Richard

OK joke's been done. Can we try and stick to commenting on current affairs?

It's worth pointing out that the coaster layout shown in the artist's rendering is not the final product. There were three iterations of the coaster layout by Martin & Vleminckx / Gravity Group. The finalised layout is the one depicted in the scale model: https://www.parkz.com.au/photo/19332-Leviathan_model/gallery/sort/newest/location/ride-4166-Leviathan/offset/0

@CaptainLazerGuns, you've come into this discussion with vague assertions and straw man fallacies. Responses have been made to you in a rational, respectful manner. I write articles like this to get people to think and react so I'm more than happy for respectful discussion/critiquing but as it stands all you've really offered is ad hominems about the community at large. Even that would probably be fine were you not claiming to be taking the high road while simultaneously goading members and dishing out bizarre pejoratives about lists and gifs (it's 2019?) that don't actually exist in this thread and rarely at all in these forums. By all means share your opinions, but expect replies. This attitude of taking your ball and going home because others disagree really has no place here.

Everything I said above applies here. Let's steer this one back on topic.

What you're calling a negative bias and an echo chamber is backed up by investors, market analysts, and finance publications like AFR. It's backed up by social media comments in the wider public. It's backed up by attendance patterns and corresponding performance of the respective park operators. At this point I don't think the onus is on this "echo chamber" to prove you wrong, when you've seemingly misinterpreted the article and then ignored every respectful rebuttal to your arguments.

At $15-plus million a piece these were never intended as band-aids. Investors are sceptical. Industry insiders are sceptical. Would-be guests are sceptical. There's plenty of justification for scepticism and in this case measured optimism about this latest development, and that's what this article is about. As for disappointment, I'm probably missing what you're getting at here. At a quick glance, I see commentary to the effect of "this is good" no less than six times throughout the article and nothing resembling disappointment.

In an effort to nip this in the bud before it becomes a thousand pages long... let's talk about 2020 wooden coasters (or whatever) in this thread, but 2019 domes (or whatever) over here:

Isn't that precisely the point? Non-students have more money and therefore can afford to visit at more appropriate times rather than on a Wednesday night.

Watch it again. They commenced talks prior to the accident. At the same time Brogent were also in talks with several other operators/locations and Dreamworld were also looking very closely at other attractions around this time. Even so, let's say the deal was signed prior. A deposit is normally paid to a manufacturer to secure an attraction. That doesn't mean it can't be put on hold or even cancelled by the operator if circumstances change. Simplifying the situation, it is entirely correct to state that they proceeded with the I-Ride to "save" Dreamworld.

Personally I would be taking this post at face value...

Despite the spate of fake accounts of late, we can confirm that @henryjones doesn't appear to match any recent troublemakers. Personally I would be taking this post at face value...

If you want to discuss the specific maintenance of a particular attraction, feel free to start a new topic.

Just to clarify our policy on mega-threads: We want people to start new threads to discuss new things, even if it's relatively minor. It's easier for everyone to find and follow what they're interested in this way and there's no harm in a thread with only a few replies discussing something small like park map changes. Construction threads are really the only exception to this as it's useful to keep this lumped together and in easy chronological order for future reference. In this case a new thread to show map changes is perfectly fine and preferable to adding it to the construction thread because it's different enough. We changed the title of this thread from "Dreamworld minor updates" early on to prevent it from becoming another mega-thread.

I really should have said only for word of mouth. Is an attraction that's notoriously difficult for even the likes of Disney to sell to the public the best possible use of ~$17 million for Dreamworld right now? Does Dreamworld need a sleeper hit that will bump their TripAdvisor rating from 4.0 to 4.1 over the next year or two, or do they need to dramatically change the narrative now? They've been back offering $79 annual pass renewals despite it being peak season and the launch of their first major attraction in years. That's a good indication that something is missing the mark.

People vote with their wallets. The point of looking at numbers is that they tell us what the general public is thinking. Dreamworld hasn't been a core business for Ardent for a long time. It remains in their portfolio because it's a lot harder to sell than a chain of bowling alleys or gyms and up until recently has been a reliable source of income. Praising them simply for reinvestment is like praising your local supermarket for having stocked shelves. It's integral to the business model, so to me the interesting discussion is more about whether they're investing smartly. I'd agree with some of these points -- unique and large target market in particular. I'd disagree that it's easy to market; it's an almost impossible concept to sell to the public and you'll see even Disney struggle with making them look good. These rides when done well are great for word of mouth, and there's no shortage of arguments for why that's not what Dreamworld needs right now.