Rumor New ride coming to Animal Kingdom. D23 announcement expected.

Mike S

Mike S

Well-Known Member
I don’t get what’s so hard about waiting until your kids are tall enough for most of the rides before going. As an added bonus once they’re tall enough for most of the rides maybe they’ll be at the age where they don’t care about meeting costumed characters so no waiting in line to meet underpaid college students and you just do the good stuff ;)
 
TrainsOfDisney

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
Mike S said:
don’t get what’s so hard about waiting until your kids are tall enough for most of the rides before going.
Click to expand...

And I don’t get what’s so hard about understanding the concept that some guests enjoy non-thrilling attractions.

In the case of studios, i don’t think there is a single ride that my mom can go on. Maybe Mickey’s ride when it opens if it doesn’t spin.

We love to go see the few citizens of Hollywood that are left, and of course muppets and beauty and the beast are great.
 
Mike S

Mike S

Well-Known Member
TrainChasers said:
And I don’t get what’s so hard about understanding the concept that some guests enjoy non-thrilling attractions.

In the case of studios, i don’t think there is a single ride that my mom can go on. Maybe Mickey’s ride when it opens if it doesn’t spin.

We love to go see the few citizens of Hollywood that are left, and of course muppets and beauty and the beast are great.
Click to expand...
Didn’t say anything about that. Just said why bring someone when they physically can’t enjoy most of the rides. Wait until they can.

Cheaper in the long run too.
 
BlakeW39

BlakeW39

Well-Known Member
doctornick said:
It's always interested to "peel back the curtain" and learn more about failed plans, but those seem like very of choices - assuming that FoP or its equivalent was also always planned. What DAK really has needed is indoor, low thrill, family rides. FoP is great and I'm sure that an outdoor bike coaster would have been cool, but they wouldn't be complimentary to what the park already has. An indoor rapids ride would have been particularly odd given the presence of another rapids ride already in the park - but a D-ticket version of NRJ which would be longer and with more show elements would have been a perfect fit.

I honestly don't quite get what WDI is thinking sometimes. It's not clear that there is a good connection between Ops and development.
Click to expand...
DoleWhipDrea said:
I’ve thought about this a lot since I made the move to Orlando and got my AP. In Magic Kingdom it’s more balanced, but in the other parks it’s a mad rush to jump from thrill ride to thrill ride. It’s exhausting, and I can’t help but wonder how much those that aren’t fit to ride (health, age, height requirements or otherwise) actually get to enjoy. The list of attractions really start to whittle down. A gentle attraction that all could ride is almost always replaced with a thrill ride. There needs to be more balance.
Click to expand...

That's because they underbuilt both DHS and DAK, basically tore EPCOT down, and failed to invest properly for decades. And so the parks are lopsided because went "oh crap the parks! We forgor about these, quick built an E!" without any real tact. They build criminally underbuild Na'Vi.

Granted, DAK is closest to MK for sure due to animals and other non-ride entertainment, as well as one of Disney's greatest attractions which happens to be passive and long - Kili Safari.
 
phillip9698

phillip9698

Well-Known Member
TrainChasers said:
Right. So that’s not a ride for the entire family like pirates, haunted mansion, Navi River etc. that’s my point. (Nothing at all wrong with thrill rides.. just a billion dollar land should have an attraction for everyone, even if it’s a show or something like that).
Click to expand...

Just because something has a height requirement doesn't mean it's thrilling. It sounds like your mom wouldn't be able to ride the tea cups and that has no requirement.
 
TrainsOfDisney

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
phillip9698 said:
Just because something has a height requirement doesn't mean it's thrilling. It sounds like your mom wouldn't be able to ride the tea cups and that has no requirement.
Click to expand...

That’s correct.

And yeah it could be I’ll ride the RotR ride and tell her she can ride it... Soarin does have a height requirement but is certainly a gentle ride for the whole family. So yes no hard and fast rule. I think my point still stands though regarding rides for everyone.
 
UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Mike S said:
I don’t get what’s so hard about waiting until your kids are tall enough for most of the rides before going. As an added bonus once they’re tall enough for most of the rides maybe they’ll be at the age where they don’t care about meeting costumed characters so no waiting in line to meet underpaid college students and you just do the good stuff ;)
Click to expand...

Because meeting the characters is a HUGE deal for a lot of smaller kids, and, additionally, experiencing the parks at 4 or 5 is significantly different than experiencing them at 9 or 10. It's magical for kids of that age in a way it can't be for older kids (not saying it isn't still magical for older kids; it's just different). I loved seeing how happy my niece was at 3 when she got to meet and hug Tigger; I'm sure it's infinitely more fulfilling for a parent to get to see their kid have that experience.

Plus, I personally think most of the thrill rides aren't as fun as the non-thrill rides. Stuff like Spaceship Earth, Horizons, the original Journey Into Imagination, Pirates of the Caribbean, etc. are all better than any thrill ride I've ever been on. The more thrill rides Disney builds (especially at the expense of other types of rides), the less interesting Disney World becomes.
 
Mike S

Mike S

Well-Known Member
UNCgolf said:
Because meeting the characters is a HUGE deal for a lot of smaller kids, and, additionally, experiencing the parks at 4 or 5 is significantly different than experiencing them at 9 or 10. It's magical for kids of that age in a way it can't be for older kids (not saying it isn't still magical for older kids; it's just different). I loved seeing how happy my niece was at 3 when she got to meet and hug Tigger; I'm sure it's infinitely more fulfilling for a parent to get to see their kid have that experience.

