DaptoFunlandGuy

So i'm pretty sure they already had a bridge\ride sign in that position already, so they've just stuck the vultures in place of what was there already? Honestly - probably where it should have been to start with (i'm looking at you too DC Rivals bridge in front of Batwing), but the relocation raises some questions - did they move it to allow vehicle access into showstage? did they move it because they're planning on redeveloping the rest of the western area into something else? (Probably along with doomsday?) did they move it to expand the park behind showstage? (path lower left of the image above) Let the speculation begin continue!

Dreamworld responds to Tiger Island footage | Parkz - Theme Parks There's this article posted on Parkz from 2017 where Al Mucci made a statement about it. It's amazing how outraged people get about things they have no knowledge over. The behaviour and treatment is not dissimilar to how one would treat two misbehaving dogs. That's just it though, you've reacted without context - failing to understand that there was a threat. there was a danger. the handlers recognised that well before any injuries occurred and corrected the animal in an appropriate manner. Also, you're outraged about how close-contact handlers deal with behavioural issues where there is a serious risk of injury, and simultaneously outraged that they're "caving to animal activists" and realigning to protected contact. Would you pick a lane?

Wait - it was you who made the statement that GD was better - now you're telling me you haven't even been on LLDoD? (and I realise, on re-reading, that you never said you'd been on, just that others had said it) Yes, it's the age limit, hence why I said he isn't allowed to ride for another 18 months. I'm not aware of any other Intamin Giant Drop with an age limit, though I acknowledge that Dreamworld has said the age is a manufacturer's requirement. As for people under 10 riding GD, that may well be, but I don't go against Park Rules on rider requirements, and he understands that parks have rules for a reason. He has seen the story of Tyre Sampson, and he knows its because the park modified the restraint. He thinks it sucks, but he won't ride it as long as the park says he can't, which is admirable. I think its deplorable that parents would lie about their child's age or capability to ride in order to skirt the rules. Realistically both rides fall at the speed of gravity, and despite the differing heights, the drop time FEELS very similar when riding. The view is different, but I would say the intensity of both rides is similar enough that I couldn't really tell them apart save for a side by side comparison (which will never happen when there's a 12 hour flight separating the two rides). The view is my main reason for rating Lex higher, which has nothing to do with intensity. The ride is pretty much the tallest structure on top of a mountain though, so the 'feeling' of being higher may be at play...

What are we on, iteration 8 or 9 of their grand plan to join their property to westfield by some sort of mall or commercial facilities? I'll believe it when they break ground.

Circling back because I must have missed this the first time around. I think LLDoD is better. I really like the overview it gives of the park, and it frequently operates both sides so you get a choice of which view you have (within reason of the sorter). My son also prefers LLDoD, though his opinion is primarily because he's allowed to ride DoD, but isn't allowed to ride GD for another 18 months. That isn't really on the contrary. The original comparison was between two rides of the same type. You've introduced a third, similar ride and argued its better than both, and you could be right on that point, but it isn't comparing apples with apples, which was STRAWS' point, I believe, about two identical ride models.

oh it's definitely a related thread. It's the very nature of discussion forums - especially when the topic at hand has run out of information (until the next update at least) - things are gonna tangent. Whinging about the tangents is doing more damage to the discussion than just scrolling past it. Rest assured the topic will go back to the title when more information is available.

Because of it's similarity to Tarzan, the ride has now been renamed to 'Rush'.

...And one of the bosses at Village promised me world class but i'm still waiting. We have no stats for JR. So I'll wait until I see the STATS. Until then, based on the STATS we know for TNT, FOWW is more thrilling. Because it literally has more than zero.

Let's make a dolphin jump through a flaming hoop of fire - that'll make the shows hugely popular, even though its a completely unnatural behaviour. Zoos tend to have interest in their concept and exposure to their message - they also seem to get donations too, despite not having tigers riding bicycles. In this case though he's right - arguing "why didn't they do it X years ago" is ridiculous. Why didn't Japan stop whaling in the 80s? Why didn't Circuses abandon elephants in the 50's? Why didn't they close down thunder river rapids in 1992? We learn things. these things change our attitudes towards things over time. Shit I wonder what they did with all the circus animals. We have very little information on what they plan to do to ensure tiger stimulation and enrichment continues. All we know is direct contact is going to be discontinued. You're making a lot of big assumptions in "your take on it" but you don't actually seem happy for people to disagree with you, despite your own words to the contrary. Quoting for posterity. When the changes were first posted here the GCB article said it would take effect within 18 months. It's possible they had delays from the storms, but we're in that ballpark about now:

No, and I don't need to have been on it to know that some stats = more thrilling, whereas <null> stats = no thrills. That's why I said 'based on current information'. Quite happy for this to change once "no stats" becomes "some stats"

...and that's why, based on current information, FOWW will be more thrilling.

