[Dreamworld 1981]

There's some work going on behind WWW - don't know if the land there is owned by Dreamworld and if it is, whether it's development for WWW or DW (I'd say WWW).

I think it could be in readiness for the next WhiteWater World expansion. They started it not long ago.

Also today I was wondering whether one day the Cyclone might be removed - and WWW expanded to that area and include Flowrider. Just a thought. The Cyclone is a rickety old thing and DW needs a fast-launch roller-coaster like Superman Escape (imo).

Maybe one day, but it will be difficult seeing as though the Temple of Huey tower has been built around it. But I think what Dreamworld should do is eventually install newer coasters and use this as an older one for capacity purposes and keeping a diverse range of coasters. I honestly don't think it will hold its own for much longer as a flagship full circuit coaster.

[Stage 3 is go go go]

Seven aspects: Functional - does it serve an appropriate function Economic - is it cost effective for what it was intended to be Environmental - how does the design solution affect the environment. Is it sustainable? Aesthetic - is it visually appealling, pleasing to the eye? Ethical - is it ethically appropriate? Social - hows does it sit with comtemporary societal beliefs? Wwhat affect will it have on society? Cultural - which culture does the solution serve? Which culture does it omitt, and how can be be improved to satisfy different cultures? From Technology Education Framework

Technology has impacts and consequences Technologies can be judged by their positive and negative impacts on people and the environment. ‘Appropriate Technologies’ seek to minimise the negative consequences associated with the design and development of technological products while maximising their positive effects. Seven aspects of appropriateness can be used to guide the design of a product, or to critique an existing product: Functional appropriateness, Aesthetic appropriateness, Economic appropriateness, Environmental appropriateness, Cultural appropriateness, Social appropriateness, and Ethical appropriateness.

I love you too Alex I must admit, you must be getting into shape though carrying all that anti-Churros baggage and that giant brain of yours around Churros: 3 Alex B: Come on, you love it!

I don't think it's a problem without a solution, but it's really not a situation that lends itself to easy steady expansion. You get where I'm coming from with the lateral versus radial expansion, and how the latter is undeniably preferable yeah? This current expansion doesn't pose any significant problems for the short term; my real concerns are five or ten years down the track as I think we face the prospect of seeing the park move solely towards the east.

Totally. I understand where you are coming from. Ultimately, my point was that it could be beneficial in the long term (certain aspects at least) with regards to the option of building a resort style complex. I understand that this is not sound design, but keep in mind that they could be designing it something like this: *Not to scale or in correct proportions. Now, yeah, before people have a shot at my intellect further, can I just give why I think it has been designed this way. The first, in my opinion was due to Big Brother. In many respects that would have been a short term decision. The second is that designing it this way sees the resort in some ways becoming the focal point of the area. Essentially, it would allow access points to the commercial area located directly north of it, and the parks to the south. In saying that, perhaps the idea was to make Dreamworld (their flagship park) the first park you walk into from the resort, rather than the waterpark. Which is why I was saying that if the waterpark was built to the north where there was plenty of land, this would be the case. Also, if eventually the park was built right down to the border of the eastern side, it would allow for more than one park transfer point. Of course, again this is long term thinking, but I can see the boundaries between the two parks becoming more and more open as people slowly become more aware of the nature of two parks directly adjacent. And relating this to a couple of your posts earlier, but I feel they are thinking this way so they are developing a long term infrastructure for what they want out of their area. Hence, perhaps this setup suits them better. This is also why I was attempting to say earlier, it would be easier for them to remove or rebuild aspects of the carpark then it would to remove an entire waterpark and relocate it in the southern corner later on. But again, I don't have the crystal ball, so I can't tell you exactly what the future may hold. I am also aware that this design lends itself to people walking up and down the entire centre, but realistically, this is what will occur when the land his rectangular in shape.

WhiteWater World has the sound financial backing of a large company; unlike other older water parks around (such as Wet'n'Wild) it wasn't a family investment that didn't have the benefit of being able to plan up front for things in the long run. I think a lot more could have been done in regards to designing a park that lends itself more easily to long-term expansion considering the resources that were readily available (monetary, expertise and of course land).

I was merely attempting to see why MLE has designed their setup in this way, given that yes they do have the finances, etc to suggest that they may not always be looking for the least expensive option.

[Stage 3 is go go go]

Ok mate, it's cool. To be honest, the reason I put in the whole 'champ' thing was so you didn't think I was intentionally having a stab at you. But yeah, from my perspective I previously got the feeling you have an inherit dislike for Dreamworld. And was genuinely interested in finding out why (thinking maybe you knew something I didn't). Now that you have detailed how you feel then I can probably look at the situation from a different perspective. Now back to the discussion, is it possible that you can forsee that in some way the Dreamworld/WhiteWater World expansion infrastructure could develop into a very strong product in spite of its design flaws? Personally, the gist of my initial post is that yes I believe it can. But I think we need to give it some time, and give it a chance.

[Stage 3 is go go go]

Woah! I am really sorry guys. I think I may have been grossly misinterpretted. Sorry, I better pull this apart for you guys before you all think I am on a rampage to ambush you all. There were a few core issues and intentions that I will briefly discuss. Richard versus MLE - the endless battle: Ok, Richard, I am going to be mellow with you here my friend, but if I was to give you some posts that indicated you have a general negative opinion of Dreamworld, Movieworld or the like, I would have a thesus. In fact I am sure there is a body of research out there that suggests this is representative of some form of psycological state. Don't ask me what, and don't get upset, I am just saying. The case or not, you have to be aware that this is the way your posts come across. There is a clear focus on the negatives and an ommission of the positives. As for my reference to Wet'n'Wild, the intention was to indicate that both parks on the same playing field with respect to the issues at hand. NB: There is no such thing as neutral, opinionless writing. Journalism while deemed to be culturally neutral, is always based on a person's habitus, which is reflected in the contruction of language and the final production of a literary text, whether this be intentional or not. The focus is to look at such ingrained bias and preconceptions and use effective metacognitive skills to deconstruct these previous beliefs. Alternate Opinion: I ultimately wanted to offer an alternate opinion on the developments of Dreamworld and WhiteWater World. Ultimately, I am very excited about the development of that area and have an enourmous interest in it. In case people didn't realise I took constant trips up the highway where possible to go and see what knew things were happening during the previous months. My attitude: Can I say, my intention was not to be in any way "smarmy" or at least I don't think. (ps - I have no idea what that means. At the risk of being burned at the stake, can I guess it is a word specifically related to the field of engineering and business =D ) Jokes aside, I have never heard the term. While on the topic of the English language, the word "champ" is short for the word "Champion", which is better known in the world as a compliment. Design Challenge: As for my little design challenge. The objective was not to be rude. I actually wanted to see what you would have done. It kind of helps you appreciate the effort that a few hard working people have gone to. And yet, we sit here and brush these efforts aside with a simple statement like... "One thing this plan has highlighted for me is the lack of long-term planning that has gone into the park." What a slap in the face! Again, it isn't so much the nature of the argument, but the delivery. NB: next time don't have a dig at high school kids, please. Give a design challenge like this to high school kids and they would go ape bananas at it. And thanks Gazza, I really appreciate your eventual reply. I just wish initially it was taken in such a bad light. I must apologise Gazza, it probably came across the wrong way, but I genuinely know you have a good hand for drawing this type of stuff and spend enough time on here to prove that you would have an interest. In closing: Finally, I really don't want to go over the same ground, but no it isn't high school debating. High school debating is structured, and built on academic rigor, this is a message board where people come to be enthusiastic about an area of interest. I think the nature of the community should dictate that people are allowed to express their excitement, opinions etc. I honestly agree that critical discussion is imperitive, but at some point we have to posses the metacognitive skills to deconstruct our own preconceptions about an issue or topic.

[Captain Sturt Riverboat]

I'm not sure if this is the best thread for it, but can the little river thing be filled in? I mean, I know people have spoken about the island as an opportunity for development before, but can the actual creek be filled in to provide room for expansion. I mean, I'm not the biggest fan of the idea, but if the boat eventually dies off.

[Stage 3 is go go go]

So you're saying people will enter DW at 10am, and then straight away go to ocean parade and enter WWW

Ahhh... yes. If you buy a World Pass from RACQ you will enter via the Dreamworld MAP entrance thanks to that early entry hoojimagig. If your intention was to then head straight to WhiteWate World in the morning, namely establish locker hire etc, you would be moving straight to that parkhopper point. If not first up, at least remotely close to it. Not to mention that some people also purchase just single entry tickets to Dreamworld before going and when they see the water park go and investigate what it takes to get in there. Namely, an upgrade.

Though the extreme H20 area has suffient spaces within that area alone for plenty of expansion, the hills on park land at the south west part of the park are also perfect for slides to be built down. In any case, nowhere near as bad as the situation WWW are in. After this new phase any new expansions will require renovation/demolition of something. Thats the key difference, you're saying they can expand on a (newly built) car park, but they could have put off having to do that for many years yet if they had just planned better in the first place.

