Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks

Status
Not open for further replies.

MonorailGuy11

New Member
I understand that not everyone goes to WDW as often as I do and I have taken the time to walk the trails and such at AK, but really how long do you expect to stand and stare at a sleeping tiger? I know that AK doubles as a zoo and I love seeing the animals, but they are not the reason I go to WDW. I go for everything else. There are zoos near my house and I can smell the roses near my house, I want Disney magic...maybe I'm spoiled.
 

PlaneCrazy1978

Active Member
I understand that not everyone goes to WDW as often as I do and I have taken the time to walk the trails and such at AK, but really how long do you expect to stand and stare at a sleeping tiger? I know that AK doubles as a zoo and I love seeing the animals, but they are not the reason I go to WDW. I go for everything else. There are zoos near my house and I can smell the roses near my house, I want Disney magic...maybe I'm spoiled.

Nahtazu!
 

menamechris

Well-Known Member
I am amused that the topic of AK (half-day/full-day debate) seems to be able to make its way into just about any thread.

Regardless, I think the argument against AK is the lack of entertainment options. Yes, there are a few excellent shows, but if you expect to return to AK more often than once every few years, you will eventually get tired of them. Immersive attractions are what would take care of this. Unlike other Disney parks, AK requires the guest to observe their surroundings, as opposed to be a part of them - and I think that confuses many guests. They are used to lining up for an attraction or show and being entertained - not go on self-guided tours through animal trails. To those who can make a full day out of AK, I think its fantastic - but I think it is rather ridiculous to imply that guests are "touring the park wrong" (or not walking slow enough) if it is only a half-day park for them.
 

devoy1701

Well-Known Member
I am amused that the topic of AK (half-day/full-day debate) seems to be able to make its way into just about any thread.

Regardless, I think the argument against AK is the lack of entertainment options. Yes, there are a few excellent shows, but if you expect to return to AK more often than once every few years, you will eventually get tired of them. Immersive attractions are what would take care of this. Unlike other Disney parks, AK requires the guest to observe their surroundings, as opposed to be a part of them - and I think that confuses many guests. They are used to lining up for an attraction or show and being entertained - not go on self-guided tours through animal trails. To those who can make a full day out of AK, I think its fantastic - but I think it is rather ridiculous to imply that guests are "touring the park wrong" (or not walking slow enough) if it is only a half-day park for them.

personally I'm not saying you're touring wrong...You point out exactly what the issue is with AK. The way the park was designed is not what most people think about with a theme park...the idea of exploring on your own and slowing down. Every other theme park is designed with specific destinations and elements that are supposed to draw you from one place to the next, and when your done with one attraction, check it off and move down the list.

AK is pretty revolutionary in that aspect, but the pace of life nowadays dimishes its success. Everyone is so go-go-go anymore that they don't slow down to enjoy what's around them. You see it with those guests who spend the whole day with their eye glued to their camera or LCD screen as they're walking. This is why it needs more traditional theme park elements to make it a blatent success among all visitors I think, to make it equally enjoyable and immersive to all, not just those who are OK with a theme park not just being able rides and thrills.

Me personally, I spend a hour sitting in front of the Tree of Life watched the Kangaroos do their thing. Those animals are so crazy! And feeding time for the tigers is even more exciting...I mean I know what a tiger roar sounds like...but I never expected it to be THAT powerful!

(Eddie needs to jump back in and start a new topic so we stop hi-jacking his thread!)
 

BlueLightningTN

New Member
First, let me say I'm not interested in some hardcore, scholarly debate over whether or not Animal Kingdom qualifies as a "full day park." One, it's subjective, and two it's not a political or religious question... it's a theme park for crying out loud. That said, it's not generally couth to tell someone they're objectively "wrong" about a subjective concept. Chillax people, you'll feel better.

rioriz said:
Sorry this is a flase statement...

AK hours for June

9am-8pm

If you call that a half of day I would love to see your work schedule!

Animal Kingdom hours are generally between 9-5 and 9-8, fluxuating throughout the year depending on crowd levels. Magic Kingdom is generally between 9-9 and 9-2am throughout the year. Now there are several reasons for this, capacity versus demand not being least, but if we take a look at potential for reasonable time in cumulative attractions, MK is far ahead of AK, even if you count a reasonable time spent watching animals.

