Jobe

I only half agree with you on this Gazza. I don't think the historical angle is a cop out-its a very relevant feature of both parks that needs to be highlighted and exploited. Given their history, these attractions within Luna Park ARE their highlight-mainly due to their uniqueness and rarity in the amusement world. However, does this excuse the condition of other features and amusements within the parks?? Absolutely not!! Both parks are a pale imitation of their former glory and both, given the right investment and willingness, could be restored and enhanced to bring them back to their golden years. I will watch the restoration project at Dreamland , Margate , England with much interest!! Actually the Rotor in residence at LPS at present is a replica built for the '95 park incarnation. Of the original, 3 were built but none survive. The current Rotor was built from the original blueprints. There are plans to re-build one for LPM as well. As far as being on the NSW Heritage register , only the Face, Towers, Crystal Palace, Coney Island,Cliff Face and Fig Trees have that distinction. Under the banner of the Luna Park precint, it is noted that there are several items/buildings of significance and these include The Wild Mouse,The Rotor and the Cliff tunnel. As to the Rotor being moved several times whats your point? Something can be on the NSW Heritage Listing and not in its original position, as long as the building meets the registers requirements. For all who are interested, here is a rare photo from LPS showing the Cliff Face Tunnel. The Cliff Tunnel is described on the register as being" Tunnelled into the base of the sandstone cliff on the eastern edge of the Luna Park Site, adjacent to the location of the former Ghost Train, is a flattened horse shoe shaped tunnel, with two entrances, approximately 20m in length, and almost 2m high and slightly less in width. At the 'top' of the horse shoe is a round chamber of the same height, about 3m in diameter. Used for storing gardening equipment since August 1990." This pic shows one of these entrances.

You cannot really compare the Luna Parks to a large theme park like the GC ones.Both Luna Parks are a fun park with very little theming as such and both draw heavily on their historical significance and historical rides (LPS Wild Mouse, Coney Island and Rotor,LPM Scenic Railway,Carousel and Ghost Train) to attract people. I think that Victoria and NSW could each have a theme park built which would have little impact on their operation. This would largely be due also to their respective locations right in the middle of Sydney and Melbourne- the infrastructure and people are right there. Any new prospective theme park in VIC or NSW will be mostly outside of metro areas and will have to rely on new infrastructure and allow travel time for their prospective patrons. Wonderland , to some extent in its early life, was hampered by this.

Oh!! Ok then no probs!! Sorry if I mistook your meaning........

Hmm Gazza if you are referreing to me as a "nostalgiafag??" then I take offence. For my mind, Spencer's posting was tongue in cheek and I followed that up with my own reply. Surely anyone with a hint of humour about them can see that those posts were not meant to be taken seriously!! If you thought that,(and going by your the tone of your post you did) then you need to have a long hard look at yourself indeed!!! That sort of personal attack really isnt needed,especially in this case, as what we posted didnt deserve any sort of vitriol at all!!! Please have a little more respect for when genuine posters contribute-its not all about you or a select few opinions!! Thankyou

Hehe...Dont forget the Young Einstein Homestead house........

I agree. I really feel that we should at least wait until we all see the finished product before we form opinions and talk out of school.

I think that most people on this board and, indeed the general public included, are more than happy to see Movieworld gain another coaster. I count myself amongst those and especially as it is an El Loco model, whose virtues I have been extolling for quite a while. ( I have been campaigning for one of these to be added to either Luna Parks ride roster ever since I first saw them). The coaster is going to be a massive hit, that is a given. However, I feel that some criticism should be leveled at Movieworld for their removal of attractions and the timing in when they have been removed. As has been stated before, we now have seen LTRR, Marvin The Martian Rocket ( no explanation given for this ride removal at all), Batman the Ride 2 all bite the dust WITH no replacement whatsoever in the wings.I am happy to see these rides be replaced with something new and exciting but surely their removal could have been tiered so that their actual replacement would be closer to being announced?? It doesnt make sense to close a major ride like LTRR or Batman 2 without having some idea of what is going to replace it. Now that these 3 rides are gone, to be replaced with only one new ride (Green Lantern) the value of Movieworld appears to have lessoned considerably. Dont get me wrong, I am sure that MW will eventually replace both LTRR and Batman with something that will be brilliant, but the way in which they have managed these closures (for whatever reason), to me, appears off the mark. Its a similar story at Seaworld. Pirate Ship, Bermuda and even the Seaworld train have all gone quietly from the ride roster. Sure we have had Jet ski and the Battle Galleons added since then but in my mind a theme park should GROW and ADD new attractions, not simply replace older ones. The ride lineup should at least increase, not decrease over time, and if it does, this will add to the perception of value to any family visiting the park. As it stands now, MovieWorld have a long way to go before it is percieved a full day park. Just my perception.

