Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the January 10th Guest Column on Animal Kingdom: <a href="News-ID107110.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID107110.asp</a>.
Originally Posted By Disneyphile While I don't agree with every assessment made, I thought this was an overall well-thought piece. Looking forward to the next two installments.
Originally Posted By WEDWAY100 I thought that this was a very well thought out column. Thanks to the author for taking the time to write it. I'm not sure that I agree with everything, but it is making me think - and that's what counts! Maybe I'll post again here, but I need time to sort this one out.
Originally Posted By CapnNemo I went to the park about 3 years ago and I have to agree with most of this article: I felt totally lost in the entrance, I missed large parts of the park because of the confusion. The safari ride 'poachers' ruin the experience and they had 'good guys' with guns trained on the captured poachers that I didn't feel my kids needed to see. The drama of the bridges giving out while you go over crocs is much mor engaging IMO. The Green message is preachy without being helpful. I'm looking forward to the next 2 articles about how the park might be improved.
Originally Posted By MouseEars Disney's Animal Kingdom is definitely NOT my favorite Disney Theme Park. So, I agree with the writer when he says there are serious problems with the park. I thought that the first time I went there during a resort's guest preview back in early April '98. But for a lot of the writer's negative comments I accept the park for what it is. Attractions like "Its Tough to be a Bug" and Kilminjaro Safaris, I think, are excellent attractions. I don't mind the subplot of the poachers or the fact that Disney did the 4-D effects in their park films to death. However, when friends of mine go to the park and they tell me that they LOVED Dinosaur, I just pity them, because they have no idea what a horrible ride it is. I take that back, the ride itself is not horrible but it certainly is not to par at what the Walt Disney Company ONCE stood for. Their standards have dropped substantially and Dinosaur, both the film and the attraction prove that. When they take a ride like the Indiana Jones Adventure in California, take the same ride system and cut-corners like they did in Dinosaur, they should hang their heads in shame. I don't feel that Disney beats the environment theme to its guests, except for that god-awful bird show, or the fact that they have the nerve to ask for a buck to donate to Disney's Environmental Program. The real problem with the park is that there isn't enough to do. I have a good time at the attractions and shows in the park, but its not enough for a full-day's admission, compared to Magic Kingdom, Disneyland, or Disney MGM Studios. There you're completely enthralled for your whole stay, but like the writer said, for the most part you're looking at trees, and now closed refreshment stands. Come on Disney, GIVE US WHAT WE WANT!!
Originally Posted By Santa Monica why write the article now? i mean it seemed like he was gonna write about dinorama. and as a fan of DCA, i was afraid of what his story would be like, but then read the preview and was shocked... WDI is going back to how theme parks should be with DCA??? Most would disagree right???
Originally Posted By donkthemagicllama I think the author was off his rocker. I loved DAK, actually liked CTX (as it was called then) as much or more than Indy, felt like I was somewhere else the whole time. The only thing I'd agree with in the article is that Conservation Station (and the train there for that matter) is pretty dull. I think the theming is incredible, and the rides are great. It could use a few more, but there's already something in the works (Beastly Kingdom?) so I'm confident this will change. Anyway, not trying to start a flame war or anything, everyone's entitled to their opinion. Now you know mine.
Originally Posted By Doobie <<< why write the article now? i mean it seemed like he was gonna write about dinorama. >>> The artile was run now because that's when it was offered to us. Despite the fact the park has been open for a while, the author didn't visit until more recently and it ties in well with the rest of the series, so despite the lack of timeliness, I still thought it was worth running anyway. Doobie.
Originally Posted By kennect Sorry to say but Disney has a fan here in regard to AK....Call me stupid as a result...Not everything Disney does is correct and this park is an example but still....There are some really wonderful things there and they aren't damn roller coasters, etc....The gorilla habitat is amazing but I guess in reality it does bore families to death that are looking for their adrenaline fix...I applaud Disney for taking on such a project...I also applaud them on the idea that the theming and detail in the park is excellent...Consider me weird and out of touch...But I can tell you this, I actually know other people that have said this is Disney's greatest park in FL...Are we all nuts that feel that way? Sorry but I just found this entire article nasty without any really good reasoning and not something I would have expected to show up here at Laughingplace...
Originally Posted By erider I loved Animal Kingdom from the first time I went there in the summer of 1998! The first time I went through the entrance, I was very dissapointed with the Oasis Gardens. It looked so much better on the concept drawings. But when I first saw the Tree Of Life, I knew this was a real Disney park. Also I really love the detailing in Harambe Village and Asia. It really feels like you're in Africa or Asia. The Kilimanjaro Safari and CTX are among the best WDW attractions in my opinion. Kilimanjaro is such a long ride, and the landscaping is really beautiful. And of course Indy is much better then CTX, but I'm still glad WDW got a similair ride system. Now if they would just improve the Conservation Station and build Beastly Kingdom.........
Originally Posted By Doobie I didn't think the story was nasty. I thought the author present reasons for his opinions rather than just ranting on with negativity which is why it was run even though I disagree with his opinion (I love Animal Kingdom). I'm sorry you wouldn't expect to see it on LP, we've run many negative articles in the past (some of which, unfortunately, had much more ranting and much less reason than this one) and I'm sure we will in the future as well. I thought the author expressed his opinion well and it was a good piece. Of course you're entitled to your opinion as well and I appreciate you posting it. Doobie.
Originally Posted By donkthemagicllama In re-reading my post, it looks like I may have been a little rude claiming "the author was off his rocker". I mean no disrepect, really! I was completely taken aback by how different his opinion was from mine, that's all
Originally Posted By WeevilKneevil I think that the author is being slightly ignorant about the kilimanjaro safaris. the storyline is what makes it an attraction. Even Walt Disney made his "true life adventure" movies with a written storyline. they werent just film clips of the animals in their habitats, they were jazzed up by the writers.
Originally Posted By mooobooks There are indeed some problems with Animal Kingdom, but generally not the ones he points out. Considering the overall greed and avarice of corporate America, the heavy environmental message at Animal Kingdom is entirely appropriate and necessary. The writer seems to have a problem with the message because it only points out the problem, but does not give the park attendees anything to do about it. Well, a day at Animal Kingdom is NOT a college course, nor it is a trip to a fundraising event. It is an entertainment experience and one that has, and must in this case, espouse a message that many of the animals you see are being endangered by human behavior. That's enough for a day at the theme park! It's more of a message than most people get doing most other activities. The author goes through the park's attractions one at a time and does his best to belittle each and every one.Let's take the attractions in turn, including the ones the author has seen fit to ignore: 1) It's Tough to be a Bug. This is without question the most delightful and involving of all of Disney's interactive 3D movies. The audience is EXCITED when they leave this attraction, and there's always a big crowd (which is unusual for a theater-type attraction in WDW--there are usually a considerable number of vacant seats). The author does not remark upon the clever songs, the wonderful animation, the near perfection of the 3D. No, he complains about getting a little water spritzed on him and getting tapped in the butt. 2) Kilimanjaro Safari: I have a young friend from San Diego who has gone to the world famous wild animal park there many times. When he saw Animal Kingdom's version of a safari ride, he could not believe how superior the Disney version was. The huge vista of Africa that you see on this ride is unsurpassed. How the writer of the article can claim that it is small and doesn't look like Africa is remarkable. He should watch some shows on Animal Planet so he understands just how MUCH the Disney version looks like the real thing. Also, on this ride you frequently see a lot of animals, and they are often quite close to you. MUCH closer than in most other wild animal parks. Do I find the interaction with the driver and the supposed interaction with other park ranger about Big Red and Little Red unnessary? Perhaps. I enjoyed it the first time, it annoyed me the second time, and now it doesn't bother me at all. Sometimes I listen, other times I just watch the animals. So what if they add a little Disney style drama to the end of the ride? Does that mean the ride is now so terrible that you don't want to take it again? Absurd. 3) Dinosaur: This ride has gone through several permutations with changes in speed and jerkiness. No one is going to argue that this ride is better than its cousin in Anaheim, the Indiana Jones Adventure. The Indy ride is one of the greats. Dinosaur is a fun ride, that's why there's always a line. People ride it and ride it again. The recreation of the full-size dinosaurs is remarkable and far more lifelike (if that can be said) than any others--and certainly a far cry better than the pathetic lot over at Jurassic Park in IOA. Depending on when you ride this attraction, you may find yourself in the dark for longer times than normal because when a dino is not functioning, they simply turn off all the lights in that area until he is repaired. I enjoy this ride and frankly wish everyone would stop comparing it to Indiana Jones. Just because you happen to know that it uses the same ride system, doesn't mean you need to spend all your time riding it wishing it was a different ride in a different city! 4) Kali River Rapids. There is no question that the first time you wait on line to ride this, and then discover how short it is, that you are going to be disappointed. Now, let's get past that first experience and assume that like most smart folks you're going to do this on a hot day and use Fast Pass. You don't wait on line, you know it's a short ride so you're not disappointed at how quickly it's over, and you also get soaked so you're not hot anymore. Again, here's a ride that always has a huge line. If it sucked that much, would people wait on line to ride it again and again? Now let's get to the other importat attractions in the park that the author ignores entirely: The Maharaja Jungle Trek and the Pangani Forest Exploration Trail. Both of these MUST be seen to fully appreciate the park and compliment the Kilimanjaro Safari ride. You see lots of animals on both of these and they are the equal of, if not better than, similar habitats in zoos. The park is a bit difficult to navigate, but then again it's not supposed to have a landing strip right down the middle like the other three parks. I think that Animal Kingdom is a triumph for Disney, but it does have a few problems that need to be addressed: 1) The place is a sweatbox. The hottest I have ever been at any park or themepark in my life was in Animal Kingdom. On every trip during the summer, this is always the hottest park. Really awful. 2) It needs more attractions. Dinoland is a lot of fun, and will give the kids more to do since they can't ride "Dinosaur." Beastly Kingdom will also be an important addition. I am not looking forward to the next two parts of this writer's experiences at Disney Parks. Frankly, I think he should stay home.
Originally Posted By Ilona47123 Although I appreciate all the trouble the auther went through in his analysis, I really don't agree with a lot of it. My kids and I especially like the Dinosaur ride at AK. Sure the poacher situation was a little hoaky but I found your article to be 99% negative throughout. When I go to WDW, it takes me away from the real world which it is supposed to do. I feel that the author seemed kind of close minded with his criticism but I appreciate the effort and look forward to upcoming reviews.
Originally Posted By King Stephan Actually, I liked CTX much better than Indy. Half of the props and scenics on the IJA look like they came from a carnival. Ooooh....I'm so afraid of giant fiberglass blacklight-painted snakes! What ever happened to the dead elephant at the end of the Kilamanjaro ride? All I saw when I went was a dimestore manaquin in a truck pointing a wooden carved rifle at some poor ride unloader who's turn it was to play the schmuck. So much for realism.
Originally Posted By tmonee11 I thought the article was well written and well thought out, and I enjoy all sides being written about at LP. Overall though, I do not agree. I think the Tree of Life is very impressive, and an excellent symbol for the park. It's Tough To Be a Bug has to have some of the highest guest satisfaction numbers at WDW. Every show I have seen at WDW, the audience just went crazy, and I heard very positive and excited remarks afterwords. Personally I love the attraction, and find nothing wrong with spraying a little water. I agree with being a bit underwelmed with CTX and especially Kali....but the Jungle Safarri is one of my top 5 favorite attractions at WDW. I think it alone makes a trip to AK worth the time and the money. Like all the domestic Disney parks built in the past 20 years, there is both excellence in some things, and other places that could have been better. I hope they continue to develop the theme and concept, and increase the attraction count in a positive way.
Originally Posted By TimothyC I've been to Animal Kingdom twice so far. First time was in September 2000, then again in April 2001. I come from a city with probably one of the best zoos in the country, the Columbus Zoo... not only because of its Jack Hannah affiliation, but also because of its commitment to never stop growing. I really like this zoo, but Animal Kingdom is far better as far as zoos go. They're similar in nature, both trying to blend styles of the countries to make the animals feel at home, but Animal Kingdom does that far better -- plus, it's much more relaxing to watch the animals at AK than at other zoos. I go to AK for the animals, mainly, just as I did for Discovery Island. The other attractions are secondary for me. My problems with AK: 1) The dragon on the logo and just about everywhere else in the park is rather out of place. If they went with their original plans and not tried to build a movie around Dinosaur, this dragon wouldn't stick out so much. But as of now, it's annoying to see that dragon up there for no apparent reason. 2) Dinosaur: I didn't find it as thrilling as it could've. Everything was much too predictable for me. It could've been much better if it was more roller coaster-like and less like a car going over bumpy roads. This one I always ride on first when there are no lines. 3) It is quite easy to get lost in the park, which is quite odd since the walking area is so small. First trip, we did the breakfast at Restrauntosaurus. A couple of CMs were there to let us in the park early and escort us to the restraunt. The only problem is that both CMs were new and had no idea where the restraunt was. Took us past the road that would lead us to the restraunt, which meant the big group needed to turn around after they asked another CM for directions. And then, later, we had to travel around the tree a few times to find the entrance to It's Tough To Be a Bug... which must be in some record book for longest queue. How many times do you travel around the tree, anyway? This isn't quite so bad when there's a line, but when there's no line, it's a long annoying hike. I have no complaints about It's Tough To Be A Bug. I love the show. It may use some of the same effects as Honey and Muppetvision does, but it does add many more to make it worth-while. Besides, it's not just about the effects, it's about the movie, too. Now, if only they'd release ALL of the songs playing in the lobby to their CDs and not just Beauty and the Bees. 4) Speaking of restraunts, there's a huge lack of great restraunts in AK. MGM and Epcot has some of the best table-service restraunts, but there are none *in* AK. Rainforest Cafe isn't a Disney restraunt or in the park, so where's the great table service Disney restraunt that Disney has become famous for? On the bright side, Flaming Tree does have some good BBQ... 5) Tarzan Rocks: Why is that in Dinoland USA? 6) The huge seating capacity for each row in Kilamanjaro Safaris does limit visibility for the people stuck in the middle. Other than that, I really have no problem with it. King's Island (before it became a Paramount park) used to have a similar attraction, except it was a monorail that went around animals roaming in the wild. And like Kilamanjaro, it had to stop every now and then to let animals pass over the tracks. But, Kilamanjaro adds more excitement, especially at times when a majority of the animals are sleeping. And, with its open-air vehicle, it's more personal, unlike KI's monorail system. 7) Can't disagree with everybody's thoughts on Conservation Station. I guess it's an interesting way to waste a few minutes... I have bad luck with it, though. Both times I've been to WDW, we've had pretty dry weather until the day we go to AK... as soon as I get off of that train, rain starts. The only thing really worth going there for is if you happen to catch them coming out with one of the animals for a talk about it. It's the only part that's anywhere near as interesting as a zoo should be. That and the few animals they have on display on your walk to CS. Overall, though, I really really like Animal Kingdom. It's not as rushed as some of the other parks get to be, for one thing, so it's a great place to be for a more relaxed park visit after spending a few days in the other parks. It's also one of the most visually interesting. Plus, I love those flying foxes they've got in the Asia section... best collection of bats I've seen yet. In defense of Jurassic Park at Islands of Adventure, I found the ride to be a lot better than Dinosaur. At least there was some actual excitement in the ride. And as far as the animatronics of the Dinos go, the ride may not have been the best, but be sure to go for the Triceratops walk-through. I've always have had a fascination with dinos, so even knowing it's an animatronic, the way they presented it: as a living, breathing, sneezing, peeing animal, I couldn't help but have a great since of awe... this trike is one of the greatest animatronics to ever be put in a theme park. While others may find it quite boring, I just looked at it in the zoo-like atmosphere it was set in and watched long enough that everybody else was complaining, wanting to go on. In the end, save for a real Jurassic Park actually opening, this is the closest to a living, breathing Dinosaur that we'll get... In addition, their welcome center is exactly what Conservation Station could've been: good interactive activities in a visually interesting building with plenty to do. And, no train is required for entrance. -Tim
Originally Posted By chipm My two cents. On the whole, i think the writer was spot on. I agree with all of his points. Kilimanjaro Safari was the strongest attraction ( when i visited a few years back) but i agree with him that nothing artificial should upstage the animals. Perhaps a good comparison is with Busch gardens 'Rhino rally' which is also rather cheeky. However i really got a sense there that the animals (Not just rhinos!) and the work they did there was the really important thing ( From what our guide was saying anyway..) And in no way does it encapsulate the awe inspiring vistas of the african continent. In a few square miles? I don't think so.. Its tough to be a bug. So what? I was expecting something really special inside that beautiful 'tree'. I got an enthusiastic yet done to death '4D' movie. Fun while it lasted.. but i think i forgot about it as soon as i left the park. Lots of trees. Good. I see trees i think of Jungle. I think of Jungle and i'm in the mood to see animals. Genius. Asia. i think it had Tigers and Monkeys? And bats? Fair enough. I remember it being a little heavy handed on the theming. 'You are now in ASIA' .I know..i can see all the deities and gaudy hand painted murals. But that rapids ride was awful. Plain awful. 'Don't go to INDIA!. You will get SOAKED! Logging is BAD! This journey will be SHORT!' Thanks Disney - i really learnt a lot there... Does Animal kingdom have shows? I remember something about The Lion King. On moving rock platform things?. Dinoland USA. Looked great on paper! Really promising. And WAS themed well ( Maybe thats changed now..?) I liked the kitsch desert dino hunter feel. Good. But Countdown to Extinction? Dull rubbish. What?! I've gone back in time?! I wouldn't know - it's sooo dark. And what's my motivation? I have to 'rescue' a dinosaur. Ok. What about the other Dinosaurs? Where's the T Rex? ( Have Universal copyrighted all the cool dinosaurs now? Joke) Dull and uninspired. And i'm not suprised they ripped off their own Indy ride. My time travel vehicle looked like an old jeep painted white. Oh it was? H G wells is spinning in his grave (And Walt in his Cryo Chamber) So it was very tacky and cheesy. Like a lot of the park. I don't have a problem with tacky and cheesy - but how much did that place cost?! And don't spout ecological rubbish at me whilst i'm sitting on a ton of machinery, and pumping equipment, spewing fire and water. With enough water to drown a small dog sloshing down my back, the last thing i care about is how bad logging is. But maybe i would if the point was made in an intelligent and considered way... And if they put Busch gardens out of business i will be very cross.....
Originally Posted By sir_cliff I mostly agree with Mooobooks on this one. The author's complaints about the park seemed a bit all over the place and I didn't feel that his suggestions would make AK any better than it currently is. For example, he complains about Rainforest Cafe outside the front gate and how in general this is meant to be a different type of park. Then complains that it doesn't have a traditional Disney theme park entrance with a big piece of eye candy straight in front of you as soon as you step through the gates. Personally I feel that The Oasis was the perfect 'portal' into the park as instead of stepping from a parking lot into a large street or plaza surrounded by shops and a giant whatever, you're taken through a quiet wilderness which effectively transports you from the outside world. This is just one aspect that sets a different tone for AK. I also felt his problems with the educational aspect were a little haphazard. He complains that they're not presenting very complex educational messages, complains that they're too heavy-handed with their environmental message, complains that they don't take their animals seriously on the safari, and complains that they don't balance fun and education well. I'm not sure how they'd ever satisy all these complaints at the same time! Then he suggests that they try and separate education and fun at the park which, quite frankly, would be destructive to the whole exercise. I don't believe that theme park attractions lend themselves particularly effectively to complex educational messages, but, as Ellen's Adventures In Energy at Epcot demonstrates, you can produce an attraction that is fun but is also mildly informative and this, I think, is the best you can really do in a theme park setting. As Mooo has said, the message that many of the animals the guests encounter are being endangered by human activities is really a strong enough message to clearly convey at a place like AK. I really didn't agree with many of his comments about the attractions at AK, and don't know anyone who's been to WDW who has voiced similar complaints. I do agree that Dinosaur isn't as good as IJA and the poacher storyline is a little hokey, but that's it. All in all, I think AK is just the kind of park people will either appreciate or not appreciate based on what they want from a Disney park. I'm not sure the author wants a 'different' theme park, but rather it seems to me that places like Epcot and AK which reach for a little more than pure entertainment are not his cup of tea. I don't agree that entertainment and education need to be segregated in a Disney theme park as the skill is in conveying a simply message while simultaneously entertaining them which Disney naturally attempts with varying degrees of success. At AK, I think they're really on the right track to presenting one of the most unique theme park experiences on the planet, but the author seems more pleased that Disney has "finally remembered what an amusement park is supposed to be like" with the un-ambitious Disney's California Adventure. As always, each to their own... Sir_Cliff
