First Animal KIngdom Visit

[Kopp8699]

Personally, im not a huge AK fan.... im more so then wen i went when it opened and the following year, but my last trip (16 years old, summer 2003) it wasnt horrible. IMO i dont like the layout because its so much warmer and feels like ur lost the whole time, but it is themed very well. Rainforest Cafe is @ DD, and we didnt get 2 do tarzan, tough 2 b a bug (lines u know), lion king, or kali (once again lines). Dinosaur is good and the safari is SPECTACULAR, but i think the park needs "something." I dont think everest will pick it up that much but it will help. But somethin is missing. I donno its an ok park from what ive seen, but on the same scale as MK or Epcot (personally 1 of my favorite parks anywhere) i feel it lacks. I also agree with the post about how MGM seems 2 fall short compared 2 US, but Universal we did in a 1/3 of day and MGM we stayed until fantasmic..... basically the same waits but we could stay longer at MGM. I donno, i guess i feel somewhat dissapointed considering how great disney was in the early 90's and how it seems 2 fall shorter than its usual expectations. It seems like they have sort of "settled." Granted i love Disney, but with AK, im sort of in the middle of the road. Its a good park in some aspects, but others it just seems 2 fall short. This is all my personal oppinion so dont gang up on me or nethin lol

 

[Scooter]

Originally posted by Kopp8699
Personally, im not a huge AK fan.... im more so then wen i went when it opened and the following year, but my last trip (16 years old, summer 2003) it wasnt horrible. IMO i dont like the layout because its so much warmer and feels like ur lost the whole time, but it is themed very well. Rainforest Cafe is @ DD, and we didnt get 2 do tarzan, tough 2 b a bug (lines u know), lion king, or kali (once again lines). Dinosaur is good and the safari is SPECTACULAR, but i think the park needs "something." I dont think everest will pick it up that much but it will help. But somethin is missing. I donno its an ok park from what ive seen, but on the same scale as MK or Epcot (personally 1 of my favorite parks anywhere) i feel it lacks. I also agree with the post about how MGM seems 2 fall short compared 2 US, but Universal we did in a 1/3 of day and MGM we stayed until fantasmic..... basically the same waits but we could stay longer at MGM. I donno, i guess i feel somewhat dissapointed considering how great disney was in the early 90's and how it seems 2 fall shorter than its usual expectations. It seems like they have sort of "settled." Granted i love Disney, but with AK, im sort of in the middle of the road. Its a good park in some aspects, but others it just seems 2 fall short. This is all my personal oppinion so dont gang up on me or nethin lol

:lol: Spoken like a true Teenager..lol

Of course Disney seemed better in the early 90's to you...you were a CHILD and everything was more magical them. You didn't question or analize anything..you just enjoyed it all with Amazement and a childlike imagination.

Come back when you are 35 or 40 and things in your life don't seem quite as hectic and fast-paced as now...the Magic all comes back to you. Trust me. :animwink:

 

[Kopp8699]

Originally posted by Scooter
:lol: Spoken like a true Teenager..lol

is this some sort of a stereotypical statement? lol :lol: but ur most likely correct.

 

[the-reason]

My first visit to AK was 2 years ago in the summer.I really enjoyed it, but I agree in some things you guys don said.It doesnt really have too much to do.I mean the excibits and the shows thats something, but I frankly dont like them.They truly need more rides and stuff.I do enjoy strolling the park a lot.The first time we went, there wasnt a lot of ppls, so it felt really relaxing to be in WDW and not have ppl just brushing all over you.(get some arm space and stuff, YOU KNOW)But the main things we do there is:the safari, and dinoland, thats it.(this year Im mon see ITTBAB)
I really enjoy dinosaur and primival whirl, I really love PW, I dont understand why most of yall hate it.I do agree it doesnt have that much theming and stuff, but it still has a "family like" quality to it.

But all in all, I think that AK is a pretty good park, although its not my fav. WDW park, but its #3

I just hope they can think of a way to add more themed coasters and stuff there, So it can get a thrill park perspective.

 

[Yen_Sid1]

IMO i dont like the layout because its so much warmer and feels like ur lost the whole time, but it is themed very well.

That's how the designers designed the park. You supposed to be on a exploration trip like you are lost in the jungle or something. So you supposed to explore and find a new surprise around every corner. With animal exhibits spread out throughout the park.

 

[Meyers]

AK not so great

I visited Animal Kingdom for the first time in 1999 before Asia opened.

I had been to WDW several times before and enjoyed all the other theme parks. Presently I live near Disneyland Resort.

Previously, I lived for years in San Diego with the country's best zoo and best wild animal park, superior to AK in my opinion. I'll debate that will anyone.

After Eisner spent $750,000,000 on AK, frankly I wasn't impressed. I don't think Disney got its money's worth.

I was disappointed that Disney had to resort to having an overpriced RainForest Cafe at the entrance, which I could eat at most anywhere. No imagination. I think Disney should operate all its own restaurants and keep the outside world out.

