• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Kilimanjaro Safaris to replace 'Little Red' scene with new savannah space

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
Thank you so much! Does anyone know why they were moved off of the savannah in the first place?

Wasn`t there a problem with some zebras a while back--where they were not very sociable with some of the other animals? I stand corrected if this is wrong!!

It probably wasn't officially acknowledged, but it is generally accepted to be the case. This new savanna space will either have them by themselves or with some sturdier species.

My understanding was that the zebras were too aggressive with some of the younger animals.
 

Clever Name

Well-Known Member
They need to revamp the entire concept and have the attraction work in a similar fashion to Jungle Cruise. There are opportunities for many “poop” jokes for example. :wave:
 

Tip Top Club

Well-Known Member
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that point. I looked. The only semi-official use of the "two weeks" that I found was in one of the queue spiels (which, IIRC, isn't used any more). Not sure if that one was WDI-approved or not.

The "two weeks" thing has very much become a part of the culture of the ride. However, I don't believe that WDI was involved in that at all.

Uhm...I'm not sure what you're looking at but, I looked too...
 

WDW1974

Well-Known Member
Well, actually when you look at it, the whole poacher story does have a huge flaw: first of all it does not at all look at the root of poaching - which to a large part is due to the dire economy of many African countries. As much as I love KS at the AK, I am always a bit uncomfortable when people seem to care more for animals than human beings.

I dunno ... I kind of like most animals I meet more than most folks. Let's put it this way, if there were two burning buildings and one was filled with cute 'wittle puppies (and maybe bunnies too, if no one had dined on them and made them into bunnyloaf:lookaroun) and the other was filled with say Disney lawyers ... well, you know which building this Spirit would be floating into!:D

So maybe, this whole trying to add a message was just trying to achieve too much which was just not possible in a theme park.

The problem began before the park opened, though. It began when you were supposed to see a very dead Big Red to drive home the evils of poaching. But as soon as Michael Eisner saw it (even though he championed it originally with Joe Rohde), he said that it wasn't going to work in a Disney park. To be fair, while I never experienced that version in previews, I do know folks who did ... even Imagineers ... who felt it was too depressing and scary (for kids and the impressionable adults WDW seems to attract).

So, you wound up with the convoluted storyline where the poachers shoot Big Red, but only wound her. That (naturally) makes any sane Spirit wonder what the hell kind of poacher shoots an elephant and only grazes her (this isn't Andrea and Merle's little bro --points to anyone who knows where that is from!:animwink:) ... But so long as Mrs. Red (this is Disney, so one has to assume she didn't have the baby out of elephantlock) isn't dead and gets reunited in the end (a la Dumbo) with her little one, you sorta get the idea poaching is bad, but you don't traumatize little Timmy for life.

But it has gotten more laughable over the years as they added more capacity to KS on busy days and you quickly lost the 'alone on safari in Africa vibe from the early days' when sitting in a traffic jam near the hippos pools and changed the narration and some of the ending. It has basically made no sense since 2007 because you aren't following a linear storyline at all.

So, I'm all for dumping it. ... And I'm really tired of being asked to go chase poachers during my MAGICal WDW vacations anyway. For what they charge to get in, there shouldn't be any poachers in Harambe and, if there are, I'm sure some local Osceola Sheriff's deputies would love to moonlight for cash and take care of them (Florida: Only Thing We Do Better Than Screw Up Elections and Build Strip Malls is SELL GUNS!!!)



There are parts in the ride which I think are great in the way that they are very sensitive about Africa. For example, when you get to the Okapi, I think the real script says that it wasn't discovered until some year by the Western world. Some guides shorten it to it wasn't discovered until whatever year it is. Which is of course nonsense, Africans certainly knew about the Okapi forever. That might be a little thing, but I find it important.

Well, it doesn't really matter because until we discover something here in America, it does not exist!:drevil: ... Besides, I am so tired of hearing how you can never spot an Okapi when I have never taken a safari where I didn't spot an Okapi.

~You Have NOT Lived Until You've Taken a Spirited Safari!~
 

WDW1974

Well-Known Member
I don't disagree with you about why people poach - it's the same reason why so many African nations are full of crime. But poaching is still something that rangers at game reserves have to try to prevent. In that regard, I understand why Disney tried to incorporate it in a park that emphasizes conservation of the world's unique flora and fauna. I just think the plot misses the mark by putting the guest (a tourist) in the position of stopping the poacher, when that experience isn't really an authentic one. I think it's a reasonable talking point (explaining that people poach for the money, but that it still needs to be prevented) but it shouldn't be dwelled on.

You wanna know one of those MAGICal moments when I realized I wasn't the typical WDW guest (and was very happy about that)?

