Originally Posted By wtg2000 I think the entrance to AK is appropriate and that it is better having the weenie, the Tree of Life, and the main area hidden from view and mid-way into the park. It would be a bit of a shock to see this right out of the parking lot. I found walking through the trees helped me get acclimatized to the AK concept before being thrust in. The MK always had that sense of separation from reality by putting you on the monorail or ferry first. AK has no such built-in introduction so it replaced it with the Oasis.
Originally Posted By dastinson Actually I would tend to disagree with most of what he had to say in the article. Let's also put into perspective: 1) The Tree of Life itself as a monument is the big draw item of the gate area. The inlay of animal shapes was pretty much disregarded in the article to give a bum's rush to "It's Tough to be A Bug". 2) Budget constraints from higher ups prevented much of the real E-tickets from being built. Imagineering wanted them, but budget cutting prevented them. Beastly Kingdom, etc. 3) I do somewhat agree on Countdown to Extinction. Frankly the Indy ride itself would have matched the Asia section. Instead they tried to merge it with Knott's Berry Farms' Kingdom of the Dinosaurs and Universal's Jurassic Park:the Ride.
Originally Posted By wtg2000 The fundamental flaw of CTX is that it tries to combine an AA ride and a thrill ride. They seemed to spend a lot of money on the dinos, and they are pretty impressive. The problem is that to see them, you have to stop. They would lose their effectiveness whipping by them at full speed. Thus the ride is - zip through the dark at full speed, stop to see the dino, zip through the dark at full speed, stop to see...you get the point. It would have worked better as a slow dark ride, but then it would be too much like Universe of Energy. Indy got it very right (and so did TDS's Journey to the Center of the Earth) by not relying on big AAs and making the trip itself the main focus. Journey has one but it's used very effectively. I agree with the author that CTX has no sense of place unlike, for me, Indy and Journey. I also agree that Disney has exhausted the concept of 3-D shoot-water-at-the-audience films. As much as I like Bug, I find that when visiting WDW now I attend only one out of the three 3-D films to cut down on redundancy. At least at TDS's Stormrider they soak you for about 30 seconds. I mean, if you're going to shoot water at the audience, then shoot WATER at the audience.
Originally Posted By kkingnf Hi. Personally, I don't understand why this person has such a problem with this park. Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of these people with blinders thinking that everything Disney does is great. I thoroughly enjoyed this park when I visited it last year. From the theming to the rides to the animals, I think they did a great job.
Originally Posted By donkthemagicllama I'm still baffled by how much people complain about CTX! It's a great ride, my girlfriend and I both loved it, possibly moreso than Indy (in DLR, haven't been to TDS yet!). The theming seems better in my opinion.
Originally Posted By dennis-in-ct The definition of what is "good" is different for everyone. The author has a right to his feelings. I simply do not agree with him. From an emotional standpoint, Animal Kingdom projects strong emotional feelings for me while visiting the park. The next "emotionally charged" Disney park, for me, is a Magic Kingdom - be it DL, DLP or MK. Animal Kingdom truly transports me to a different "place and "time". I don't really care about how Dinosaur's the track layout differs from Indy's in CA, I care about how the park makes me FEEL. I feel like dancing when I am in Harambee. I feel a sense of community while having a drink at the Harambee bar area while watching the band play and guests dancing. That sense of community is very similar to DL's Carnation Court. I feel a sense of exploration and wonder as I spend half the day just on the Animal walking paths. I spent 20 min alone watching a gorilla trying to wear a bucket as a hat or the Tigers playing with their ball. I feel so relaxed at the water's edge by Flame Tree Barbecue. I feel awe while wandering the paths next to the Tree Of Life. I have many other examples that say the same thing but I won't go into them. The point is, Animal Kingdom oozes so much mood and atmosphere that my visits to the park are very emotionally fulfilling. Animal Kingdom was pure *magic* for me from the beginning. It is the best thing Disney has done perhaps with the exception of DisneySea which I see as a MK 2.0. I will comment on one thing the author said which is not true. He says: "If Disney toned down its green rhetoric and upped its real commitment to the environment by 1) doing something itself, and 2) telling its visitors how they could actually help, that would be a big step in the right direction." Well, if the author paid more attention to the "phenomenally boring Conservation Station" as he puts it - there are small exhibits along the path that show the guest how to create backyard animal friendly environments. I personally loved Conservation Station. It was like being in an episode of Animal Planet. Do you know what a quills feels like? What elephant hair feels like? I do, because I fully explored Conservation Station. I spent 10 min or so just watching the vets perform routine examines through the observation window. Very interesting for me. All the money for the "E-Tickets" went to the backstage area. Most of the budget was spent on caring for the Animals and the habitats. Hey, that's fine by me. I know, as the years go on, these parks develop. I look at what opened as a foundation only and BOY it is a GREAT foundation. The core concept is excellent. I am very appreciative this park was built and I admire how, for example, over 4 million plants were brought in... HELLO!? 4 million plants!!!!!!!! from Africa and you are complaining about 3-D movies?! I am amazed at how people fail to marvel at the masterpiece of a park. It is genius. The author appears to have a very different definition of what's "good" than I do. I think Animal Kingdom is the best thing they have done so far ... it is brilliant and will only continue to get better. It may not be your favorite place but show some respect for this exceptional work of human ingenuity and creativity. Next time, try allowing yourself to "feel" this place. You might be surprised or you may just want to run to Magic Kingdom where the "rides" are abundant. Animal Kingdom is not about rides. It is about emotions and atmosphere. When the "fantasy" section is built, Animal Kingdom will be that much more incredible.
Originally Posted By euroiswe ”marvel at the masterpiece of a park. It is genius...“ Dennis, it really is. AK is my favourite of all the parks. I have always felt relaxed there. TDS didn’t come anywhere close to the satisfaction of Animal Kingdom. Its a different experience to all the others, and superbly executed.
Originally Posted By dennis-in-ct Hi Euroiswe, <TDS didn’t come anywhere close to the satisfaction of Animal Kingdom> interesting... I hope to see Tokyo DisneySea one day. <Its a different experience to all the others, and superbly executed.> Are yoy referring to Animal Kingdom or DisneySea? I would love to hear your insights!
Originally Posted By euroiswe Hi Dennis, I was referring to AK. My feelings about TDS are that it is overdesigned to a degree of being uncomfortable and that my participation in the narratives on offer are very minimal. Animal Kingdom, Epcot and even DCA allow me to engage my brain without having my hand held.
Originally Posted By SJHYM Well here is my 3 cents on the AK and the article. I think Disney has a balancing act of being a theme park that charges $50.00 and being fun or becoming too preachy about the environment and the animals. Some of the things that Disney does or has done to promote the idea of wasting our natural resources include: 1) Disney will add $1.00 to your purchase to go to the Conservation fund. An active way for a guest to get involved in the message of AK and voluntary on your part. 2) When Kilimajaro Safari's was in previews, Big Red laid on the side of the road (after the geyser effects) and the driver said "Big Red is Down" and then the ride continued to catching the poachers and saving Little Red. Very effective in some way. Too effective. The park got tons of complaints about it and Big Red was moved and is now only injured. It was Michael Eisner who insisted on the poachers theme to move the story along and Big Red layed there until Eisner ok'ed her being moved out. 3. The Rainforest Cafe was chosen as the only full service restaurant because Disney like their Conservation message as well as not wanting to run a full service restaurant for themselves. I think the Rainforest goes will with the theme of the park. And it sure is better than waiting hours for a table in the Downtown Disney one. 4. The reason for the dragon is obviously in reference to Beastly Kingdom as part of the original plans. When it was cut and Camp Minnie and Mickey took its place (yucK) the logo stayed the same since the expectation was that Beastly Kingdom would be built. We wont count on that for the time being since it seems capital funding for all projects has been put on hold. 5. I agree that CTX is a poor mans Indy. I think it would be a better attraction if there werent so many dark areas. The story line is fair and some of the effects are good. I was sorry to see the name change. Countdown to Extinction at least had a Conservation tone to it and I feel that the who Dino area has been hurt with the expansion. We always loved the walk thru with the bones. And watching "Sue" being casted out of plaster. 6. We complain about the lack of theming at DCA. For all its short comings I feel that AK is a beautiful and well themed park. Go into any of the restrooms and see the details of tile that is used. Stop at any restaurant or shop and look at the intricate painting done. The Tree of Life is amazing when you really stop to look at it. 7. Asia - A great addition to tha park. How can you not love the bats and the tigers at the Jungle Trek? Kali River Rapid was an opportunity lost for Disney, Its a fair raft ride with a less than fair story telling. Disney who knows how to tell story should have been able to tell the story of deforestation better in the queue and on the ride. ANimal Kingdom is not my favorite park. But on the whole I find it to be a rewarding and wonderful place. You really need to take the time to do it and see it fully. I guess people will disagree with its environmental heavy/light handedness but on the whole it does a good juggling act.
Originally Posted By Tannerman Great article. I agree regarding the educational/entertainment value/problem with AK. Personally, I feel that AK is to preachy. I do what I can to support environmental care, but I don't really care for the 'new agy' stuff that Disney has been jamming down the throats of customers of late (especially at AK). The Safari problems noted (do we really need a storyline) were dead on. And the Raft Ride... what a mess. Too short, and no really point to riding from a story standpoint. Thanks for sharing the article.
Originally Posted By aquamoptop SJHYM said: "6. We complain about the lack of theming at DCA. For all its short comings I feel that AK is a beautiful and well themed park. Go into any of the restrooms and see the details of tile that is used. Stop at any restaurant or shop and look at the intricate painting done. The Tree of Life is amazing when you really stop to look at it." !!!!!WELL SAID!!!!! I want to know, Did the author of this article see The Festival of the Lion King or Tarzan Rocks. He didnt mention them at all. I have to say that those two shows are wonderfully creative energetic shows that along with Tough to be a Bug and Kilimanjaro carry the park for me. I find it very incomprehensible that someone could look at the tree of Life and NOT feel inspired by it. I am not a fan of Dinosaur because it is too rough for me but i do agree that it is not as visually stunning as Indy. I love kilimanjaro as well but i sometimes do think that it could do without the poacher ending. but it doesnt take from the experience from me so i could take it or leave it!!! I think the Oasis is wonderful and i think that Rainforest cafe is perfect where it is!!!
Originally Posted By gmaletic Thanks to everyone that felt the need to post a comment, both positively and negatively! I'm glad that people found the review interesting enough to want to make a statement about it. I'm not surprised about the reaction, though the number of posts is more than I anticipated. Most articles about Disney parks on the Internet tend to be pretty positive on Disney, so I expected that writing something negative would rub some people the wrong way. (And that's not to say that those people who are rubbed the wrong way are incorrect!) What I'm really trying to get across with the review--and its two follow-ups--is that it's not just the "how well was it done?" question that's important when assessing the success of a park. No doubt, Animal Kingdom is well done: it's completely beautiful, and the theming and technology behind it are amazing. What I really want to answer is "why did Disney choose to build this park rather than a different one?" "What was it trying to achieve in building it?" And, most importantly, "does the park deliver on its promise?" I'm giving a little preview of the articles to come, but one of the key considerations in whether I find a park successful or not is whether it achieves its mission. Magic Kingdom succeeds admirably because its mission is to be fun and heart-warming, and it is. Animal Kingdom tries to be entertaining and educational, and for me, it missed the boat on both counts. That's not to say that parks shouldn't aim higher than simply being fun, or that there couldn't be a fantastic educational park--I hope someone will build one someday--but I don't think that Animal Kingdom is it. There were also a few comments by people implying that I left out the good parts of the park in order to force the review to have an overall negative tone. I can tell you that that is absolutely not the case: believe me, nobody wanted to enjoy Animal Kingdom more than I did. I just didn't. The only reason that I would possibly leave something out would be because it didn't make a meaningful impression on me, good or bad. A note of warning: the two follow-up articles, although they contain some praise for Disney, have their share of negativity as well. The impetus for these articles wasn't that I hate Disney--I can assure you that the Disney parks mean as much to me as they do to anyone--but just that there are some things that bother me that I'd like to see addressed. Most online discussions center around debates like "XYZ attraction needed more animatronics!" or "XYZ area of the park was filthy!" Those are completely valid concerns, but I wanted to focus more on -if- Disney is doing the right things rather than -how- it's doing them. I promise that if I'm invited back to write more articles on LaughingPlace, I'll take some time to address what I love about Disney so I can project a little more balance into what I think overall.
Originally Posted By wtg2000 I found your article to be fine balance-wise, considering the approach you were taking. The same criticisms were levelled against EPCOT in many books that I have read. Corporations will save us all, technology is the answer. Apparently even Eisner disliked these themes when he inherited the company (so to speak) and he set about changing them. Hence the demise of Horizons and World of Motion. Personally, I never noticed them. I guess we have to ask ourselves what we want our theme parks to say to us. I visited Tokyo DisnySea recently (easily my favourite park on the planet) and what did it say to me?: well, nothing actually, except maybe WOW. Did it need to say anything? The reasons for building AK are probably many fold as pointed out: Busch Gardens, the success of The Lion King, Disney's historical use of animals in films, etc. Whether Disney truly wishes to promote a message, or simply feels compelled to do so is an interesting question. Certainly the Studio doesn't have a message, nor does World Showcase (other than look at all the trinkets we can make!) While I enjoyed the article, and always appreciate attempts to disect pop culture, sometimes a stink bug is just a stink bug!
Originally Posted By BradleyJ "Most articles about Disney parks on the Internet tend to be pretty positive on Disney" What internet have you been reading?
Originally Posted By Doobie I think on the whole this is the case. There are a few sites that get a lot of the attention, but if you look at the Internet as a whole, I think most sites and articles (using the term article loosly) are very positive and upbeat, as they should be - it's Disney! Of what I'm guessing are the 5 most well-known Disneyland-heavy sites (LaughingPlace, MousePlanet, DCACentral, MouseInfo and Yesterland), the vast majority of the articles you'll find on these sites are positive. Doobie. Doobie.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 One point of this article that I really agree with is his dissapointment of "Tough to Be a Bug" being in the Tree of Life. From the very beginning I could never understand why they didn't try for a "Spaceship Earth" with the Tree of Life instead of a comedy show. Don't get me wrong, I really like the Bug show, but I think it should have gone elswhere in the park, and the Tree of Life should have been designed as the entrance to a lavish Disney dark ride - with a theme that tied the whole park together. (Perhaps a history of nature and the animal world, with a conservation message at the end.) I think Disney really missed out on an opportunity to create something really meaningful to go along with that beautiful Tree.
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>Coming Up: Next Week: Fixing Future World: General Motor’s TestTrack attraction points the way towards making Epcot a substantially better park Two Weeks: Disney Returns to its Roots: Yes, Disney's California Adventure could be better. But Disneyland's newest park and Tokyo DisneySea illustrate that Walt Disney Imagineering has finally remembered what an amusement park is supposed to be like.<< Pretty much sums up his mindset at the end. This guy is a curmudgeon and a hack, and misses the point: the PARK is the attraction. He also misses the evident, painstaking THEME of discovery that is replete throughout DAK. It's a different place... no weenies... there are TRAILS instead, leading to nowhere, leading to wonderful little "moments". It's a real PARK in that sense, which is quite an accomplishment beyond something more artificial. Other than his observation that CTX is crippled by many problems, and leaves you in the dark for half the ride, he is clearly, almost completely in some other park mindset... this place is lost and wasted on his sensibilities. Besides that, it would be really nice if guest contributors checked their grammar... it's very frustrating to read things like "must have of" in the first or second paragraph. ANIMAL KINGDOM has the potential to become an amazing park, and is on its way, though years will have to bring this to pass. There is so much land there, and Dinorama SCREAMS temporary (maybe a decade)-- it's a bookmark for something better in better times. Spectacular stuff is definitely ahead, and by the way, Mr. Guest Columnist, Disney HAS BEEN "doing something" more progressive re: the environment, from day one with this park. Or did you miss the educational brochures and opportunities to participate in and contribute to the Disney Conservation Society? I'm glad Laughingplace entertains a variety of viewpoints. That's the American way. But this guy, what a malcontent. Once again, Animal Kingdom's abandoning of "the weenie" was intentional. This is a park about discovery, about surprise... the PARK IS THE ATTRACTION. And I for one am grateful that Disney took a risky left turn on this one. It's easily their most beautiful park, and in years to come, will rival their very best. Why look to DISNEYSEA when the infrastructure is at DAK already for a similarly inventive and spectacular showplace? The days of "instant grandslams" are over. Disney's last was in 1982 (EPCOT Center) and that investment almost bankrupted the company. What's sad is, they could indeed afford for the grandslam now, but the pennypinchers are preventing it with "get away with as little as possible-ism". Let's hope the next few years brings a change of management and a redirection of vital resources and reinvestment. Then, they might put in something Big and Fast and Noisy in DAK, and the park might even satisfy our Guest Columnist at that point...
Originally Posted By kennect Damn a major dark ride housed inside the Tree of Life? Actually your idea to me sounds great...Consider me short sided and just agreeing to what we get when we show up at the park...I love AK personally..There is so much detail lavished on things the public never sees as a general rule(one special area is the seating behind the now seasonal Flame Tree BBQ)...What bothers me more than the so called preachy bit is the idea of why did Disney ever think they wanted to get into the zoo business...First this park and then the AKL...I love both but I am still left confused as to why they agreed to either happening....Don't get me wrong as I say this since AK is my favorite park for the moment...I just fear they possibly won't support it down the road and that would be very sad to hear....
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I think that stopping people from going to Bush Gardens was the main incentive behind DAK. But with a few exceptions AK is the best and most natural "Zoo" I have ever seen. Done up Disney, as I say a lot. Looked at for what it is, it remains excellent.
