Outlook for Animal Kingdom?

[Pepper's Ghost]

So, another thread about thrill rides got me thinking. Why doesn't Disney incorporate more thrill rides. Personally I think they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Thrill rides take up lots of space, and so much space in their parks is taken up by nostalgic rides.

They could start tearing things out and replacing them, but that would anger lots of people. Mission Space angered a legion of Horizons lovers. Test Track upset World of Motion lovers. The addition of Expedition Everest didn't upset people because it didn't replace anything nostalgic, but that's been a debacle too with the issues they're having with the Yeti.

So I guess you can say that Disney has spent lots of money recently trying to cater to thrill seekers, and their reward for those efforts.... grief from some segment of the their loyal fans. Now, I'm not saying that we don't have the right to gripe about the Yeti or some of the other rides, but it's almost a no-win situation for Disney. The only places that Disney can start adding thrill rides without upsetting too may people are really at AK and DHS. Those two parks are new enough not to have too much of a nostalgic feel just yet, although DHS is beginning to approach that realm.

So here's my thought... look out for AK to become a fan favorite in the coming years if Disney decides to cater to thrill junkies at that park. That would be awesome since that park seems to always have the lowest attendance. It ranked last in attendance for the four parks in 2008. Everyone says that it's a half-day park and it'd be nice to add some great rides there and get it up to par with the other parks.

Any thoughts? Would you like to see AK become Disney's thrill ride park? There's just so much space there to work with, and they need to start utilizing it and drawing more people there. Just curious if anyone agrees, or do you like things the way they are?

 

[Crazy Harry]

So, another thread about thrill rides got me thinking. Why doesn't Disney incorporate more thrill rides. Personally I think they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Thrill rides take up lots of space, and so much space in their parks is taken up by nostalgic rides.

They could start tearing things out and replacing them, but that would anger lots of people. Mission Space angered a legion of Horizons lovers. Test Track upset World of Motion lovers. The addition of Expedition Everest didn't upset people because it didn't replace anything nostalgic, but that's been a debacle too with the issues they're having with the Yeti.

So I guess you can say that Disney has spent lots of money recently trying to cater to thrill seekers, and their reward for those efforts.... grief from some segment of the their loyal fans. Now, I'm not saying that we don't have the right to gripe about the Yeti or some of the other rides, but it's almost a no-win situation for Disney. The only places that Disney can start adding thrill rides without upsetting too may people are really at AK and DHS. Those two parks are new enough not to have too much of a nostalgic feel just yet, although DHS is beginning to approach that realm.

So here's my thought... look out for AK to become a fan favorite in the coming years if Disney decides to cater to thrill junkies at that park. That would be awesome since that park seems to always have the lowest attendance. It ranked last in attendance for the four parks in 2008. Everyone says that it's a half-day park and it'd be nice to add some great rides there and get it up to par with the other parks.

Any thoughts? Would you like to see AK become Disney's thrill ride park? There's just so much space there to work with, and they need to start utilizing it and drawing more people there. Just curious if anyone agrees, or do you like things the way they are?

In all honesty, I think a slew of new thrill rides is the last thing AK needs. It would just be Busch Gardens with better theming. The first thing that comes to mind is that you do not want to clutter the park. It's charm and immersiveness lies within the enviroment. Bombarding the park with thrill rides may compromise that.

I am of the school thought that believes that the entertainment offerings (attractions ect) at a theme park should be well diversified. Epcot for example, although it was a great park in the earlier days, did not have a wide range of appeal because the experiences were all very simular. Yes the themes and stories were different, but they had nothing but dark rides. So I don't think it was just about adding thrill rides in general, but adding them at Epcot specifically to diversify the offerings and consequently the audience. AK is already quite diverse with its offerings which is good. Making it a thrill park would take away from that IMO.

Think about this as well. You claim that AK would become a fan favorite if it had more thrill rides, yet the most visited (or close to it) theme park internationally is relatively void of thrill rides, that park being the Magic Kingdom. And if I am not mistaken, AK is in the top ten internationally for attendance. But I do agree it needs something. One or two additional e ticket attractions as well as some C/D ticket dark rides I think would help.

Also, they had talked about a night time parade if I remember correctly. This alone would to make it more than just a half day park. This is an ingenious themepark trick to keep patrons from leaving the park prematurely and not spending as much money there.

 

[BrerFrog]

I don't think thrill rides should be Animal Kingdom's focus, its theme is so deep - and there are so many things left to be explored - that just setting your mind on throwing thrill rides at it would be a bad idea.

I find it to be the most immersive of all Disney parks, and certainly the most unique, so any development needs to be done with extreme care.

 

[JustInTime]

If you do everything in Animal Kingdom, including all shows and all the Animal trails, it is a full day. Now, does it need more attractions? Heck yes. The only thing that can really fix AK is Beastly Kingdom.

 

[BrerFrog]

If you do everything in Animal Kingdom, including all shows and all the Animal trails, it is a full day. Now, does it need more attractions? Heck yes. The only thing that can really fix AK is Beastly Kingdom.

I was trying not to bring BK into this, but I agree.

 

[heartodisney]

All very good ideas! I am torn..at leaving it like the jewel it is (to me) or adding something to do with the Amazon or even adding somthing of an Pacific island that has never been touched. But, adding a thrill ride that might have something to do with Atlantis or 20,000 Leagues under the Sea...both incorporated in Japan..could be a start. (Ok..so I am a fan boy..let the rumors begin...ha ha!)

 

[JustInTime]

I was trying not to bring BK into this, but I agree.

How can we have a "how to fix Animal Kingdom" thread without mentioning Beastly? I would also be equally happy with Mysterious Island.

 

[Pepper's Ghost]

All very good points! I guess I wasn't entirely clear, but I honestly wasn't thinking along the lines of adding a dozen new thrill rides. However, I do think that adding two major thrill rides whether coasters , or drop type rides, etc. would benefit the park. 3 or 4 total thrill rides would instantly make it the thrill ride capitol of WDW!

 

[Crazy Harry]

All very good points! I guess I wasn't entirely clear, but I honestly wasn't thinking along the lines of adding a dozen new thrill rides. However, I do think that adding two major thrill rides whether coasters , or drop type rides, etc. would benefit the park. 3 or 4 total thrill rides would instantly make it the thrill ride capitol of WDW!

I guess it also depends on what you consider a "thrill" ride, but if you have 4 total thrill rides at AK, that is only one more than MK or DHS, and two more than Epcot (unless you count Soarin'). So, would that really make it the "thrill capital of WDW"? And if you could call it that, would it detract from the ambiance and the appeal?

Don't get me wrong, a few extra e ticket thrills would be great, but I think there is also a need for some dark rides, whether technically e/d/or c status.

 

[fractal]

So, another thread about thrill rides got me thinking. Why doesn't Disney incorporate more thrill rides. Personally I think they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Thrill rides take up lots of space, and so much space in their parks is taken up by nostalgic rides.

They could start tearing things out and replacing them, but that would anger lots of people. Mission Space angered a legion of Horizons lovers. Test Track upset World of Motion lovers. The addition of Expedition Everest didn't upset people because it didn't replace anything nostalgic, but that's been a debacle too with the issues they're having with the Yeti.

So I guess you can say that Disney has spent lots of money recently trying to cater to thrill seekers, and their reward for those efforts.... grief from some segment of the their loyal fans. Now, I'm not saying that we don't have the right to gripe about the Yeti or some of the other rides, but it's almost a no-win situation for Disney. The only places that Disney can start adding thrill rides without upsetting too may people are really at AK and DHS. Those two parks are new enough not to have too much of a nostalgic feel just yet, although DHS is beginning to approach that realm.

So here's my thought... look out for AK to become a fan favorite in the coming years if Disney decides to cater to thrill junkies at that park. That would be awesome since that park seems to always have the lowest attendance. It ranked last in attendance for the four parks in 2008. Everyone says that it's a half-day park and it'd be nice to add some great rides there and get it up to par with the other parks.

Any thoughts? Would you like to see AK become Disney's thrill ride park? There's just so much space there to work with, and they need to start utilizing it and drawing more people there. Just curious if anyone agrees, or do you like things the way they are?

yes I would. Start with fixing the Yeti, build Beastly Kingdom with a Journey to the Center of the Earth type ride. They do that and the next day I sign up for DVC.

 

[SeaCastle]

In my opinion, the problem with the Animal Kingdom is that it doesn't have enough animal exhibits to be a zoo, and not enough attractions to be a theme park.

 

[rct247]

-Add a South America land to the park.
--Put in a water flume ride.
--Put in a South American animal walking trail and aviary.
--Put in a Incan temple roller coaster moderate coaster (similar to Big Thunder)

-Add a Jungle Book classic Fantasyland-esqe dark ride to Asia.
-Add a nighttime parade/spectacular either a Rivers of Light idea or a nature/animal based World of Color type venue.

