Tricoart

Then you can call it that. But they’re gonna associate the character they’ve made for the restaurant to the restaurant they’ve made for the character. This isn’t a new thing. Apart from the IRL examples of Margaritaville, Max Brenner’s for the locals, or even something basic like McDonalds w/ Ronald McDonald, amusement parks do it commonly, even already at Movie World w/ Dirty Harry & Rick’s. One quick glance at just specifically Disneyland California’s food options & there are more instances to list for food options with character names attached (sometimes shoehorned), from Cars, Beauty & The Beast, Mickey Mouse, Big Hero 6, and more. Not to mention the multiple others with names including actual people. But I doubt everyone refers to the cafe in Cars land as “Flo’s V8 Cafe”, or the ice cream shop as “Clarabelle’s Hand-Scooped Ice Cream”. It’s just denoting the theme of the dining location in part of it’s title, no more & no less.

I think they may prefer to refer to it without the 'Jungle' going forward, both 'cause it makes the name unnecessarily longer & the bordering attraction is already 'Jungle ____'. But any iteration of them using or not using any part of the name "Jungle Jane's" wouldn't make it false, as "Jungle Jane's" isn't a set part of the restaurant's name, just the nickname given to the character that they've made it's owner. So it'd just be down to their preference at the time. Like, for example, you can say "Margaritaville", "Jimmy Buffett's Margaritaville", or any iteration of that without it being a correct or incorrect name, so long as "Margaritaville" is the name of the place/company & "Jimmy Buffett" is it's attributed owner/founder. It'd only become wrong if you said something like "Jimmy Margaritaville's Buffet", 'cause that incorrectly attributes the location's name as part of the owner's, and vice versa.

The restaurant is called "Rivertown Restaurant", & the character they've made up to be it's owner is "Jungle Jane". The article saying "Jane Rivertown's" is misinterpreting/mistyping "Jane's Rivertown". Written paragraph: Quote placed in the same article:

'Cause it's a financial report, so they use the financial calendar when referring to broader moments in time (especially ones in the future without a set date), as that's what matters in it's context. They can say 'aim to open before Christmas' to news outlets or in press releases, but that doesn't really matter in a financial report.

Ah, I see what's happened. They haven't messed up their announcement, the announcement has been misinterpreted here. Financial Year 25 (FY25) ends next June, and started last July.

RPReplay_Final1724661604.mp4 Doubles down on it being this year, not next.

Images from these articles:

Give Sea World a couple years & a few more bulldozed rides, then it’ll be a competition.

Adult prices seem to be $89 for off-peak weekdays, $109 for Fri/Sat/Sun, and $105 on days in or around holidays, with these prices showing 'til early March 2025. The non-specific ticket is now $129, with kids' tickets being $10 off the adult prices throughout all mentioned tickets (hence the 'from $79'). If I'm not reading that incorrectly, this is a price hike for all days except off-peak Mon/Tues/Wed/Thurs, which is $16 bucks less than the previous non-specific price of $105 (which now costs $24 dollars more). Maintenance schedules don't seem to be taken into account as of yet, though there is no currently predicted maintenance periods for any of their major rides (unless you count Gold Coaster).

Levi's had a lift stop, just due to a 'sensor activation'. (From Sea World's Facebook) Is refreshing to see that the comments on 9 News's post about it are level-headed, even before Sea World's reiteration on their socials.

https://rcdb.com/1126.htm

Pretty sure the locations on the island were used as set/show pieces for the paddle wheeler, not as areas that guests could access.

I don't know enough to know if that's the reason or not, it may just be a chain dog being temperamental. But, again as someone that doesn't know enough about engineering to know for sure, I wouldn't consider the chain slipping a little as a major issue, especially on a log flume (though the sound of such would be different to that of the chain dog clacking rhythmically). The issue would come if the chain dog wasn't engaging at all.

Maybe the chain slips a bit on some cycles & causes the chain and/or chain dog to make a bit of a racket? But from what I can tell, both via not-so-legal POV's on YouTube and from what I remember of my own rides (albeit not super recent ones as I haven't been to the park in a couple months), the loud chain dog was on the older boats, with the newer ones seeming generally quieter.

The only way it seems that could happen ATP is if either Village is no longer deemed profitable enough for BGH & they sell their stake to another company/private equity or place it back on the public market, or their changes to Village drive it into the ground before completing an exit strategy is an option. The best outcome is that they do exit somehow, and Village picks/is given a good choice for a new buyer if applicable. But I don't believe Village would've gone with BGH if it didn't need to, either through being solid enough alone to not facilitate a buyout in the first place, or through being presented with a better buyout option than private equity, so a Village sans-BGH may simply not exist. All that can be done to up the chances of a non-BGH future is just to not contribute to their profits, like the 'vote with your wallets' sentiment mentioned earlier but with even less possible impact by individuals, so that the idea of an exit strategy is at least floated, and then hoping that one is chosen that suits better than BGH does. Til then, all I'd expect to come is more glorified storage areas & excess monetization wherever possible (Village Key 2: Now with Beetlejuice!)

If it was in that bad of disrepair that it currently has to be removed for safety reasons, one would hope/think they’d have not spent so long weighting options & performing tests, and actioned it once that was found to be the case. It sounds to me as if all that’s been shown in their testing is that the structure is no longer in a state to support an operational monorail, not necessarily that it supporting it’s own weight is in question.

The only section that’s known to be being removed is the section behind Levi, which is solely over backstage area, likely the reason why they’ve deemed that part worth removing. I wouldn’t be surprised if the rest of it stays standing ‘til it becomes a hazard & they’re forced to remove it, or if other individual sections have concrete plans for the space to be reused (like the stations, for example).

Owns a large stake in VRTP, so all their properties are affected

First the Monorail, then the New Atlantis shed, then Viking’s Revenge’s pathway & castle, and now this? Do they just not have a clue how to allocate space, or is BGH’s eventual goal for both parks to just become dumping grounds?

As is the case with most Movie World rides, it as a ride is deteriorating, and the area surrounding it has already done so. Rio Bravo Outfitters exists, as do the 2 food options in the area, but the only time I’ve seen any of those operational in recent visits was 1 occasion where the ‘Wild West Roadhouse’ (an almost exact copy of the Gotham quick service) had a skeleton crew & no guests.

Private Equity: Where Creativity Goes To Die

Disregarding that it’d make the whole back of the park past the roundabout a ‘family’ section, they’ve already got a kids zone, and they're currently making a family zone/debatably a 2nd kids one. Sure, add a stage building for scheduled shows (if they can’t just use the ‘stage’ they already have around the tree for photo ops, and their scheduled Looney Tunes dance shows on Main St aren’t enough), but do it in WB Kids. I’m sure they could sacrifice a barely ridden flat or 2 for the space if they had to, and it makes a whole lot more sense than removing WB Showcase & Doomsday for a whole 2nd/3rd kids area on the other side of the T-junction. Also, even though it was a bit of a point of contention in the Sea World discussion, it is a park that’s seemed to gear itself to families first, whereas Movie World aims for more of a mix, if anything skewing to the other end. Which, if that is indeed true, then I’ll quote what’s been said hundreds of times ATP: They need a thrilling, good capacity flat.

Especially after WoO, please no.

maybe they're planning on replacing it with a themed A-frame for when the area's closed for maintenance

One would hope