Yeah, but it's easier to rip up and rebuild a carpark than it is to completely relocate attractions. The major issue I have is that you all sit on here thinking that you know better than the people who are doing this. People whing about the CEO and how he isn't in tune with the amusement industry, but remember he did go on a research trip to the US some time ago with the intention of bringing back ideas for future Dreamworld attractions. What he discovered was many of the new water ride technologies that we are seeing Dreamworld install today. If it isn't evidence that is trip is reaping some benefits, then I think we might just be looking for ways to not be happy. I mean, one second we go, WhiteWater World is too small. They release plans for expansion and we are down their throat for poor planning. No offense, but wtf? Look at what is happening. They have decided to build a Water Park, they knew that they were continuing to run with Big Brother, realise that they could potentially be apart of this area for a while and didn't want to waste all of the land they have. Reference: removal and demolition- that would surely have occured if they were to build a water park in the northern area, you would have had wasted land in the south-west corner. They reached a point during their plans for redevelopment that it would be a standalone park rather than integrated with Dreamworld to increase the potential for profits - and yes, they are a business, build a bridge. Hence, they also decided that they wanted it to be competitive, so they realised that redeveloping blue lagoon would not be good enough, and developing a truly well sized park through this area would remove options for expansion of both Dreamworld and any other future MLE plans.

WhiteWater World phase one as a standalone wasn't bad and made use of the land on offer in a way that creates pretty good flow. It's not perfect, and I agree with a lot of what Gazza says about how it has been underutilised in many ways. My issue is that the park was built such that it borders on two property boundaries and future expansions therefore can only realistically go in one direction -- east.

Not to mention north. This is what I am trying to explain. People are merely assuming that the Dreamworld/WhiteWater World set-up will continue to run in the format that it is currently. What I am trying to say is that the options were this. Develop a WaterPark in the south western corner that can have visual appeal, cover up the Cyclone and utilise what land is available in this region. Or develop a Waterpark on the northern side that dicatates that any future expansions of Dreamworld would occur in the south western corner. What people seem to be forgetting is that in that thunderbolt area, Dreamworld could have essentially installed all but nothing. Extreme thrill rides would have disrupted the tigers (hence why the two enclosed waterslides and lazy river are being developed closer to this, and if they were to install a roller coaster, it would only be one attraction. The end result, Dreamworld has the opportunity to expand north, and WhiteWater has managed to install almost five feature attractions in that area. In my opinion, very good use of the area available.

Let's liken the expansion of a theme park to that of a city. Growth in all directions (i.e. radial growth) will mean that the growth is evenly distributed and as such the load is evenly distributed. Can you imagine a city with a freeway heading in one direction, and all development hinging off it? That is exactly the situation we're looking at with WhiteWater World. This design philosophy completely removes flow by taking choice out of the equation. Under a hub-based design with radial expansion, it creates choice which will in turn remove bottlenecks. The only way to handle growth is with options and alternatives. No two people think alike so providing options will spread things evenly throughout.

I completely agree with you on this point, however, you have to understand that the waterpark was not built with a completely clean slate. They had to provide an option that could see a unified carpark implemented, as well as the option of a parkhopper facility. And as for the radial approach, if expansion was to progress well north as it meets the demands of expansion, you would eventually see this design integrated with Dreamworld. Clearly, the focus for this Dreamworld sight is to offer an integrated package of both types of parks, in a common location.

WhiteWater World was built where it is because Macquarie want to preserve this option. Sound design practices would have seen it built the other side of Dreamworld with freedom to expand. But at the end of the day they went with what is ultimately the cheapest option that didn't hurt their lucrative non-theme park plans. Here they had already cleared land, needed no significant changes to the existing infrastructure of Dreamworld other than a redesigned car park, and they jumped at it. I'm sure had they built it elsewhere on the property we'd have seen a pricetag of significantly more, but long-term it'd be much more painless.

