DaptoFunlandGuy

And realistically - does Dreamworld want to try and compete with MW by putting a coaster up against Arkham - a coaster that is pushing 20 years? I think they'd be better trying to compete with Green Lantern... something that they have yet to achieve.

That's an awesome angle! That really shows the breadth of the footprint this baby is going to eventually have!

I think you'd be OK with Buzz-Saw... my fiance says it depends on what 'brand' size 22 you're talking about. If its a target 22, thats a bit different to an Autograph 22. Scooby, MDMC and Claw are almost certainly out. Others really depend on how you carry the weight. Arkham should be alright because the new restraints differ from the old ones. GD will be a squeeze, but it makes you feel more secure. RoadRunner is most likely out as well. Unfortunately, except for Claw and MDMC, most attractions don't have 'test seats' for you so the only way to find out is to line up for them. Some of these rides just need to hit the first click... but others need to hit a certain amount of clicks, AND the cabin needs to balance. If the cabin is too heavy, or too heavy to one side, it will not launch - so if you fit in Giant Drop, try sitting as close to the centre of the cabin. If you're with someone who doesn't tend to have a lot of issues with the harnesses, then get them to wait until you've sat down and locked in, so that they can 'give it a shove' or help you do your seatbelt up before they do their own. My partner isn't a 22, but does need a shove on some of the tighter ones to make sure it locks in. She's still a little bit of a chicken on some, so prefers to feel 'more locked in' anyway. One word of advice though - take a reasonably comfortable (not super deep) breath before you 'shove' it... if you've totally exhaled, you won't be able to breathe, and if you take a super deep breath, it may not lock in. hope this helps.

They're sectionalising the park. Wonderland used to do this by opening Gold Rush at 11am. It saves staff wages by clipping an hour off the day, and also ensures that you've got people clustered to maximise the day. If the park had always operated by having different 'worlds' open later (like Wonderland) then no-one would be complaining as it is just standard policy. (Even on the busiest days though, Gold Rush @ WLS never opened early) I can see why they've set it up this way - most parts of the park cut back by an hour - some by opening later, others by closing earlier. In off-peak periods (and especially with the unseasonably cold and wet weather) most people will have been on the water rides earlier in order to dry off before they go home. By closing GD, RH and TRR, pretty much that whole side of the park is shut down. Realistically, security can secure that part of the park, which then saves time at closing when trying to clear the park (one of the most annoying things about working at a park is having to stand by your post until security has cleared it to ensure guests aren't flogging merchandise or otherwise getting up to mischief). I don't condone Dreamworld's move... early closure is not desirable - but late open isn't something i'd have too much of a problem with. If they open with Dreamworks and Wiggles (And since its in the middle of things, open ToT too), and then open Ocean Parade and Gold Rush Rocky Hollow Giant Drop say an hour later at 11am, they'd save a fair chunk of cash, and on mid-week quiet operating times, I can't see them pissing too many people off by doing so. ToT is still open for the thrillseekers, as is pandamonium and to a lesser extent escape from madagascar, all the kiddy rides are open, so families with young kids can get them through some rides before they crash for the afternoon, and then everything runs until closing... simple. If it's quieter than that, then you need to staff attractions opposite each other with staff who can run both (for example - run wipeout and shockwave on alternating hours... or wipeout and claw). I get the argument from those saying that all rides should be open all day... but we must remember that this is a business, and businesses cannot justify spending money on things that aren't making them money. Hypothetically speaking - lets say we have a high-capacity 10,000 people in the park, with all rides fully operational. and lets say that the park makes a 25% profit margin for the day after covering costs of staff, ride operation etc. Now lets take a mid-week day, with say - 1000 people in the park - we've got 10% of the people, but we expect the park to still be running at 100%? Suddenly, the profit turns into a 75% loss for the day (these numbers aren't intended to be accurate or indicative, just to put the suggestion in your mind). Now if the park makes a 75% loss on 5 days, and a 25% profit on 2 days (weekends)... how long do you think they're going to survive? Ordinarily, mid-week operations don't have much of an issue, they've obviously survived up until now - but with the weather events we've had recently, people are obviously avoiding the park due to the risk of poor weather, and the park is suffering. We've recently heard an unconfirmed rumor that the park is investing $25M on two attractions in the short to medium term. If we want to see these new attractions, we've got to understand that sometimes, the park can't run at 100% and still deliver blockbusters (not that they have recently, but maybe this is the reason). Having said that, dreamworld's facebook page did announce the following: I wouldn't tout this as a 'major attraction' but it will certainly involve a re-theme of the battle-maze, and is definitely down for 2013. I'm thinking perhaps the licence for AvP has expired, and we'll just get to see a generic theme take its place, but perhaps we will see a new franchise installed here instead? Again, it isn't a major new attraction, but it's good to see them preluding the closure to encourage fans to get one final round before it goes down for the re-theme refurb.

