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:
Oh please don't give them ideas. :brick: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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The geysers aren't listed to go, are they?Nope...
Just rode the attraction yesterday... Little Red and the Geysers were all working..
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.
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.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.
Nope...
Just rode the attraction yesterday... Little Red and the Geysers were all working..
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.How do you figure that ripping out an already built set, building something new, and putting live animals in there is an economic decision?
Actually, the normal reason for Tilting Bridge not working (assuming that it's functional at all at that moment) is due to the truck that went across immediately before yours. If a non-safari vehicle goes across, the bridge does not tilt. It also automatically does not tilt for the next vehicle that goes across the bridge. However, if that second vehicle was a safari truck it will tilt for the following vehicle (assuming that it, too, is a safari truck).
The same sequence of events will happen if a safari truck goes across the bridge too fast (more than 4 mph).
There's a way to tell if the bridge will tilt or not. There's an orange light at the far-left end of the bridge. It is lit when the truck comes around the corner approaching the bridge. If the light turns off as the truck is about to drive onto the bridge, the tilting effect will happen. If,while the truck is on the bridge, it starts blinking that is a signal to the driver that they are going too fast and risk the bridge not tilting. If the light comes on solidly or does not turn off as the truck approaches the bridge, it will not tilt.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.