If you count every single thing to do in Magic Kingdom, depending on the way you count it you'll come out with some number between fifty and sixty things to do and see in the park. If you count every single thing to do and see in Animal Kingdom, you'll arrive at a number between twenty and thirty. And that's just numbers you can't get away from.

I love animals as much as the next person, and I'm a huge science geek. I can still go to Animal Kingdom and knock out everything by the afternoon, without any problem. That's including time spent watching the critters and beasties. If I try to knock out everything in Magic Kingdom, it'll take me the full day. Now if we narrow both of those parks down to things that I am interested in seeing now that I know what's worthwhile... I can knock out Animal Kingdom by lunch and Magic Kingdom by the afternoon. Obviously I'm not counting night entertainment.

Condorman said:
Wrong. Nobody said you had to do the full day in one day. I always laugh when people say DAK or DHS are half-day parks. You may be able to do the things YOU want to do in 4-5 hours, but you're not doing everything there IS to do in 4-5 hours. Just because you don't walk the trails, see every show and "smell the roses" so to speak, doesn't mean others don't and that it's not a full-day park.

See the above. Magic Kingdom has somewhere between twice and thrice times the number of attractions as Animal Kingdom (including animal exhibits as attractions). And I know how long each park takes for the average person - I take school groups to WDW anually and a family vacation (or two).

Also, don't laugh at people making their own subjective opinion. It's like chewing with your mouth open. It just grosses people out.

PhilharMagician said:
That statement is totally incorrect.With that logic that would make DHS a 2/3 day park and Epcot anywhere from 2/3 day to a 1 1/8 day park depending on the time of the year and Epcot's hours.

I just threw the figure off the top of my head, but I would agree that DHS is a 2/3 day park, though if you know what you're doing you can knock it out in half. EPCOT is anywhere between a full day and a two day park... people who spend lots of time in World Showcase and the shops there will need two days.

I think that some of you took my statement about AK as being an attack on the park. The truth is I think AK is the best themed of all the parks, and it has tremendous potential. It does need another "land" however, and it could use some indoor rides (AK on a rainy, winter day is worthless) badly. It also needs enough attractions to make its being open at night worthwhile.

And remember, I like Disney World too... I just don't have to agree with every thing you think about it (and vice versa).
 

wedenterprises

Well-Known Member
I understand that not everyone goes to WDW as often as I do and I have taken the time to walk the trails and such at AK, but really how long do you expect to stand and stare at a sleeping tiger? I know that AK doubles as a zoo and I love seeing the animals, but they are not the reason I go to WDW. I go for everything else. There are zoos near my house and I can smell the roses near my house, I want Disney magic...maybe I'm spoiled.

There is something for everyone at WDW, and AK hits a certain demographic.

My mother has been known to drive to WDW and literally watch the gorillas all day. I have personally spent 1-2 hours staring at the Tigers because they are beautiful animals. Overwhelmingly beautiful.

Some people have very short attention spans. For those who don't, AK is a brilliant park. It's a place to take your time and savor your surroundings. I also think that people in their low-mid 20's will learn to appreciate AK as they get older.
 

Cosmic Commando

Well-Known Member
I am amused that the topic of AK (half-day/full-day debate) seems to be able to make its way into just about any thread.

Regardless, I think the argument against AK is the lack of entertainment options. Yes, there are a few excellent shows, but if you expect to return to AK more often than once every few years, you will eventually get tired of them. Immersive attractions are what would take care of this.

I totally agree that DAK needs more "ride" attractions, but why is it that people always say that rides have repeatability and shows do not? Most rides are designed to give you the same exact experience every single time you go on. A show with live actors is different every time. It can't help but be different. Good shows have repeatability just like good rides do.
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
Animal Kingdom to me represents the opportunity to showcase nature at its finest. I think that it would be interesting to do some kind of attraction that took you into all the different scales/worlds for which nature occurs. The "Adventure through Inner Space" took us into the world of a tiny snowflake and finally the Atom. What might be exciting at Animal Kingdom is to explore creatures great and small. What would it be like to shrink into a forest and realize you're actually with tiny fleas on the back of a giant animal? Then they attack of course... There is a micro-Safari living just beyond our meager sight.

