The problem, as I see it, is that Animal Kingdom is too contrived, spending too much time on style to the detriment of substance. To illustrate, a while back I read an article (and heard a podcast) discussing all of the hidden details and backstory in Dinoland. This backstory is great, but it is not substitute for quality substance. I think it is more an afterthought, added as somewhat of a ‘smokescreen’ or to explain away why Dino-rama is such an eyesore. I couldn’t care less that it’s an “authentic” eyesore, it’s an eyesore with cheap carnival attractions, nonetheless. Now, Dinoland is a bit of an extreme example, but the case of "style over substance" exists throughout DAK. From the meticulously crafted posters (what was the fake poster budgment for this park, like $200 million?!) and facades in Africa to the seating area in Flame Tree BBQ. I could gush with superlatives over the details in that park. The problem is, these details seem to exist at the expense of substance, which is not acceptable in my opinion.
I have this same concern in other areas of the park. So much thought, time, and effort went in to making the “Disney Details” truly remarkable, but at what cost? The number of quality-themed Disney attractions is seriously lacking, to the point that the park doesn’t offer sufficient entertainment options to justify staying there a full day. DAK lacks any traditional Omnimover dark rides, which I find bordering on absurd. Frankly, I think Disney should have spent about half as much as it did on Everest (even if it worked, assuming budgets are finite--and at Disney in this era they definitely are, as we both know!--the Yeti, an AA only visible for a couple of seconds, was a colossal waste of money), and used the rest of the budget to add a couple of C or D ticket attractions.
The biggest issue I have with Animal Kingdom after the “style over substance” qualm is that, despite its best efforts with the “Natazu” campaign, its attractions are not all that dissimilar to a well-done zoo. The thing is, if the attractions really weren't 'zoo-like', Disney wouldn't have had to utilize the Natazu campaign at all. The attractions could speak for themselves, and there would be a clear divide between it and a zoo. I think running the campaign is an implicit concession that a problem exists, and needs marketing to "fix."
Granted, attractions like Flights of Wonder and Kilimanjaro Safaris are well done “edutainment,” but I believe the rest flounders somewhat as simple ‘walk around looking at animal exhibits’. To me, it lacks the proper execution in those particular attractions to distinguish itself from a plain ‘ole zoo.' Contrast many of these attractions with the Living Seas pavilion (when it opened), TLS took you to a fictional seabase and really sold a story around which the animals were presented. It framed the whole experience really well, and made it, to me at least, stand out so much more than the "walk around and see stuff" methodology of DAK.
In sum, if the park would add some Omnimover attractions and create real entertainment value in the “zoo attractions,” (at least framing them in a manner more fitting of a theme park) I could see it as on par with the other parks. Actually, I think it could easily become the BEST domestic Disney theme park. The infrastructure is there, and the park certainly has the foundation laid in the details, but I think it's several attractions away from being there.
I realize others are likely to disagree, saying I'm missing the point of the park as a non-theme park experience, but the thing is, it IS a theme park. No matter how people might try to re-categorize it to shift expectations, it presents itself as one of the 4 Disney theme parks in Florida, but it doesn't deliver as a theme park should. To be sure, the theme is well-executed, but that's not sufficient for it to pass muster as a great theme park.
)