Well depends are we talking tropical Americas gets done without Indiana Jones and monsters gets done without the show? Because that seems like a thematic nightmare to me
Honestly, I think the clock is ticking on Rafiki’s, too.
If my cost of something was going up at least 25%, I would think long and hard about whether it was still needed. That multiplies exponentially when you’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.
Ditching Rafiki’s is an attraction removal that wouldn’t phase me much - I’ve never grasped the appeal. Of course, WDW history teaches us that an attractions quality is inversely related to its longevity, so who knows.
You know every time I hear someone mention getting rid of rafikis I think “you do realize there are animal care facilities there right?” They can’t be moved.
Anything can be moved if they really want to. Also, shutting down Rafiki's wouldn't mean getting rid of the care facility, they could save a lot of money by just cutting it off to guests.
1. where exactly? 2. True but I was responding to someone saying that it could be replaced which I find very unlikely
You know, closing it to park goers does’t mean anything will be moved. You do realize it would just mean it is no longer open to the public.
Can you cite the post where this was said?
Yes yes I do
It was yours and Casper’s posts I realize neither of you mentioned a replacement but it seemed like that was what both of you were implying neather the less I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant to say
The care facilities are not directly connected to any of the animal enclosures. The animals are transported there which means they could be transported to somewhere else. That’s it’s actually a good bit separated from the park is what really protects from being used as expansion space for the park proper.
I said nothing about replacing. It would be the easiest thing to close at AK, removed as it is.
No one is “rooting” for it to close.
