider acceptable and what they won't. The more claims you have to make, the more notice they take, premiums increase, greater restrictions are applied. 3) In Australia, disclaimers are basically not worth the paper they are written on. Basically, from a legal standpoint, you cannot knowingly allow or permit something you know could have a detrimental or have a negative impact, either physically, mentally or monetarily.How they are served makes one hell of a difference too, especially when things like tickets for entry are concerned. When you are sued the courts look at if you were actively notifying the persons of the disclaimers, when and where, and if you were just relying on a printed document or statement somewhere. It's not good enough to just basically sit back and rely on the document anymore. You can write all kinds of things in disclaimers and even have people sign them, but there are so many laws and acts that basically override them. And that's without the whole issue of negligence being able to be established which makes you culpable regardless of what is written. Village used to go one further and send some guests to first aid where the RN/EN could actually look at the type of injury and make a more educated judgement than guest services staff. I'd hate to think they stopped doing this because, aside from being a legal minefield for the parks, nothing ruins an entire family's day at a theme park like arriving and being told one of your kids is a complete bystander for the day. If that's going to happen, you'd at least like someone with some sort of medical training to be making judgement calls that will completely ruin your day.

It's fun to fantasise and wonder what could be - but the reality of it all is quite simple - Village are pretty comfortable with the IP stable they have. They aren't going to acquire rights to other IPs from other production houses they don't have relationships with without a really good incentive to do so - something like an insanely popular new franchise that somehow hasn't been gobbled up by one of the majors... And acquiring rights to a franchise that is currently stupidly popular in overseas parks will be too expensive. Acquiring rights to a dusty old back catalog from a small independent film house that's been passed around production companies like a young actress at a Weinstein party probably isn't going to get them the bang (no pun intended) for their buck that they would need to make it worth it. Bottom line - your pie in the sky ideas are cool to think about, but there is no grounding in reality. it's never going to happen unless someone like Paramount comes along and buys the park - in which case you can expect the park to rebrand (and lose some of it's other IPs in the process) - but we all know how much Paramount thinks of the Australian Market so yet again, another pie in the sky pipe dream that is never going to happen.

When I said monsters I meant monsters like Dracula, the Wolfman, Frankenstein’s Monster, Gilman, Phantom, Bride.

Good to hear.

Maybe they skimped out on the LED when the head was on the ground and the weather has already destroyed it

WB worked with Miramax which was founded by Harvey Weinstein, so theres monsters if you look.

I realise we've gotten an update just above where the staff in park were able to assess the situation and it was a different outcome to the park's online team - but just to add weight to this argument - the child's injury meets the legislated definition of a disability for the purposes of the disability discrimination act. This means that they cannot just have a blanket rule that says 'no casts, braces or slings'. This doesn't mean that they have to risk somebody's safety (the person with the disability or anyone else) - but they do have to review individual circumstances to determine what can be safely accommodated with reasonable adjustment. This can get very messy, and ultimately would need to involve doctors and medical assessments (and probably lawyers) if the abilities of the person were in dispute, so I would presume the park would err on the side of caution, but to simply say 'no, you can't ride anything while you have a brace on' doesn't meet the threshholds and responsibilities required by the legislation. This is a garbage argument This is also garbage. The park's T&Cs all state they ride at their own risk. They're also not medical professionals equipped to assess whether ride forces are going to aggravate an injury. How many people with head, neck and back problems do you think ride big thrill rides every day despite the signage saying not to? The park can assess. They can recommend she not ride certain things that may aggravate an injury and they can record such advice without specifically prohibiting a person from riding where it isn't a safety risk. Like everyone else at the park - they ride at their own risk. If she were to aggravate the injury for going beyond her own limits or abilities, that would be on her and wouldn't make the park liable.

I mean let's split hairs, but Verne is often credited as the foundations of Steampunk - though the style and genre goes well beyond Verne's works. Oh how I wished that the pinch point here would have been widened....

Yeah it's not like screwing in a new lightbulb \ lamp into an edison mount - but it is repairable. I figure you could technically just replace the broken ones - but it's circuit board level repairs - like replacing a processing chip on a motherboard x 100 and not worth the labour compared to just replacing the entire board when it's time to do so.

Someone hasn't heard about how much of a monsterous dick Jack Warner was. I'm sure you could make a Mr Toad's style ride out of that... or a maze.

Only flaw to that is the lack of monsters. Universal has a legacy of monsters that they could create stories with. WB doesn’t.

WoO is a good IP, the final product is just extremely lackluster competed to what we were expecting. it kinda makes me wish we got an area similar to Dark Universe at Epic, except obviously using WB characters to create the area.

Think you are overlooking that SNW cost more than the entire value of village theme parks to construct….

Dreamworld are hosting a fundraising event on Saturday September 6, 6pm to 10pm. The event is for over 18s and is $199 per person and includes the below. https://facebook.com/events/s/give-for-the-wild-a-gatsby-jun/5023010051257727/

But Universal doesn’t have a Universal Studios theme park. Plus Nintendo would license WB Movie World the theme park rights in Australia with negotiating with Universal to help. Warner Bros Movie World = The sets of the entire area, facades, and queue for Mario Kart: Bowser’s Challenge, Universal = The audio animatronics for the entire area, and attraction along with the ride vehicles shipping them to MW, Nintendo = the animation.

Durring the day it looks horrible. (when all guest enter the park)

Yes so what you see there is an LED chip (the rectangle part) and then a lens in front (the dome portion). The Joker head is a bit more simplistic than GL because they are higher powered, spaced apart chips, theoretically can be changed out, but tricky and specialized. GL is more like a traditional LED wall, made up individual cabinets, with smaller bare chips located within ‘shaders’ that keep the sun off and make them brighter in the daylight. - fun fact, the GL logo would be capable of displaying full video content (albeit only green) but at the time of it’s install it was not desired to implement that capability.

@rappa I’m not expert in this area, but looking at this close up photo from @Theme Park Girl to me they look like individual bulbs (but if I’m wrong, good to know they are actually LEDs).