The more I think about the concept, the more I have to wonder if Disney is selling the idea the wrong way. So far, it seems (to me at least) like a high end version of Animal Kingdom. This ends up creating the sense of one interactive animal park for those with money and a cheaper, less interactive park for those without. I realize the differences in the concepts, but if it is sold as another animal park, I could see this being a problem.
Which is why I have to wonder if the concept would be better off if the animals were de-emphasized (not removed) and the idea of the Adventurer's Club expanded. So far the concepts we have heard have all been about adventures with animals. Exploring bat caves, feeding hippos, nighttime savanna safaris... they all concentrate on the animal experience. Instead, concentrating on the adventure might be a more worthwhile selling point. In any outdoor adventure, you expect to run into animals anyway (especially in the fictional adventure sense). So instead of exploring bat caves, why not just call it going caving? The bats that you find are an expected result of the adventure. By emphasizing the adventuring aspects of the park rather than the animals, it differentiates it from Animal Kingdom while also justifying the exclusive nature of the theme park.
Personally, I would be more tempted by the full adventure of caving, canopying, rock climbing, etc than by just the animal interactions parts. It also retains some of the mystery of the adventure. Sure, to use the caving example, seeing bats is a guaranteed result of the adventure, but rather than going in for the sole purpose of seeing bats, going in just to explore the caves (and seeing bats as a result) seems like a more thrilling adventure to me. Even if, in reality, they are the same thing.
Every time I post I get ignored or flamed---there is no inbetween here for "newbies" even though I have been visiting this board for many years. 
