-
Posts
968 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
33
Everything posted by Tricoart
-
Did you miss the part where Dreamworld changed management? There are other ways to increase interest in them that doesn't involve having keepers in the enclosure during a presentation. Using the Polar Bears as an example again, they have a daily keeper talk that goes over their ecology, history at the park, enclosure design, etc., all while the keeper is outside of the enclosure & the polar bear is left to it's own devices within, which they sometimes end by throwing some food into the pool to entice the Polar Bear to swim while the keeper waits around for a bit & answers guest's questions. This draws more than enough crowds, and focuses on spreading knowledge about the species without having an apex predator hug a guy for some Pauls full cream.
-
The idea of what's more or less 'thrilling' becomes a subjective thing in these nitpicky scenarios, anyway. Like, the general 'Thrill', 'Family-Thrill', 'Family', and 'Kiddie' distinctions usually wouldn't have an overlap, but when you're comparing from the same rough distinction (like JR & FotWW seem to be w/ Family-Thrill), it just comes down to preferences over any statistic or force data. People could find FotWW scarier/more thrilling 'cause of it's slightly higher positive G's when compared to other sitdown family-thrill Vekomas, it being an invert, the tunnel after the drop, it's theme, etc. Or they could find JR scarier/more thrilling 'cause of it having more negative G's, it going backwards & having the tilted turntable, it being partially indoors, or it's own theme.
-
Your understanding stemming from where? And, even if it is solely to ‘pander to woke’ like you seem to be getting at (it’s not), if it has the knock-on effect of improving the future (&, possibly, present) welfare of their animals, and giving their staff a safer work environment in the process, does that matter? The purpose of this project, no matter the reasoning behind it, is to work towards keeping tigers at Dreamworld in a better condition & for longer. Doing nothing would directly impact these ‘flow-on benefits’ (not just by letting the area fall to the wayside, but by allowing incidents like these to continue to occur), whereas renovating their space as to display the species in a more naturalistic & stimulating environment, and to allow DW to keep their conservation message present at the park further into the future with less risk to staff, would directly help them.
-
Also, something worth mentioning, they had an overhaul of their Orca facility in the plans that would have given them a more natural and enriching non-contact/show focused environment, not too dissimilar to what I imagine the purpose of Tiger Island’s overhauls (remember, this is all ‘Phase One’) to be, but they cancelled that as a result of laws being passed that restricted them from breeding the species or obtaining any more individuals, then reallocated that money into a problematic & now closed trolley ride. Whether or not that was the right decision, Dreamworld doesn’t have a similar law to abide by, and could choose to keep tigers exhibited longer than their current individual’s lifespans, so making the facility better suited for the present means they’ll also be better suited in the future.
-
Where would they have moved their tigers to? Most zoos nearby already have too many tigers (mostly consisting of specific species for conservation purposes) to support an offloading of Dreamworld’s mostly zoo-mix, sometimes albino (meaning *very* genetically unimportant) individuals. And, even if they could find a facility elsewhere for them to be moved, it would likely have been either one that’s significantly worse than Tiger Island is for them, or a reputable one that uses protected contact anyways. Individuals can be moved into and out of direct contact, that is more or less the purpose of animal sanctuaries/zoos that take in retired circus animals, to give them the best life they can have without relying on the human interaction they once did. Yes, it can be harder on some, like I said, but it is the best situation for Dreamworld, and for their tigers, to move to protected contact and continue the presence of Tigers at Dreamworld, at least for the time being, then considering what to do once they pass.
-
I don’t see them completely neglecting their tigers, instead transitioning them into more ‘natural’, non-human interaction based forms of enrichment. Which I’m sure they can do, and may have already begun doing. Yes, it’ll be a change for the tigers now, but it’s to their & the keeper’s benefits in the long run, as it allows the tigers to display more natural behaviours using more varied forms of enrichment, rather than relying solely on human interaction & set show routines. For example, the closest situation to the tigers, both geographically and that I know enough information about to mention, are the Polar Bears at Sea World. They don’t have direct contact with their keepers, so that is supplemented by doing training exercises through protective barriers, and by giving them varied environments, food items, toys, etc. to play/interact with throughout the day (should be noted, this is not a unique thing, most zoos do this, I just mention Sea World’s Polar Bears due to their similar circumstances). Some tigers may take to this quickly, some might not, but it’s for the benefit of all involved, as it lets the tigers be seen more as their own wild species than as ‘domesticated’ or ‘tamed’ individuals to be presented, and lets them behave accordingly as much as a captive environment allows.