That should make it more of a full-day park and can be done in a period of 10 years.

 

[JohnLocke]

-Add a South America land to the park.
--Put in a water flume ride.
--Put in a South American animal walking trail and aviary.
--Put in a Incan temple roller coaster moderate coaster (similar to Big Thunder)

-Add a Jungle Book classic Fantasyland-esqe dark ride to Asia.
-Add a nighttime parade/spectacular either a Rivers of Light idea or a nature/animal based World of Color type venue.

That should make it more of a full-day park and can be done in a period of 10 years.

I'd go with Australia or Antarctica over South America. Penguins or Koalas and Kangaroos would be a good addition.

 

[Magenta Panther]

I want Disney to bring back the idea of the Beastly Kingdom, with dragons and unicorns and such. That would be thrilling enough for me.

 

[wolf359]

I want Disney to bring back the idea of the Beastly Kingdom, with dragons and unicorns and such. That would be thrilling enough for me.

Me too. I love the slightly romanticized realism of the park, but I think Animal Kingdom could benefit from a little more fantasy injected into the mix, and Beastly Kingdom would be perfect.

 

[SAV]

Everyone says that it's a half-day park

NO, "Everyone" doesn't say that. Those who don't "get" Animal Kingdom say it's a half-day park. Those of us who love AK know it's much, much more than a half-day park. It doesn't need "thrill" rides. It isn't about that. I don't want the park "ruined" by some monster coaster or something that just doesn't belong.

Maybe an indoor dark ride or something along those lines, but don't ruin the park with the clackity clack of a Roller Coaster chain.

 

[Pepper's Ghost]

NO, "Everyone" doesn't say that. Those who don't "get" Animal Kingdom say it's a half-day park. Those of us who love AK know it's much, much more than a half-day park. It doesn't need "thrill" rides. It isn't about that. I don't want the park "ruined" by some monster coaster or something that just doesn't belong.

Maybe an indoor dark ride or something along those lines, but don't ruin the park with the clackity clack of a Roller Coaster chain.

Don't get me wrong. I love animal kingdom! I can and have spent entire days there. Sorry for using a sweeping generalization in my statement. It's not everyone.... but many, many people feel that way. However, I think saying that people who think it's a half-day park don't "get" AK is an untrue generalization too.

I disagree though that adding a "monster coaster" would ruin the park. Did Expedition Everest ruin the park? It's a monster rollercoaster. Besides, Disney has done a good enough job with their coasters that they don't normally have an obnoxious clackity clack sound. The only one that does is Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, and that was done intentionally as part of the ride's affect.

The park could use a little more than what it has and there have been a few pretty good suggestions here already. I'm not saying a dark ride wouldn't fit the bill too. After all, my favorite ride (HM) is a dark ride.

 

[David S.]

In my opinion, the problem with the Animal Kingdom is that it doesn't have enough animal exhibits to be a zoo, and not enough attractions to be a theme park.

I guess that may cause problems for people who only like one or the other.

For me, personally, since I'm a big fan of both theme parks AND zoos, it is very easy for me to just enjoy the park for what it is, rather than trying to put it into a category.

Since I can easily spend a full day at a zoo that does not have theme park attractions, just enjoying spending time with the animals, AK is easily a full-day experience for me. There may not be a full-day's worth of animal exhibits or a full-day's worth of non-animal, Disney theme park attractions, but since I am into both genres, when combined I can easily spend a full day there without repeating myself.

This combination works well for me and I enjoy Disney's unique interpretation of a zoological park in the same way I enjoy their take on a classic World's Fair (Epcot).

The beautiful landscaping and immersive theming also contribute to the experience and help make the two styles of attractions found in the AK (Disney theme park and zoological) blend fairly well together, IMO.

 

[BrerFrog]

In my opinion, the problem with the Animal Kingdom is that it doesn't have enough animal exhibits to be a zoo, and not enough attractions to be a theme park.

The balance between both features is its charm, but I will agree that the park should have more of both.

In case they are never building BK, I think South America and Australia are good options to replace CMM.

 

[BigRedDad]

Personally, WDW doesn't really have a thrill ride. At the time they opened, the rides they have are common: RnRRC, EE, ToT (with a different drop sequences), MS.

I think WDW needs to possibly create a separate park for thrill rides. I do not know if they have the space for it or not. They could theme most of it after the Villains and go from there. I could list ideas, but they get paid to make them.