Disney’s Animal Kingdom Was a Mistake

FettFan

Well-Known Member
Respectfully I disagree. This park is amazing.

It *could* have been amazing. As it stands now, Busch Gardens Tampa stands head and shoulders above it.

In a park dedicated to the theme of wildlife conservation, the two biggest draws are a mythological creature roller coaster and a James Cameron movie about aliens with brainstem/genitalia ponytails.

That, to me, is a clear indication that something is horribly wrong.
 
Last edited:

Nottamus

Well-Known Member
I always thought “half day park” was totally inaccurate. But I guess it’s relative to how fast you trot through AK.
Ive said before, Wdw almost sets up your vacation to happen at light speed moving from FP to FP. Lunch to dinner, to fireworks.
The slower you go, the more you see, hear, be amazed by.
I was guilty on my first trip of rushing to get to scheduled things and I missed so much.
I might be the minority here, but MK is more of a “half day park” for me.
But to each their own, that’s why there’s 4 parks
 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
You argue that a fifth gate is needed at the beginning of your post while all of the defense is arguing over not having a fifth gate.
Did you really read it? The whole point is a 5th gate ISN'T needed. It wasn't an argument for a 5th gate, but an argument that Disney hasn't supported the parks it already has. Therefore If they made a 5th gate, yes it would help capacity. But in my opinion the net result would be a negative because we would just have another park, lacking in things to do. I'm sorry you didn't pick up on that. The end point was build out the parks you already have, not add another.
 

WondersOfLife

Blink, blink. Breathe, breathe. Day in, day out.
Did you really read it? The whole point is a 5th gate ISN'T needed. It wasn't an argument for a 5th gate, but an argument that Disney hasn't supported the parks it already has. Therefore If they made a 5th gate, yes it would help capacity. But in my opinion the net result would be a negative because we would just have another park, lacking in things to do. I'm sorry you didn't pick up on that. The end point was build out the parks you already have, not add another.
So the word "however" is needed in the original poster somewhere.
 

NickMaio

Well-Known Member
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. ;)
Mgm studios only had 2 rides when it opened......
Seems to be the wdw way.
 

JustAFan

Well-Known Member
OP posting this on April Fool's Day and then just sitting back watching the replies.

disaster-girl2.jpg
 

Tinkwings

Pfizered Fairy
Premium Member
In the Parks
No
I love the AK 😍 .....albeit by 5:00 I am ready to head to Boma for dinner.....and if we get there early we like to stroll around behind and see more animals as well as explore the lobby. I love plants.....the lush tropical greenery when we travel late Jan early Feb is so restoring and immersive visually and to see and hear the animals, simply priceless with some theming to enhance/plus....and I agree this is a park to wander and discover. I never considered it a half day park, that was always DHS for us....we always plan one whole day at AK with joy. Flights of Wonder former show was a great thing we had bypassed for years.....there are many gems such as this if you take the time to explore. The Animal Kingdom episodes on Disneyplus give more insight to the animal care behind the scenes.....I highly recommend! I will never forget the first time we noticed Devine......eating outside on the patios from Flame Tree BBQ with view of EE.....seems rather private and calming.....not such a fan of avatar, and would like to see them redo Dinoland with a period Indiana Jones themed land.....more John Williams music for this area too.....sigh. :angelic:
1617374287046.png
 
Last edited:

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Thank you for this really well thought-out response. I too think we largely agree with one another, and I likewise see a role for a smaller number of "reformed" zoos in the future.

Something that I think would have to be addressed for zoos to become truly focused on conservation is the issue of captive breeding. As things stand, there are too many animals (the large majority of them unendangered) being born within existing zoo populations, such that hundreds of "surplus" animals are put down each year. The problem appears to be worse in Europe than in the US, where contraceptives are used to prevent such excess numbers.


Definitely. I think that's another issue that would at least partially resolve itself with a significant decrease in the overall number of zoos, but contraceptives/other measures to prevent so many births should be implemented as well. They should also reintroduce some animals to the wild -- which I know some zoos do with endangered/threatened species, but that may not be feasible with species that are not in any danger.

There are a lot of issues to work out.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
It *could* have been amazing. As it stands now, Busch Gardens Tampa stands head and shoulders above it.

In a park dedicated to the theme of wildlife conservation, the two biggest draws are a mythological creature roller coaster and a James Cameron movie about aliens with brainstem/genitalia ponytails.

That, to me, is a clear indication that something is horribly wrong.

Interesting take. I don't think Busch Gardens Tampa is even half the park that Animal Kingdom is.