Plus, I personally think most of the thrill rides aren't as fun as the non-thrill rides. Stuff like Spaceship Earth, Horizons, the original Journey Into Imagination, Pirates of the Caribbean, etc. are all better than any thrill ride I've ever been on. The more thrill rides Disney builds (especially at the expense of other types of rides), the less interesting Disney World becomes.
Click to expand...
I know. I watched my little cousin meet characters last summer. I also noticed how during that trip I got significantly less done than I normally can because of her.
 
Kman101

Kman101

Well-Known Member
BlakeW39 said:
That's because they underbuilt both DHS and DAK, basically tore EPCOT down, and failed to invest properly for decades. And so the parks are lopsided because went "oh crap the parks! We forgor about these, quick built an E!" without any real tact. They build criminally underbuild Na'Vi.

Granted, DAK is closest to MK for sure due to animals and other non-ride entertainment, as well as one of Disney's greatest attractions which happens to be passive and long - Kili Safari.
Click to expand...

THIS!!!
 
R

Ravenclaw78

Well-Known Member
Mike S said:
I know. I watched my little cousin meet characters last summer. I also noticed how during that trip I got significantly less done than I normally can because of her.
Click to expand...

It's all about priorities. We first took our daughter to WDW when she was 4. She's 9 now. We knew going in that the vast majority of what we managed to get done on the first couple trips would be princess meet-and-greets and slow-loading kiddie rides like Dumbo. That was OK, because our focus was on appreciating her sense of wonder. As she's gotten older, she's lower-maintenance in general and she's transitioned to more grown-up rides (she still hates roller coasters, but FoP is one of her favorite rides), so our focus has changed accordingly and we get a lot more done in the parks. Same deal with my wife's parents - we took them on a tour of Epcot, and went at their pace instead of ours, so they spent almost as much time in the DVC lounge as on rides, but they had a blast and didn't wear themselves out.
 
D

doctornick

Well-Known Member
DAK is a fantastic park and I love it. But the biggest thing I want to bring up from my earlier post is that what DAK needs more than anything is more indoor stuff. The park doesn't offer the opportunity to get out of the sun (or rain in those cases) that other parks in WDW do. Now, part of that is understandable as it is a "nature" park and being indoors is somewhat counter to that. But there are certainly opportunities for some increased opportunities to beat the heat.

I do actually praise the fact that Pandora's two rides are indoors, though NRJ should have been longer. They were the first and only rides other than Dinosaur to be inside for the park. I would still like to see more in that vein - wouldn't it be nice if they took the time travel Dinosaur premise and expanded it that they have a "dinosaur zoo" as part of the institute where you can ride a ride and see all of the (AA) dinosaurs? Like the best part of Universe of Energy but without the silly/incorrect energy concept.

Or add a dark ride to Asia. Something like Mystic Manor or, if they really want an IP theme, a boat ride themed to Jungle Book.

I just feel like some stuff like that would round out of the park and really be a compliment to what already is there. A bike coaster in Pandora would surely have been cool, but not really key for a park that has a decent percentage of its rides already of the "thrill" variety.
 
Last edited:
Phil12

Phil12

Well-Known Member
Disnutz311

Disnutz311

Disney World Purist
Phil12 said:
With the new live action version having been released, it would be nice if they put a similar Dumbo spinner in AK. Instead of having cartoon Dumbos, have animatronics with big ears and trunks that randomly spit water on guests. They have plenty of room in AK's Harambe for a single or double Dumbo.
Image result for dumbo live action
https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/culture/story/dumbo-live-action-adaptation-ahead-release-61640019
Click to expand...

406657
 
Mike S

Mike S

Well-Known Member
UNCgolf said:
Well yeah, of course, but most people taking kids to the park are doing it for their kids, not for themselves.
Click to expand...
So I can’t have fun too? That’s why I’d wait until we can do everything together. So we all get the most out of it.

Either that or maybe I get some daddy time late at the park when the kid has to go to bed early. Mommy can get time too if she wants on another night.

Who knows though. This is all waaaaaaaay in the future anyway.
Ravenclaw78 said:
It's all about priorities. We first took our daughter to WDW when she was 4. She's 9 now. We knew going in that the vast majority of what we managed to get done on the first couple trips would be princess meet-and-greets and slow-loading kiddie rides like Dumbo. That was OK, because our focus was on appreciating her sense of wonder. As she's gotten older, she's lower-maintenance in general and she's transitioned to more grown-up rides (she still hates roller coasters, but FoP is one of her favorite rides), so our focus has changed accordingly and we get a lot more done in the parks. Same deal with my wife's parents - we took them on a tour of Epcot, and went at their pace instead of ours, so they spent almost as much time in the DVC lounge as on rides, but they had a blast and didn't wear themselves out.
Click to expand...
Judging by your age in your profile I’ll guess your wife’s parents are maybe a decade or a little more younger than my grandparents (80’s). Last time they went was in ‘98 or ‘99. They know they can’t go anymore because of all the walking required.
tissandtully said:
No it’s not, kids get in free till they are 3. Also adults like Disney too bro.
Click to expand...
Cheaper in the long run because less trips. Once you have a kid just don’t go at all for a few years till they can go on mostly everything ;)

Of course this is if you’re not a Florida resident. I live 3 hours away and could easily go up for just a single day for pretty cheap if I already have passes if we must absolutely go when the kid is still in diapers.
 
Last edited:

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom