AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[EPCOTCenterLover]

I LOVE DAK. I just see its weaknesses too.
In fact, at last count, my blog shows 225 posts on it. Thats about 10% of all articles. My seven part (to date) series on its creation etc is here. Or Part One here.

 

[Mike S]

I LOVE DAK. I just see its weaknesses too.
In fact, at last count, my blog shows 225 posts on it. Thats about 10% of all articles. My seven part (to date) series on its creation etc is here.

You're that guy? Major props man.

 

[doctornick]

Here's the thing though: it's not a binary situation of either loving or hating the park. A whole lot of guests fall somewhere in the middle featuring such states of "I like the park, but it's not my favorite" or "DAK has some good stuff but I run out of things to do", etc. Any improvements and additions can incrementally move people along that line towards where most everyone is excited and satisfied with going there.

I think DAK needs a few more attractions beyond Pandora/RoL to have a wider appeal to all guests. That doesn't mean the park isn't worthwhile now or that it doesn't have it's supporters. And, to be fair, not liking or being interested in DAK doesn't mean a guest is cultureless rube -- different people enjoy different things in different amounts. As many of the folks who go to WDW are part of groups/families, it makes sense to try to have wide appeal by having a large variety of entertainment. You can easily do that without moving away from the basic tenants of the park and keeping it cohesive.

People making the claim that adding more rides to DAK would be "making it like the other parks" strikes me as absurd. As long as new additions fit in to the vibe of the park -- being focused on animals and nature and allowing guests to "share in the wonder, gaze at the beauty, thrill at the drama, and learn" -- then it would only enhance the experience while keeping it distinct. The park can certainly maintain its unique place in both WDW specifically and among theme parks in general while simultaneously upping the total ride count to some reasonable baseline amount that people expect (I'd argue that something like 12-15 rides as a baseline to have a theme park really be "complete"). I tend to side with those who say that with the prices that Disney is charging per day, the park offerings are on the underwhelming side in terms of total attractions even if what they do have is very well executed. And it doesn't have to just be new rides since even new shows or animal trails would be welcome.

And for those who say that DAK is "already a full day park" (and I would agree) -- so? Does that mean it shouldn't expand to become a 2 or 3 day park? Shouldn't any well designed theme park have simply so many things to see and do that you can't do them all and leave with a yearning to go back and see what you missed? I guess I don't understand why people are so content to give Disney a pass for the park being "good enough". Being better than DHS isn't some badge of honor and I'd like to see Disney strive for greatness.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

Yep, that's me, Mike S! Glad you like the series...

 

[doctornick]

Regarding attractions, I'd really like to see them bring back the Discovery River Boats in some capacity -- more so as transportation as opposed to a "ride" (think Friendship boats at Epcot). Doing so would not only add a missing kinetic element to the park but also provide some time off the feel for weary guests looking to traverse the park. I envision something like going from Asia to Pandora or from Africa to Dinoland.

I realize they wouldn't be able to run at night when RoL finally is in play, but it would add something with fairly minimal infrastructure costs.

 

[brb1006]

It needs a few more rides, sure but what's there won't go away. If someone doesn't appreciate it now, it's suddenly going to be a better park because they open a Jungle Book ride or Mystic Manor? The Yeti working doesn't make the park any better or worse than it is now. People are against Pandora and find ways to knock the rides before it even opens. IDK. If they can't appreciate what's there now, will they ever?

Now that I think about it. Animal Kingdom might be the only Walt Disney World park that kept most of it's original attractions untouched or removed besides the name change to the Dinosaur attraction and the Discover River Boats which was very short lived.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

"And for those who say that DAK is "already a full day park" (and I would agree) -- so? Does that mean it shouldn't expand to become a 2 or 3 day park? Shouldn't any well designed theme park have simply so many things to see and do that you can't do them all and leave with a yearning to go back and see what you missed? I guess I don't understand why people are so content to give Disney a pass for the park being "good enough". Being better than DHS isn't some badge of honor and I'd like to see Disney strive for greatness.."
I agree 100%. I love that Epcot used to take two full days to see it all- and I'd love to have that feeling about DAK too. As it stands now, with some decent planning, you can see it all in one.