Well said Alex...I agree 100% with your sentiment!!

I think this whole side thread is GOLD!!!!

Have to say that I totally agree with the overall sentiment in this thread. To me, I am feeling a little shortchanged. I will be visiting Movieworld in January with my family and this is one ride that my son could ACTUALLY ride and was really looking forward to. He loves Batman and is devastated that he will be unable to ride this. Whilst I do agree that the original BA1 is far superior to BA2, and that the ride DID require some changes or enhancements, I think that the timing of its closure is absolutely atrocious. Surely the ride could have been kept in being until after the school holiday peak and Green Lantern opening? I cannot fathom any strong reason why this could not have occured. To date, the ride count for Movieworld has remained static,even with new ride openings. We have now lost LTRR, BA2 and even Marvins Rocket ride ( can anyone shed some light on its demise??).Movieworld needs to expand its ride lineup not reduce or just replace. It desperately needs at least another 2 family orientated rides, another worthwile flat and at least one more "thrill" type ride before it can become a full day park. Very disappointed with this decision on BA2 rides closure. I must say, in the past 2 years, both Movieworld and Seaworld have been disappointing in their decision to refuse to maintain their current ridelineups whilst adding new attractions. In my mind, Themeparks need to grow and add to their attraction list, not merely close one and open another. In this aspect, I feel that our parks are behind the 8-ball with other parks from around the world. Just my 2 cents!

Agreed!! Bloody brilliant!! Good to see most of us can laugh at ourselves every now and then!!!

I agree Keadz...surely Seaworld management can see now that the Pirate show that replaced the venerated Ski show was a complete mistake. This is hopefully a step back in the right direction. Fingers crossed, they understand the importance of replacing Bermuda Triangle with a ride that that will be just as iconic and loved. In recent years Seaworld has lost rides such as The Pirate Ship, The Seaworld Train (which I really hope resumes running again-not sure this is possible though?), Thrillseeker and of course Bermuda.This imbalance in rides versus attractions really needs to be rectified as the park IMHO needs one or two major rides to fully complement its lineup and make it an all day park once again.

Joz I am already there!! I will shout you a beer if you like!!!

Brilliant!!!! Illustrates all we have argued in a nutshell. Now thats what I call a "Moot point"!!!!

hehehe. Yeah probably a good suggestion aussienetman. Will do!!

Really the pretensions of some people on this board can be interminable, especially if they are questioned!!! AlexB I will NOT " shut the bloody hellup"!!! I have as much right to comment on these boards as you or anyone else does. Lets examine your comments a little further. The argument here is not if what Djrappa said was correct (which it is and I have supported), but rather in what he said and how it could be interpreted.I have said that all along. You are correct that it really IS a matter of interpretation. This is true and I agree. However you deride my interpretation as being wrong because you dont agree with it. However,as I interpreted it differently and so did Westical, and because we had the temerity to voice our opinion, its being ignored or howled down? Unbelievable!! IMHO if something is described to me "as getting on in years" I immediately think of something OLDER than 4 years old. If that phrase was used to describe a car or even a person, I , and I suspect, a lot of other people, would immediately think of a car over 10 years old, or a person in their 40's, but NOT an amusement ride that is only 4 years old. Now of course this is open to intepretation, but I believe that this would be the reasonable opinion of the majority. It doesnt matter however. It was stated and 2 other people took its meaning to be something that the author didnt intend it to be. Are you going to argue that what we interpreted is wrong?? The simple fact of the matter is THAT is the way I have understood its meaning, and that I am not alone in thinking that, and we voiced our intepretation. Of course, now that Djrappa has expounded further, his meaning is made 100% clear.Great!! I was only originally commenting because I was backing Westical in his interpetation, as it mirrored my own, in a respectful manner.All we wanted was to highlight the fact that what was written could be reasonably construed in a different fashion.Is that so wrong? It was in no way deriding what Djrappa said, or arguing with his facts.Now dont get me wrong. I am not saying that what you and Djrappa have intrepreted is wrong. I can see ,after clarifying, where that interpretation has come from. All I want is for you guys to admit the same. The elucidation we had regarding the post could be also REASONABLY be interpreted the way we have seen it.Therefore, it is not a "Moot Point". Failure to recognise this borders on sheer arrogance. I have a healthy respect for people on this board and I try to ensure that shows in my posts, and I expect the same. I didnt mean for this to turn into a slugging match in the slightest but it annoys me when differing opinions or interpetations of posts are met with snide postings and arrogant, sarcastic comments.

I am not disagreeing with what you are saying Djrappa. I said as much in my post. I agree with everything you said in regards to annual maintenance of any ride. The point "isnt hard to grasp" as you so eloquently point out. All I WAS saying is that your use of the phrase "getting on in years" is a bit of an exaggeration in this case. Using that phrase evokes the feeling that the ride is nearing its end of life cycle. I really dont think that 4 years life for a ride really qualifies it for a ride that is "getting on in years". Westical obviously came to the same conclusion.Is this to hard to grasp?? What you have said is absolutely true and I am not impinging on your knowledge in these areas. However your choice of phrase to describe this condition , led us to come to the conclusion that we have. It could have been better phrased and your analogy of the your car service is a good one. I am sorry, its frustrating to me when people say something and mean another. There is no need to be snotty about it just because you were questioned on something that you phrased in error.

Having visited Luna Park Melbourne with my kids in the last week, I actually found it to be inferior to Luna Park Sydney, IMHO. LPM at the moment, is looking tired and rundown. Both Parks have their pros and cons, it is true,and they both have significant historical items,which should be preserved. LPM is suffering from severe need of investment and it shows. LPS, having been redone in '95 and retouched in 2004, is a much cleaner and vibrant looking park. I think the best thing to happen for LPM would be for it to follow a similar path to New York's Coney Island. Have a ride manufacturer like Zamperla take over management of the park, invest heavily in beautifying the park to its former glory, and utilise the park to star the company's attractions. Keep of course, the historical attractions such as Scenic Railway, The Ghost Train and The Carousel, whilst filling the rest of the park with attractions themed to LPM's history. This has been done to great effect in Coney Island and Zamperla have also taken over management of the Cyclone Rollercoaster, so they are skilled in operating historical attractions. This then would keep the best of the old, coupled with the new and exciting attractions. Do you guys think that this model, having been very succesful in New York's Coney Island,would work for Luna Park Melbourne?

You are probably right that Dreamworld will not be adding anything big for a while. There has been significant investment over this past year and tradtionally, this probably means that the park was not planning on investing in anything new after such a busy fiscal year. I think it would be at LEAST another 2 years before management even look at expanding further. I do think, however, that you are pinning your opinion on very recent events, which I believe will have no bearing on any decisions that have been made regarding this year or the next. Who knows?? 2 years is a long time and if the current global economic crisis is still occuring, THEN these events will have bearing on any decisions being made. However, if there is a turnaround, plans could still be made for the park to add further attractions.

Whilst I agree with you entirely djrappa in regards to Amusment Park rides needing major maintenance to keep them safe, saying that a ride is "getting on in years" when in actual reality it is only 4 years old, is an exaggeration , to say the least. We all agree and know that rides as technical as Surfrider need annual maintenance. I think the point being raised however, is that Surfrider being down for 4 months is a little unusual, especially for a ride that, on the surface, appears to have more downtime than it really should.

Hmm..I would like to know what this comment is in relation to...especially what facts that you can base this allegation on!!!

Hi all, Not sure if any one has seen this film on Youtube but it is a great 7 minute presentation on Luna Park Melbourne. It has some great footage that I have never seen before of the River Caves and The Big Dipper. Luna Park Melbourne If you have an interest in Luna Park and its history like me, you will find it worthwhile!! Cheers Jobe

Gee what a great "what if " scenario!!! I am sure we would all be mightily chuffed and excited if Dreamworld had opted to put a similar ride like this instead of Buzzsaw..I know which one I would prefer!!!

If this is true and we are only getting the basic Skyloop, then this is a tad disappointing!!! Some extra elements or custom designed features to set it apart from the basic incarnation would have been most welcome. Dreamworld have opted for the cheapest option!!

lol..Sorry..couldnt resist!!! And yeah I absolutely hate it when my Iphone does the same thing.........