Animal kingdom needs help

Sped2424

Well-Known Member
Or they could do what made their theme parks famous, and not base every attraction on the movies. I'll never understand why some of you demand that all attractions be based on Disney and only Disney properties, or that they have to be based on something at all.
I can't help but feel that most people on this site have displayed quite the opposite attitude to what you are saying. A lot of form members if not all absolutely love rides not based on ip's its why mystic manor was kinda of revered on this site. The one constant thing I always see in "What do you think (enter park or themed land here) at disney needs or should have the answer is usually something in favor of an original attraction, its why people are still going on about Beastly kingdom. And many a member here also like well done themed Ip's, its why star wars land has such hype, and if done right could be a real potter swatter. I believe that avatar if done right could be an amazing park experience as well, considering the film's mythos is very well done.
 
Last edited:

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
Or they could do what made their theme parks famous, and not base every attraction on the movies. I'll never understand why some of you demand that all attractions be based on Disney and only Disney properties, or that they have to be based on something at all.
I think it's part owing to inexperience with parkeology. Not everybody has read sixty books and follows forty Disney blogs to hvae formed a basic understanding of how and why Disney parks work. But they do get bombarded with Disney IP franchises. And end up identifying Disney and WDW with that. So when the topic of new rides comes up, they will ask for 'a Rapunzel ride in Adventureland, after all, it fits there because Rapunzel and Flynn Rider go on an adventure'.

If you ask people to come up with a ride idea, within like the fifteen seconds of thought people spend before a forum post or survey answer, people will say 'an Incredibles ride', 'a Villains thrill ride'. Because who has the trained imagination to come up with 'a wild ride through an abandoned mine in an 1860s southwest mountain environment'? Even if yu could come up with it, it would take so much effort to describe that it is easier to settle for a known IP, that your fellow forum dwellers have some clue of what universe you have in mind.

I think this skews preference towards IP-driven rides and lands. On forums, in surveys, even sincerely in people's heads. Whereas if you were to build an actual Liberty Square and a Rapunzel land next to each other, most guests would gravitate towards the non-IP land, contrary to what they think and continually express.
 

Beholder

Well-Known Member
If you ask people to come up with a ride idea, within like the fifteen seconds of thought people spend before a forum post or survey answer, people will say 'an Incredibles ride', 'a Villains thrill ride'. Because who has the trained imagination to come up with 'a wild ride through an abandoned mine in an 1860s southwest mountain environment'? Even if yu could come up with it, it would take so much effort to describe that it is easier to settle for a known IP, that your fellow forum dwellers have some clue of what universe you have in mind.

Great point, and perhaps this is the driving factor in the reason that what determines future attraction feasability is a recognizable IP. They'll approve/sign off on something if they think the general public will "get it", something they don't have to spend much time explaining. EE may have been the last of the original big concepts, at least for awhile.
 

rodmansju

Member
my thought on the parks and what lands where...EPCOT ought to be, more often than not, filled with original ideas and less "disney-fied"-ie, less to no IP.
Animal kingdom can use some where it makes sense, but with a nice balance (i remember in 2003 seeing lilo and stitch there....no reason for it.). bugs life, lion king, dinosaur make sense in that they work with the general park theme, doesn't feel forced.

let DHS and MK be the parks where IP gets squeezed in when possible. AK and Epcot less so. (i never experienced seabase alpha, but hearing about it makes me wish i had, and makes me wish they took the nemo ride and found a home for it in AK as part of an aquatic section)
 

jkl2000

Well-Known Member
Just read about the "Affection Section" over at Rafiki's whatever. How is it compared to other petting zoos you've been to? DS4 would probably love this, so I can see heading over later in the day if we've seen the other stuff we want to see/do.
 

englanddg

One Little Spark...
Just read about the "Affection Section" over at Rafiki's whatever. How is it compared to other petting zoos you've been to? DS4 would probably love this, so I can see heading over later in the day if we've seen the other stuff we want to see/do.
My DD8 enjoyed it.

It was clean, but nothing special. They had a few animals...goats mostly.

