DaptoFunlandGuy

take a look at every other lego building in the world. they aren't that 'custom' - some have some lego models installed - not hard to remove and patch over. the inside of the building is easily refitted into something else. So yes. Hogwash. And if Lego did exit the contract, it wouldn't be a big blow to dreamworld and easily filled with another brand or set up.

i think the difference is: we have history of the 'younger sibling of a pop star trying it on for themselves' scenario with the vast majority flopping badly (history goes all the way back to the Minogues). Very few actually succeed. I can't think of any at the moment. On the other hand we have history of theme parks experiencing a major incident resulting in death and damage to the brand, for which they have recovered without major issue. Although some don't, there is usually another reason contributing to it. Dreamworld is big enough, successful enough, and the resulting audits cleared them of all but minor staff safety issues. So one prediction is based on precedent, the other doesn't even take into account current facts and figures, and ignores long term viability. I'd say you be the judge, but you seem to be a fairly poor one, so i'll nominate someone else instead.

being halfway through construction wouldn't stop them as Dreamworld is likely bearing the majority of the construction costs, and would no doubt be able to utilise the building for other purposes if Lego were to ditch them. That said, the incident isn't something that they are handling badly overall. sure, their initial reactions possibly weren't as good as they could have been, but i think they've done surprisingly well. I also noticed that throughout the media storm following the incident, there was very little mention, or imagery of the lego tie-in - all of the footage and imagery I saw (whether by accident or deliberately) kept the lego store and images well out of shot.

*puts 2 and 2 together with current profile image of Sea Shepherd* oh. you're one of those. I must say @liz.wis's theory is looking more and more likely. i'd be interested in an admin checking the IP, although if it is, at least you've moderated your views somewhat to suit the community a little better. Anyway.. good on you for not listing those reasons. experience suggests it opens a can of worms that nobody enjoys and nobody wins.

I don't think there needs to be a choice here. On a hot day, nothing is better than sliding down a flume and splashing into the cool refreshing water, or floating down a lazy river... but coasters go fast, high, invert, and above all, aren't something to avoid on a cold day. it's like asking if someone prefers ice blocks or diesel. each has their purpose, and there isn't really a direct comparison per se. IMO anyway.

Remember... to it, not from it!

Thanks for the info. Unlike certain other on again off again developments up on the sunshine coast, I can see this one actually happening - Terry is a go-getter and makes things happen when he wants to. In addition to that, having such a space in carrara right before the comm games will be a great precinct cashing in on the party atmosphere of the games. Whether it continues to be a viable venue after the games will depend on many things, but until then at least, i'm sure we'll see this one happen.

TBH I don't think the tower would look that impressive - unless it was a working model.

@Brad2912 if you read the following replies (including mine) you'll see that as an average, the 100,000 figure is pretty close to spot on.

You'd want to be selective there... otherwise the pools would all be cold year round... and unless you walled it in, the wind would be positively FREEZING.

LeafyIsHere?

Average of over 3 days per visit, 365 days a year, means you take the annual visitors and spread it across 121 (being 1/3 of the year to allow for spending 3 days each - which is conservatively ignoring the 0.8 of a day) and you'll end up with an average of 99,173 per day...

Cantilevered smoke roof, and fire detectors on all the coaster cars, with built in battery operated motors to reverse the coaster cars away from fire. Cairns tourism figures are inflated by the fact that it serves as an international airport alternative to the major cities. Many of the tourism arrivals at Cairns airport interchange to domestic flights, rental cars and campers, tour buses and other charters to go elsewhere. In addition, many 'tourism' arrivals are cruise ships, many of which only stay for the day, and a full-day (or more) theme park wouldn't get much business from them. Of course, they do have their own fair share of local-visiting tourists, but not as many as the official figures suggest.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly read everything you write. As I've said before, you do make some very interesting points sometimes... but the 'overanalysis' tag is quickly starting to stick. The Ockham's Razor reference is quite apt - you do tend to ignore the obvious, most likely option, and instead go for the elaborate, the fanciful, the far fetched, simply because its possible. Ok, so you acknowledged what most people would think that it includes rides. That was pretty much everyone else's point. Sure on technicality rides and attractions in a park can be and are separated, the fact is the issue was taken with the ambiguous potentially misleading statement made by the park. So you could have just said - 'yeah, the park would probably separate rides and attractions, but for the public, thats ambiguous and they probably could have worded it better'

See, the whole 'Australiana' theme has been done, tried and failed. If they want to do something 'Australian' themed, they should just stop halfway through building it, and call it the 'carnbefarked' ride. Our identity is unique, but it's not something you can 'bottle' or 'theme' to really well, without it being stupidly exaggerated, or overtly offensive... and the former doesn't really make it a good experience for people visiting from overseas - it gives the wrong impression... and as for locals - the 'okker' nature tends to grate on you. I think WWW was the only park that attempted an 'Aussie' theme that didn't take it too far. Things like the BRO, Green Room, RIP etc, were nicely done... but short of throwing up thongs everywhere, there isn't much else 'Aussie' that you can do well. Even 'Aussie World' grates on me with signs like 'She'll be right, mate' - its just a bit OTT - and although Aussie World's "theme" is Aussie - let's take a look at their rides - like a space themed pirate ship, the venturer simulator, Rock N Roll Rebel etc... the theme doesn't really hold itself down well does it? (i still love the park though). And in an industry in this country where the park will need to heavily rely on locals to sustain it, something 'out of everyday' is what they should go for. Sure - Wonderland had an overarching Australian theme for much of it's early life - but the themes were surrounding colonial settlement, gold rush era and days of old, and fantasy. Beach, Rainforest, Desert and Bush aren't really enough of an immersive theme to really lend itself well to anything you could flesh out that well.

