CR4ZE
-
Posts
166 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by CR4ZE
-
-
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 mentioned yet, is that it's not going to be an RMC-killer. Sure, it's a fantastic looking coaster and all, but the pitch seems to be that it's a high-thrill machine among family coasters and rides. Ignoring height/length restrictions (that would be an unfair sleight against LPS), it's just not going to have the forces or the speed of Jersey Devil, or even Wonder Woman Golden Lasso/RailBlazer. And there's Intamin's track record on reliability to consider, which I think should speak for itself.
Not to piss on anyone's bonfire and I'm still excited to be riding a new Intamin at my home park next year. This is still fantastic news. It's just got me thinking... If DCR wasn't yet the saviour our parks needed, this may not be either...
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, AlexB said:
Welcome to Parkz my friend. Thread derailment is par for the course. Don't be too precious about it... And as you're in the back seat with the rest of us, perhaps leave the moderating up to the mods - since they've commented in this thread in a similar vein to the rest of us, its fairly tacit approval that they're ok with it for now.
As for the measurement, unless you want to get a trundlewheel out, you're probably not going to find a more accurate measurement. The park probably won't care to measure it in any more official factual capacity than I have, simply because all the surrounding land is theirs too.
I've found Nearmap to be quite accurate pound for pound. You're welcome to use the image as a citation if you wish.
Not a problem, I did say I appreciate it. 😋
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?
-
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-what’s-next-for-movie-world/
On 25/05/2020 at 7:37 AM, AlexB said:I had a few moments spare, so I drew it up. The back end of WWF and Arkham is a bit of a mess as some studio buildings and park buildings are mixed in, but this is pretty much the park perimeter including all BOH areas.
And for those who don't speak in Hectares...
To the topic at hand, still can't state this as fact on a wiki article, much as I wish we could. 🤔 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.
-
3 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:
Unless it was another Rapids style ride I don’t think the media would say boo. The media is also a lot more pro-VRTP than DW as well from what I have seen and I think that’s in a large part due to Clark Kirby’s direction and willingness to involve them in all aspects.
You could be underestimating how much the media likes getting clicks. 😉
-
3 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:
I personally wouldn’t say MW is themed to the film studios. The only ride that is loosely themed to an actual film is SDSC. The actual ties to my the industry such as the studio tour, special effects show etc are long gone, the stunt show is gone etc.
I guess it is all in the wordingYou're bringing up PTSD for the killing of Movie World's glory days. 😥
I've pondered it for a while and I guess the article should just say "theme park". Clean and simple, if anything.
-
11 minutes ago, gavinfulikes said:
I have found out for the last few months that many of the Wikipedia articles for the Gold Coast theme parks are VERY outdated. An example is the History of Dreamworld article. This article only shows the history of Dreamworld from its construction to July 2012. I, myself have been trying to update the articles as much as I can but I really have limited time. I don’t really have any knowledge about Movie World before the early 2010s so I’m just here to encourage and thank your work 🙂
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 articles. However, it seems we've been getting more (and positive) attention over the past three years with all the Gold Coast additions that have been happening.
Appreciate your comments as well. I may turn my attention to other parks (DW, SW etc) one day. I'd probably still have the same problem that I did with MW - that is, the scarcity of info available. And I'd probably turn to Parkz again for help.
Again, anybody who has anything by way of articles/reviews in papers/journals, even if you think it's trivial, it would be warmly welcomed.
-
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 thought...
-
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.
-
Just now, Brad2912 said:
I believe the first sentence is wrong.
MW is not a film studio theme park. It is a theme park next to a film studio.
You even refer to the adjacent film studios in the same sentence so it makes no grammatical senseThe 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...
-
6 minutes ago, Aw hype said:
What is the actual size of the park (area)
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.
-
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 I’m asking.
(Admins feel free to move to off-topic if you feel it’s appropriate).
Partly due to my sheer affinity for the park, and partly due to boredom/OCD-fuelled optimism, I’ve recently taken up the task of completely overhauling and rewriting Movie World’s Wikipedia entry (I’ve been a regular editor there for many years).
Here’s what the article used to look like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warner_Bros._Movie_World&oldid=951851228
And now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._Movie_World
As you can see, I’ve already made quite a lot of progress and spent of lot of time revitalising the page recently. What I’m mainly asking the Parkz community for is some resources on the MW’s history that would be relevant/interesting. Information MUST be supported by scholarly sources: TV/news programs, documentaries/specials, newspaper articles, interviews, web articles etc. Feedback about the article so far would of course be welcomed.
Of particular value would be newspaper/journal articles from the 90s and 00s. Bonus points if you have the publication dates/issue numbers/etc.
I’ve already spent countless hours scouring the internet (and Parkz.com!) for sources, using search engines and adjusting parameters etc, but I just don’t feel that my research has merited the level of information that I would like. I’d really love more insight into the early days of Movie World particularly – why/how it was built, the planning and construction process, how it performed/was received. Also relevant would be a more long-term look at the park’s performance over the years, why and how the park expanded/began adding in new rides and attractions etc.
I know this forum has a lot of veterans who remember the good ol’ days (and I wasn’t born when MW opened), and a lot of people with the “inside scoop”, so I’d really appreciate anybody who can give me some insight.
Why am I doing this? Well, I’m a long-term contributor to WP and, say what you want about it, but I’ve always wanted to improve the perception of WP as an online learning tool by writing high-quality, factual and reliably-sourced content. That, and I’m a long-term enthusiast and consider MW my favourite park.
My main goal for this page is to have it reach Good Article status: it receives a formal review/check from another editor. If it’s well-written, comprehensive, backed up with sources etc, it meets the criteria and is listed as a Good Article. If possible, I would one day like it be listed as a Featured Article: the article receives a formal, highly stringent review from multiple editors. This process typically lasts for several weeks, and every aspect of the article is scrutinised. If the article passes, it is considered to be an encyclopaedic-quality.
A big problem I can see going forward is that a lot of the article is sourced to this website. No offense to the staff, but I think it’s likely that this site would be challenged as a “reliable source” for numerous, boring reasons. This is why journals/articles from papers would be invaluable to me.
If you have anything to contribute, please let me know below, email me or PM me. Information that you have doesn’t necessarily need to exist on the internet: newspaper columns, TV specials, interviews etc all constitute sources. But it needs to come from a source, not just from a forum post (Wikipedia’s policy).
My email (have no problems with this being shared) for all Wikipedia-related things is:
Thanks!
-
4
-
Luna Park Sydney to invest $30 million on major upgrade, new rides
in Theme Park Discussion
Posted
Damn, you beat me to it!
I guess it's just the catch-all phrase of the year ...
...
especially during ...
...
... these uncertain times.