Jump to content

CR4ZE

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. For those who may be interested; I'm pleased to provide an update that Warner Bros. Movie World has just become Wikipedia's first ever Featured Article on a theme park! ๐Ÿ˜„๐Ÿ™Œ ๐ŸŽข https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._Movie_World I'm seeking to have it run on the main page as "Today's Featured Article" on 3 June 2021 (30th anniversary). Click if you want to read through the relevant thread.
  2. Damn, you beat me to it! I guess it's just the catch-all phrase of the year ... ... especially during ... ...
  3. Long time, no post! I like so many of you am thrilled to see our theme park industry burgeoning into a world-class offering by next year. A prospective total of up to six (if not five) coasters is a huge win for Aussie's tourism and just the shot the in the arm we'll need after the year we've had (vaccine pun very much intended). Will 2021 be an unprecedented year? Perhaps those older than I could shed some light. I've never heard of such a strong offering across multiple Aussie parks within a single year. The only other thing I'll say about the Big Dipper, that hasn't been men
  4. Not a problem, I did say I appreciate it. ๐Ÿ˜‹ Must say though, I'm surprised my initial enquiry about vintage MW news/stories hasn't turned up anything yet. Wouldn't this be something veteran members would hold onto? All of the information in our ride/park database entries would have had to come from somewhere, right? ie how is it known that the Roxy was renovated for Shrek 4-D or that WWF was originally going to be a loose film tie-in?
  5. Appreciate the dialogue but folks, respectfully, there is a Movie World general discussion thread still on page 1: https://www.parkz.com.au/forums/topic/8872-whatโ€™s-next-for-movie-world/ To the topic at hand, still can't state this as fact on a wiki article, much as I wish we could. ๐Ÿค” Even so, this looks pretty accurate size-wise. It's very interesting to see this mark-up and clearly the park's footprint hasn't changed very much since 1991.
  6. You could be underestimating how much the media likes getting clicks. ๐Ÿ˜‰
  7. You're bringing up PTSD for the killing of Movie World's glory days. ๐Ÿ˜ฅ I've pondered it for a while and I guess the article should just say "theme park". Clean and simple, if anything.
  8. I was actually the one who added in the Sky Voyager/Blue Fire paragraph to DW, and also the New Atlantis to SW. In both cases, it had been about a week since the announcements and no one had bothered to add them in. You're right that our coverage is incredibly dated. Actually, there's a former WP editor who used to contribute a lot to these articles, but they've been inactive for nearly five years. That and, frankly, our theme park industry isn't discussed a lot on the world stage. If Australia had a Cedar Point or Disneyland we'd have a lot more people interested in maintaining our park
  9. Is it possible that ride manufacturers charge a premium on clones over new rides? Just a thought. Think about it business-wise; you already have a product that has proven success at other parks and you're charging the customer (Ardent) a premium for something that is already sought after. Rivals was only Mack's second hyper and they could have done it on the cheap knowing that it would boost their recent profile (US/UK enthusiasts froth over it). Plus, you have theming (which Rivals lacks) and an extended layout (multi-launch mechanism and spike). Those numbers would add up. Again, just a
  10. On a related note, WWF is on a timeline and when it inevitably closes, a water-themed ride would be an obvious and worthy successor. Guaranteed the media will have a field day about it, whatever it is, even if it's one of the newer Mack water rides as suggested above.
  11. The park is themed to the film industry/film studios. It could say "film-themed theme park", but that would be awkward. I suppose it could just say "theme park", but that is a bit vague...
  12. I don't know and there's no reliable sources that given an accurate figure. The best I can do is say that the precinct (WnW, film studio etc) is 154 ha in total, which I can state as fact as it's cited to Gold Coast Bulletin.
  13. Hi! Long term lurker, first time poster here (regular site visitor for years!). Sorry this is going to be a long-ish post, but I need to be specific about what Iโ€™m asking. (Admins feel free to move to off-topic if you feel itโ€™s appropriate). Partly due to my sheer affinity for the park, and partly due to boredom/OCD-fuelled optimism, Iโ€™ve recently taken up the task of completely overhauling and rewriting Movie Worldโ€™s Wikipedia entry (Iโ€™ve been a regular editor there for many years). Hereโ€™s what the article used to look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warn
ร—
ร—
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.