any chance someone can grab a pic when they pass by?

Wonderland did this too... Look how they ended up.

Does Movie World want to be regarded as a 'small/regional park'? I'm with Rappa's idea - a touring venue would be marvellous.

I'm with Rappa - unplanned issues during maintenance the likely explanation - not much they can do about that, and the terms and conditions do state that ride operations are subject to change without notice... I agree that if these are the only rides out of action, you're in for a good day - only question I have is with the carousel - for that to have an issue that takes it down until further notice after the installation less than a year ago - it's a concern.

Did you go in the wrong line? Did you not read the signage at the entrance that warned of the thrills? I'm sorry but that is the only comment you've made that I don't really agree with... by all means - complaints of 'not thrilling enough' are welcome - to call MDMC a big 500 thrill ride is a joke... but to complain that it's TOO thrilling? maybe thats why they have an insane setting, and a chickenshit setting.

Please - for the last time - stop suggesting rides be installed in the show stage! As it is, it's the only all-weather show-venue (the roof leaks all over the place and isn't very pleasant to stand and watch a show). On top of that, the floor in the seating area is slanted, and there isn't much room in there to do much of anything as far as a ride goes. Soarin has been compared to MW by Gazza a while back - when compared to the Roxy (which would be similar in size I would imagine), so no - a soarin type ride won't fit without a purpose built structure several times larger than anything any of our parks currently have. I'd love to see the return of a western themed show, preferably a stunt show.

Maybe it's a back-door way to save $25M in time to have two new rides open this year?

I've already suggested to you how to present it. Usually, when i'm presenting information from a source I have within the parks who needs to be protected, I will do one of two things. I will say something like 'i have a reliable source within XXXX park who i've known for quite a while, and they've indicated to me that this is possible.' I've also been known to drop (hindsight-obvious) hints in a thread already discussing these things where a trusted person has provided me with inside information, knowing I will find the right way to let the cat out of the bag without making it obvious that it's come from an inside source. Others have done this too - you might remember the comments of 'you'd have to be crazy' or 'el-loco' during the rumor construction threads for green lantern. The point is, your original post was very much an 'i know something you don't know' comment - which naturally leads people to ask where the info came from and what specifics it was. You presented information such as 'this year' only to be shot down by ASX reports. Then when you finally do reveal a little more information as to your source, the implication suggestion is that this was a random staff member - not somebody known to you personally, someone you've worked with before or have great respect for - but a random cast member. Sorry to burst your bubble - but we have a name for the 'random cast member told me' rumors - and it starts with the words 'Dippin Dots'. If the person is known to you for a good period of time, either because they're a member of the boards and have been for a while, or because they're a family friend and have worked for the parks for years - of course, keep their identity secret, but explain why you have the confidences you have. If it's a random cast member - then say so. I usually add something to the effect of 'heres the latest from the park rumor mill by a cast member this weekend gone'... sure, it won't be as credible, but you've put your disclaimer on there, and by doing so, you're stating that you don't know it to be a fact, or that you don't have 'insider' information... just that this is what you've heard. And if you try with that sort of disclaimer when you post something thats unheard of, slightly unbelieveable or both, it will be treated by all accordingly. If it turns out to be right - you get to trace back through the thread, quote your original post, and show everyone how awesome you were. If it doesn't, most people will probably forget about it before it comes time to prove it... unless it gets blown out of all proportion like this. I think the hardest thing to believe was that it was happening this year within 12 months etc... as this would need to be in the investment information for Ardent with that large a CAPEX. I think it's easily believeable that they'd spend $25M over 3-4 years... because thats already happened in the past. $25M on TWO attractions only... thats a little bigger... definitely worth a mention, but not within the timeframes you originally suggested.