 

[marni1971]

It needs a few more rides, sure but what's there won't go away. If someone doesn't appreciate it now, it's suddenly going to be a better park because they open a Jungle Book ride or Mystic Manor? The Yeti working doesn't make the park any better or worse than it is now. People are against Pandora and find ways to knock the rides before it even opens. IDK. If they can't appreciate what's there now, will they ever?

Course they would. Talking with friends "there's not enough to do". Add more suitable attractions and it's a win win for each demographic.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

I once described DAK to someone who hadn't been there as "a giant Adventureland". It made them want to take the trek to Florida. They had not been to the world before.

 

[Kman101]

Course they would. Talking with friends "there's not enough to do". Add more suitable attractions and it's a win win for each demographic.

But it really doesn't change what's already there. If someone doesn't appreciate it now, they won't because they get to ride Jungle Book or Mystic Manor. JMO of course. But yes, if someone hasn't even gone to the park and it gets them there, then you would be correct.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

IMHO, as a park changes and adds, it's fan base changes. Two examples: 1- I am a bigger fan of EPCOT Center than I am of the park today. 2- I couldn't stand DCA 1.0 but I find the revamped DCA one of my favorite parks now.

 

[GoofGoof]

Here's the thing though: it's not a binary situation of either loving or hating the park. A whole lot of guests fall somewhere in the middle featuring such states of "I like the park, but it's not my favorite" or "DAK has some good stuff but I run out of things to do", etc. Any improvements and additions can incrementally move people along that line towards where most everyone is excited and satisfied with going there.

I think DAK needs a few more attractions beyond Pandora/RoL to have a wider appeal to all guests. That doesn't mean the park isn't worthwhile now or that it doesn't have it's supporters. And, to be fair, not liking or being interested in DAK doesn't mean a guest is cultureless rube -- different people enjoy different things in different amounts. As many of the folks who go to WDW are part of groups/families, it makes sense to try to have wide appeal by having a large variety of entertainment. You can easily do that without moving away from the basic tenants of the park and keeping it cohesive.

People making the claim that adding more rides to DAK would be "making it like the other parks" strikes me as absurd. As long as new additions fit in to the vibe of the park -- being focused on animals and nature and allowing guests to "share in the wonder, gaze at the beauty, thrill at the drama, and learn" -- then it would only enhance the experience while keeping it distinct. The park can certainly maintain its unique place in both WDW specifically and among theme parks in general while simultaneously upping the total ride count to some reasonable baseline amount that people expect (I'd argue that something like 12-15 rides as a baseline to have a theme park really be "complete"). I tend to side with those who say that with the prices that Disney is charging per day, the park offerings are on the underwhelming side in terms of total attractions even if what they do have is very well executed. And it doesn't have to just be new rides since even new shows or animal trails would be welcome.

And for those who say that DAK is "already a full day park" (and I would agree) -- so? Does that mean it shouldn't expand to become a 2 or 3 day park? Shouldn't any well designed theme park have simply so many things to see and do that you can't do them all and leave with a yearning to go back and see what you missed? I guess I don't understand why people are so content to give Disney a pass for the park being "good enough". Being better than DHS isn't some badge of honor and I'd like to see Disney strive for greatness.

Let me try to explain what the gist of that discussion was about. Of course I agree that in an ideal world Disney would add all sorts of attractons to AK so that it appeals to every possible guest and take 2 to 3 days to do everything. This way for guests with no interest at all in animals there would be enough rides to do to appeal to them too. We don't live in an ideal world though and money isn't unlimited. That's why I said I don't think AK has to appeal to everyone. If you don't want to see animals it's easy enough to visit the other 3 parks. IMHO AK should always be first and foremost about the animals.

The statement was made that some tourists don't care for the animal attractions and would just prefer more rides. In order to please those guests Disney could just add more rides without taking anything away. That would be ideal, but again we don't live in an ideal world. If we follow Disney's recent history they would begin to replace animal attractions with rides (IP based rides of course). Take a look at EPCOT. Did they just add new rides to appeal more to kids and introduce characters into the parks? Unfortunately no. They took away some of the original attractions to meet their goal. I would fear that AK would meet the same fate. Remove the animal trails and replace them with rides.