Better, more unique, petting meet and greets indoors. For example we met an Opossom, a baby gator and a ferret inside.
 

jkl2000

Well-Known Member
On UndercoverTourist they list a DURATION of 8 minutes 20 seconds for affection section - do they only let you stay in for 8 minutes?
 

englanddg

One Little Spark...
On UndercoverTourist they list a DURATION of 8 minutes 20 seconds for affection section - do they only let you stay in for 8 minutes?
That wasn't my experience....though we couldn't have been there longer than 10 minutes before the kid had her fill...

They weren't timing or asking people to leave....but it wasn't crowded at all either.
 

ThemeParkJunkee

Well-Known Member
Sigh...I miss the AK that should have been. My first visit was during a "soft opening" in February 15 years ago. There were few guests and admission was free for onsite guests only. The CMs were "over the moon" with excitement for all the things that were coming to the park. Asia wasn't built yet but the idea of a "River Safari" had the CMs (and us) excited. Beastly Kingdomme was hinted at as being incredible and we would love it. Fast forward and only a fraction of what was in the plans has been done.
 

luv

Well-Known Member
Or they could do what made their theme parks famous, and not base every attraction on the movies. I'll never understand why some of you demand that all attractions be based on Disney and only Disney properties, or that they have to be based on something at all.
I so agree. I would love something NEW - original, interesting and fun.

I do always vote for a Monsters, Inc. door coaster, but that is because I want a coaster where my feet can swing and I don't really have much preference on theme.

If new things must be tied to movies, I prefer Disney movies. But I'd much rather have an experience I hadn't already had in some manner, like Star Wars.
 

Tom Morrow

Well-Known Member
I think it's part owing to inexperience with parkeology. Not everybody has read sixty books and follows forty Disney blogs to hvae formed a basic understanding of how and why Disney parks work. But they do get bombarded with Disney IP franchises. And end up identifying Disney and WDW with that. So when the topic of new rides comes up, they will ask for 'a Rapunzel ride in Adventureland, after all, it fits there because Rapunzel and Flynn Rider go on an adventure'.

If you ask people to come up with a ride idea, within like the fifteen seconds of thought people spend before a forum post or survey answer, people will say 'an Incredibles ride', 'a Villains thrill ride'. Because who has the trained imagination to come up with 'a wild ride through an abandoned mine in an 1860s southwest mountain environment'? Even if yu could come up with it, it would take so much effort to describe that it is easier to settle for a known IP, that your fellow forum dwellers have some clue of what universe you have in mind.

I think this skews preference towards IP-driven rides and lands. On forums, in surveys, even sincerely in people's heads. Whereas if you were to build an actual Liberty Square and a Rapunzel land next to each other, most guests would gravitate towards the non-IP land, contrary to what they think and continually express.
Excellent post.

While something based on an IP can be great, like Cars Land and WWoHP, I think, more often lately with Disney, it leads to not "going the distance" since the basic setting, story, and characters for an IP based attraction are already laid out for them.

People will say "there isn't a Rapunzel attraction, so there should be one!" But there doesn't need to be one just because there isn't.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
I think Disney needs to use their ACTUAL Disney movies Like Jungle Book, Tarzan, and maybe another Lion King attraction and put those in the park! AND a Bug's Life and Pocahontas! there's several Disney movies that aren't represented that they could do so much with! They used to have Tarzan and Pocahontas but not anymore! It does need major help!

I've said before, but I think a "Critter Country" themed area would be great for DAK. Something sort of like an animal themed Fantasyland with smaller dark rides or boat rides that are whole family oriented. There's a wealth of IP to use like Bambi, Jungle Book, Pocahontas, Tarzan, 101 Dalmatians, The Rescuers, etc that otherwise have no presence in WDW. It would be perfect for the Frantasia Gardens boat ride that was conceived as part of Beastly Kingdomme and it could even include some non-IP stuff like the Unicorn maze. I think this is an easy way to increase the ride count and can do so in a smaller footprint, which helps with the "everything is so far away from each other" complaint and could provide more indoor stuff to get out of the sun/heat/rain.

I do think that doing more with Asia/Africa or adding a new continental land (Australia or South America) in the northern part of the park makes sense. But I think that a Critter Country would be a good addition to the western part of the park, between the future Avatar area and the new FOTLK theater (and help the transition between those sections).

Also, I love the idea of having Humphrey the Bear in such a land. Would be a great way to re-introduce him.
 

