Sign in to follow this  
CR4ZE

Movie World – History, development, business etc (Wikipedia)

35 posts in this topic

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:

cr4ze.wp@gmail.com

Thanks!

Edited by CR4ZE
spacing
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 sense 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 sense 

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 🙂

Edited by gavinfulikes
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, CR4ZE said:

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...

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 wording

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 wording

You'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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CR4ZE said:

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.

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.

image.png.1c3a3fa92fb056ea1de6f34a8435dc4d.png

And for those who don't speak in Hectares...

image.png.7041718c73572b5b026438bd7f3b9ef8.png

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the small lake/dam and the buildings next to it are all part of the park too. Right to the road way to paradise country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Levithian said:

I believe the small lake/dam and the buildings next to it are all part of the park too. Right to the road way to paradise country. 

Wouldn't those lakes be Paradise Country?

Or even just generic Village owned land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Levithian said:

I believe the small lake/dam and the buildings next to it are all part of the park too. Right to the road way to paradise country. 

Yeah, given the question was 'what is the size of the park area' i tried to stick to park boundary. While it's all village (leased) property, you need to draw a line between what is and isn't part of each gate \ attraction. I included parts of the BOH area behind WWF\Showcase mainly because it does get included in the footprint for fright nights, but for most everything else i've stuck with the fenceline.

If I have time i'll do another that excludes BOH and just includes guest accessible areas (and ride envelopes), but since half of showstage is blocked to guests and technically back of house..... and half of the superman showbuilding is back of house... and the arkham \ lethal cinema and shop... and the gremlins theatres... and stars cafe.... and LTRR warehouse.... and the thatched shack in WB Kids.... and Intencity... geez.... there's a lot of derelict areas within the park isn't there!!!???

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably out of budget, but does Movieworld have the space for a flying coaster? I'm thinking if anywhere it would be the BOH area used at fight nights / Arkham area, but then a Flying coaster is great with path interaction...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Naazon said:

Probably out of budget, but does Movieworld have the space for a flying coaster? I'm thinking if anywhere it would be the BOH area used at fight nights / Arkham area, but then a Flying coaster is great with path interaction...

I think a BnM flyer would be way out of budget but I could definetly see a Vekoma flyer if F.L.Y is successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Naazon said:

Probably out of budget, but does Movieworld have the space for a flying coaster? I'm thinking if anywhere it would be the BOH area used at fight nights / Arkham area, but then a Flying coaster is great with path interaction...

No room there, after my longed for RMC Hybrid goes in. 😛 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Naazon said:

a Flying coaster is great with path interaction...

In Australia, with our insane loose item policies? not a chance.

17 hours ago, Whombex said:

No room there, after my longed for RMC Hybrid goes in. 😛 

Let's face it - MW would be fucked if they got an RMC. Maintenance alone would kill them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At USJ they literally just put nets under every part of the flyer, which TBH spoiled the look of the Jurassic Park zone. 

But I imagine a MW flyer would probably only have a couple of token sections over paths, so you wouldnt need to install as many.

https://www.parkz.com.au/photo/23428-Flying_Dinosaur/gallery/sort/newest/location/ride-2541/offset/13

Edited by Gazza
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Gazza said:

Wouldn't those lakes be Paradise Country?

Or even just generic Village owned land.

There's 2 dams. The one on the movieworld side is used for wild west falls and for portable supply within the park I believe. If the sat photo pulls back a bit you can see the other one across the road and next to paradise country. Its within the fenced park boundary when you drive around the back road, you can see there is park related stuff stored in and around those buildings which weren't included either (hence the post). 

it brings up another question too though. Generally when you see these figures quoted for park sizing its including things like the car park too (as parks have shown they can use every bit of available land if they have to). In the case of movieworld, it's not even a shared carpark, so maybe it should be included in the land totals too? Probably why the combined total is so large, it includes all available land. 

Edited by Levithian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never realised Movie World was so small. Even the parcel of land Adventure World sits on (excluding the bungee area, carpark and area near the ice rink) is circa 15-16 hectares.I guess having a decent lineup and more attractions makes the MW feel bigger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Prequel said:

Do you think they will ever move the movie studio to somewhere else in order to give Movie World extra land? Just a thought.

Like i'm talking in the future, but with Village trying to sell the park, that might not work out.

You can’t just “move” a film studio. They are multimillion dollar custom built buildings, some with water tanks inside, waterfall features, rigging, climate controls etc. 
 

“Moving” would equal demolition and rebuild. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be able to move some of the out buildings without moving the stages though. Things like the sheds and production offices, stuff that isnt rooted in the ground. Especially if they decide they want new buildings. Like, you could absorb the land the offices are on next to dc rivals, superman and arkham asylum, move them to land near where the studios main front entrance gate is now, then repurpose it for when arkham asylum is closed. Would more than double your available space. 

8 hours ago, Prequel said:

Like i'm talking in the future, but with Village trying to sell the park, that might not work out.

They arent selling the park, they are selling village roadshow the company. That means theme parks division, cinemas, radio, production. The whole lot. So that includes the studios too. 

Edited by Levithian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Parkz Crew

    Support Parkz... join the Crew for:

    • Ad-banner free viewing
    • Parkz Crew profile badge
    • Extended editing
    • See who's liked your posts
    • Purchase discounts

    Join Now from $20/yr

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.