All good mate - the whole 'permission' thing is a debate I don't wish to reopen, but suffice it to say if a 'media outlet' of any description publishes a photo, and you bring it here, I feel its only appropriate if the outlet uses the photographer's name, you should too. For example - 'AusParks just posted these photos. Photo credit to Krusty the Klown.' I see no issue with that.

So you're disagreeing with a very pertinent and relevant (not to mention accurate) point, simply on the basis that YOUR needs haven't been specifically catered to? I hate to break it to you, but you are not the parks only demographic. The park cannot survive on thrill rides alone, lest they alienate kids, families, tourists who don't count credits etc. We've seen the park install loads of higher thrill attractions, and the past couple of years have seen them spend time and money on things that we (and many members of the general public) have chipped them for - dilapidated, poorly maintained buildings and facilities, cheap, poor quality food offerings, and cheap crappy souvenirs, products and experiences. When a park continues to install high thrill rides, and can't even keep their toilets in a usable state, it's time to revisit your priorities.

^in theory yes. In practice no - because 'people' can never be made happy with anything.

Did AusParks publicly credit the photographer? (You should too) Did you ask permission to post here? (probably simpler and easier than omitting a photo credit for someone on the assumption that they don't want it to be on here 'just in case'.

'TurdWorld'. There's an old sewerage treatment plant in south western brisbane that isn't used anymore. It'd be a 'water'park. With your idea, I think you should give Clive Palmer a call. As for buying dreamworld, and then selling off all the rides? ridiculous. you'd be better placed just buying vacant land.

Thanks for that overanalysis. Realistically - this: Even parks use that terminology to include rides. When I worked at Wonderland, ride operators were part of the 'attractions' department. If you google 'dreamworld attractions' the first thing google displays is 'Dreamworld Rides' with a list and image of every one of them. The only thing you've got in your favour is that dreamworld's website does display 'rides' and 'attractions' separately on their navigation bar, but if you click through 'attractions' into, for example - Shrek's Faire Faire Away - you are presented with a list of rides. The general public will regard 'attractions' as including 'rides' and it doesn't matter what you say, nothing will change that. Therefore - endgame, the park should be explicit when they say what will be open or closed to avoid further conflict and disappointment from those guests who have shown loyalty to the park by returning on opening weekend. Fortunately, transport to the park is offered in both directions, not just one way, so they'll at least be able to leave.

The most up to date aerial imagery has already been posted in this thread. There's only 72 pages, shouldn't take too long. Here's a tip - nearmap updated their images in mid-september, so i'd have a look at posts mid-late september to narrow it down.

*HEADDESK* *HEADDESK* *HEADDESK* @Jamberoo Fan - You really need to learn when to let something go. Every reasonable response to you has shown you why the one way ferry concept is ridiculously absurd and yet you still persist. So i'll offer you yet another reason, to which you'll say something like 'that makes sense, but it still isn't confirmed and one way would work because *full retard*' Here it is: If you only run them one way, they come back empty. This effectively means you would double your cost of operation so that the ferry can return to the start point to pick up more people - the paying guests have to cover the cost of fuel and wages in both directions for a single trip. If you pick up and drop off in both directions, each trip potentially has revenue, which means you can keep costs lower per ticket - which would make more people choose to use it. The same applies to your statement about tour buses dropping them off and the ferry picking them up - now the tour bus is only going one way as well. Most tour buses will wait at the attraction until your group comes out - unless it has another booking in the interim - because driving anywhere else increases costs. As usual, you overanalyse and read way too much into something, you take it so literally instead of just accepting that the way we speak and write english can sometimes be misinterpreted. All you have to do is take a look at rulings of the high court to see that even parliament sometimes words things badly. Usually when legislation is ambiguous, they go back and look at the explanatory memorandum (a document distributed to MPs before debate \ vote so that they can understand what mischief the legislation is trying to correct) to see what was intended. Now - don't reply with another long winded explanation, quoting various sentences in isolation, just say 'yeah, you guys are probably right, I just didn't read it that way' ...and then we can move on.

TBH I don't understand why more parks allow it so long as: the chest harness is fitted prior to boarding the camera is set up prior to boarding If it doesn't slow down the load process - ie: a grouper confirms the person wearing it has it appropriately secured, it shouldn't be an issue.

Thats the right sort of positive press they need at this point - although Kim lost a son and a daughter. Not two daughters.