Nobody was arguing that AK shouldn't have more attractions or claiming that "adding more rides would make it like the other parks". Adding more rides at the expense of animal exhibits would remove a big piece of the charm and uniqueness of the park and make it less original. There seems to be a move to make all the parks more like smaller versions of MK which is too bad because each park had a unique theme and purpose at some point in the past. That was the gist of the conversation. Again, nobody was saying adding more rides that fit the themes of AK or more animal trails would be a bad thing as long as they don't come at the expense of the animals. Given the choice between more rides with less animals or keeping the same number of rides and keeping the animals I'd vote to keep the animals. Of course I'd prefer a mix of both and we are getting that with Pandora.

 

[doctornick]

But it really doesn't change what's already there. If someone doesn't appreciate it now, they won't because they get to ride Jungle Book or Mystic Manor. JMO of course. But yes, if someone hasn't even gone to the park and it gets them there, then you would be correct.

Sure, someone who doesn't care about the animal trails likely won't all of the sudden love them, but at least said guest can find enough other stuff at DAK (with theoretical new additions) to now greatly love the park.

Different people can appreciate a park on different levels. We see that all the time with MK where some like to be ride commandos, some like to go to TSI or ride the RR around, some like to see characters, some like to watch the glass blowers or candy makers, etc. Not every guest has to appreciate everything a park offers. But a park should offer enough that there is stuff for most everyone to appreciate to some degree and feel it is "worth it".

IMHO, as a park changes and adds, it's fan base changes. Two examples: 1- I am a bigger fan of EPCOT Center than I am of the park today. 2- I couldn't stand DCA 1.0 but I find the revamped DCA one of my favorite parks now.

It's worth noting that DCA has become a far better park over time while taking massive liberties with the core concept that held it together. While I don't think DAK has to do that to continue to improve, it's not necessary as terrible a happening as many on here suggest.

 

[GoofGoof]

It's worth noting that DCA has become a far better park over time while taking massive liberties with the core concept that held it together. While I don't think DAK has to do that to continue to improve, it's not necessary as terrible a happening as many on here suggest.

We can agree to disagree on that. AK losing its theme for the sake of ride count would be a real shame to see.

 

[doctornick]

The statement was made that some tourists don't care for the animal attractions and would just prefer more rides. In order to please those guests Disney could just add more rides without taking anything away. That would be ideal, but again we don't live in an ideal world. If we follow Disney's recent history they would begin to replace animal attractions with rides (IP based rides of course). Take a look at EPCOT. Did they just add new rides to appeal more to kids and introduce characters into the parks? Unfortunately no. They took away some of the original attractions to meet their goal. I would fear that AK would meet the same fate. Remove the animal trails and replace them with rides.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that this as a plan. This feels like a straw man argument. I mean, there's always a risk that Disney could replace good attractions with other ones rather than expand but no one here is arguing that it should happen at DAK. And to their credit, Disney has pretty rarely gotten rid of something of substance at DAK except maybe the Discovery River Boats or the parade (yes, some shows have been replaced but that's par for the course for a theme park) -- they've at least expanded the park in its relatively short existence.

Regarding live animals in particular, I think Disney would recognize the value of them somewhere on the property. There's been a pretty constant presence of live animals as part of a WDW vacation from the start (the original Discovery Island not closing until DAK opened as well as the Living Seas). Perhaps I'm naive, but I would think that the powers that be would recognize the value in the distinct offering for DAK as park of a complete vacation destination.

Nobody was arguing that AK shouldn't have more attractions or claiming that "adding more rides would make it like the other parks".

I felt like people were making that specific claim actually. I feel like there was a general vibe from some posters in this thread along the lines of "if they add more rides and more guests enjoy DAK, it won't be the special thing that only I and select others can appreciate". Heaven forbid that more people would enjoy going to a theme park.

 

[Incomudro]

Let me try to explain what the gist of that discussion was about. Of course I agree that in an ideal world Disney would add all sorts of attractons to AK so that it appeals to every possible guest and take 2 to 3 days to do everything. This way for guests with no interest at all in animals there would be enough rides to do to appeal to them too. We don't live in an ideal world though and money isn't unlimited. That's why I said I don't think AK has to appeal to everyone. If you don't want to see animals it's easy enough to visit the other 3 parks. IMHO AK should always be first and foremost about the animals.