"Showing people how we can make a big cat drink milk from a carton held above our heads" isn't necessary to continue the conservation efforts and education. "Because that's the way we've always done it" isn't a good enough reason to keep doing something.

As an employer, Dreamworld \ Coast \ whatever have a legal obligation to ensure a safe working environment. If they can't ensure a safe working environment, they can't have the tigers at all. Society is pretty good at prioritising human life over that of animals regardless of the circumstances. Welfare is a different story, so ensure you don't conflate the two. There were attacks on handlers while the long term tiger experts were working there too, so i'm not sure what your point is? I feel for the tigers that have had human interactions and now are finding their handlers interacting less, I do. But change has to start somewhere. You can't simply keep putting handlers into their enclosures - especially if incidents keep occurring. Human life has to be the priority. TI has been one of the most successful facilities from a breeding program perspective. Shipping the animals off to other parks/zoos where they would lose both their handlers and their familiar environment (that is all these tigers have known their whole life and for multiple generations) is a worse idea than simply transitioning to a non-contact model. I absolutely despite organisations such as JFC, but we've seen Sea World transition from "tricks" - humans riding on dolphins and being launched into the air, etc - into more 'natural' behaviours and interactions. The US SW parks transitioned from in-water interaction with Orca to completely out of water interaction - essentially non-contact interactions, due to the risk to the life of the handlers. I support the steps taken by both SW park chains for the sake of animal and handler welfare and I see the non-contact steps by Dreamworld in the same lens. I don't see any links between this and any 'vocal minority' action.

Given their history with SX360, i'll give it an outside chance at opening before the brisbane olympics.

INB4 someone starts saying this happened because they were reducing contact with the animals - as there have been several incidents over the years well before the no-contact aims were first touted. I agree, these are inevitable so long as humans share the same spaces as tigers and full no-contact is the necessary end-game. They do have to transition though - the tigers will apparently suffer depression if the handlers simply stop interacting with them. I don't know what they do now, but the welfare of the handlers should be the first priority.

...which is even more to the point.

They didn't call the character Joan because they potentially would get sued for using the name and likeness without permission. You can't say there is 'no doubt' when the name didn't derive its origins from the story. Tarzan doesn't have exclusive rights to the name and while it is most likely and almost certainly connected it is simply absurd to say without a doubt. I mean, Jungle Rush and Vintage cars are no more adult than Oz in terms of attraction 'thrill' levels.

He may not always articulate his points well enough to be understood the first time around, but in this case it was obvious he meant alliteration rather than rhyming. No doubt you say? Google would like to disagree with you. And before anyone suggests that any 'jungle' links to the word jane have to be sourced from Tarzan, the Simpsons had a Jungle Jane character also, but this was based on Joan Embery It's very rich of you to continue to assert that you're allowed to share your opinion, but when others do so, you refer to it as 'pointless arguing'.

You got it.

Well, you jinxed that!

Yes. I know. they've been talking about reopening it recently. but its still been closed for years. Not at all. Just wondering if it would change your view of the name.

You're still attaching the word "jungle" to the name. it appears it was used back in February with early concepts, but all of the current material does not use it. Not casually, not accidentally left out. Even the concept signage on the front of the building doesn't use it. I'd suggest to you they've dropped the name. All your other examples are real world people (like Buffet, who is synonymous with the restaurant and could be dropped regardless - but his name would still be on every sign and billboard) or pre-existing IP characters who are attached to an outlet in order to relate it back to the theme and\or link it to the pre-existing IP. This. Is. Neither. What if I told you the name Jungle Jane was coined by AI? Would you shut up then?

Honestly i'm just surprised they haven't slapped Kenny and his mates all over it. I'm all for them embracing their heritage but there's already too much in the park attached to the mascot.

They seem to have dropped the 'Jungle' aspect of her name in all the recent marketing around it though - are you sure they're still sticking with Jungle Jane?