I would like to be immersed in those tiny worlds as magic kingdoms of nature. The Planet Earth television series blew me away as there were so many things in nature that had never been really seen until they revealed them. "Winged Migration" or "March of the Penguins" took a closer and more comprehensive look at things we took for granted as an everyday arctic species or a flock flying overhead. Animal Kingdom should go beyond the animals to further open our awareness of organisms and ecosystems that are everywhere. Isn't it interesting that you could spend 1 million lifetimes exploring the Earth and all the species of animals, trees and plants and never see them all. Pirates and Presidents are limited subjects, but nature is not. "Animal Kingdom" as a subject with the Earth as its backlot has the potential to entertain on a level that no Park ever has. But nature is left too static and relies on the curiosity of the viewer to "lean in" and entertain themselves then it does become a more passive topic. The use of modern technology and entertainment techniques to tell those stories and embrace those realities are probably needed to present these worlds in an entertaining way. I thought the "Adventure through Inner Space" attraction did a really good job of presenting science as an adventure.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
I totally agree that DAK needs more "ride" attractions, but why is it that people always say that rides have repeatability and shows do not? Most rides are designed to give you the same exact experience every single time you go on. A show with live actors is different every time. It can't help but be different. Good shows have repeatability just like good rides do.
I know this may cause a bit of an uproar, but I agree with what you said but I think in some ways the size of Walt Disney World hurts their entertainment offerings, as the Resort cannot be as selective in order to fill all roles. It just seems to me that at Walt Disney World there is always a good chance of there be at least one, if not more, actors just going through the motions.
 

jhastings74

Well-Known Member
First, let me say I'm not interested in some hardcore, scholarly debate over whether or not Animal Kingdom qualifies as a "full day park." One, it's subjective, and two it's not a political or religious question... it's a theme park for crying out loud. That said, it's not generally couth to tell someone they're objectively "wrong" about a subjective concept. Chillax people, you'll feel better.



Animal Kingdom hours are generally between 9-5 and 9-8, fluxuating throughout the year depending on crowd levels. Magic Kingdom is generally between 9-9 and 9-2am throughout the year. Now there are several reasons for this, capacity versus demand not being least, but if we take a look at potential for reasonable time in cumulative attractions, MK is far ahead of AK, even if you count a reasonable time spent watching animals.

If you count every single thing to do in Magic Kingdom, depending on the way you count it you'll come out with some number between fifty and sixty things to do and see in the park. If you count every single thing to do and see in Animal Kingdom, you'll arrive at a number between twenty and thirty. And that's just numbers you can't get away from.

I love animals as much as the next person, and I'm a huge science geek. I can still go to Animal Kingdom and knock out everything by the afternoon, without any problem. That's including time spent watching the critters and beasties. If I try to knock out everything in Magic Kingdom, it'll take me the full day. Now if we narrow both of those parks down to things that I am interested in seeing now that I know what's worthwhile... I can knock out Animal Kingdom by lunch and Magic Kingdom by the afternoon. Obviously I'm not counting night entertainment.



See the above. Magic Kingdom has somewhere between twice and thrice times the number of attractions as Animal Kingdom (including animal exhibits as attractions). And I know how long each park takes for the average person - I take school groups to WDW anually and a family vacation (or two).

Also, don't laugh at people making their own subjective opinion. It's like chewing with your mouth open. It just grosses people out.



I just threw the figure off the top of my head, but I would agree that DHS is a 2/3 day park, though if you know what you're doing you can knock it out in half. EPCOT is anywhere between a full day and a two day park... people who spend lots of time in World Showcase and the shops there will need two days.

I think that some of you took my statement about AK as being an attack on the park. The truth is I think AK is the best themed of all the parks, and it has tremendous potential. It does need another "land" however, and it could use some indoor rides (AK on a rainy, winter day is worthless) badly. It also needs enough attractions to make its being open at night worthwhile.

And remember, I like Disney World too... I just don't have to agree with every thing you think about it (and vice versa).


I just wanted to come out of the shadows where I lurk to tell you that I really agree with everything you say and enjoyed this specific post of yours. It was very well-worded.

For the record, I am a former DAK CM and even though I have more hours inside its gates than many people around here, I can *still* spend a full day there without much effort. But as it has been said earlier, it is not a run-in-at-rope-drop-and-run-out person's type of park. It is a take-your-time-and-immerse-yourself type of park (as long as it's not 100 degrees with 500% humidity outside and raining).

