webslave

Is it 2016 yet?

Probably an inelegant choice of wording. It wasn't rough in transitions so much as there was little to no attempt to keep you in your seat. I guess a close analogy would be that experience-wise it was probably no different to riding a Ranger.

...wait, what the fluck are 'Sound Affects'? Who is the sound going to affect? Are they anything like sound effects?

I rode GL once at MW and that was enough for me. The audio wasn't working, but I'm told it doesn't add much. I'm normally all on-board for a coaster, but it just did nothing for me. If anything it was just uncomfortable to ride; no sensation of speed, just slow inversions to slam you around a bunch. I think of our group of ten only one was interested in riding it again. It could go some way to explaining why there was basically no line.

Even though it's not a dark ride?

But, like, the rainforest, and feelings and animals maaan. You're, like, totally bumming me out.

What I'm telling you is the answer to that question is irrelevant.

...Movie World should accept some liability? What, are you crazy? Even if you were 100% liable you don't accept liability! But in this case - as has been explained ad-nauseum - the scope of work for installation of GL does not place any reliance on MW's engineering resources as part of the design of the ride, and as a result does not place them in a position of liability for a design defect. Providing a specification for what you require does not constitute design work, and therefore does not attract liability. They are within their rights to specify ride vehicles that are made out of glad-wrap and marshmallow just as the manufacturer is within their right to tell them they're dreaming. That's it - there's nothing else. There is no legal precedent suggesting that a customer request creates a binding responsibility upon a manufacturer to create it, nor will there be. Quite the contrary - to knowingly build something (for the most part regardless of whether the customer was aware or not; except in cases where you've explicitly written to the customer to explain the design flaw and likely ramification and had them sign off on it - which doesn't happen) that was not fit for purpose (safe operation) if that's indeed what transpired is negligence. What you're likely looking at here is four and a half outcomes; 1a: Manufacturer did not know and could not have known that there was a potential for a ride vehicle to exceed its operating capabilities. 1b: Manufacturer did not know and should have known that there was a potential for a ride vehicle to exceed its operating capabilities. 2: Manufacturer knew and had devised appropriate procedures for the customer concerning maintenance and operation to mitigate the risk of component failure which were not correctly followed. 3: A freak accident caused by point-in-time conditions. 4: Fabrication or manufacturing defect.

Listening to the victim of anything always leads to the most logical and reasonable outcome. Victims are known for their logic and reasoning skills.

The concept can be seen here: https://www.legolanddiscoverycenter.com/

I reckon you might want to Google that one. English as a second language is a class, and as I alluded to it has qualification requirements. It's the English class you'd take in your HSC (or equivalent) if you weren't a native English speaker. I forgive you, though.

This is probably the dumbest thread I've read in the last month. You have posters who wouldn't quality for English as a second language, people who think the train will leave the loading station via the exit, and people who can't get their head around the direction the passengers face versus the direction of travel.

Okay, but what about a nice B&M?

Spot on, DJR! Just another example of a romanticized version of Disney trumping common-sense and fact. Big thunder accident? California Screamin'? Ring any bells?

Flout? Who said flout? No, we would never do that... That said you need to be travelling pretty poorly if you have ACMA down your throat. They are pretty toothless.

It's not a legal requirement, but merely an ethical thing. For the most part it merely serves to further bolster the assertions being made by the reporter by giving the impression they are providing balance. The best part is you can do this in current affairs reporting really well; all you need say is "x was contacted for comment but did not respond before we went to air". The fact that you called them for comment while you were running your opening titles is irrelevant... That said, minor factual inaccuracies aside (which you find in reporting on absolutely anything that attracts a special interest group) the item wasn't too far off the mark all told.

That's a little different though - that's the ATSB.

I suppose a good test is; "If you knew how the day would go (with rides going down) before you went in, would you have still paid to do so?". I'd hazard a guess that the answer of many people is 'no', and that's likely the issue. Others may have, and those are the ones that you won't see written up in the paper.

