DaptoFunlandGuy

What part of didn't you understand?

In such a free democracy you can bet the people would be loudly shouting in the street if there were...

Disney cares, but only until it affects their bottom line. Agree - but also the middle east knows the oil money isn't going to last forever as more EVs, more renewable energy sources etc. The whole concept of dubai, 'the palms' and 'the world', Saudi Arabia's 'the line'. They've been exploding their tourism opportunities while the cash keeps rolling in to try and establish tourism industries that will support their countries economy when the oil platforms they were built on are no longer required (or required to the same extent at least). So this is kind of a win win for both parties - Disney gets a lot of money from the new venture, and Miral gets a non-fossil-fueled venture with a licence to print money (possibly). This is still just agreement phase - there's no designs or concepts yet so the sky is literally the limit on what they build. But there are also plenty of Disney plans that made it to design and concept that never got over the line - so don't book your flights just yet.

I think there's still a bit of a psychological barrier for them in bringing a water attraction back to the park. Further - Rocky Hollow's area is essentially greenfields at this point and can coast by unnoticed. The GIANT WALL blocking out Troll's Village is a much bigger sore thumb in the current lineup. When King Claw opens, the people who have focussed on the new attractions - (Dreamland, Sky Voyager, Taipan, Jungle Rush and Vintage Cars) will return to Ocean Parade (seriously, I can't recall the last time I entered OP proper. Shockwave, Tailspin and GoldCoaster haven't been much reason to draw me to that dead end). With the focus on King Claw, I do think Dreamworld needs to tidy up the end of OP. Whether that sees retirement of Gold Coaster, installation of a new flat into FlowRider's space, reinvigoration of the 'worlds' gate between the two parks, replacement of trolls village with something new and hopefully permanent - i've no idea, but i think that area will have more eyes on it than Rocky Hollow has in the near future - and it's where they should put their attentions if they want to convince people to keep coming back. Rocky Hollow can be an entire world expansion with multiple attractions when the time and the budget is right.

The clock on the world's reliance on oil has reached the eleventh hour. Tokyo was so successful because OLC spared no expense, knew their local population, and knew what would make money. I worry about the middle east parks. There's been plenty of them planned that have not eventuated. Unlike other successful parks that are based in major population centres with a supportive local population, this park will need people to fly in from all over to support it, else it will only cater to those super rich tycoons that can afford to splash the cash on lavish VIP experiences. It does demonstrate to anyone who thinks a park should be built in Australia that the only way it gets done is if you pay for it yourself. Disney isn't footing the bill for this park - all their non-US parks have struggled for a significant part of their lives.

The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. both parks could utilise parts of this space. Remember - it was a dry park plot first. There doesn't have to be a net gain, though you're looking at it quite simplistically... Adding in Galaxy's Edge to Disneyland is a big, needed capacity expansion for a park as small as disneyland, but on the other hand take a look at some of the moves Universal is making - closing older attractions and zones for the next big thing - In Singapore, part of Madagascar became Minions, and the rest will also become Nintendo land in the future too. In Gold Coaster's case as Naazon mentioned - you can get a lot more bang for buck taking out one old rollercoaster that is getting on in years, and replacing it with several attractions as part of a masterplanned expansion that capitalises on the overall space and is designed cohesively. Remember Cyclone was essentially placed where it was because it 'fit'. It had to work in amongst Thunderbolt, and was designed for a landscape that Dreamworld didn't have, so the entire thing had to be massively elevated. So much could be done with the plot underneath - just look at what Luna Park had in and around the coaster when it existed there!

Disagree. Dreamworld is already pretty damn big. there is plenty of space inside the current park envelope for them to expand without needing more. Thunderbolt. Troll's Village & FlowRider. Rocky Hollow. There's also opportunity to do something with the Murrisippi and the island as long as they preserve the waterway. As time goes on you start to see other attractions due for refurb or retirement - Motocoaster is 18 this year - maybe they invest in a retheme and refresh to give it another decade or maybe they decide to pull it in favour of developing the plot into something else? (lord knows the dead zone between Giant Drop and Main Street Station could use something to liven it up). There's also potential to slip something inside of Taipan's footprint, or Buzzsaw's plot, and cyclone\gold coaster can't have much more life left in it, surely? I'd love to see them take the convention centre building and turn it into an indoor attraction complex with an ocean-related theme to tie-in to Ocean Parade.

and maybe when that part of the park comes up next for redevelopment and renovation they can consider it. The fire station wasn't part of the Rivertown budget. So they have to allocate resources. There is a safety need for them to exclude people from the fire truck, they made a permanent fence, which is inoffensive and doesn't break the bank. i'd rather they did this than skimp on ops expenses like not running their second train on rides to save a few bucks...

The cheapest option is black powdercoated pool\perimeter fence panels with slide on mounting brackets and posts bolted into the ground. these posts have had holes cored out and then new posts cemented into the ground with no protruding fixings, the panel mounts are welded to each panel, each panel is more decorative with an additional crossmember towards the top, plus it is coloured to blend with the painted cement behind it, which does help (a little) in making the fence disappear into the background and allow the fire truck to pop. It might not be your design preference, but it isn't a bad choice for safety, preventing small climbers from gaining access, and it certainly isn't the cheapest way to have gone about it.

I think they'd be better off putting a burger joint inside. Those other places didn't work out for people like freddy mercury.

If WWW is to gain popularity - it needs to offer more than a single burger joint at the front gate - with some more variety too.... Having something straddle both parks would make an outlet like that more viable, and reduce the strain on the burger joint at the front.

to be clear, I'm not necessarily suggesting someone will get fried from playing an electronic game while wet. My thoughts are more towards the longevity of the machines as control surfaces corrode quicker from exposure to chlorinated water. I think the idea - to utilise existing staff to man the gate between the parks - is a good one. But do you put the gate on the WWW side or the DW side? Staff would have to be present at the gate - so what if a machine has a fault that has to be checked by the arcade staff? are people likely to wait at the gate to be let in happily, angrily, or start jumping the fence if noone is there? Does the gate at whichever end you have it prevent the other park guests from visiting the arcade without buzzing in (which would be a pain not worth it - passing up sales if staff aren't at the gate) I think they'd do well to have a dockside style food outlet there - and food counter staff are more likely to be at their register and able to buzz people through than arcade staff (or you can have the gate in the middle with counter service, register and seating on both sides). Plus it gives WWW another food outlet in peak times - because off peak it's closed anyway. Stick some nice brews on tap and you've got a similar opportunity to the bar WnW had next to the wave pool... and you're more likely to make some extra coin off people at that end of the waterpark through food sales than you are taking a tween's pocket money for some basketball.

It's a dry park. Splash pad play isn't the core activity for the area so dealing with a handful of parents with toddlers in swimmers and asking them to change is a lot different to having literally every person in the park soaking wet. I've visited plenty of water parks and can't say arcades have featured highly in any of them.

I'm not sure we want kids in wet swimmers playing with electronic games - but even if that was ok, I don't really want to sit down in a wet seat for a car race either. Arcades do not belong in waterparks.

If they go with a lazy river, that increases capacity immensely. They've already got 4 of their slides SBNO for entire seasons, so anything to increase capacity would be great. The best thing is something like a lazy river is going to be quite disruptive to park overall, but as they're seasonally closed, they can build freely without needing to work around guest accessible areas.

Let's be honest, the AW bounty was a HUSS yawn... installed a year after Wonderland put in a starship of the same name. But if AW puts in a looping starship to replace the old Huss Pirate, i'm booking flights.

I mean he looks good for 44ish.

Just in case anyone missed the entire site plan posted back in October Both entry and exit pathways are ramped up from street level, while the RideExpress lane does have a short set of stairs up to the grouping area.

Isn't the model T on that rubbery play flooring stuff too? so not quite as hard as blacktop?

I totally get this, and used to film experiences like this frequently until one day I took a step back and realised I rarely watched my own recordings - sure, I might open up the hard drive and trawl back through old stuff every so often - I still like to re-experience them every now and then, and believe me I wish more people had recorded rides we've since lost to history, like at Wonderland, or even LTRR, Bermuda, etc....but online POVs on YouTube now do a much better job, and with much better equipment than I have, so i've stopped holding the camera up so much, and just try to take it all in outside the confines of a tiny screen. I really enjoy the time and experience (and the look on the little guy's face) much more that way - i'd encourage you to put the phone down and just enjoy it - someone else has definitely already done a POV that captures it much better than we ever could!

Yeah no, IMO the first impression is standing quite a bit further back from that. But that's just it - you can't even see the temple for all the jungle that comes before it. The climate changes before you even enter the temple as you delve deeper underneath the jungle canopy. This is a photo opportunity, not a temple. It just feels artificial. And despite DisneySea having a great respect for sight lines, the temple is visible well outside the delta. Just my opinion

I mean, Tokyo is 6 years newer than Anaheim, and OLC do tend to throw way more money into upkeep. Plus they had 6 years to learn their mistakes before building it. I saw Anaheim's version in the first 12 months of opening so i've also seen it working at it's best. Maybe it's just the purist in me preferring the original over the copy - but it's really hard for me to explain the differences (I don't go through cataloguing "oh, snake effect #4 isn't working properly today" and I couldn't tell you scene for scene what the differences are in each either) so it's a certain je ne sais quoi feel between the two - despite having 25 years to 'grow in' - DisneySea's location for the ride just felt artificial. The immersion wasn't there, Whereas walking into adventureland, passing the jungle cruise, walking down the outside queue with boats passing by the lush jungle... the atmosphere before you even enter the interior queue just felt 'different'. The ride being in english helps a lot too.

I enjoyed B&TB, and paid for DPA to ride it a second time (first included in our package). I think it deserves some of the kudos it gets but it isn't all that and a bag of chips. As for trackless darkrides, I still personally prefer Mystic Manor over B&TB. Now that i've done it, I can't say i'd be willing to line up the 3+ hours it gets. I'm not even sure i'd pay the $20 a second time - unless I was visiting with someone who hadn't been - in which case sure - experience it once, but I think people overhype this attraction *just a tad*. I think the setting at Disneyland, nestled amongst the jungle cruise and treehouse tops it. The ride experience itself isn't much different from California - and it's in English. ^This. total dark horse. We didn't ride it until towards the end of our last day - and wish we'd done so earlier so we had more time to go back and do it again It's a fun little coaster and packs a punch but it isn't anything to write home about. The disney setting is cool, and the view near the top is breathtaking - but the experience itself is rough - you're not missing much (though for a 9yo coaster junkie, it delivers that adrenaline fix in amongst the more experiential rides).

I can see everyone else is trying to explain it but feel like it could be made clearer. During two train operation one train faces each way. On departing the station, each train enters the turntable. each train departs the track on the loop-back that returns it to the turntable. The turntable then drops the train onto the final leg back to the station. Each train returns to the station facing exactly the same direction it left. Train 1: Forward>Backward>Forward Train 2: B>F>B During one train operation only one train is on the track. In order to offer the alternating experience, the train must return to the station facing the opposite way to how it departed. In this course, it leaves the station, enters the turntable, departs onto the loop-back circuit into the turntable again, however in this situation the turntable drops the train back onto the loop-back circuit for a second time, before dropping onto the final leg. As it completed an extra loop back, the train returns to the station the opposite way. In one train operation, due to the extra leg completed, the ride time is longer and you get to see the loop-back section from both directions. Train first dispatch: F>B>F>B Train second dispatch: B>F>B>F I feel like if you experienced one train operation first, I can understand why the two train operation experience feels 'less' because the ride time is shorter. For everyone who rode under two-train ops, getting to ride the one-train circuit feels like a 'bonus'.

Let's just be clear here - modifying rivals is never going to happen. The ride is approaching 8 years old. It is still quite popular. The main reasons rides get retrofitted or upgraded are either a defect on opening, or a refresh to drive ridership to an older ride that is losing popularity. There is no reason to throw any money at it at this point as there is unlikely to be any ROI. It would be nice to see the parks invest in capacity and efficiency in their next attraction - however given WOZ, I don't know that they're interested in that. We may have to wait for a change of management \ ownership before the focus shifts.