Thanks for your post, Blue. :wave:
 

Scar Junior

Active Member
Animal Kingdom to me represents the opportunity to showcase nature at its finest. I think that it would be interesting to do some kind of attraction that took you into all the different scales/worlds for which nature occurs. The "Adventure through Inner Space" took us into the world of a tiny snowflake and finally the Atom. What might be exciting at Animal Kingdom is to explore creatures great and small. What would it be like to shrink into a forest and realize you're actually with tiny fleas on the back of a giant animal? Then they attack of course... There is a micro-Safari living just beyond our meager sight.

I would like to be immersed in those tiny worlds as magic kingdoms of nature. The Planet Earth television series blew me away as there were so many things in nature that had never been really seen until they revealed them. "Winged Migration" or "March of the Penguins" took a closer and more comprehensive look at things we took for granted as an everyday arctic species or a flock flying overhead. Animal Kingdom should go beyond the animals to further open our awareness of organisms and ecosystems that are everywhere. Isn't it interesting that you could spend 1 million lifetimes exploring the Earth and all the species of animals, trees and plants and never see them all. Pirates and Presidents are limited subjects, but nature is not. "Animal Kingdom" as a subject with the Earth as its backlot has the potential to entertain on a level that no Park ever has. But nature is left too static and relies on the curiosity of the viewer to "lean in" and entertain themselves then it does become a more passive topic. The use of modern technology and entertainment techniques to tell those stories and embrace those realities are probably needed to present these worlds in an entertaining way. I thought the "Adventure through Inner Space" attraction did a really good job of presenting science as an adventure.

That's some insight... well said!
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
Wally Boag passes

It is truly sad to see that Disneyland's first master entertainer, best known as "Pecos Bill" in the Golden Horseshoe Revue, Wally Boag, died today. I adored this guy. Me and my friend got up the guts to walk to his house when we were 12, we hardly knew what to say to him as we watched him wax his kitchen floor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wally_Boag

Wally was also the voice of Jose in the Tiki Room among doing many other roles in the movies and elsewhere. I recently saw him in a TV special as a pirate at the opening of the ride in 1967. If you ever saw him live, he was laugh out loud funny and had amazing timing. It's hard to keep your edge in a show that runs for 40 years. Wally did it. He has been and will always be truly missed.

"No one sleeps while I'm on" Wally Boag (as the travelling salesman).

We never did.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
There is something for everyone at WDW, and AK hits a certain demographic.

My mother has been known to drive to WDW and literally watch the gorillas all day. I have personally spent 1-2 hours staring at the Tigers because they are beautiful animals. Overwhelmingly beautiful.

Some people have very short attention spans. For those who don't, AK is a brilliant park. It's a place to take your time and savor your surroundings. I also think that people in their low-mid 20's will learn to appreciate AK as they get older.

It's not just about people that have "very short attention spans". That's so dismissive.

Here is the essential problem : yes, AK is a lush looking park. Although I think people (even myself) give it a bit TOO much credit as being "amazingly themed" - I mean, it's a jungle. A big one, and the effort to build a Jungle like that on swamp land is pretty amazing, but...there isn't a ton of difference between the different areas of the park except for the signs on all the shanti-huts.

The thing is, attention span notwithstanding, there must be something there to capture that attention. Just looking at pretty trees and jungle-like feelings only goes so far. The animal exhibits are, frankly, done better elsewhere. There are regional zoos that many people have access to that provide much better/closer animal interaction. Are the surroundings as lush? No, but the environment is the frosting, the animal interaction/viewing the cake - so you can make the most lovely frosting, but if you put 5 inches of frosting on top of a 1-inch deep cake, most people aren't going to find that appetizing.

So it's not much of a zoo, and not much of a theme park either. The two big shows are overblown affairs that take 2 hours after waiting in hot outdoor lines, going through the herding process, and actually viewing the shows. Both are OK, but while I'm sure some will disagree I don't find either of them particularly compelling to have to see more than once or twice. That's subjective, I'm sure some love them and can watch them over and over, but let's be honest - they are set up the way they are (especially the overlapping times, preventing you from seeing them back to back) is to artificially extend visitors time in the park.

And rides? Well, that doesn't even need to be gone over yet again. There are few, and what are there are sub-par (Primeval Whirl), in dire need of maintenance (Dinosaur) or just broken (Everest). The Safari is only decent if you go at the right time of day, and even when you do get good animal viewing the stupid forced storyline forces you past so quickly it doesn't allow for much quality viewing.

It's not about attention span, it's about quality of attractions (animal and not). AK is far below all other parks in that respect, even Epcot. If some people are content just wandering around all day looking up at the same jungle-treetop theming that is all over the park and it satisfies them, yay, great for them. But most people do not go to WDW just to walk around and look at plants, nor admire shanty-town architecture.

It's similar to World Showcase in that regard, in that the same arguments have been made for and against it over the years. Some view WS as just a really nice, well-themed shopping mall/food court. Some swear it's nearly a religious experience, or a high art cultural experience. Personally, I find it in the middle - yes, very nice architecture, but there isn't that much there either besides the pretty buildings (what's inside most is shops - some of which sell the same junk any store can order - my mother marveled at the crap they were shilling in Japan like bamboo placemats and such that are from the same exact company her little shop on the coast of Maine orders from wholesale for a buck each).

Not everyone who doesn't love either of them or thinks they need a lot of work has a short attention span, just like not everyone who thinks AK or WS are these almost wordlessly poignant experiences are simply sheltered people who are solely impressed because they haven't seen any of the "real" thing as opposed to the Disney-fied distillation of it.
 

BlueLightningTN

New Member
Love the idea, Eddie. Any additional indoor attractions for AK would be appreciated. If you were to put in an omnimover attraction that told the secret story of the jungle by moving people past 3D screens with great narration, you could have a real winner. And, please Disney, don't dumb down the story, and don't tell it with some sort of political or ecological agenda. People just want to learn - we don't want a fake threat or another reminder that the planet's ecosystems are in peril... we know that.

That's the problem with Kiliminjaro Safaris. Whoever decided that we needed a story, which threaten an elephant and her baby, forgot that just by seeing these creatures in this environment, in this way, almost all of us are automatically reminded of how precious their existence is. We don't have to be given an extra oomph to reach that intellectual point. And since we're given that extra incentive, we lose out on time to admire them and take in all the surroundings.

Now if I were the guy calling the shots for WDW, I would expand Animal Kingdom with a new land. It would cost a lot of money, but if done so that hours could be extended, I feel it would recoup those costs. I would be cool with either Australia being added between Africa and Asia, or with Beastly Kingdom (but please rename it) being realized in the southwest section... which would mean Lion King being moved to the appropriate location west of Tusker House.
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
It's not just about people that have "very short attention spans". That's so dismissive.

Here is the essential problem : yes, AK is a lush looking park. Although I think people (even myself) give it a bit TOO much credit as being "amazingly themed" - I mean, it's a jungle. A big one, and the effort to build a Jungle like that on swamp land is pretty amazing, but...there isn't a ton of difference between the different areas of the park except for the signs on all the shanti-huts.

The thing is, attention span notwithstanding, there must be something there to capture that attention. Just looking at pretty trees and jungle-like feelings only goes so far. The animal exhibits are, frankly, done better elsewhere. There are regional zoos that many people have access to that provide much better/closer animal interaction. Are the surroundings as lush? No, but the environment is the frosting, the animal interaction/viewing the cake - so you can make the most lovely frosting, but if you put 5 inches of frosting on top of a 1-inch deep cake, most people aren't going to find that appetizing.

So it's not much of a zoo, and not much of a theme park either. The two big shows are overblown affairs that take 2 hours after waiting in hot outdoor lines, going through the herding process, and actually viewing the shows. Both are OK, but while I'm sure some will disagree I don't find either of them particularly compelling to have to see more than once or twice. That's subjective, I'm sure some love them and can watch them over and over, but let's be honest - they are set up the way they are (especially the overlapping times, preventing you from seeing them back to back) is to artificially extend visitors time in the park.

And rides? Well, that doesn't even need to be gone over yet again. There are few, and what are there are sub-par (Primeval Whirl), in dire need of maintenance (Dinosaur) or just broken (Everest). The Safari is only decent if you go at the right time of day, and even when you do get good animal viewing the stupid forced storyline forces you past so quickly it doesn't allow for much quality viewing.

It's not about attention span, it's about quality of attractions (animal and not). AK is far below all other parks in that respect, even Epcot. If some people are content just wandering around all day looking up at the same jungle-treetop theming that is all over the park and it satisfies them, yay, great for them. But most people do not go to WDW just to walk around and look at plants, nor admire shanty-town architecture.

It's similar to World Showcase in that regard, in that the same arguments have been made for and against it over the years. Some view WS as just a really nice, well-themed shopping mall/food court. Some swear it's nearly a religious experience, or a high art cultural experience. Personally, I find it in the middle - yes, very nice architecture, but there isn't that much there either besides the pretty buildings (what's inside most is shops - some of which sell the same junk any store can order - my mother marveled at the crap they were shilling in Japan like bamboo placemats and such that are from the same exact company her little shop on the coast of Maine orders from wholesale for a buck each).

Not everyone who doesn't love either of them or thinks they need a lot of work has a short attention span, just like not everyone who thinks AK or WS are these almost wordlessly poignant experiences are simply sheltered people who are solely impressed because they haven't seen any of the "real" thing as opposed to the Disney-fied distillation of it.

"One man's mud is another's uranium".
 

RandySavage

Well-Known Member
Seems everyone's got an opinion, and here's mine: I've been to some of the best zoos all over the world (former member of the Bronx Zoo, with its top tier gorilla & tiger exhibits), and my vote for the finest single examples of artificial habitats of any zoo on the planet goes to AK's Pangani Forest and Maharajah Jungle Trek.

Others exhibits may do some things better, but no other exhibits do everything (animals, proximity, environment, barriers, rockwork, water features, coherence, details, etc.) as well on such a grand scale - take out all the animals and the Maharajah Trek's ruined palace is still a work of art: detail after detail and virtually no break in the illusion. The Tree of Life and Oasis are also brilliant, unrivaled creations. A tribute to Paul Comstock's and WDI's genius.

So AK's got the habitats part down, what we all agree on is its need of rides. The elephant in the room is the Mythical Animal section, which could house a variety of these much needed rides, and many of us feel has been part of the park's DNA (and logo) since it was announced.

On another note, I remember reading a quote by Comstock (or another Imagineer) on the great challenge of landscaping the Kilimanjaro Safari savanna and other areas where large animals mull about: the animals trample or eat the carefully planted/themed landscape into dust within days. Having visited AK both pre-opening and recently, I remember the first time with its very tall grasses below the "acacia trees" and it was mindblowing how much it felt like Tanzania. Now, after years of grazing, many of the habitats from Kili to Maharajah have lost a some of that "wild" authenticity having been trodden by their inhabitants - a difficult to solve problem that doesn't apply to AA animals.

1998 tall grasses:
5796781427_9aa85da086_b.jpg
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
Others exhibits may do some things better, but no other exhibits do everything (animals, proximity, environment, barriers, rockwork, water features, coherence, details, etc.) as well on such a grand scale - take out all the animals and the Maharajah Trek's ruined palace is still a work of art: detail after detail and virtually no break in the illusion. The Tree of Life and Oasis are also brilliant, unrivaled creations. A tribute to Paul Comstock's and WDI's genius. [/img]

Well said. Paul Comstock is working with me on a project right now and I love every minute of it. He teaches with every action he takes and landscape is a weak area for me. He comes from 8 Generations in that field and was schooled by Bill Evans, Disney's master landscaper. He bleeds sap. Landscaping to him is a lifestyle. AK is a testimony not to just copying habitats, but to taking them to another higher level.
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
Betty Taylor passes

Truth is stranger than fiction, and just a day after the passing of "the Clown Prince of Disneyland" Wally Boag, we lose his costar Betty Taylor. They played "Pecos Bill" and "Slue Foot Sue" in their act. As a young teen I was addicted, as many were to watching them perform. It's funny how the same corny jokes and the same numbers would elicit a laugh from the crowd for so many years. You kind of groaned at first, but gave yourself permission to "go there" and just enjoy it as they were enjoying it. The Golden Horseshoe has lost another great talent. Here they are on video..I guess you'd have to have been there.

http://progresscityusa.com/

Here's more...

http://miceage.micechat.com/allutz/al060611a.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Back
Top Bottom