Originally Posted By SJHYM If Disney wants to help DAK out I would suggest: 1) Build Beastly Kingdom with a killer coaster 2) Use its obvious relationship with China and get several Pandas for the Asia section. I think these 2 things would make DAK more of a must see
Originally Posted By aquamoptop goofyernmost I agree with you. i think that although it is lacking in the attraction department it is the most beautiful "zoo" that i have ever been in. I worked at the Columbus Zoo for a year and i loved it but you cant beat the fact that you can drive around the safari and you never know whats going to happen. So many cool things have hsappened on that ride when i am on it. I also love the fact that there are a lot of room for the animals to move around. for that i am in awe because even at the Columbus Zoo i hated the way they kept the animals in such a closed in area. Thats why the part of this article that gets me is the author saying that the Savannah was small. i dont think the author has been to many zoos. I love AK sooo much and i wish that some people could see it for what it has and not what it doesnt have. yes it is a glorified Zoo but what is sooo wrong with that. I am happy to see Disney getting into conservation. Hey, maybe it will take a much loved company (like disney) and a much visited resort (like WDW)to get thru to people how important animals are in the world!!!! If you can entertain people and teach them about animals then you should. I think thats the point of AK and i think it does a good job. One thing is, its a baby park still and it will grow and become better. I HOPE!!!!
Originally Posted By imtigger2 I can't believe the overall negative tone this author has. It's unbelieveable. It appears that you don't enjoy animals OR "zoos" (or much to do with the Disney company). AK is what it is and I can respect your 'personal' opinion of this park, but personally, I'm glad I didn't go with you. You would have been a real drag to be with. The whole point is to have fun. How can you NOT have fun on the safari (unless you're sitting there picking it apart as you go along), TTBAB or even Dinosours!? You need to review restaurants, not theme parks. Out of an entire audience of people at TTBAB, there will maybe a handful people who aren't laughing or smiling (maybe they were scared?)... I guess you're in that group. Maybe it was your obsession with sprayed water that prevented you from relaxing and enjoying it? Take your frown, turn it upside-down, and enjoy the park for the fantasy that it is. To compare it to a 'standard' "Zoo" is like comparing a Busch Gardens off-the-shelf roller coaster to a well themed attraction like Indiana Jones. AK is beautiful, well laid out, has a variety of attractions, absolutely incredible building design (including that "cement" tree as you called it), beautiful landscaping and wonderful walking paths. There's something there that can appeal to everyone in the family, regardless whether you're into animals or not. Well, as I always say... you're one less person in front of me while I'm waiting in line. DB
Originally Posted By BuzzLightyear84 "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." While in theory this sounds like a good idea, any Audio Animatronic based attraction based on real animals would be doomed to poor comparison to the real animals and landscape displayed on Kilamanjaro Safaris. In that case, I think Disney made a wise decision with the tree. Concerning the guest column, certainlly the author is entitled to his opinion, but I think that most of his complaints where just nit-picking. The only major complaints I can think of are that it does appeared to be obsessed with concervation at times, the lack of air conditioning, and Concervation Station. (I still haven't bothered riding Kali yet, so I won't give a distinction either way.) Other than that, I find the park very enjoyable. Animal Kingodm is a great park. Although it has few attractions, it really doesn't feel like it if you know where to look. For example, there are a number of animal exhibits in the Oasis and all around the Tree of Life that most people miss by rushing around from one attraction to the next. Not everything Disney does has to be the Magic Kingdom.
Originally Posted By splash mtn fan How bad/good is CTX/Dinosaur. I have been to IJA, and I was impressed with it. The "storyline" for Dinosaur doesn't sound that good though.
Originally Posted By jodilt Why does this guy go to Disney World? Stop analyzing everything and just have fun! That's the point.
Originally Posted By tmonee11 I think that CTX would be have been better received if Indy did not exist. Using the same track lay out and same ride vehicles set up expectations that were not close to being met, IMHO.
