This is based on comments in this thread: http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showthread.php?p=4446328#post4446328
Many Disney guests complain that Animal Kingdom doesn't have enough to do. They see it only as a handful of rides—E:E, Dinosaur, KRR, and the Safari—plus some shows, and consider the place to be a half-day park. The Disney fan community regularly talks about how the park needs Beastly Kingdomme to compensate for its lack of attractions; and we know part of the reason the Disco Yeti hasn't been fixed is that the park cannot sustain closing one of its few headliners.
DAK's supporters retort that the park actually has several walking trails and animal exhibits, and that it isn't supposed to be about "rides." They insist Animal Kingdom is supposed to be about enjoying the natural world, and the real star of the park is Kilimanjaro Safaris, not Expedition Everest.
But I wonder if the safari itself represents the park's problem? In an effort to distinguish itself from a "zoo," DAK has placed the majority of its headliner creatures on a ride. The only way to see a lion or elephant is to stand in line, load onto a vehicle that often blocks your view, and follow a predetermined ride path that rarely pauses long enough to actually observe and enjoy the animals. Then there's the ridiculous Simba-1 storyline about poachers that is silly the first time, and absolutely unbearable on subsequent trips.
At the same time Disney insists DAK is "Naht-a-Zu" and encourages guests to experience the animals in a perfect recreation of their natural habitats, they have limited the experience to what you can get from a ride.
But I'm not trying to demonize the safari. As someone who has been to Africa, I can confirm KS is extremely authentic. Plus, unlike the walking trails in Africa and Asia, KS actually attracts guests, many of which would rather sit down than continue walking through the massive theme park. Maharajah Jungle Trek offers fantastic observational areas for tigers, but a relatively small percentage of the park's daily attendance is willing to plod back there. Yet I suspect the walking paths would be much more popular if they were distributed throughout the park instead of flung into the furthest corners.
So here are the questions: would you accept DAK's current situation if you could both ride the safari and observe the same animals in highly realistic exhibits like Pangini Forest Trail? Would you feel that DAK had more to offer if the majority of its animals weren't contained within one ride? I'm not asking anyone to give up KS in our theoretical discussion; it's the one attraction that sets DAK apart from every other theme park. But if the animals were also spread throughout Africa and you could observe them on your own, would DAK seem to have enough to justify closing EE for repairs, or would you probably just walk briskly past the animal exhibits while looking for the next ride?
FWIW, my solution would be to keep the Safari and add both animal exhibits and a form of Beastly Kingdomme; but that's probably just the fanboy in me. :lol:
Many Disney guests complain that Animal Kingdom doesn't have enough to do. They see it only as a handful of rides—E:E, Dinosaur, KRR, and the Safari—plus some shows, and consider the place to be a half-day park. The Disney fan community regularly talks about how the park needs Beastly Kingdomme to compensate for its lack of attractions; and we know part of the reason the Disco Yeti hasn't been fixed is that the park cannot sustain closing one of its few headliners.
DAK's supporters retort that the park actually has several walking trails and animal exhibits, and that it isn't supposed to be about "rides." They insist Animal Kingdom is supposed to be about enjoying the natural world, and the real star of the park is Kilimanjaro Safaris, not Expedition Everest.
But I wonder if the safari itself represents the park's problem? In an effort to distinguish itself from a "zoo," DAK has placed the majority of its headliner creatures on a ride. The only way to see a lion or elephant is to stand in line, load onto a vehicle that often blocks your view, and follow a predetermined ride path that rarely pauses long enough to actually observe and enjoy the animals. Then there's the ridiculous Simba-1 storyline about poachers that is silly the first time, and absolutely unbearable on subsequent trips.
At the same time Disney insists DAK is "Naht-a-Zu" and encourages guests to experience the animals in a perfect recreation of their natural habitats, they have limited the experience to what you can get from a ride.
But I'm not trying to demonize the safari. As someone who has been to Africa, I can confirm KS is extremely authentic. Plus, unlike the walking trails in Africa and Asia, KS actually attracts guests, many of which would rather sit down than continue walking through the massive theme park. Maharajah Jungle Trek offers fantastic observational areas for tigers, but a relatively small percentage of the park's daily attendance is willing to plod back there. Yet I suspect the walking paths would be much more popular if they were distributed throughout the park instead of flung into the furthest corners.
So here are the questions: would you accept DAK's current situation if you could both ride the safari and observe the same animals in highly realistic exhibits like Pangini Forest Trail? Would you feel that DAK had more to offer if the majority of its animals weren't contained within one ride? I'm not asking anyone to give up KS in our theoretical discussion; it's the one attraction that sets DAK apart from every other theme park. But if the animals were also spread throughout Africa and you could observe them on your own, would DAK seem to have enough to justify closing EE for repairs, or would you probably just walk briskly past the animal exhibits while looking for the next ride?
FWIW, my solution would be to keep the Safari and add both animal exhibits and a form of Beastly Kingdomme; but that's probably just the fanboy in me. :lol:
