Disney’s Animal Kingdom Was a Mistake

[Dizmentia]

I recently posted an article on my blog explaining why I think Disney's 4th park was a mistake:

"Disney opened its fourth theme park in Florida in 1998 to mixed reviews and confusion regarding what the heck Animal Kingdom was supposed to be. Marketing for the newest addition to Walt Disney World insisted that whatever it was, the park was “nahtazu”. What’s that? It’s an attempt to make the phrase “not a zoo” seem like an African word. (Yeah, it hasn’t aged well.) But here’s the thing. When it opened, Animal Kingdom was totally a zoo. It was a beautifully themed zoo with two Disney-caliber rides, but the primary draw was the animal exhibits making Animal Kingdom “azu”, I mean, a zoo.

Few would argue that mistakes were made with the opening of Animal Kingdom. For at least a decade, it was stuck with the dreaded label of a “half day park”. Since the park opened, Disney has slowly addressed those concerns. As it exists today, Animal Kingdom is arguably a full day experience and worthy of being included in Walt Disney World Resort. Even so, I think it was a mistake."

(full article)

At a high level, I argue the following points

1. WDW didn't really need a 4th park
2. If you were going to build a 4th park, a zoo wasn't the way to go

I also discuss some of the more common "mistakes" like opening the park with only two rides and miscalculating the expense and difficulty of dealing with live animals.

I can't imagine anyone here will feel otherwise.

It's funny, I feel like Animal Kingdom became fantastic to me when they finally ditched that stupid poaching storyline on the Safari. My first visit to the park was in 2004 and I feel like that ridiculous animatronic Elephant plot really ruined my impression of Animal Kingdom. But now the Safari is my favorite thing (the safari during a rainstorm is especially amazing). I also discovered that you can take a bus to visit Animal Kingdom Lodge and go see their animals and eat and shop there (if you need a break from the crowds). I really enjoyed doing this on a trip in December years ago when Magic Kingdom was an absolute nightmare.

 

[UNCgolf]

It's funny, I feel like Animal Kingdom became fantastic to me when they finally ditched that stupid poaching storyline on the Safari. My first visit to the park was in 2004 and I feel like that ridiculous animatronic Elephant plot really ruined my impression of Animal Kingdom. But now the Safari is my favorite thing (the safari during a rainstorm is especially amazing). I also discovered that you can take a bus to visit Animal Kingdom Lodge and go see their animals and eat and shop there (if you need a break from the crowds). I really enjoyed doing this on a trip in December years ago when Magic Kingdom was an absolute nightmare.

It really did. I approve of what they were trying to do with the poaching storyline, but it detracted from the experience of the safari. It relegated the live animals to stage dressing instead of the focus of the ride. Dumping that story was absolutely the right decision.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I also discovered that you can take a bus to visit Animal Kingdom Lodge and go see their animals and eat and shop there (if you need a break from the crowds). I really enjoyed doing this on a trip in December years ago when Magic Kingdom was an absolute nightmare.

Whatever feelings one may have about the park, the Lodge is arguably the best WDW hotel in terms of theme and experience.

 

[UNCgolf]

Whatever feelings one may have about the park, the Lodge is arguably the best WDW hotel in terms of theme and experience.

Nothing arguable about it to me. I don't think any of the other deluxes come close to AKL in theme/experience. There are legitimate reasons to stay at some of the others over AKL (location being the biggest), but just looking at the hotel itself with all other factors dismissed it is a step above anything else on property.

 

[Club Cooloholic]

I think this ignores that having animals was a way to beat back Busch Gardens Tampa and Seaworld. A vacationer with an animal crazy family member could give them a taste of that at AKL. Honestly Disney made something that was very unique and has not been replicated. Only thing I will agree with is it needed more ride when it first opened and it still should have done something on the river.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

The money they spent on the Discovery River Boats could have been used to replicate DLP's Dragon's Den.

 

[cjkeating]

To echo many peoples views Animal Kingdom is my favourite WDW park and if it wasn't for that park as a UK resident I wouldn't be travelling to Florida as often as I do.

 

[JusticeDisney]

I recently posted an article on my blog explaining why I think Disney's 4th park was a mistake:

"Disney opened its fourth theme park in Florida in 1998 to mixed reviews and confusion regarding what the heck Animal Kingdom was supposed to be. Marketing for the newest addition to Walt Disney World insisted that whatever it was, the park was “nahtazu”. What’s that? It’s an attempt to make the phrase “not a zoo” seem like an African word. (Yeah, it hasn’t aged well.) But here’s the thing. When it opened, Animal Kingdom was totally a zoo. It was a beautifully themed zoo with two Disney-caliber rides, but the primary draw was the animal exhibits making Animal Kingdom “azu”, I mean, a zoo.

Few would argue that mistakes were made with the opening of Animal Kingdom. For at least a decade, it was stuck with the dreaded label of a “half day park”. Since the park opened, Disney has slowly addressed those concerns. As it exists today, Animal Kingdom is arguably a full day experience and worthy of being included in Walt Disney World Resort. Even so, I think it was a mistake."



At a high level, I argue the following points

1. WDW didn't really need a 4th park
2. If you were going to build a 4th park, a zoo wasn't the way to go

I also discuss some of the more common "mistakes" like opening the park with only two rides and miscalculating the expense and difficulty of dealing with live animals.

I can't imagine anyone here will feel otherwise.

Am I the only one who noticed that this thread was started on April Fool’s Day???

Well done, OP!

 

[Mama5monkeys05boys]

I recently posted an article on my blog explaining why I think Disney's 4th park was a mistake:

"Disney opened its fourth theme park in Florida in 1998 to mixed reviews and confusion regarding what the heck Animal Kingdom was supposed to be. Marketing for the newest addition to Walt Disney World insisted that whatever it was, the park was “nahtazu”. What’s that? It’s an attempt to make the phrase “not a zoo” seem like an African word. (Yeah, it hasn’t aged well.) But here’s the thing. When it opened, Animal Kingdom was totally a zoo. It was a beautifully themed zoo with two Disney-caliber rides, but the primary draw was the animal exhibits making Animal Kingdom “azu”, I mean, a zoo.

Few would argue that mistakes were made with the opening of Animal Kingdom. For at least a decade, it was stuck with the dreaded label of a “half day park”. Since the park opened, Disney has slowly addressed those concerns. As it exists today, Animal Kingdom is arguably a full day experience and worthy of being included in Walt Disney World Resort. Even so, I think it was a mistake."



At a high level, I argue the following points

1. WDW didn't really need a 4th park
2. If you were going to build a 4th park, a zoo wasn't the way to go

I also discuss some of the more common "mistakes" like opening the park with only two rides and miscalculating the expense and difficulty of dealing with live animals.

I can't imagine anyone here will feel otherwise.

Animal Kingdom is our least favorite park. It’s one of those “do we go” or make it a pool day instead.

 

[MOMIELKIDS]

For us WDW "originals", i.e. visitors since Day One, we don't need no stinkin' zoos (although when staying at the AK Resort, the Savanna view is outrageous!). What we need is an "Archive Park" where all the original rides go to live. It would probably have a 20 year shelf life, since most of us who would be interested in seeing Pinocchio, the original Snow White, Mister Toad, a Pirates without Johnny Depp and keeping the red headed wench, even a Captain's Hook ship - with Skull Rock - and Living Desert (from Disneyland) and some Davy Crockett (the Star Wars of our generation), would be too lame and rickety to visit anymore at that point. Just wishing - I truly do miss those days, perhaps more so at DLand than at WDW (how I miss the Art Gallery on top of Pirates in DLand and Skull Rock!). The Skull Rock in Paris, which I've visited many times, is nice in its setting with Pirates and Peter and the Captain's ship, but it ain't nothin' like the real thing, baby...and it would have PLENTY OF BENCHES and places to get food and drink!!!!!

 

[Walt Disney1955]

I recently posted an article on my blog explaining why I think Disney's 4th park was a mistake:

"Disney opened its fourth theme park in Florida in 1998 to mixed reviews and confusion regarding what the heck Animal Kingdom was supposed to be. Marketing for the newest addition to Walt Disney World insisted that whatever it was, the park was “nahtazu”. What’s that? It’s an attempt to make the phrase “not a zoo” seem like an African word. (Yeah, it hasn’t aged well.) But here’s the thing. When it opened, Animal Kingdom was totally a zoo. It was a beautifully themed zoo with two Disney-caliber rides, but the primary draw was the animal exhibits making Animal Kingdom “azu”, I mean, a zoo.