Entrance area had too narrow walkways. It was hot, humid and I seldom saw animals out in the sun. (at noon)

Most of the park seemed to be only a series of nicely themed villages, but none of them very dramatic or interesting. Just more Disney slock in small stores to sell in a lot of them.

River boat tour was dull. Most it just trees, as if there weren't enough trees to see in Florida. Rapids ride is better at DCA . Train ride was marginal for views, locomotive wasn't even steam powered, a shame after the good theming.

It's a Bug's Life was good, but we have it now at DCA too. Why bother for anyone from California see AK when you can ride the rapids, see Bug's Life and visit a better natural park to see animals from a monorail at the San Diego Wild Animal Park which has a themed African village with accurate, realistic structures, that doesn't look like stage props.

Conservation Station was a bore. Not worth the time to wait for the train to see it. And it's "message" was something I don't really think Disney truly cares about. Making money off animals is the purpose of the park.

The primary reason AK was built anyway was for Eisner to try and hold people longer at WDW and not visit Tampa and Busch Gardens. I visitor can actually touch giraffees at both Busch Gardens and the Wild Animal Park, so Disney is not unique in this reqard at all.

I understand now there are dressed up carnival rides for the kids in Dinoland and the Everest Expedition coaster is under construction. What does this coaster have to do with serious conservation?

About the only thing I liked was the Tree of Life and the Tarzan show. Enough Lion King for me, tired of it. Aladdin at DCA is just as good.

Too bad so much money was wasted on AK, if the $300 million over DCA's cost had be spent on that California park, it would have been a better, fleshed out park overall. AK is just a jazzed up glorified zoo mutuant.

When in San Diego, see the real thing, The San Diego Wild Animal Park.

 

[imagineer99]

Re: AK not so great

Everyone's got different opinions...

I must admit Animal Kingdom is not for everyone. If you are interested in lots of thrill rides and attractions you won't find it AK.

Personally, I think that Animal Kingdom is great. It is an experience to be savored. If you walk into AK and start running all over the place you have defeated the purpose of the park.

I've been to a lot of Zoo's and Animal Kingdom is a million times better. You may not like Animal Kingdom, but comparing it to your average zoo is plain criminal. Besides, Kilimanjaro Safari is worth price of admission by itself. It is the closest I will ever come to taking a real safari into Africa. Every time you ride, it is different.

The detail in Animal Kingdom is outstanding. The pavement is speckled with fossils and the imprints of fallen leaves. Animal habitats are so cleverly put together, it is difficult to notice the barrirers between the humans and guests. Maharajah Jungle Trek has probably the most ingenious habitat design I have ever seen. Looking at Tigers as they prance amongst Asian ruins is breathtaking and beautiful.

The future looks bright as well! Everest is going to be an amazing ride. Just picturing a thirty-foot animatronic yeti makes me drool in anticipation.

I never spend an entire day at ANY Disney theme park. While at WDW, I'm constantly hopping from place to place all day long.

In conclusion, I think Animal Kingdom is not for ever type of person. In today's world all people want is a lot of things to do even in the sacrifice of quality. Disney tried to do this with the poorly constructed California Adventure and failed miserably!

P.S. The river boat tour was never supposed to be a ride!

 

[Brian_B]

PS.
Keep in mind that AK is relatively new, and Disney has been pumping a TON of money into it's other parks - Mission:Space, the whole millenium celebration, repairs and rehabs and all that good stuff etc. So I'm sure as time goes on AK will get more and more and more attractions, just as Disneyland was added to and improved upon over time.

-Brian

 

[johnvree]

Re: Re: Re: First Animal KIngdom Visit

Originally posted by CTXRover
As should be expected in a ride where what you see can actually move and hide. That is why the Safari is probably the best ride in terms of actually NEEDING to do repeat runs on it.
I agree. If I had gone on it only once, I would have been disappointed.

 

[Yen_Sid1]

Too bad so much money was wasted on AK, if the $300 million over DCA's cost had be spent on that California park, it would have been a better, fleshed out park overall. AK is just a jazzed up glorified zoo mutuant.

If they would have spent the original budget on AK. It would have been better also. AK is over 500 acres. How big is DCA? Dino-Rama is only bad part of AK. Paradise Pier is full of off-the-shelf carnival rides. They have a Bugs Life clone and a Kali clone and building a TOT clone.The only good part is Soarin'.

 

[Meyers]

Originally posted by Yen_Sid1
If they would have spent the original budget on AK. It would have been better also. AK is over 500 acres. How big is DCA? Dino-Rama is only bad part of AK. Paradise Pier is full of off-the-shelf carnival rides. They have a Bugs Life clone and a Kali clone and building a TOT clone.The only good part is Soarin'.

I agree. I am not a big enthusiast of DCA, primary because as Roy Disney has pointed out, it was built "on the cheap side."

Instead of DCA, I was hoping for WESCOT or Port Disney.