I'm just trying to get my head around all this.... You just RANDOMLY walked up to a lifeguard and said 'hey - is the park next door (they are separate gates) getting new rides this year? And can you tell me how much they are going to spend?' ...and out of the blue, this female lifeguard volunteers that they're getting two new rides, and planning to spend $25M on them, and you took that as fact because she appeared to be very confident and knowledgeable? Far be it from me to suggest an element of theming in Dreamworld or WhitewaterWorld... but these people are not staff, they are 'cast members'. They don't 'work', they 'put on a show'. On top of that, they probably get harangued by 12 year olds (not suggesting you are) every day, and have developed a knack for the deadpan delivery of ludicrous information to stir the pot. I know a former Wonderland cast member *cough*daniel*cough* that is well renowned for stirring the pot. Jacob - the lesson here is a simple one. Present something as it should be - for example - the way ScreamScape present things... Post 1: RUMOR: Word from a lifeguard in WhiteWaterWorld is that Dreamworld is looking at two major CAPEX for a total of $25M this year Post 2: RUMOR: We're getting rumblings from other sources that the $25M CAPEX for Dreamworld is looking shaky at best, with nothing reported in the ASX reports for Ardent leisure this year. Post 3: CONFIRMED - Capex not going ahead... Reanimated's call of *bullshit* verified by park management in a press release distributed today by telepathy. Ok - so not necessarily in that rigid structure, but if its a rumor - present it that way. if it's your own thought, observation or opinion... present it that way. If its in a press release, or media statement, or it's been photographed (and you have the photos) then by all means shout it from the rooftop that you were the first to discover this apparently awesome news - because if its a press release, photo, media statement etc, it's not 'inventing' a rumor - its presenting something that HAS happened.

Yes, there are many assholes at our parks. Moreover the point is that the park put in place very average, unamusing (ok - boring) queuelines, then they have poor operations that slow things down and keep you waiting longer. If you don't entertain them while they are waiting, they're going to be destructive... so either: a) entertain them with a pre-show or some sort of experience to interest them (not to mention it means it's usually run by a cast member who could supervise and prevent anyone from damaging the theming, or restrain the theming, make it tamper proof, or put it out of harms way so it can't be damaged. Those assholes won't destroy things if they are otherwise occupied, so slick is making a very valid point.

Personally, i'd prefer a Steel coaster... but if they're getting it that cheap (ie: for a steal) I wouldn't say no to an SLC.

hence the term 'quoted for truth' hehehe. Only catch is that they can also be fiddled with.

I think Gary's meaning is just that the coaster - whatever track or path it may follow - should go 'through' the 'hole in the mountain' at some stage in it's course. Only thought i'm having there is that the 'hole' for a waterslide would be a lot smaller - envelope wise - that what a coaster would require.

But still absolutely hilarious that his 'quoted' posts are still there in other member's posts... because he mainly got quoted when he was sprouting absolute bullshit.

well if you worked as a cleaner lollypop lady, and continued serving as an altar boy into your twenties because none of the younger (read: smarter) kids wants to go near the jolly old father at the church... you'd probably need to find somewhere to be a dickhead.

...but for how long?

Something finally gets through!!!

Jobe - don't encourage the miscreant.

theres a lot of things about Adelaide that make it 'Special'...

A fair enough point. However I still say that nobody except you has suggested SkyCoaster has anything to do with the word Crappy. The only inferences made towards that particular attraction is that it is 'nothing special'... which it isn't.

I don't believe it was said to be crappy - just that it was nothing special... which is true. Although you may not have Skycoaster local to your area, they aren't exactly rare, unique, one-of-a-kind or an australian first... I think the point of the post quoted is more like 'Why not trumpet those attractions that have a point of difference?'