Why is it such an issue that they would like to build either commercial or resort style additions to their land. Currently, they are working with Westfield to provide the integrated town centre the GCCC wants for Coomera. As for a resort, I mean you talk about the 'Disney Product' and when a theme park like Dreamworld decides they want to make a leisure centre with a theme park, water park, resort, shopping facilities and whatever else they can think of, you immediately look to criticise. I honestly don't mean to be offensive or anything champ, but why is this so? Working on this principle, can you please develop a design proposal for a waterpark on the land that you would have considered more appropriate? I am not being rude, I would just like to see what you would have done. I also think Gazza should do one also. I know Gazza is good at ride design, etc, so I would be interested to see it. You will be marked on the following criteria: - Investigation and satisfaction of the needs of the client - Recognition of diverse market opportunities - Meeting the contraints of the design (ie, does it meet the budget, does it meet the requirements of the client) - Evaluation with respect to the seven aspects of appropriateness Please provide a detailed sketch, appropriate documentation for applying for the waterpark development, cost analysis, and a three stage expansion plan. Thank you.

Wet'n'Wild will obvious expand westward as this is the only way they can. They have the freedom to go as far back as they want for almost the entire width of the park. Not sure what you're looking at but AOS borders along the north of WnW and won't really pose any problems for the park's expansion.

The grazing land for the Australian Outback Spectacular is located directly west of the Extreme H20 zone.

[Stage 3 is go go go]

By crowd management, you are also talking about how evenly guests are distributed around the park, in the mornings you can guarantee the new section will be dead, Supertubes and Green Room will pick up a lot of the crowds coming in the gate because of their sheer size, location and pulling power, Pipeline plunge will pick up a few because it sticks out, Rip and BRO will pick up less (I mean when i was at WWW i hit GR and STHC first thing, and when i made my way to the rip after i was still among the first riders) Temple of huey is out of the way, so its going to be dead, so naturally the attractions beyond this in the other section of the park are also just going to be dead because its out of the way and out of view, the lazy river in particular because you wouldn't be able to see it at all.

Nah, that's rubbish. I have been on really busy days and by about 11 everything is packed. If people walk into the park and see that the Green Room and Supertubes are packed they will keep walking and see what else is on offer. Not to mention the fact that the front entrance is not the only entrance to the park. What you are forgetting is that WhiteWater World is not a lone park. The connectedness of it to Dreamworld and mobility for those who choose this option between parks makes this park different from others. If you were to genuinely subscribe to this theory, no one would even start lining up for Tornado until after lunch.

Richo is absolutley right, for what the park has and where it needs to be going its not a very good layout. there is one thing I hate at a theme park, and it's the feeling that you are just walking in one big long curve, and everything is in a line so all day you end up back tracking up and down the park, WL did this, and WWW is doing it again. AS i have said in the past, everything is far apart for no paticular reason, and there is a lot of wasted space which they cant afford to have.

I think you're confused mate, one minute you want even distribution and the next you are saying they have wasted space.

They are competing with a park down the road which will basically never have space problems, but here they are using no obvious logic in the way they are doing things. Dont get me wrong, the park has great rides, but 10 years from now, what can they do? (and that isn't a rhetorical question, im interested in hearing answers to that one) Already you can tell it will be difficult.

Well, I think this shows your naivity to the situation. While Australian Outback Spectacular runs (which it will for some time - it rakes it in) Wet'n'Wild essentially cannot expand out the back any further, nor can it head north. As for WhiteWater World... I must ask what you are actually asking here. Is your question, how will they expand? Or in terms of what future attractions they can install? Here's your answers for both. Expansion: Dreamworld and MLE have a few key things that will occur in the next ten years that will dictate the changes they make. The first is the eventual departure of Big Brother. Removing the house, and amphitheatre will allow Dreamworld to recreate the entrance of the park, or at the very least improved parking in that area. This would allow WhiteWater World to expand into the existing car park. In case you are no aware, the current Dreamworld/WhiteWater World sight only occupies roughly a third of the total land MLE owns in this area. So don't go saying they have issues with space. The second is the creation of the commercial area adjacent to the train line, and the future creation of a hotel/resort type model. Richard was harping on earlier about the 'Disney Product'. Expect one day for MLE to adopt a similar model whereby visitors can attend the resort, major themepark and waterpark all for a package price. This makes the parkhopper facility so much more important. Not to mention the way in which guests will enter both parks from different locations. What you have to realise is that MLE is in no hurry to move on some of these plans as Coomera the eastern side of Coomera is still in some of its earlier phases of development. Why go nuts and make all your moves before the game is even being played. We all go they are making quick bucks now, but in essence the future of their product is dependent on the future of Coomera. Installations: I hope to dear God you are not implying that WhiteWater World will run out of options in the next ten years just because they are on the edge of contemporary water rides at this point in time. All this means is that unlike the dry parks in our area, Australia will not be ten years behind the rest of the world. There will always be attractions to install.