I can totally see how the park is designed to be total escape in-mind, but let's not romanticise it too much. The place is seemingly perpetually crowded, and with that you get a front-row seat to some of the worst human behaviour I've seen at theme parks. People faking disabilities for front of line passes, people arriving as early as possible to get mobility scooters because they want to (and I quote) "ride in style". More prams than I've ever seen in a single place ​with accompanying parents who can't seem to manoeuvre them to-boot. And the lines; surely they can't go without mention given the ratio of your time you'll spend waiting in line relative to anything else you'll do in the park combined exceeds 1:1. Around every corner there seems to be some sort of shop. That's the bad, of course - the good (and there is plenty of it) is that it's probably one of the most lushly themed places you'll go. The rides each (for the most part) in their own way push the boundaries of themeing and the emphasis put in by the park on immersion is quite a thing to behold. The shows put on by the park are in my experience several steps above its nearest competitors. The place screams production values. There's a sense of history there, although some would wonder if nostalgia holds the park back today in some aspects. It's also got quite a bit of depth if you go looking for it - there's a lot of hidden detail and backstory that you can really only learn about online. If you do this research you'll be rewarded with an even better experience. It wouldn't be fair to say that I didn't like Disneyland and DCA, but given the last time I was there was around four years ago will I go again in a couple of months when I'm in the area? No, I won't. My younger brother is keen, and I have considered doing a day with him where I can take him through some of the cooler things he may miss, but if it were my wife and I alone? No, we'd wait for our son to grow up a little more first. Come to think of it that's one of the paradoxes the park presents; what is the best age to take a child? There's little doubt in my mind that Disneyland is best experienced through the eyes of your own child on their first visit, but what age should you do that at? There's some great rides for the younger kids, but then you wonder whether you really want to be missing out on things like Space Mountain, or Big Thunder. You could wait until they are a little older, but at some point the Disney thing wears off (especially for boys), so you have to hope you catch it in the middle where they are old enough to ride anything but still adore Disney. In truth as much as I appreciated the production values of Disney I had a better time at Six Flags Magic Mountain. The place was like a roller-coaster trade show, showcasing designs and technology that we will seldom if ever see in Australia. Disney is the type of thing you simply have to do at least once in your lifetime though - if for no other reason than to say you've done it. The choice for me now comes down to on-ride experience or immersion/themeing. I'm fairly comfortable saying that for me that choice comes down to a ratio of 2:1 - for every two times I'd visit SFMM I'd visit Disney once. Edit: And as for the Haunted Mansion - I didn't mind it. Again, I appreciated the very elaborate themeing and the scale of it, and the attempts to reach more than just the sight and sound receptors. As for Pirates of the Caribbean? The movie does nothing for me, so the story is pretty much lost on me. I liked at one stage early in the ride travelling past the cafe as part of the night-time scene, as I was momentarily legitimately fooled that it was night-time. As for the rest? A higher budget LTRR as far as I cared, without any of the fun or suspense.

Couldn't agree more, Richard. Put it better than I did.

Actually, it's more akin to selling your house at auction and taking the appliances with you when you move out. What's important here is what a reasonable guest believes they will get from a visit to the park versus what they actually get. Terms and Conditions are lovely, but they are not law, and don't even have to pass an enforceable test to exist - there's little point citing them. Next time your Qantas flight doesn't have IFE or Meals when they have advertised otherwise ask for compensation - I've done it before and you get it every single time. That's at the very least good corporate citizenship. That's why when you go to the movies and the power fails you will be given an opportunity to revisit at no extra charge. You're painting a pretty good picture here of a guy who seems to believe terms and conditions are immutable and theme parks can do no wrong, and has a fixation on the same. I'm sure there's a condition that covers that...

I'd visit Disney World if I was over there, but I wouldn't go out of my way to fly to Florida for it.

Nah. First thing we did in the park was line up for a photo with Mickey. Don't get me wrong - the park itself is really great, but with a couple of exceptions the rides just didn't have me coming away saying "that was exceptionally cool". RSR is one that did, for example.

I hear you on that - did both SoCal Disney parks a couple of years ago. To sum up; Indiana Jones: Down for maintenance, but heard it was good. Space Mountain: Good but nothing special; had the Halloween overlay on it which I think ruined the effect. Splash Mountain: Complete waste of time to ride. Jump on board a log and travel through a cave full of old-world animatronics that shriek incomprehensibly at you. Big Thunder Mountain: A fairly good coaster, but hardly a world-beater. Themeing is nice, but not sure how much you care as you whip by it quickly. Pirates of the Caribbean: Thought I got lucky when there wasn't much of a line for this. I was wrong. Most boring five minutes of my life. I honestly looked for ways I could get off the boat early because I felt so annoyed that I was stuck on this thing when I could be doing something better. Radiator Springs Racers: Legitimately a technical marvel - well worth it. California Screamin: Quite a good coaster that is underpinned by a suitable soundtrack. Tower of Terror: Okay, but nothing overly special. Soarin Over California: Worth riding as it's something fairly unique and quite relaxing. Grizzly River Run: No better or worse than most river rides you'll have been on. World of Colour: A magnificent show well worth your time. Fantasmic: An unexpectedly brilliant show. Equally worthy of your time. Main Street Fireworks: Well... they are fireworks. Seen fireworks before? You've probably seen this. The Matterhorn: Nothing too special - not in the same league as Space Mountain, for example. With this type of ride line-up most parks would flop, but the difference is the level of detailing put into each, usually through combination of soundtrack and scenery. The park is visually beautiful, if somewhat spoiled by the hordes roaming through it at any given moment. If you are the type of person who appreciates fine detail, scenery and immersion you'll like it. If you spend a bit of time learning some of the back-story before you attend you'll get a lot more out of it.

​I knew I'd get a bite out of you. When you arrive at a theme park you expect as a general punter that you'll get a full day out of the park, but we know MW isn't that when those attractions are all down at the same time. When you are charging full price you should be offering the full service. People may swallow it with an attraction or two out of action, but others won't - anything more than that and you'll increase the number of perturbed customers. I agree - you (generally) can't help unplanned faults, but similarly you also can't justify not compensating customers for that. If you book an international flight with a meal service and they can't serve due to a technical fault you have a reasonable expectation of being provided with a credit. If you're in a cab and it breaks down on the way to your destination it's unlikely that you'd have to pay, let alone pay the price you'd have paid if you travelled the whole way to the destination. Movieworld's reliability woes should not be the customer's problem. As for nobody paying $80/ea when VIP passes exist? I can forecast plenty do. They wouldn't be members here, so I'd suspect you probably wouldn't come into contact with them regularly.