The statement was made that some tourists don't care for the animal attractions and would just prefer more rides. In order to please those guests Disney could just add more rides without taking anything away. That would be ideal, but again we don't live in an ideal world. If we follow Disney's recent history they would begin to replace animal attractions with rides (IP based rides of course). Take a look at EPCOT. Did they just add new rides to appeal more to kids and introduce characters into the parks? Unfortunately no. They took away some of the original attractions to meet their goal. I would fear that AK would meet the same fate. Remove the animal trails and replace them with rides.

Nobody was arguing that AK shouldn't have more attractions or claiming that "adding more rides would make it like the other parks". Adding more rides at the expense of animal exhibits would remove a big piece of the charm and uniqueness of the park and make it less original. There seems to be a move to make all the parks more like smaller versions of MK which is too bad because each park had a unique theme and purpose at some point in the past. That was the gist of the conversation. Again, nobody was saying adding more rides that fit the themes of AK or more animal trails would be a bad thing as long as they don't come at the expense of the animals. Given the choice between more rides with less animals or keeping the same number of rides and keeping the animals I'd vote to keep the animals. Of course I'd prefer a mix of both and we are getting that with Pandora.

Great post, my thoughts exactly.
I feel that all of the WDW parks could benefit from an additional ride or two, and from my perspective - that'd preferably be a thrill or otherwise highly immersive ride.
But, yes AK has got a different feel to it, and I wouldn't want to lose that.

 

[wdwgreek]

Honestly every park state side needs a 7 to 10 minute Omni-mover or dark ride equivalent. Looking to expand Animal Kingdom is great, but to echo above sentiments expansion should absolutely not be done at the expense of the existing animal habitats and walking trails. Additionally any additional lands (excluding Avatar) should include new Animal exhibits as pat of future expansions. If people think these exhibits are boring they are never going to really appreciate them, no need to placate them. They can run past the habitat to the ride. Straying away form the core tenants of AK celebrating the Animal Kingdom of the earth and encouraging conservation should continue, straying away from either these tenants is tenuous which is why many people are hesitate with Avatar,( but we shall see how heavy the being one with the environment theme is with avatar if its subtle like Kilimanjaro or its whacking you over the head like Its tough to be a bug.)

 

[doctornick]

And just to reiterate: I love DAK. I definitely would not want them to mess up the quality that is already there and there is no need for them to do so to properly increase the park's offerings. But I think people are fooling themselves if they feel the park is "complete" or "good enough" that Disney shouldn't focus on providing necessary expansions there. Not just rides (though I think that is the main lacking area) but even with more live animals -- they have that massive cleared area the north that is just screaming for something like a Australia or South America expansion with animals, shows and rides.

 

[Mike S]

Yep, that's me, Mike S! Glad you like the series...

Glad you you gave me a shoutout for that Dragon pin pic in that article

And just to reiterate: I love DAK. I definitely would not want them to mess up the quality that is already there and there is no need for them to do so to properly increase the park's offerings. But I think people are fooling themselves if they feel the park is "complete" or "good enough" that Disney shouldn't focus on providing necessary expansions there. Not just rides (though I think that is the main lacking area) but even with more live animals -- they have that massive cleared area the north that is just screaming for something like a Australia or South America expansion with animals, shows and rides.

I think they should make all the land between Rafiki's and Africa actual park space. Maybe change Rafiki's to something else while keeping the animal hospital. This would of course mean getting rid of the train.

 

[Kman101]

Glad you you gave me a shoutout for that Dragon pin pic in that article

I think they should make all the land between Rafiki's and Africa actual park space. Maybe change Rafiki's to something else while keeping the animal hospital. This would of course mean getting rid of the train.

I agree with that. Total redo of that area but they should find a way to keep the train.

My point wasn't that more rides are a terrible thing but why would someone now love the park because they get another ride or two? I don't understand that. To doctornick it isn't about "heaven forbid others enjoy my special park" it's that I don't understand why the park is suddenly going to be appreciated because it has a few more rides, that's all.