Originally Posted By imtigger2 Jodilt... I agree! I can just imagine people like him walking around with a pencil and notepad in-hand just LOOKING for something to write about. After all, if the entire column was about how great everything was, it might not be that interesting! It seemed to me that the author tried to find the worse of the best, and by tying those "worse-case" details to previous experiences and to stories and opinions of his friends (or others), it seemed to me that his quest, or search for failure in the parks, may be a small obsession. However, I know I have to accept the bad with the good. Not everyone is going to have a good experience at any given Disney theme park. Some people just don't know how to have fun I suppose. It's like with DCA, my favorite saying is, ".. hey, it's better than a parking lot!..". True, so true. When you go to AK, stop for a minute... to smell the roses. They really are beautiful and very well kept. DB
Originally Posted By chipm "Stop analyzing everything and just have fun! That's the point." And my point is start analyzing everything and just have fun. I am not a moron, i am hungry for knowledge, and i have opinions. I pay my money and takes my choice. I am a consumer and Disney is the supplier. Disney sell 'Magic'. That fascinates me, as it fascinates many people who feel compelled to 'look behind the curtain'. I loved Disney as a boy. I studied Disney at University. I am now a designer of theme park attractions. I still love Disney but i must know what makes it tick. The machinations behind the facade are just as magical to me as the facade itself. Disney inspires entertains and sometimes overwhelms me. But if i am not satisfied by something, if i feel let down or short changed, if i think that the company, the theme park , the experiences that i know and love no longer meet my expectations then i will say so. Thats my take on things.
Originally Posted By dennis-in-ct <Thats my take on things.> so, SPEAK UP man! I didn't see a post from you. What do you think of AK? I posted my feelings on the article in post #26 of this thread.
Originally Posted By aquamoptop Buzzlightyear84 said: >>While in theory this sounds like a good idea, any Audio Animatronic based attraction based on real animals would be doomed to poor comparison to the real animals and landscape displayed on Kilamanjaro Safaris. In that case, I think Disney made a wise decision with the tree.<< And they made that point when they were opening the park and describing why they put ITTBAB in the tree. I read in the CM mag EyesNEars that the point to Bug being in the base of the Treeof Life was thatif you looked at the tree you would realize that the animals are carved based on where they are on the "food chain" <- I know theres a better word but it escapes me right now. I beleive it starts with mammals and gradually ends with insects. Anyway they wanted something in there that would accentuate the trees carvings and what better than the creatures that actually live under and within Trees...BUGS. Thats the point and i think Well executed and received. Some people are just critical without thinking about what kind of message the creators are trying to give. I personally dont wee why anyone would want Carbon Copys of all the other parks. Does there have to be a Dark ride in every park icon. If the company had that attitude we would have full service restaurants in all the icons. Via Cinderela castle. Or we can go further back and have Walk thrus Via Sleeping beauty in Cali. By the way, when you exit ITTBAB go left and follow the trail along the tree there is a animal there that I love. its called a Capybara the worlds largest rodent. They are sooo cool.
Originally Posted By imtigger2 aqua... I agree. I think it's VERY well placed and themed. I'll never forget my first time walking into AK. Sure the entrance was a little confusing, only because I was used to Walt's "Main Street" formula (gift shops and hub) to help guide me. But I found that walking through this serene, peaceful path really put me in the mood, and I anticipated the rest of the park being the same. Then, as we (my wife and I) started over the bridge, we saw the top of the Tree. About halfway over the bridge, we both just stopped and stared. It was the largest, most beautiful tree I'd ever seen. Getting closer just made it that much better. All those beautiful carvings (ok, sculptures), the beautiful lush green plants surrounding it, the little animals at the base. Then, to top it all off, there was this incredibly fun new show, ITTBAB. It blew me away! It still does! I don't mean to "bag" on the author, he's entitled to his opinons as I am mine, but Laughing Place decided to give him a public forum to express his opinions and therefore, the public gets the opportunity to accept his opinons... or not. I choose not. In my opinion, people like him have been to the parks WAY too many times, and they don't realize it, but they're just plain old 'bored' with the parks. Been there, done that. He made that obvious with his opinions about Disney using "standard" effects, quote; "Not surprisingly, the now-standard "spraying of water" occurred"... To me, spraying water adds a little 'shock' to the experience. These parks are in FLA. where it's HOT and humid, a little water isn't going to hurt anyone. Maybe just irritate people with glasses and cameras. As well, the entire article was VERY negative. There's a "recovery" post by the author explaining 'why' there's a negative overtone and making excuses for it... but I don't buy it. His intent from the beginning was to find fault with how Disney created AK (as well as references to other parks and attractions). What else could we expect from an article titled; "What Went Wrong with Disney's Zoo" ? It speaks volumes. DB 8)
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "I personally dont wee why anyone would want Carbon Copys of all the other parks. Does there have to be a Dark ride in every park icon." Did I ever say I wanted this ride to be a Carbon Copy -- or that all Icons must have a Dark Ride?? No - all I'm saying is that I think that having one Disney style dark ride in the AK would have been a good idea - and I think the Tree would have been a good place for it. I already said I like Bugs. I just think it should be elsewhere. "Some people are just critical without thinking about what kind of message the creators are trying to give." I certainly wasn't being critical without thinking - I've actually thought about it a great deal. And I am well aware of what the creators were trying to convey. (Even though I had heard that they were originally going to have a Lion King show in the Tree, but changed there minds so they could have an attraction based on the new movie coming out that year.) I just feel that such a great "weenie" as the Tree of Life should have been used for a different type of attraction, and Bugs should have gone elsewhere in the park. I'm not making personal attacks against AK - I'm just giving an opinion. You may not share my opinion, but I'm certainly not "whining" for no good reason.
Originally Posted By wtg2000 >"Not surprisingly, the now-standard "spraying of water" occurred"... To me, spraying water adds a little 'shock' to the experience. How much of a shock is it when it happens in every 3-D movie? Was anyone really shocked when they got sprayed with water at Bug? The author's point is valid. How many water-spraying 3-D movies until enough is enough? Disney likes to repeat itself. They made Star Tours. Fine. Then they came out with a clone - Body - while Universal was uping the ante with BackttFuture. Disney did 4-D Muppets. Then repeated with Honey while Universal uped the ante (way up) with T2 3-D. Then Disney repeated itself again with Bug while Universal went into crazy 3-D mode with Spidey. I'm not usually a Universal supporter but at least they don't dip into the same well over and over. Someone said that the author had obviously been to the parks too often. "Been there, done that." Well that's they way I felt, and I assume he did as well, while sitting through another water-spraying 3-D movie. I hope that is the last of them. Please give us something else.
Originally Posted By greentreez21 sorry, but DAK is probably my favorite Disney park - there is more to life than thrill-a-minute rides & attractions - I just like finding a quiet spot in the oasis or near the tree of life and letting go of some of the chaos - I feel the environmental message is presented so strongly in order to make people think a little bit - not everyone is aware of the fragility of the world, and if thinking begets action, then great!
Originally Posted By imtigger2 wtg200 - I see your point and if you're using Universal as an example of what is possible using 3-D technology and 'other' feedback, you really got me there. I think Spiderman is better than ANY "thrill" attraction Disney has EVER built. T2 is right up there as well, no doubt. When I say "shock", I don't mean a totally "shocking" experience, just that it's a way to experience 'feedback' in the attraction, in which there's very few ways to do that in a dark, movie-type setting. You can poke people, blow air at them, squirt water, have movement or create smells. All of them are great ways to get the audience 'into' the picture. I think "bug" does all of this very well. You can't tell me the entire show is crap just because they used a "standard" squirting of water effect, and that's what the original author was trying to tell us (as I interpreted it). As well, I really don't feel the water was gratuitous, it's a nice joke... it's "Acid" ("... ooohhh, I hope none of you is alergic to ACID.."). It's a funny gag! The "shock" value? It makes people jump, scream and laugh... and WHAT is wrong with that. Watch the audience next time and you'll see what I mean. It's plain 'ol havin' fun, that's all. Sure you can go to the extreme like with the spectacular T2 and Spidey, but unlike those two, this film is more family oriented. With Spidey you have the jerking around, with T2, it's incredibly loud and violent ((all the shooting) and personally, I LOVE both of those attractions). Bug works great the way it is, where it is... in a family park. As for the water effect getting old and used up, the only place I can see that is Muppetvision. HISTA's water effect is GREAT. Because it's a puppy's sneeze, it grosses everyone out! Personally, I think it's very effective. Same thing with Alien Encounter, it's "blood and guts", not water. Slimey, yet satisfying. Different strokes for two very different parks. Peace. DB
Originally Posted By chipm To be fair, both Spiderman and T2 -3D use the old water squirter groaner. I kinda get resigned to the fact that someones gonna soak me somehow every time i go to Florida... But wtg2000 is right ( and i'm always saying this..) Universal are pushing the limits with these rides. My Mum came out of T2 last month and said ' Well, thats just the best..' I just can't help but think that Disney are playing catch up with it's new attractions, especially in Animal Kingdom ( And i'm not talking about the animal safari element) Is there anything truly innovative, awe inspiring and breathtaking about Kali river rapids, It's tough to be a bug or Dinosaur? 'Cos i get that deja vu feeling that i've seen it all before.....