I also think the Safari is probably the biggest draw considering the wait times it gets despite being one of the largest hourly capacity rides in all of WDW. It can handle about twice as many people per hour as Flight of Passage.
 
Last edited:

TokyoMiki

Active Member
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


correct, a 4th was not needed provided that mk, epcot, studios would have been expanded to the same level as if there were 4 parks.

as for your 2nd point if not animals then what theme would have been more appropriate? exploration(like disney sea)?
 

aliceismad

Well-Known Member
To summarize everything (TLDR), I think zoos can serve a valuable function, but there should be a very small number of them that have huge tracts of available land and vast amounts of funding. They should be a tourist destination in and of themselves because of their scarcity and overall quality instead of scattered around everywhere at varying levels of quality and size. The animals should all have lush, elaborately themed habitats and palatial accommodations.
I agree with this assessment. I've been to a lot of zoos, and some truly are not good stewards for the animals. Zoo standards have evolved so much over the past few decades, and although many are trying, many zoos do not have the capital to invest in redeveloping their infrastructure. Disney may not have done everything right. When AK was designed and opened, it was clear that they had learning to do, but they genuinely have put in a great deal of time and effort into creating the best experience they can, for both their guests and animals. One of my very favorite parts of the park is the conservation station, being able to see procedures being performed, and just talking to the animal caretakers and hearing about the different animals' personalities and preferences.

Was a zoo-type experience the right type of experience for Disney to open? Although clearly investment in all the parks would be ideal, personally I'm very glad they decided to open a fourth gate because as time goes on, it seems Disney is taking fewer and fewer risks and I don't think we would get an Animal Kingdom from the current leadership. Even a budget-cut Animal Kingdom was an immense undertaking and a risk, and it's one that I think the imagineers largely got right.
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
The one issue of AK is when it opened the park was a 9-5pm park. For West Coast guests in Orlando their body clock still thinks it is 2pm.
 

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
Perhaps the biggest irony of AK today is that its most popular attraction is one that does not feature any live animals or educational content.
Arguably, FoP is centered though on connecting with an animal, and living and breathing his world through his eyes.

FoP's educational content is more subtle, and possibly therefore stronger, than at Kali or Safari 1.0: an animal is a person, living in a world that presents trials and beauty to him different to yours, that you can experience if you connect with him.


Avatar's alien world serves as an instrument to understand that other animals' worlds are not mine. Animals have a different sensory experience, a different brain. For all intents and purposes they live in an alien world, even if we do share the same physical space. My balcony's flower pot is another animal's jungle, childhood home, territory; beheld in countless shades of infrared colours invisible to me. I like to think that the insect hotel and butterfly flowers I put up appear to my invertebrate friends as wonderful and brightly coloured a spectacle as the Na'vi River is to me.
 

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
For about 25 years prior to the opening of AK, WDW already had a "zoological sanctuary" with live animals.

What if Disney had built just the Africa/Conservation Station area of the park and sold it as an attraction like Discovery Island? Would it have had the same effect of extending vacations (something AK intended to do, but didn't quite at first) with more money to spend to expand the other parks?
I so miss Discovery Island! :(

You know what I also miss? A WDW that itself felt like a nature retreat.

They paved paradise and put up a parking lot, as they say. Or sing. Then on this lot they built a fake nature theme park whose theme is 'connect with nature'.
 

PSM

Well-Known Member
The great thing about mistakes is that they can often be corrected. In this case, your "mistake" has, over the decades, been turned into millions of people's favorite theme park in the world, and ranks high on the list for millions of others.

I don't fault you for your controversial stance and blog entry, though. On the contrary, I love to read differing perspectives and opinions. A little heated debate and controversy is healthy for a community as large and diverse as the Disney Parks one.

In my opinion, AK offers something very different from the other WDW parks, which is a welcome option when you're talking about six different parks at WDW. Even compared to other non-Disney options in the area, AK stands on its own in terms of style and offerings.

Another thing it has going for it is that it sort of took the reigns on the whole educational theme park format in the group of Disney parks. EPCOT, obviously, used to be the one and only, but its focus has shifted away from that vision over the decades. As someone who has been visiting EPCOT since the 80s, it saddens me. But things change, and I'm happy to see the educational side of Animal Kingdom going strong in many ways. It's not always going to envelop every aspect of the park, but it's clearly scattered throughout. I like that, on some level, my kids are going to learn SOMETHING while they're there.

AK is not my favorite WDW park, but I do love that it exists and always enjoy my visit.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom