Richard

That 'obscure' film was a highly publicised big-budget film. Anyone not familiar with it clearly wouldn't be in any position to cite views on the longevity of the Looney Tunes characters. It did flop, but without a doubt that would come down to the overall quality of the production rather than its inclusion of the Looney Tunes characters. I haven't watched Cartoon Network in probably close to a decade so can't comment on what the world of cartoons is like these days, but a quick look at IMDB for Looney Tunes suggests that the franchise is consistently reappearing in new series and TV specials etc. To suggest that kids these days aren't familiar with them to the point where they are not be a financially viable brandname is absurd. When was the last time anyone saw Mickey Mouse in anything of note? To say he's still pretty popular at the Disney parks would be an understatement.

I don't know why anyone would expect any moments of airtime from this coaster given that throughout its layout it has no track that'll provide anything but miniscule amounts of negative g-forces. The emphasis here is on speed, not forces.

If you've not yet seen, Gazza's latest photos of the ride's construction are now available on the main site: http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/gallery.php?gid=189

Two very blatant examples of 'untidy' in recent years comes to mind: Both have been permanent (at least at the time of their installation) additions to Main Street, the first was part of the parade and stood for a year or so. I'm sure it would still be there today, but I believe it was starting to damage the building. Unfortunately I don't have any shots of the other end of the cable, down at the Commissary building, which looked even worse. The screen ruined the impact of the entire Main Street. You've got to wonder if it'd have been so hard in the scheme of things to rebuild the Daily Planet facade down near Superman Escape and enclose the screen properly in a new building front, covering it up when it's not in use, say with a vintage Coca-Cola billboard or similar. Movie World's without a doubt our top park in terms of theming, but that said they're no knight in shining armor; they've made their share of questionable choices over the years.

If that's something someone at Movie World had told you, then that's among the stupidest things I've heard in a while. Yes, it does cost more to run two trains, but you've just paid $64 (or used a costly annual pass) to enter the park to get this service and should expect nothing but top notch service for your money, including appropriate wait times on rides. Any profits from locker hire etc. are going straight to the bottom line. I also struggle to see a place for arcades in a theme park. Granted, they are cash cows for the parks, but I'm sure long-term using the same space to install an attraction will see much better revenue in the long run by improving the overall product offering of the park. I dislike the notion that their success means more big rides in the future. Their goal is to create better profit margins for the park and nothing else. Parks look at the addition of new major attractions from the perspective of what they will do for the park in the future, not based on how much they can afford to spend. If a park does exceptionally well for several years, that doesn't translate to new rides more frequently. I don't mind midway games (probably not in a park like Movie World though) as well as theme-appropriate skill games etc. (shooting galleries etc.), but the idea of an arcade inside a theme park is so tacky. Parks everywhere in the world have them, so it's hardly confined to our parks, though I think if you look at parks that do have them versus parks that don't, more often than not the better parks stick clear of them, more as a reflection of their management's desire for a cohesive and singular vision for the park and the atmosphere and image they want to create for the place than anything else. Can you imagine how out-of-place and unnecessary they'd be at Sea World for instance?

I've got a stack of WWW photos but haven't yet had a moment to put them up.

The latest construction update is now up, showing the coaster's track completed: http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/gallery.php?gid=188

If we're going to use the size of single massively hyped events as a measure of the popularity of a sport within the country, then I'd like to see a horse racing themed ride at Dreamworld next. The Melbourne Cup is so incredibly huge in this country that every single living Australia must be a die-hard horse racing fan. You've thrown at us some random facts about motorsports. Good, great. I have absolutely nothing against the sport. You've done nothing to prove that it's a statistically significant sport in Australia to the point where it's an inherent part of Australian culture, which is what I was talking about.

The Rivertown area was originally modeled after the Murray River, with most of the architecture quite consistent with how towns along the river would have looked in the mid-19th Century. Paddlewheelers were of course one of the main modes of transport along the river in those days; Charles Sturt (the Paddlewheeler's namesake) discovered the Murray as well as the Darling. Between Rivertown and Gum Tree Gully, I think they were more or less equal in terms of their "Australianness" back in the day. They were after all essentially the same area. (I may have watched a documentary featuring the Murray River earlier today.)