Doesn't matter. I have insomnia and am going to tell you anyway.

It was about 8-9 years ago while staying at DAK Lodge when this nice little boy of about 11 asked one of the safari hosts if they let people go on safaris to 'shoot' the animals. REALLY.

Nice cute kid from the heartland. Serious.

And all I could do was spout some very nasty stuff to my family as I watched the poor South African CM try and 'splain that this wasn't that type of preserve.
 

Alektronic

Well-Known Member
Well, finally the geysers and Little Red just broke and it will cost too much to repair, about time, they let everything else just rot away. Now they can reduce the maintenance budget and get rid of a lot of equipment. They can get rid of the Air Compressors, the 3 sand filters that keep clogging up, all the geyser pumps, high pressure water mists and foggers, lighting dimmers, show control system, audio racks, AA figure (or whatever is left of Little Red), all the props and the truck and campsites.

But they will ENHANCE the area by bulldozing it down and have some animals that are already there run around.
 

Tip Top Club

Well-Known Member
The Zebras have not been on show for several years, and since they are one of the most well-known animals, how does it not make sense to do something to get them back on Safari?

The Geysers, and little Red, are fine. This is not a Budgetary reaction to something, this is them legitimately improving show quality. Embrace it.
 

wdw71fan

Well-Known Member
Well, finally the geysers and Little Red just broke and it will cost too much to repair, about time, they let everything else just rot away. Now they can reduce the maintenance budget and get rid of a lot of equipment. They can get rid of the Air Compressors, the 3 sand filters that keep clogging up, all the geyser pumps, high pressure water mists and foggers, lighting dimmers, show control system, audio racks, AA figure (or whatever is left of Little Red), all the props and the truck and campsites.

But they will ENHANCE the area by bulldozing it down and have some animals that are already there run around.

Nope...

Just rode the attraction yesterday... Little Red and the Geysers were all working..
 

JiminyandTink

Well-Known Member
Zebras are a great addition for sure.

I'm not sure where the talk of losing the geysers came in, but I hope they stay.

Personally, I found the story fun, but I wont miss that as much as the frantic driving itself at the end which I always enjoyed for some reason.

As long as they keep the African music and some interesting commentary by the driver, this sounds very positive.
 

MansionButler84

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
I'm happy they are adding this. I have missed the zebras on the ride. The geysers and Little Red were working last month--I view this as an actual plus. More animals on a safari ride? Makes sense to me.
 

Prototype82

Well-Known Member
Whatever's most economic I suppose. This has to be a budget cut. As long as they make up for it with some heavy storytelling in Avatar, I'll put up with it. I'll miss it though.
 

wdwmagic

Administrator
Moderator
Original Poster
Whatever's most economic I suppose. This has to be a budget cut. As long as they make up for it with some heavy storytelling in Avatar, I'll put up with it. I'll miss it though.

How do you figure that ripping out an already built set, building something new, and putting live animals in there is an economic decision?
 

Prototype82

Well-Known Member
How do you figure that ripping out an already built set, building something new, and putting live animals in there is an economic decision?
Well there is maintenance on animatronics and actors that need to be paid(if they still have them, I haven't been since 2008). But I could be wrong, it's just my assumption. I'm just sort of disappointed because each Animal Kingdom ride(minus Everest) had some sort of event that revolved around conservation. The burning forest in Kali River Rapids, the rescue of Aladar in Dinosaur and the race to stop poachers. But I can understand why they'd want to bring the zebras upfront.
 

MichWolv

Born Modest. Wore Off.
Premium Member
Well there is maintenance on animatronics and actors that need to be paid(if they still have them, I haven't been since 2008). But I could be wrong, it's just my assumption. I'm just sort of disappointed because each Animal Kingdom ride(minus Everest) had some sort of event that revolved around conservation. The burning forest in Kali River Rapids, the rescue of Aladar in Dinosaur and the race to stop poachers. But I can understand why they'd want to bring the zebras upfront.

There will still be a conservation message, just not an "action-oriented" conservation message. Win-win, I think.

As for budget, might be a reduction in recurring operating costs, if it is the case that the animals to be moved are animals that are already on-site and being cared for anyways -- in that case, eliminating the maintenance on the effects might be a net plus. The capital costs are obviously higher with this plan than leaving things as is.
 

MansionButler84

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
How do you figure that ripping out an already built set, building something new, and putting live animals in there is an economic decision?
Sometimes the incessant whining about budget cuts gets to be tiresome. Not EVERY decision at WDW is meant to save money, and not everything at WDW is a mess.

My wife and I loved our vacation last month and it left us wanting to come back...
 

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

Top Bottom