Few would argue that mistakes were made with the opening of Animal Kingdom. For at least a decade, it was stuck with the dreaded label of a “half day park”. Since the park opened, Disney has slowly addressed those concerns. As it exists today, Animal Kingdom is arguably a full day experience and worthy of being included in Walt Disney World Resort. Even so, I think it was a mistake."



At a high level, I argue the following points

1. WDW didn't really need a 4th park
2. If you were going to build a 4th park, a zoo wasn't the way to go

I also discuss some of the more common "mistakes" like opening the park with only two rides and miscalculating the expense and difficulty of dealing with live animals.

I can't imagine anyone here will feel otherwise.

I think you are right to an extent. But not about the mistake. It had some growing pains at first. We didn't first see Animal Kingdom until 2009, and loved it. I had heard many things about it prior to that but by then I think they worked out the kinks. Maybe they wanted to rush the opening of it? I think Disney has done this with other things too. The public wanted a Pirates ride at WDW, so they built it by 1973 and perhaps rushed it a bit because it is much shorter than the Disneyland version, although the queue is themed much better. But was Pirates considered a mistake at WDW? No. Heck, until I rode the Disneyland version the WDW version was my favorite theme park ride anywhere, and is still right up there to this day.

So I think Animal Kingdom has come a long ways.

I liken it to Disney's California Adventure. Opened in 2001 and especially at that time it was so much worse than Disneyland that it got a lot of flack. Even the Simpsons made fun of it on two different episodes. Obviously it is nothing like big brother and especially wasn't then, but by the time we went to Disneyland and went to DCA for a full day it was 2012. Heck, I loved it! I would rank my parks as Disneyland, MK, Epcot and then DCA as my top 4. I never understood the flack it got. But then again, some people went there in the early days and it wasn't as fun. So I get the skepticism.

Similar to Animal Kingdom. I think if you go to it today it is definitely a full day park. Like Walt said, Disneyland will never stop growing and changing.

 

[uncle jimmy]

Am I the only one who noticed that this thread was started on April Fool’s Day???

Well done, OP!

Well I'm sure he got a lot of clicks for his blog and website that he linked. Click-baited everyone since there was already a thread talking about the same thing.

 

[Mrchips0401]

I recently posted an article on my blog explaining why I think Disney's 4th park was a mistake:

"Disney opened its fourth theme park in Florida in 1998 to mixed reviews and confusion regarding what the heck Animal Kingdom was supposed to be. Marketing for the newest addition to Walt Disney World insisted that whatever it was, the park was “nahtazu”. What’s that? It’s an attempt to make the phrase “not a zoo” seem like an African word. (Yeah, it hasn’t aged well.) But here’s the thing. When it opened, Animal Kingdom was totally a zoo. It was a beautifully themed zoo with two Disney-caliber rides, but the primary draw was the animal exhibits making Animal Kingdom “azu”, I mean, a zoo.

Few would argue that mistakes were made with the opening of Animal Kingdom. For at least a decade, it was stuck with the dreaded label of a “half day park”. Since the park opened, Disney has slowly addressed those concerns. As it exists today, Animal Kingdom is arguably a full day experience and worthy of being included in Walt Disney World Resort. Even so, I think it was a mistake."



At a high level, I argue the following points

1. WDW didn't really need a 4th park
2. If you were going to build a 4th park, a zoo wasn't the way to go

I also discuss some of the more common "mistakes" like opening the park with only two rides and miscalculating the expense and difficulty of dealing with live animals.

I can't imagine anyone here will feel otherwise.

With big risks come big rewards

 

[mikeanabean]

Looks like some people have already not bothered to read or understand your points. Consider me shocked.

I don't think AK was a mistake or bad idea on paper. The problem was that everything they did for the park was done with about 70-80% effort and not going that extra mile to deliver on ideas like the Rapids, or only having 1 AA each on Everest and Navi River Journey really hurt the park because of it's limited attraction menu.

I agree on paper it was a great idea but then the accountants and higher ups started to push their own ideas and we got what we got in the beginning. In the beginning the part was a 1/2 park at most. Disney has made several enhancements to the park to keep people there longer. I am excited to see what they do with dinoland as that needs to be reimagined.

 

[Whippet Mom]

I recently posted an article on my blog explaining why I think Disney's 4th park was a mistake:

"Disney opened its fourth theme park in Florida in 1998 to mixed reviews and confusion regarding what the heck Animal Kingdom was supposed to be. Marketing for the newest addition to Walt Disney World insisted that whatever it was, the park was “nahtazu”. What’s that? It’s an attempt to make the phrase “not a zoo” seem like an African word. (Yeah, it hasn’t aged well.) But here’s the thing. When it opened, Animal Kingdom was totally a zoo. It was a beautifully themed zoo with two Disney-caliber rides, but the primary draw was the animal exhibits making Animal Kingdom “azu”, I mean, a zoo.

Few would argue that mistakes were made with the opening of Animal Kingdom. For at least a decade, it was stuck with the dreaded label of a “half day park”. Since the park opened, Disney has slowly addressed those concerns. As it exists today, Animal Kingdom is arguably a full day experience and worthy of being included in Walt Disney World Resort. Even so, I think it was a mistake."



At a high level, I argue the following points

1. WDW didn't really need a 4th park
2. If you were going to build a 4th park, a zoo wasn't the way to go

I also discuss some of the more common "mistakes" like opening the park with only two rides and miscalculating the expense and difficulty of dealing with live animals.

I can't imagine anyone here will feel otherwise.

We love animal Kingdom it was no mistake and we always spend the whole day there and sometimes 2 days we love the animals we love the theming we love the food we even love the rides so if you don't like it that's fine more space for me

 

[Lilofan]

Animal Kingdom is our least favorite park. It’s one of those “do we go” or make it a pool day instead.

If I'm spending thousands of dollars for a WDW vacation each day would be either at parks, water parks or Disney Springs. A pool day would be spent at home. To each his own.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

If I'm spending thousands of dollars for a WDW vacation each day would be either at parks, water parks or Disney Springs. A pool day would be spent at home. To each his own.

A lot of the "thousands of dollars" could be for the resort stay. Why not enjoy the resort as well? Doesn't have to be an either/or situation.

 

[bustamelon]

I love the way you end your post by acknowledging that there will be some strong opinions on this subject. This thread, like all the others, doesn't need another opinion (see what I did there?) but here's mine anyway. Great blog post, BTW. You should link to it in the OP. I had to dig through the thread to find it.

I agree with most of your arguments. DAK was undeniably a half-day park, at least until Pandora was completed. And that's based purely on what I've heard from others, as I haven't even been since then. Putting it another way: on my last trip, a 7-day trip, we hit each of the parks twice -- except DAK. So if the other 3 parks are 2-day parks, DAK was a 1-day park.

A mistake? At the time, yeah. I think they definitely could have spent that money in 100 much better ways. Pumping it into existing parks (EPCOT anyone?) for one thing. Keeping those parks up to date and clean would have made us old-timers happy, but it wouldn't have done much to keep fickle guests from veering off to Tampa or Universal.

But let's be honest: it's just one of a thousand mistakes that have been made by the bean counters and execs since the Eisner days. However, in the end, I think it's endeared itself to me and many others, and earned its place. It has a charm and a vibe that you don't get at the other parks. I am always impressed by the cast members there who work in the animal exhibits. It's very clear they really know their stuff and really care about the work they do.

I'll finish with a hypothetical: Imagine if that Bengal tiger went berserk and ripped the flesh from the bigwigs at Joe Rhode's meeting. Where would we be now?
Would EPCOT not be a demolition site from a 1980s shopping mall?

 

[JusticeDisney]

Animal Kingdom is our least favorite park. It’s one of those “do we go” or make it a pool day instead.

Obviously, you and anyone else should hit WDW however you see fit and in whatever way you are going to feel is most enjoyable, but with attractions like FOP, EE and KS, Animal Kingdom is always a must do for us.

 

[Ken R]

While I like the Animal Kingdom, it’s not my favorite park. But I do think it’s pretty and for the Most part fun. What I do think is that Disney should stop creating “lands” with just two attractions that take half a decade to build. Some of the older technology dark rides are amazing and fun too and would take a fraction of the time and money to build (Pirates, Haunted Mansion). Pandora is a miss in that most everyone forgot about Avatar a decade before Pandora was built. Strange theme to me for Animal Kingdom. I also think a 5th park based solely on Star Wars would have been a world wide hit. Instead they crammed Star Wars into a little corner in Hollywood. Pixar could have been expanded into that section and Star Wars would exist all by itself in its own park with lots of attractions and dark rides telling the various stories. The possibilities are endless with Star Wars.