I've got no problems with tastefully executed sports-themed attractions. I do have an issue with suggesting motorsport is in any way a major part of life in Australia. I honestly don't think it comes much more American than motor racing and it certainly doesn't appear anywhere prominently on quantified surveys of Australian sporting interests. Perhaps the most ironic part to me is that between Wiggles World and now the Motocoaster, Dreamworld has lost perhaps its most iconically Australian area. Theme parks in this country didn't come more Aussie than Dreamworld a decade ago.

The latest photo gallery of the coaster's construction is now up on the main site, comprising of nearly 50 photos. http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/gallery.php?gid=187

I think I'd go so far as to say that the majority of theme parks in the world do not go overboard with the brightness and in fact rely on more traditional and natural colours. For one I think it makes brightly coloured rides a lot more visually impressive when they stand out from their surrounds, rather than competing against them for attention. I'm not suggesting that they haven't done some good work, but I don't think as a whole that they've done much that isn't overall simply average or 'just OK' in the scheme of things. You can indeed do a whole lot worse, but it's not a company I'd be rushing to the defence of, or expecting the world of. I think you also that it's worth mentioning that at the end of the day they're doing the job to their client's (i.e. Dreamworld) wishes and ultimate satisfaction.

I don't quite understand some of the praise that Atomiq seems to get around here. I've seen no evidence that any of their past works (Dreamworld and others) have been terribly creative or imaginative. It seems to me theming and proper concept development has made way for bright colours and brand affiliation, and Atomiq seems to be little more than a company brought on to perform this task and little else. I've said before that bright colours aren't necessarily a problem when used in a manner that's attractive, appropriately coordinated and relevant to the area, but the biggest problem I have with them is that there is no thought given to the fact that they fade much quicker than other colour choices, and it ends up being immediately obvious and detracts from the overall image. The architecture is most definitely 'inspired' (translation: a direct ripoff) by Disneyland et al. The colours, however, are not, which is where a lot of the criticism comes from as it does come off as a bit of a complete mish-mash of styles that don't necessarily work all that effectively together. I personally don't mind the colour choices in Main Street. The area is uninviting however because of all the ageing concrete and bitumen that is long overdue for a complete rehaul to make the entire area a far more inviting area. Properly investing in redesigning the entire area from the ground up would go a lot further towards creating a more enjoyable and pleasant area (and therefore by association more revenue from the associated retail shops) than a cheap coat of paint in edgy colours.

I wouldn't be so certain of that. The most obvious way of looking at it is that the cost to put in identical replacement slides from scratch will be more or less the same as the cost to put in something different, so reaping the benefits of a novel attraction will certainly be the best way to maximise the potential. The website does indeed say that Whitewater Mountain will be back in September, but that's not to say it'll be the same as what was there for the past 20-odd years.

I can't think of the figures right off the top of my head, but the height limit is I believe 135cm for the bikes and only 105cm or 110cm for the sidecar seats -- about the same as Scooby-Doo Spooky Coaster and even Reptar's minimum. It's a thrill ride suitable for the entire family. I don't think it's a concept that's all that difficult to comprehend. It won't feature high g-forces, will have a tame launch and relatively sedate speeds etc. Everyone can obviously draw their own conclusions or conceptions about it, but Dreamworld are marketing it as a thrill ride to suit families.

Yeah I think it is a bit egotisical, but that said if someone offered me a cheque to use my name like this I wouldn't argue. Personally I think it's an absolutely bizarre name choice that'll polarise potential visitors. People keen on racing (the minority) will no doubt do for it while people who don't really care either way will not see it any differently to a ride that isn't branded like this. Then there's people who dislike racing will most likely be turned away by the whole concept whereas without the affiliation they may well have visited. You know, the same people that switch on the TV of Saturday afternoon and hastily turn it off moments later when they hear the sound of V8 or F1 engines. I can't realistically see it being anything more than a short-term licensing agreement, presumably around 3 years or thereabouts.

In the end, Roller-Coaster.com.au does not censor information that one might choose to leak. That said if it's in our interest to help a park track down who is leaking information, you can guarantee that we won't hold back. Despite how anonymous you may think you are, it's not as hard as you'd expect to find out who you are, and IP addresses etc. would be the last place a park would look to find out who's saying things. If you are stupid enough to violate your terms of employment by divulging information that you shouldn't be for bragging rights on the Internet, I'd say it's little stretch of the imagination to suggest you're probably stupid enough to get caught.

Stats of the coaster are now on the ride's profile page: http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/coaster.php?cid=62 I think we should have some new photos of the ride from today up tonight so keep an eye on the main page.

Universal Studios Florida did away with the studio tour by basically building many of the more memorable moments of the Hollywood tour as standalone attractions (Jaws, Earthquake etc.). The problem with the Movie World studio tour wasn't that there's an inherent problem with this style of attraction in terms of entertainment, but rather that their incarnation of it simply missed the mark. It's no wonder that research indicated that it wasn't an entertaining attraction, because it simply wasn't. There's nothing exciting about driving around a bunch of white sheds. Of course the big caveat is anywhere there's anything entertaining happening (such as filming of a blockbuster movie), you can guarantee that the tour isn't going anywhere near it for obvious reasons. This works at USH because it's such an expansive studio that they can easily divert the tour through other backlots. This style of ride needs to rely almost totally on props along the way, and utilise them in a way that is entertaining while being true to what the style of ride is supposed to do -- inform the rider about how movies are made. I can count just off the top of my head around a dozen different gimicks thrown in to make the ride at USH more exciting. The version at Movie World should never have been combined with the special effects show, which was evidently done to pad out the tour, as zigzagging around the soundstages doesn't quite compare to the show. At the end of the day, the problem is that the studios at Movie World really aren't interesting and the attraction tried to rely solely on the studios for entertainment. An attraction like this could succeed in the park, but it would have to be designed in such a way that the studios have little to do with the actual entertainment offered. The problem with Movie World isn't so much that that particular attraction is gone, but rather that every attraction like it is now gone. Research and patronage of these old attractions will absolutely have played a key role in the decision to remove them, but the fact that they never evolved to be more modern and up-to-date will have played a much greater role in this than shifts in consumer attitudes. It's a park which, despite its name, has distanced itself as much as possible from the filmmaking side of movies, which I think is a shame because new rides have come at the expense of old ones, when ideally they should be additions, not replacements.

Lethal Weapon's $16 million pricetag in 1995 was very much in-line with that of other SLC coasters of the 1990s, especially considering Australia's weak dollar at that time, the fact that it was fabricated overseas and that it was the first of its design and one of the first SLCs in the world. Likewise Wild West Falls remains to date Australia's biggest theme park attraction and its construction also included the single largest expansion of the park since opening. Considering WBMW was and still is owned by a publicly listed company, I have little doubt about the accuracy of the listed figures considering they dotted financial releases at the time. At any rate, it's pretty irrelevent seeing as you could comfortably shave off 95% of the cost of those two rides and Movie World would still be ahead in terms of expenditure over the years. I agree with all that to some extent. I think all our parks are overpriced in comparison to equivalent international parks, for the simple reason that it's very easy for the Gold Coast parks to band together in terms of pricing without any outside pressure from parks in other regions which would provide much more consumer-oriented competition than the confined Gold Coast competition we currently see. That said I don't think they're necessarily bad value, just definitely making the most of the duopoly situation.