[*WANTED* Discounted vouchers dreamworld]

Just make a plan to go two days and buy the return visit thingy. In essence you then pay roughly 40 bucks per day. Bargain. Be sure to buy lots of food, drinks and merchandise though, 'cause I like my divy cheques

[Stage 3 is go go go]

One thing this plan has highlighted for me is the lack of long-term planning that has gone into the park. WhiteWater World is eventually going to become one big sprawling L-shape which will be absolutely dreadful for crowd management if they hope to achieve the sort of attendance that Wet'n'Wild does. They've more or less repeated all the fundamental design flaws that continue to plague Movie World to this day.

I'm not sure what you mean Richard. In each of the bottlenecks there is more than one traffic flow area. Not to mention the fact that this moves a greater deal of attractions closer to the duel access point. I mean, look at Wet'n'Wild and you have one pathway leading to the bulk of their most recent additions. And with regards to planning, apart from the paths heading west there is no indication of how future expansions will go. Keep in mind you have to plan with respect to what is on offer as well.

[Stage 3 is go go go]

That looks unreal! The new slide tower looks really impressive. I just have a couple of questions though, how does that lazy river work? Can you kind of pick which direction you take or what's the deal? Also, the food banquet thing, 328, is that going to be attached to the function centre? Man, I hope they put this much effort into their future Dreamworld expansions.

[Interestingly...]

Could Dreamworld have had an issue with the Vekoma one due to its size? I mean, from that it doesn't look like it fits very snug, where as the Intamin one is a little more adapted to the footprint.

[It SW really worth it?]

You're splitting hairs on that one, you can see the gist of what Im saying. Salesman, expert, friend, whatever. "In the street", what you are saying is true, but on a forum you might as well be elaborate in the first place, saves the person asking in the first place from having to ask more questions....If they want the short answer, they can read the first line of the post, if they want to know why then they keep reading, simple. PS, when we were in the market for a new TV a salesman did warn us against LG...and the store did have them in stock.

Oh really? Were they attempting to peddal another brand or just bagging out LG?

LOL i'll pay that...still I'd rather be a know it all than a know nothing

Ahhh... good to see you are in good humour about it Gazza. Feel free to print off a few copies if you need them in future. Or shrink it down and put it in your sig! Anyway, if I was to offer anything to this topic, I would say if you have the time give Seaworld a go. If you really decide it was a miserable day then you know not to go there again, and if it's a great day it was all worth the while. I personally havn't been to Seaworld since I was very young, and really enjoyed it.

[It SW really worth it?]

It's not crap. He never seemed to have a problem with your opinion, it was the type of post you made, notice he made specific reference to your "Woodies Suck, they are crap" post you made a little while back. Its the same thing here. No offence but people aren't going to take you seriosly if you write in that style and present your opinions that way. Again, its not your opinions, If you dont like SW that's fine by me, its the way you just blurt them out in a curt and crude manner.

With all due respect Gazza, but who gave you the right to determine what 'other people' think. If the fellow wants to make the statement, he can make the statement. If you don't like it, then 'harden up' and get over it. If you agree, say you agree. It's not hard mate.

Think about it this way, say you are buying a new TV: One salesman says "Don't buy that, it's S**t" Another salesman says "I wouldn't recommend that model, it has poor performance in this area, lacks these features, and this brand generally has low build quality, and anyway this other model is better value for what you are after" Who would you listen to? Who sounds smarter? For me, definitely the second one. Can you see what I'm getting at here, people won't value what you are saying as much if you don't say it well.

I'd like to see a salesman say anything along those lines man. If that is what they generally thought about a product, why stock it? But if a fella in the street said to me that something was 's#!t', I'd probably ask him why afterwards, saves you filtering through all the garbage straight up. Ask em what you think, then ask them why. Some people (particularly males) have difficulty decompartmentalising the two components of a question like that.

That would be me. You are just sour I thought your ideas were crap / proved you wrong in cases. Harden up.

Of course it was you champ. I got your business card in the mail today:

[What's Next Dreamworld style]

^I know what you are saying Gazza, but Dreamworld needs to install something bigger than what they have already with a bit more pace. As for Cedar Point, they have been breaking records for years. That is half the reason they are considered the coaster capitol of the world. I agree, Maverick is probably a very exciting ride oppossed to the enormity of their previous installations, but the sheer awesomeness of Millenium Force and Top Thrill dragster shouldn't be underestimated. Do you honestly think that a coaster that is 'not that great' would have pulled nearly 1 million riders last year, and the year before that, and the year before that? EDIT: Forgot to add my thoughts on future attractions. I think the 12 inversion coaster would be an awesome idea for Dreamworld or Movieworld. I don't mind who.