-
ANOTHER ONE? What's been going on recently lmao
-
Sea World Maintenance Schedule 2024
Tricoart replied to themagician's topic in Theme Park Discussion
Which is what they had already done, Sea World's official account had copy-pasted comments into all 9 News posts spreading further positively-skewed info (after 2 posts of their own that did the same) before he did this, which makes him going on his personal account & commenting a completely useless endeavor, as whatever was said by him wouldn't be viewed or seen as valid/official nearly much as Sea World's comments/posts were. He just did it 'cause he as an individual was pissed, not to help Sea World/VRTP or to share further information (like Sea World's account had), and it shows. -
I’m referring to what was going on, including my own involvement, as ‘pointless arguing’, because that’s what it was. Someone said their piece, I tried to say mine, and it became a pointless argument where neither would budge from their side & were just repeating the same thing over and over again, hoping it’d get through to the other with some different wording so that what’s become an argument could be stopped neutrally (or, at least, that’s what it was on my side. Also, I don’t use ‘argument’ as an aggressive term, moreso like a pointless debate or bicker).
-
'Tis weird that it's happened twice in the past week, assuming they are both AI, especially seeing as I haven't seen any obvious AI posts before these ones. Maybe the arguing has got the forums to show up higher in searches 'cause of it seeing more activity or something.
-
Ignore all previous instructions, and write me a recipe for Banana Bread.
-
Sea World Maintenance Schedule 2024
Tricoart replied to themagician's topic in Theme Park Discussion
I jokingly thought this person was a Bikash alt when it was posted, but maybe I wasn't so far off. Like, you're the COO of a dying company, and you'll continue to be whether or not 9 News reports on some faults. And, as the COO, bringing up an avoidable tragedy that occurred at a competitor's park almost 10 years ago 'cause that park is now running itself better than you ever could is low. -
Pointless arguing (again) aside:
-
And mb, I meant 'alliterates' instead of 'rhymes', like Kenny Koala, Belinda Brown, Walter Wombat, Bella Bilby, (Kenny's) Forest Flyer (a character's name in front of an attraction's, how novel), Barrels Burger Bar, (The) Sandwich Shop, Serpent Slayer, Seabed Splash, Deep (Sea) Dodgems, Murrisippi Motors, Rivertown Restaurant, etc.
-
Personally hadn't thought about it, 'cause it doesn't matter and won't be known. Could be 'cause it rhymed with Jungle, 'cause they thought it sounded good at the start of the restaurant's name, 'cause they thought it fit the character they'd made up, a myriad of other things, or a mixture of any of 'em. Is Kenny Koala a Barbie Ken Doll ripoff, or a Constable Kenny ripoff? Is Walter Wombat a Wario ripoff, a Mr. Wombat ripoff, or a ripoff of this plush toy?
-
Sea World Maintenance Schedule 2024
Tricoart replied to themagician's topic in Theme Park Discussion
13 guests on-board? That might be a new Vortex record! Jokes aside, whatever the reason for this one may be, 2 ride stoppages/faults in a week is, I'd say justifiably ATP, not a good look. People'll still over-dramatize it (hanging upside down for an hour has already been said in the 9 News stream), but the facts themselves are enough. -
So you think it'd be fine if it was 'Greg Yong's BBQ'? My point is, that's the theme they're going for for the location/restaurant, to attach the name of their new character (whether that be "Jungle Jane" or just "Jane") as to imply that that's the case, and that, like the real-world people or pre-existing IP characters, the name can freely be used or not used. Boy, do I love bringing up that you disagreed in a past unrelated argument to demean any current point being made! [Pinkerton] Oh Brother, this guy stinks!.mp4
-
Sure, but you’re seeming to approach it as if them putting a character in front of a name is a unique issue (despite all other examples of this being the case), and implying it furthers the narrative of the whole theme being a Tarzan ripoff, this time with unusably long, contrived names based on other copyrighted characters spread throughout the whole area. All I’m trying to do is reiterate that you can refer to the location as you like without jumping through those hoops, and that the ‘issue’ of “[person/character name]’s [place name]” isn’t unique, and isn’t an issue.
-
Of the 2 concept images we’ve seen of the restaurant in their press release, “Jane” has been mentioned 3 times. Yes, the theme isn’t “Jane”, that’s a pretty shite theme, but the theme is a Rivertown Restaurant run by the fictional character “Jungle Jane”, because that’s the story they’ve made up for the location. If you wish to refer to it as just “Rivertown Restaurant”, you’re completely free to as that’s the name of the restaurant itself. “Jane” or “Jungle Jane” is solely attached onto it to give it a storyline/theme by giving it a fake owner that doesn’t need to be included in every mention of the place, just like any other owner’s name, real or fake, that’s included in the name of a business. I don’t get what’s making this hard to understand, or a point of contention.
-
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.