Based on inflation rates, tickets costs are marginally increasing from year to year such that you are paying more to enter now than you did in the past. Similarly operating costs have actually decreased very significantly with Dreamworld in the decade or so that Macquarie Leisure has owned the park. While ticket prices go up 5% or so each year, operating costs are decreasing by about the same amount, so the net position is Dreamworld are well ahead. Of course, operating costs can't just keep decreasing, and I expect that they won't much from here on out, but ticket costs are going up faster than inflation, which can very easily be justified by new attractions. On that note, Movie World has spent much, much more over its life than Dreamworld has on new thrill rides. Looking at thrill rides alone: Wipeout + Tower of Terror + Giant Drop + Cyclone + The Claw = $4 + $16 + $4 + $5.5 + $6 = $35.5 million Lethal Weapon + Wild West Falls + Scooby-Doo Spooky Coaster + Superman Escape + Batwing Spaceshot = $16 + $18 + $13 + $16 + $5 = $68 million Movie World have spent nearly twice what Dreamworld have on new major attractions. Nick Central + Wiggles World don't decrease that gap by all that much either when you consider that Movie World has invested heavily in Looney Tunes Village and a whole host of short-run attractions like shows and walkthroughs.

I've been meaning to get shots from that angle since the very beginning, but it only runs twice a day and I only drop in for about 20 minutes as it's on my way to where I'm going (or sometimes vaguely on the way), so in the past I've always missed it. Definitely the best angles of the ride, and I was lucky that I timed it right this week. Why they only run it twice a day is beyond me. It'll never be hugely popular, nor should it be, but of course people aren't going to ride it if they have to schedule their day around its two runs.

Another week, another update: http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/gallery.php?gid=185 Again, little progress in terms of actual track due to the fact that the buildings needed to be largely completed while they still have access to the area, but the site as a whole has moved forward considerably this week. The layout should also become abundantly clear after reading this update for those who aren't yet familiar.

Reading through your post, I have no idea what your point is, and who you are trying to make it to. No one here with half a brain doesn't realise that the average theme park employee will have knowledge about what the park is doing. Anyone who has suggested otherwise you can ignore because I can assure you the rest of us will have been doing so for a lot longer. We have plenty of other theme park employees on this site. These forums are frequented by countless others ranging from employees like yourself up to management. The difference between all these others is that you have been posting opinions like they are facts and rehashing information that is very well known and implying that it's insider gossip. I would also most definitely check up on your employment contract and brush up on any non-disclosure policies in effect. There are reasons most other park employees here don't post insider information and you'd be kidding yourself if you didn't think your bosses are reading what you're saying. I'm not suggesting you have broken your contract, but I'd be very cautious. I'm not saying you haven't been making valuable contributions here, but if you lighten up and stop trying to prove yourself with each post I'm sure the majority of members here will gladly welcome you. If you want respect from this community, start by respecting everyone here.

Theming is not about placing a few fibreglass fixtures around a ride. That is perhaps the most pertinent issue when it comes to ride theming. It is about creating a mood and atmosphere that accentuates the ride experience. No matter how good they may appear, they're not adding anything and just come off as a token effort if they're not contributing anything to the overall ride. If there's no room in the budget for theming a ride properly, then it shouldn't be done at all. When it comes to a regular outdoor roller coaster, going for a low-key unobtrusive and low-maintenance visual effect wins nearly every time. Those few coasters I've been on that do pull off theming are all at parks which have given them the proper budget to make it work, not just while queuing, but for the entire ride. There's not a single coaster in Australia I feel that has theming that lives up to the ride or vice versa. Brand affiliation is also not theming. The most visually attractive park in Australia is hands down Sea World. It works by creating a cohesive atmosphere for the overall park, while allowing individual attractions to be very much themed in their own unique way, all adding to the overall feel of the park. Movie World is OK but they've become too disjointed in recent years with the Scooby-Doo area being a prime example; you have in the space of about 30 metres the typical "Hollywood" theming of the main street, San Francisco, Gotham City, Scooby-Doo, Harry Potter and wild west. As a result the effectiveness of each is watered down significantly. For instance there's no way anyone eating at Dirty Harry's at Movie World feels like they're in San Francisco, which means the whole purpose is lost. Eating in Universal Studios Orlando's expansive San Francisco area meanwhile is as close to the real thing as you'll ever get, and it genuinely does feel the same. It might as well be not themed at all, seeing as it's not really serving any thematic purpose. Take this comparison between the real San Francisco and Universal's: I don't have one of Dirty Harry's to throw into the mix, but I'm sure most people see how it falls well short.