Originally Posted By bwanabob Well...I read the article and finally made it through all of your well-thought out comments. Here's my 2-cents: -People have different reasons for going to theme parks and it's not wrong for Disney to try to appeal to others besides thrill-seekers and those who want to go on rides. I love Disney parks for the theming and magical feeling. I enjoy rides, attractions and shows. I love a Disney park if it can appeal to the whole family...some rides at all the parks don't do that...I think AK is one of the most successful Disney parks in creating an atmosphere that an entire family can enjoy together. The author states that Disney parks aren't about beauty, but if you are entertained. Why can't you be entertained by beauty? I'm in awe of the beauty of the park and truly enjoy (am entertained by) the experience of exploring AK. It is a "theme" park after all...not a "ride" park. -His criticism of the park layout is not new...others have complained about it, which is why there are now signs throughout the Oasis pointing people to attractions. My question is: haven't you ever heard of a guide map? The first thing I do when I get to a park is get a map and survey the layout...of course you will be confused if you don't even know where you are going. I love the Oasis...it's beautiful and provides for interesting hidden spaces to discover and enjoy. -Kilimanjaro Safari. I agree that the Big Red/Little Red stuff is pretty cheesy, but it doesn't detract from the point of the safari, which is seeing animals. His comment that the savannah is not vast enough really surprised me...I guess my view of Africa is not the same as his (neither one of us has actually been there probably)...I wouldn't expect to see hundreds of animals everywhere I looked on the vast plains of Africa. I think of Africa as being just that...vast...there would be groups of animals, but not everywhere. Has the author been to Busch Gardens? I went there for the first time on my last trip and was struck by how small their savannah is in comparison to AK's. I felt bad for the animals at Busch Gardens...I think the safari is very well done at AK...one of their best ride efforts ever. -Tough to be a Bug is a great attraction. I've probably seen it 10 times. One of the reasons I see it over and over is that I love to hear and see the reactions that first-time viewers have. They love it! It's very well done. I think plpeters idea of a dark ride is a good one and could have been pulled off, but I don't see anything wrong with the placement of ITTBaB there. -His criticism of Disney for the way they try to promote environmental education is a little flawed. He says Disney should tell us how we can make a difference at home...don't buy things from certain corporations that aren't environmentally friendly...well, that could mean telling AK visitors not to purchase products from the very corporations that sponsor attractions at Epcot. I think the extent of Disney's enviro education should be to make people more aware of the environment and inspire them to find out more on how they can make a difference on their own. I don't think it's overly preachy at all. Finally, I do agree about his comments regarding Conservation Station. I think it could be much more than what it is...perhaps I always hit it at an off time, but there doesn't seem to be too much going on there and I'm always frustrated that I went out there. All in all, I love AK. It's one of Disney's most beautiful theme parks. I'm glad they built it and I will continue to visit it and encourage others to do the same. I appreciate the author's opinion, but overall I greatly disagree.
Originally Posted By andeeor2 The writer is unbearably negative. Can he not understand that the premise behind Disney rides is that most of them have back story. Hence, the storyline for Kali River Rapids, and Kilomanjaro Safaris. Yes, seeing the animals is enough, however, Disney has conditioned their guests to expect the backstory to go along with the rides. As far as Dinosaur is concerned, I feel that is well thoughtout, and produced. Must be why that is the 1st ride we go on upon entering the park, and why we keep riding it. No mention at all was made about the wonderful "Festival of the Lion King". He could have found nothing negative about it...perhaps this is why it was not mentioned? As for the stand that Disney is taking in Environmentality, they ride that fine line between what their true beliefs are, and alienating some of their guests. They must be careful, in that respect! We thoroughly enjoy DAK for everything it has to offer, and while we do wish that it would incorporate a land of thrill rides, we are not disappointed with it beginning. We find it to be the most relaxed park in the WDW family of parks, and we can find enough to see and do, to stay there all day. Make sure to not miss the Jammin Jungle Parade... it is great FUN!!!