[Most ridiculous ride ever?]

That ride looks sick! Haha. Where is it located? I wanna go and have a ride of that baby. And before you guys ask, I'm not being sarcastic, it looks pretty awesome to me.

[Wet'n'Wild Still Operating?]

When I was on the Gold Coast in September, we caught up with some friends which came down from Brisbane. We asked them If they had water restrictions and they said that Brissy has only got them but the Gold Coast is exempt from them. This is because the Gold Coast is a major tourist destination, nah dah , and they need the water to make gardens look nice, fill up pools, themeparks and for a whole range of other things. Could you imagine rocking up at a resort and seeing dry, yellow grass and dead trees, or, the pool being half full!! I think anybody in their right mind wouldn't come back if they saw this. Especially if they paid lots of money for where they are staying. CoAsTeRbOy8

Gold Coast is getting hammered with water restrictions as bad as Brisbane. What you would find is that many of these reports, etc are using either rain water or spear pumps to keep their grounds looking clean, as well as gradually installing water saving devices in their rooms etc.

[What's Next Dreamworld style]

Yeah, Eurofighters look cool. But I'd rather see the new Intamin version. Similar to that Farenheit (sp?) that is opening at Hershey Park next year.

[What's next?]

Would be relatively affordable too? But would like to see the 50 metre model, just for something super extreme.

[Wet'n'Wild Still Operating?]

^Yeah, and we can thank Rudd for the water issues in Queensland. It was his idea to deny the improvements proposed some time ago. But yeah, WhiteWater World has gone to extreme lengths in the design process to reduce water wastage. I think that Scope Science episode people linked to some time ago detailed what they had put in place.

[halloween at movieworld report]

^Yeah, but the point of my post was that a lot of people were still there to hop on the rides and for some waiting an hour and a half for Superman was not such a bad choice as they probably wouldn't be back at Movieworld for another year or so.

[halloween at movieworld report]

(2) If you complain you waited to long for a ride then you dont understand the concept of special themed events if you payed $20 to just ride rides you would have been better just going on a day instead of this event. Thats why when I go to universal each year during Halloween I ride the Mummy coaster in the day as I know at night the line will get up to 2 hours at least, I guess its just common sense.

Yeah but in all honesty the bulk of visitors Movieworld attracts to this sort of event are people who see 20 dollar entry as a far more affordable option than the 60 odd to get in for a normal day. And when you consider that a family pass (for four) was 70 bucks, that is an absolute deal that attracts a tonne of visitors. For those people they honestly couldn't care less about how well it was themed.

[Should it bother?]

What I was really getting at here was for all the slides... including those with long queues or rafts. I'm just sick of climbing the hills, and as far as the rafts, I hate carrying them - they're big, bulky, in some cases heavy, and if the wind picks up while you're climbing you resist take-off!

Google image result for "AlexB":

[Should it bother?]

^Funny you should mention that, Mirabilandia (A theme park in Italy) has lifts to reach it's slides in it's attached water park. I know what you mean though, after a quiet day at WWW my calves were murdered from all the running up the stairs I did. I think lifts would be of greatest benefit on high slides with short queues, eg Mach5 at WnW. Stuff like tornado doesn't need it because for one, you are struggling with a raft, and secondly, the queue is a steady pace up the whole length of the stairs.

What is with all the concrete around that slide Gazza? Don't you think they could have done a better job of using space I personally think WhiteWater World has done a good job planning. They have kept everything within good distance while having enough space to not get sufficated.

[What's next?]

Movieworld really missed two opportunities to install a flying coaster with their two biggest properties associated with flying. The first, naturally, is Superman. But they did a great job with Superman Escape so I'm not complaining. The second, is Batwing. They really could have created a well themed flying coaster associated with that with a good link to the current series of Batman movies. Even so, if they were to install a flying coaster in the next couple of years I think Harry Potter is out of the question due to reasons already addressed. I think Movieworld has already done the Matrix so I wouldn't anticipate them bringing that back, but I like your idea Gazza. I can't help you with future themes, but I think the best idea for Movieworld is to look at a range of movies, not just WB properties. If they are able to do so of course.

[Pain on Mick Doohan]

I reckon Dreamworld should install all of the bikes with sidecars and change this thing to a genuine family ride. Specifically so more children can ride at each point because in a few years I can foresee this thing only being appealing to these people.