DaptoFunlandGuy

@Jamberoo Fan - in the two pictures of the bus on this page, one is to the right of the funnel, next to the rickety shed, the second one with the red circles you posted has the bus on the left of the funnel, out in the middle of grass. that doesn't prove its in the position that Gazza said was shopped. Again, it may be their view of how it will look when finished, and hte bus may already be on site but not in position. I'm sure it will look like that eventually, but the single image posted showing it next to the funnel doesn't appear to be legitimate.

Ok so here we go: Disneyland is not a circle. Especially not a perfect one. Although they are generally 'rounded' in shape, and follow the 'hub' concept, each land sprawls as it needs to. Also bear in mind that whilst the berm for the railroad follows a relatively circular shape, that is not the boundary of the park as many ride show buildings extend beyond the berm. Expansions and additions also ruin your circle - Hong Kong Disneyland's expansions to date have all been outside the railroad. In addition, whilst the park may have a vague 'circular' shape, you ignore all of the support and logistics the park needs, which typically fill in the gaps and square off against the correct property boundaries. Lastly - Hong Kong (and Magic Kingdom) showed us that to build a 'disneyland' park, one doesn't need the same amount of land as previous parks - it can be bigger or smaller. Why would you travel somewhere for a complete replica? first of all - none of them are. Each park has its own subtle differences whilst still being true to the 'americana' that is Disneyland. Each still has 'familiar' things - like main street, and the hub, and the castle, but each does things differently too. Sorry but - Disney has built in the middle of nowhere many times over. The original Disneyland was in a field of orchards a great distance from the population sprawl at the time. That was the issue - there was much land surrounding the park easily snapped up by people wanting to cash in on the disney tourism in the area, so Anaheim developed quickly into a sprawling trashy tourist metropolis. This is why Walt set about building his second park.... IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE in florida - only this time he bought thousands of acres of land all around his chosen site so that nobody else COULD build near him, whilst also giving room for expansion. I believe Paris Disneyland is the same situation - its a huge trek from metropolitan centres, and TBH - Hong Kong Disneyland is about as far from Hong Kong as you could possibly be out on Lantau Island - although everything in Hong Kong is relatively close - so its hard to be far from anything there. As for Kiwikurra - hell yes i'd go. I don't care where it is.

I think Knott's is in a unique position, not the least of which would be how much Walt and Walter worked together and helped each other out, and the fact that it is only a few minutes from an already established major Disney Park. Remember, they worked for many years to get a second gate on the west coast. That situation is hardly comparable with buying dreamworld.

I guess i'll just wait for the genuine enthusiast contributors to post their photos on Parkz from when they go.

I do not believe Disney has ever stepped in and purchased an existing theme park ever. I doubt they would want to start with someone else's mess. Disney would be DUMB to try it with Dreamworld, unless they planned to bulldoze the whole park and start from scratch - in which case there are many far more appealing options presenting themselves... like building on the wrong side of the Antarctic chasm.

I hear what you're saying @jake_hunt but i think its far easier to see the differences in a coaster than it is a waterslide. One has one funnel, the other has three, and two of the three are enclosed. same rafts, same colour scheme, very similar ride experience, ones just a triple repetition of the other. A cobra roll can be inverted or sit down, launched or chain lift, shuttle or full circuit - each of which gives a very different experience to the rider. They can also be on Vekoma, Intamin, B&M etc - with each manufacturer doing things slightly differently which also contributes to a different experience. A tornado funnel, apart from the size itself, isn't much different from one to the other. Enclosing them and adding some strobes doesn't really change overall (especially when the enclosure is so bright so as to almost negate the flash lighting in the first place). I do get what you're saying, and they are, in essence, completely different concepts to the manufacturer and indeed to the park, but from a guest perspective, they look the same, and the ride experience you get from both of them would be very similar. I mean, you're not going to go and build a Vekoma Boomerang, and a Vekoma Giant Inverted Boomerang side by side in the same park, even though (as I've said above) they'd deliver a different experience... You'd go with one or the other. You wouldn't build MDMC right next to Jet Rescue - they're the same model, but with some arguable differences, but to the public they would really regard them as pretty much the same ride. You wouldn't put a Disk'O Coaster next to a GyroSwing #OhShit #Wait #Nevermind...

^only a matter of time.

OMG! that confirms it! Lego have pulled out of the deal! Proof! Proof i tell you! Ok so seriously now - I'd suggest that Lego and Dreamworld are both taking a cut out of lego sales. Average retail margin (across the industry) tends to be 30%, although larger items sometimes less and smaller items sometimes more. If passholder discount is 10-15%, they're cutting out half the average margin. I don't think excluding a brand tie-in from passholder discounts is a major issue, and i'm sure we'll see special promotions where they do offer discounts for a limited time. We'll just have to wait and see.

So.... Soarin' ? I like it already.

+1 I think that's probably going to be the way of it. I wonder how quickly his count will reach Pop levels when everyone is restricted to 4 per day! Storm woke me at 4. i think most people had that happen today - i know @Theme Park Girl did!

The site already has a very sophisticated review function that more than accurately rates rides in the database. Sending you a PM is not what I would consider on my list of 'fun things to do'

Why yes, yes I have. I've stood inside several of them. Now - take a look at this image: Take the dragon off the roof, and the statues off the front pathway and you've got yourself a pretty standard albeit round building. It could be a coffee shop, it could be a clothing retailer. It could be a petrol station outlet (sans pumps). There is nothing particularly UNIQUE or CUSTOM about the building currently being erected outside dreamworld that would stymie any attempt by the park to rebrand it into something other than lego. Actually, I believe he said "incorrcect" not "incorrect"

Incorrect? on what basis? Just your opinion? Some brands may think it prudent and follow suit, but not all would. And I said another brand OR setup. If they were not able to fill the facility with an alternative brand, they could no doubt fill it with their own cross branding - they still have associations with Mick Doohan, Peter Brock Museum, DW wildlife \ tiger \ conservation fund etc etc. And unless you've got a copy of the contract stipulating the cost share, i don't buy the 50% claim. it would be unusual for a brand to commit to infrastructure costs on a property they do not own as if the contract was terminated, they would have to walk away from the funds invested (i'm talking about 2 years down the track for example rather than during construction). Usually in a partnership such as this, the property owner commits to the infrastructure (because they will own it) and the brand commits their IP. each would have a comparable value for a joint venture, and each could still walk away from the venture with the property that they entered the venture in.

The Sea Shepherd cause itself, I have no issue with. However many followers of SS also fly the flag of other causes - like the blackfish believers who take out their misinformed ire on our Gold Coast Sea World who have done nothing to deserve such ire in recent memory. So taking your SS image and your 'reasons I won't list' statement is what has led to me casting you into that category.

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?