This saying the park is 500 acres is misleading. Only a small portion has been developed and in use. It is like promoting the San Diego Wild Animal Park is 1,800 acres (over 3 times the size of AK, but the public can walk around in only a relatively small area. However, the monorail does circle most of the entire acreage unlike AK.

Yes, Paradise Pier is full of off-the-shelf rides. And a lot of people don't think it is very Disney like myself. However, if you were building a section of a park that was to be themed as a early amusement park, I think would have a rollercoaster, ferris wheel, merry-go-round, etc. Plus most of them are themed much more than any ordinary amusement park.

Soarin' is great and the hit of the park. You'll be getting it soon with the California film. But Soann' is not the only thing worth seeing at DCA, California Scream' is a good coaster, not the scariest, but one of the longest and best. The River Rapids is good. And Aladdin is excellent. Obviously, there should have been more E-tickets since most everything else is rather mundane.

I wonder how DCA would have been accepted if it had been built in Orlando? How would Paradise Pier come off at WDW? Condor Flats? Route 66? Of course, the Hollywood section is better done at MGM in my opinion and would be repetitious.

 

[Piebald]

I remember the first time I visited AK with my family. It was not long after it had just opened and we thought it was kind of boring and VERY hot out. I visited again last year and we had a blast! The first time we went, a lot of the things had not even opened (Asia wasn't open, and we didn't even go to Dinoland). Not to mention this time around it seemed like there was so much more vegetation and it didn't seem so hot to us. I think with the opening of EE it will slowly become one of my favorite of the 4 parks.

 

[Pixie Duster]

I LOVE MY PARK, LOVE IT, LOVE IT, LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!


*clears throat* sorry

 

[Pixie Duster]

People that like AK enjoy creativity, atmosphere, and originality. That's what AK is, it is laid back, creative, and by all means different than any other theme park, especially different from any of the other WDW parks.

If you try comparing it to San Diego or National Zoo, sorry, but you're not making a smart comparison. AK is not meant to be a zoo by Disney. It is a theme park that presents animals in a different way, and a park with animals that presents a theme park in a different way.

I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[tigger1968]

I have to agree that AK did not blow me away on our first visit. However, it has grown on me as I have taken the time on subsequent visits to wander and explore the park. I think many people who compare it to a zoo completely miss the theming that went into this park. And you have to really spend a good part of the day there to appreciate it all. Sure, ther are a few elements that could have been presented better. I agree that Dino-Land blows as an attraction, but I must admit to loving the theming of it. Anyway, it's not my favorite park, but I can definately say that I appreciate the park much more than on my first visit.

 

[barnum42]

Originally posted by Pixie Duster
People that like AK enjoy creativity, atmosphere, and originality.

That's the nicest compliment I’ve had in ages, thank you.

 

[barnum42]

If you don’t like animals, you won’t like Animal Kingdom.

If you don’t understand the beauty of nature (a good chunk of kids and teens) you will be bored and not like Animal Kingdom.

If you only go to a theme park to sit in rides with your arms up and screaming, you will not like Animal Kingdom.

If the only food you will eat is a cheeseburger and fries and you expect to find it in every counter restaurant, get thee to Magic Kingdom ‘cos you won’t find it here and therefore will not like Animal Kingdom.

If you do not go with an open mind and have locked down your preconceptions about what a theme park with animals should be there is a good chance you will not like Animal Kingdom.

If you are open to new ideas, love nature, do not have the urge to run from one attraction to another so you don’t miss out, want to relax, see some great shows, eat some good food and still get a few arms in the air screaming sessions then get the to Animal Kingdom. Even if it does not initially blow you away there is a good chance you will join the people who have posted that it grew on them.

 

[Pixie Duster]

Barnum you rock! <a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_201.gif' border=0></a>

But seriously, I can understand not liking it, that's fine. Quite honestly I never go to MGM, especially now without the animators being there. But I know that there are other people who love it. Animal Kingdom has a different demographic than the other parks.
I am sorry for those that do not like it, and thank the ones that do not call it a bad or stupid park. To those that do call it a bad park or a stupid park please understand that it's not the park that's the problem, it just doesn't suit your tastes. Everyday I meet someone who comes to AK and tells me that it's their favorite park. MK used to be my favorite, but after I have been working there, AK is on top (but only by a little).

 

[barnum42]

Originally posted by Pixie Duster
Barnum you rock! <a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_201.gif' border=0></a>

Right back at 'cha. Keep up the good work :wave:

 

[cookiee_munster]

I went to Animal Kingdom back in 1999 for my first time, and i love, love, loooved it!

Wasnt like your usual conventional zoo or even theme park. I love depth and stuff and wasn't particulary bothered about the small amount of attractions either, still a great park.

Also with The Legend of the Lion King show, I went back to AK in 2001 and saw this show and thought nothing of it, i was more blown over with Tarzan... Most of everyone on here seems to praise it and say how good it is... has it been changed or something? is this still the show with those parade floats that come out and everyone has to make animal noises???