Lucky

Well-Known Member
I've said before, but I think a "Critter Country" themed area would be great for DAK. Something sort of like an animal themed Fantasyland with smaller dark rides or boat rides that are whole family oriented. There's a wealth of IP to use like Bambi, Jungle Book, Pocahontas, Tarzan, 101 Dalmatians, The Rescuers, etc that otherwise have no presence in WDW. I think this is an easy way to increase the ride count and can do so in a smaller footprint, which helps with the "everything is so far away from each other" complaint and could provide more indoor stuff to get out of the sun/heat/rain.

I do think that doing more with Asia/Africa or adding a new continental land (Australia or South America) in the northern part of the park makes sense. But I think that a Critter Country would be a good addition to the western part of the park, between the future Avatar area and the new FOTLK theater (and help the transition between those sections).

Also, I love the idea of having Humphrey the Bear in such a land. Would be a great way to re-introduce him.
The Pocahantas & her Forest Friends show (in an outdoor theater in Camp Minnie-Mickey, closed about 5 years ago) was something like what you're suggesting. It was popular with young kids & their families. It must have been closed down just to save money - it's not as if they've used the space for anything else all these years. They could have kept it and gradually added a few other things like you're suggesting to CMM. Then eventually have built an Australia or South America area somewhere else in the park.
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Have we talked about the part where Animal Kingdom is 15 years old but only has seven (7) actual rides?

Animal Kingdom is lovely to look at, and gorgeously landscaped in places, but it only has seven rides.
  1. Dinosaur
  2. Expedition Everest
  3. Kali River Rapids
  4. Kilimanjaro Safari
  5. Primeval Whirl
  6. Triceratops Spin
  7. Train to Conservation Station
And a few of those rides on that list just aren't very good, especially in their current state of repair. DAK needs a dozen additional rides, from a couple more E Tickets to a half dozen C Tickets, plus several large family D Tickets.

A theme park needs rides to be a theme park. Animal Kingdom is woefully short of rides, and it's been open for 15 years.
 

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
Just read about the "Affection Section" over at Rafiki's whatever. How is it compared to other petting zoos you've been to? DS4 would probably love this, so I can see heading over later in the day if we've seen the other stuff we want to see/do.
Meh, the area is alright. But it is a bit of a hassle to get there. You need to take the train from Africa. Which drives past nothing more exciting than the backside of animal enclosures. The train then circles past Rafiki's Planet Watch, returning back to the direction from whence you came, only to next drop you off in the middle of nowhere from where you hike back to Rafiki. To ease your suffering as you make yet another ten minute DAK trek, they display some Tamarins in a cage.

Rafiki iself is kinda okay-ish. There's an indoor section, perhaps best described as the children's section of a natural sciences museum, and a petting zoo outside. Highlight is a goat with a Mickey shaped pattern on his back. If you have a well-endowed petting zoo near where you live, it will be just as good as Disney's.

I believe common consensus is that unless you have plenty of time, skip this part of the park. Me, I'm a completist, an animal freak, and a nerd, so I tend to pay a brief visit. I suppose it all depends on DS4. If he delights in animal contact, by all means take him there, for the area is pleasant enough.


Side note, why did they have to get rid of Pocahontas? A small quick filler attraction. But it was kinda cute and small kids liked it.
 

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
Have we talked about the part where Animal Kingdom is 15 years old but only has seven (7) actual rides?

Animal Kingdom is lovely to look at, and gorgeously landscaped in places, but it only has seven rides.
  1. Dinosaur
  2. Expedition Everest
  3. Kali River Rapids
  4. Kilimanjaro Safari
  5. Primeval Whirl
  6. Triceratops Spin
  7. Train to Conservation Station
And a few of those rides on that list just aren't very good, especially in their current state of repair. DAK needs a dozen additional rides, from a couple more E Tickets to a half dozen C Tickets, plus several large family D Tickets.

A theme park needs rides to be a theme park. Animal Kingdom is woefully short of rides, and it's been open for 15 years.
Aye. Dino, Everest and Kali are in poor state. The last three barely count as rides. The train is less exciting than the tram in the parking lot, and Chester and Hester is a bad joke, a concept that never should've progressed from its origins as an internal WDI April's Fool's joke.
 

Lucky

Well-Known Member
I don't get the "theme park = rides" idea. You want interesting things to see and do. Sea World is a theme park, regardless of how many rides it has. Our county fair has dozens of rides, but that doesn't make it a theme park.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom