Yeti is indeed being fixed! Update 8/4/2014

[Pumbas Nakasak]

I've been trying to figure out just how to respond to all the DAK-bashing that is perpetuated on this site, .

And weve been awaiting your input with baited breath.

 

[Computer Magic]

If people want rides and don't appreciate animals, horticulture, theming, then I'd almost tell them to stay away from DAK entirely. It just isn't their type of place. Go ride the rides at MK over and over and over again.

I think the folks who want to bash Joe Rohde may have agendas of their own. The man isn't perfect, but he is one of WDI's best and that is an opinion widely held in the industry by people who live this stuff. Taking shots at him for getting the details right shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Disney's concept of show. Whether 99% of people see something or get it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

As much as I take shots at Disney, where I feel appropriate, I've never been to one of their parks that I haven't enjoyed. (one of my fans here should pull that quote!:wave I don't at all agree with the business mindest of 'building parks on the cheap' ... or parks that have more expansion pads than actual attractions. But flynnibus does a great job of 'splaining why calling DAK less than a full day experience really is a fallacy. And, frankly, having spent many days in DCA, DSP and HKDL, they all have enough to fill a day ... my criticism of all is they don't have what they should and were built in varying degrees of 'not giving our best' or worse 'not even trying'.

Frankly, I don't get that vibe at DAK because it works so well ... and really IS a great place to spend a day ... if you aren't looking for your next ride fix.

Well stated especially the bold part. If all people want is number of rides and care less about theme, then go to Six Flags.

The queues are detailed because it tells a story leading up to the ride. All together gives you an experience. People forget that they acutally spend more time in a queue then a ride, so Disney puts great detail in the queue so you experience a story.

 

[inluvwithbeast]

If I was looking to play with or see animals, I'd go to a zoo. Like the vast majority of the American public, I go to WDW for rides and attractions I can't get elsewhere. On that criteria, AK fails miserably, and it's quite clear why it's the least visited of the parks.

It nearly passed DHS a couple years ago. The only reason it didn't was because they finally decided to invest in DHS (TSMM). Having said that, many people agree with your position that you don't go to Disney World to see animals - that's fine. Personally I get a lot out of that, and I do go to zoos on a regular basis (I have an annual membership to two local zoos). You're absolutely right though, the park needs more rides, just like DHS. I'd argue that thrill rides aren't necessarily the problem with those two parks, but more family friendly attractions. I would say the opposite is true at the Magic Kingdom and Epcot where the need is for a thrill ride.

Obviously I was using hyperbole, LOL. It's a figure of speech. I was not saying people believe he is actually a religious deity, LOL, but that people act like he is some wunderkind who is infallible and some genius beyond measure. To be honest, I think a lot of people like him more for his image as a non-conformist than anything else. I have no personal problem with the guy (except for his overall poor design of Everest, such a wasted opportunity) but when his name comes up some people "ooooh!" and "ahhh!" instantly. I'm just not in that camp.

Like Steve Jobs? Lol.

Well, you kind of hit the nail on the head with this one. People have to generally be told it's "authentic". Sure, it's a great little queue. I'm not saying it's awful. I do object to the term "preshow", though, because although I have not been on Everest for several years I do not recall any pre-show, just a queue where you walk past piles of junk with references to the Yeti to get you excited about something (the Yeti) that doesn't exist in the way it was promoted.

What I am saying is that there is no need for the "authenticity", because most people don't know it even is, and the same effect could have been created with far less money and without taking trips around the world and making TV specials about it. People could have been just as satisfied with any junk they wanted to pile up in the queue to make it look "lived" in. Is it cool to say, "Hey, all this crap really came from the Himalayas (or wherever)?" Yeah, but I would have much rather had the ride fleshed out more than care if a tin can and snowshoe came from another country vs. a junkyard in any small community that experiences winters with snow.

Of course neither of us can assign a number, but I cannot imagine that the number of people that get all excited because of a bunch of junk and camping equipment is on display in the queue is very large. I just don't see many people walking away from the ride and saying, "Wow, that queue really made my visit!" And if they do...well that's pretty sad that a line for a ride is the most memorable thing for them.

So, I'm not going to state my opinion as fact, and I'm not going to try and get you to believe what I believe, but I really enjoyed the pre-show. In fact, that was one of the things that drew me in my first visit. Every ride (well, most) start in the queue. The "story" or the reality for HM and POTC and other story-less rides, is set up as soon as you get in line. You're immersed.

I also appreciate the fact that someone at Disney still takes pride in their work and attempts to retain authenticity. They assume the guest KNOWS their stuff. They didn't think "Oh, no one will have any idea what all this crap is, so let's just grab some old stuff from secondhand stores here in the US." That kind of mentality leads to situations like the Yeti going unfixed because "first-timers don't know any better."

But...the Yeti experience primed up in the queue does not exist. And it's not just because it's been broken for years. It's because, even when fully working, at the point you go past him at a high speed most people on a coaster are either squinting or have their eyes closed because of the wind in your face, and unless you know just where to look he's not that easy to spot (people that say he is right in front of you are having hazy memories, because it simply isn't the case).

And again you've hit the nail on the head - they get pumped up in the queue for something that doesn't happen and most people don't notice. I can *promise* you, the most common question people have when coming off that ride is to walk off with a confused look and say, "Did we see the Yeti?" That's why Disney hasn't done anything about it for so long - even if they invest the millions and millions it would take, overall it doesn't add much to the ride because they erred too far on the side of not giving you a King Kong like encounter so people didn't say they ripped Universal off.

How do you know that? I've ridden EE when the Yeti was fully functional back in 06. My whole family rode it. We all saw the Yeti. I was actually quite terrified to be quite honest. I had no idea what to expect. None of us had seen the specials or anything. I just knew that it was a new ride that looked awesome on the outside. Of course this is just my family's experience, but when there were 7 of us who all saw it, and didn't know to look for it.. well...? :shrug:

And the question? You know that? Do the guests really think that? My thought would be that they assume that the projection room was their encounter with the Yeti. I'd like to sit outside the exit and see what guests *REALLY* do think when they come off the ride.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Best themed? Sure, but you've just hit the nail on the head as to the problem with Rhode.

Yes, yes, we all know - pretty queues are important, pretty around you is important. But it's not THE most important thing, which is the mistake he seems to keep making.

I'm in the "nothing to do there" camp when it comes to AK. Pretty? Sure, it's a gorgeous park. But the point of a theme park is to have rides and activities to enjoy. AK has very, very little of that.

It's sort of like World Showcase. You will find people who claim it's the most magnificent complex ever created, and others that think it's just one big glorified shopping mall. (In reality, it's a little of both.)

Also like WS, some people pretend you must be daft or unintelligent if you don't "get" it, when in fact I "get" AK very well. It was meant to be a hybrid zoo/Disney Park, but the problem is it pretty much fails on both levels because it excels at neither.

It's incredibly difficult to see live Animals at AK. The Safari is only decent if you catch it very early in the day, the rest of the day it's, "gee if you look past that rock way over there you can see the ear of a sleeping tiger inching above it" just before the crap-narration kicks in and you speed away.

The rest of the live animal stuff is mediocre at best - they do it better, much better, in other parts of the country (AK has nothing on the Bronx Zoo).

Take that away, and you have Dinosaur, the only other real ride there besides Kali (a much abbreviated version of what it could have been). I love Dinosaur - except for the horrid upkeep, of course (and broken effects - a trend at AK).

Then you have FOLK and Nemo, two shows that do impress people but they have to schedule against each other so you are forced to spend more time at AK if you want to possibly make both. FOLK is OK, but I don't care for Nemo at all - in large part because of the awfully uncomfortable seats. Neither of them are worth the two hour investment for me, I only go if I must when I bring new guests.

And...that's pretty much it. Add in a 3-D movie (which I actually enjoy quite a bit), and the two crap off the shelf things in Dinoland, and you've got...a whole theme park? Not so much.

So instead of focusing on the experience of all these great adventures we could be having, they spent the lions share of the money and effort on theming - great, but if there are so few decent attractions it can be themed amazingly and it doesn't matter. Welcome to the reason why AK did nothing to WDW's bottom line. Max, it's a 1-day park, and only because of the short hours they are open and the intentional staggering of show times to force you to stay longer if you wish to see both.

Heck, there aren't even any decent gift shops there.

I hate to hate on AK, it's not totally awful - it's just too much time spent on the icing and they forgot to finish baking the cake. Just like Everest.

This is why I'm not part of the cult of Rhode - he's definitely got vision, but he's a Walt - and every Walt needs his Roy, because if you don't have a Roy all the vision in the world isn't going to work because no one is grounded enough to see the experience for exactly what it is. No one seems to be doing that for him - the suits cut the budget, but when they do, he cuts the experience people are there for, but he makes sure that queue sure is snazzy.

Although snazzy queues and great theming are certainly central to the Disney experience, without attractions to back it up...well, you end up with something like AK. I don't hate AK, but it's certainly severely lacking in the attractions and rides department. No amount of pretty, lush scenery changes that, unfortunately. And here we have the flagship ride of the park, sitting broken for what's going on half a decade now.

I agree with everything you said. AK is a really pretty place, and a great place to stroll through on a hot day (so many trees, so much shade!) but I just don't feel it's lived up to its potential - and no, I don't just mean the unrealized Beastly Kingdom. It's rather a failure as a zoo, if we're talking about entertainment value (although it's great that the animals are being so well-treated, apparently, of course). I've seen AK any number of times, and so far all I've seen is a tiny, far-away glimpse of a male lion sleeping on a rock, a few giraffes and the back of a chimpanzee ; big deal on all that. The only attraction at AK that I like is the Tree of Life and the "It's Tough To Be A Bug" movie theater under its roots. That's awesome. But everything else, to me, is meh. If it's true that AK has much lower attendance than the other parks, then I'm not the least bit surprised. I hope that someday Disney will reconsider Beastly Kingdom and make AK the magnificent, innovative park we all hoped for in its beginning.

 

[Lucky]

II've seen AK any number of times, and so far all I've seen is a tiny, far-away glimpse of a male lion sleeping on a rock, a few giraffes and the back of a chimpanzee ; big deal on all that.

:veryconfu
Unless you're just rushing back and forth from Everest to the dino area it's hard not to see more animals than that. If you go on Maharajah you're guaranteed to get close ups of tigers.

 

[Bolna]

Yes, I am absolutely not the average park goer. But it doesn't bother me. What bothers me is when someone else who, like me, is not the typical park goer extrapolates their personal interests on to what is or is not good for the whole. Like when someone here tells me TSMM sucks, when people love it (not me, but that's kind of my point). Disney is a business and should do what makes business sense. When it pleases me personally, I'll be happy. When it doesn't, I'll understand.

Everest pleases me. It use to please me more, but it still does.

I agree with your point about how different personal interests seem to be the basis of this whole discussion and that you can't judge a park's success on how a single person reacts to it.

I am in the camp of people who love Animal Kingdom, the one park at WDW for me which is a half day park is the Magic Kingdom at WDW. But I am aware that I am in the minority with that opinion and would never argue that the MK is generally a half day park.

Maybe Disney isn't really marketing AK the right way. I think there are many people who can enjoy the park. I know kids who just love the Dig Site playground and all the stations where CMs tell about the animals. Yes, that's not necessarily something which you can only get at WDW. But so is Dumbo (or all the other spinners). Also I think that many adult-only groups will be able to appreciate all the details and the beauty of the park. And I think in the course of a vacation of WDW it might be actually quite good to have a day which is more laid back and less running around. Perhaps it should be marketed more as a relaxing place?

The problem with AK in this regard is however that it starts to feel very crowded very soon and that it feels hotter than the other parks. I am not really sure how that could be made better without taking away the charm of the place? More attractions and longer opening hours would help I would guess...

 

[cheezbat]

I agree with your point about how different personal interests seem to be the basis of this whole discussion and that you can't judge a park's success on how a single person reacts to it.

I am in the camp of people who love Animal Kingdom, the one park at WDW for me which is a half day park is the Magic Kingdom at WDW. But I am aware that I am in the minority with that opinion and would never argue that the MK is generally a half day park.

Maybe Disney isn't really marketing AK the right way. I think there are many people who can enjoy the park. I know kids who just love the Dig Site playground and all the stations where CMs tell about the animals. Yes, that's not necessarily something which you can only get at WDW. But so is Dumbo (or all the other spinners). Also I think that many adult-only groups will be able to appreciate all the details and the beauty of the park. And I think in the course of a vacation of WDW it might be actually quite good to have a day which is more laid back and less running around. Perhaps it should be marketed more as a relaxing place?

The problem with AK in this regard is however that it starts to feel very crowded very soon and that it feels hotter than the other parks. I am not really sure how that could be made better without taking away the charm of the place? More attractions and longer opening hours would help I would guess...

That's a big problem to me with that park. Not enough to do, so for all the people coming in, they crowd the attractions and shows. And the fact that there's so few indoor attractions really amps up the tension between guests. On top of that, like I have stated in other posts, there is not enough variety of rides...the park could use another thrill ride or two, but it really needs some dark rides that everyone can enjoy. If DAK would add another land and maybe 2 big E tickets and 3 or 4 smaller C or D tickets, I think the park would be in MUCH better shape.

 

[RSoxNo1]

That's stretching it a little. Popeye & Bluto is, by far, the best use of the ride system. But Kali and Grizzly being fairly comparable? Not at all. Grizzly is, for one thing, considerably longer, and also much more enthralling.

No matter how many times I ride Kali, I always get off thinking, "Wow...that was it?" but on Grizzly I always came off feeling I'd gotten a good ride.

Never been to IOA, but I definitely back you up re: Kali and Grizzly River Rapids. They are the same basic ride system, though, right? I think they both even have that cool rotating load platform?

Admittedly I don't ride both rides every trip to their respective parks. I've probably only been on GRR 5 times. For me the issue is that neither ride measures up to Popeye and Bluto's. I know I'm changing my argument a bit and I apologize for that - Does anyone know the ride times for Kali vs. GRR?

April 1st....the Yeti returns from her vacation.

This was almost ignored. I hope you're right.

LOL, you caught me. I meant Lion.

I was trying to demonstrate the point that, if you go on the Safari at most times of the day, you get hurried through the ride path either listening to a stupid narration or the guide trying very hard to point out if you look real real close behind a rock you can see a tiny bit of a sleeping animal.

Sure, you can see some birds, an elephant or zebra quite often. But you are hustled away so quickly through you can't enjoy even what you can see, and often it's a struggle to see anything at all for large portions of the trip.

I'm still not buying it. First off Zebra's aren't visible on the Savannah anymore, and they haven't for quite some time. I know I'm being retentive here, but when was the last time you were on the Safari? Sure it's typically better at the beginning or the end of the day, sure the viewing for the lions aren't great, but I really haven't seen a substantial difference on time of the day. I know touringplans.com did animal counts throughout the day and didn't come up with anything conclusive.

My biggest complaint on the attraction is that it's lousy for taking photos. If a walking path is created between Africa and Rafiki's Planet Watch I'd like that path to incorporate Savannah viewing areas.

That's not quite accurate as to how I feel. I don't have a problem with seeing animals - it may not be the reason for my visit to WDW, but it's not something I just object to as a concept.

It's that, the few things that do have live animals just aren't done very well. And many of us, like yourself, live much closer to experiences with animals that may not have as convincing virtual environments, but I'd rather actually be able to stand still and appreciate the animals much more, and not have to whip out binoculars just to see them, than have a bunch of largely empty spaces like the Safari so often has (for example). Other than that, Disney offers nothing you can't get elsewhere (cheaper, better, and easier).

You aren't that close to the Animals on the Safari, but the habitats themselves are the most realistic of any zoo that I've ever been to. So what is it that you want, unrealistic habitats but better access to the animals?

Originally Posted by AEfx
AK is just such a padded park - take away the two shows which take up almost half the day to experience them both because of their intentional admission structure, and there is barely a half-day's stuff to do there even if you do take time wander in the petting zoo portions.

I've been trying to figure out just how to respond to all the DAK-bashing that is perpetuated on this site, and this thread, and realized I have no desire to spend more than a few minutes on it vs. going point by point ... and I think the above sums things up quite well.

There are a large segment of fanbois who are ride junkies. They believe that Disney (and all parks) are about rides and how many they can do in one day. They'd take 20 spins on Space Mountain before ever spending 90 minutes walking thru the Pangani Forest Trail. I don't find that MAGICal, but everyone is different.

If people want rides and don't appreciate animals, horticulture, theming, then I'd almost tell them to stay away from DAK entirely. It just isn't their type of place. Go ride the rides at MK over and over and over again.

I think the folks who want to bash Joe Rohde may have agendas of their own. The man isn't perfect, but he is one of WDI's best and that is an opinion widely held in the industry by people who live this stuff. Taking shots at him for getting the details right shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Disney's concept of show. Whether 99% of people see something or get it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

As much as I take shots at Disney, where I feel appropriate, I've never been to one of their parks that I haven't enjoyed. (one of my fans here should pull that quote!:wave I don't at all agree with the business mindest of 'building parks on the cheap' ... or parks that have more expansion pads than actual attractions. But flynnibus does a great job of 'splaining why calling DAK less than a full day experience really is a fallacy. And, frankly, having spent many days in DCA, DSP and HKDL, they all have enough to fill a day ... my criticism of all is they don't have what they should and were built in varying degrees of 'not giving our best' or worse 'not even trying'.

Frankly, I don't get that vibe at DAK because it works so well ... and really IS a great place to spend a day ... if you aren't looking for your next ride fix.

I agree completely - I'd gladly spend 30-60 minutes in Pangani and Maharajah Jungle Trek. I can leave that park completely satisfied if I get on Kilimanjaro Safaris, Expedition Everest (usually twice) and Dinosaur.

The park is not driven by rides at this time. I do think it needs more rides, but even with that it still won't be driven by rides.

Wait, what? P&B is the best? By far? This is obviously a subjective matter, so you can think that, but how can it possibly be by far? Let alone state it as a fact.

I'm greatly disappointed by Kali, but I'll take it narrowly over Bilgerat Barges. Grizzly, though, I vastly prefer more than either. Give me drops, please. Bluto's barges don't.


I do. Three drops instead of one. Longer. Not quite the cheap soaking moment of Kali's drop. The cool spinning effect.

It's Kali on steroids. With smaller ride vehicles (lower capacity but less space for the movement to be dispersed across, haven't yet decided if the lower capacity is worth it because I've only been when DL is slow).

I hate the phrase "such on such" on steroids, just a personal opinion but it's a very basic way of explaining something. If you prefer drops that's fine, but Bilge Rat Barges has the ride scope that Kali should have been.

You mention below that your issue wasn't the animals themselves, just the fact that the exhibits were done poorly. I think your statement seems like your irritated with the fact that WDW has spent money on animal experiences when what people really want are rides and shows. Just some lack of consistency.

I'm not sure why I was quoted, I think you meant to quote AeFX with this response.

 

[inluvwithbeast]

Accident. Sorry. I was addressing the inconsistency in his posts about his opinion on animals vs rides

 

[Piebald]

I'm not gonna read through pages of this, but I was just at AK yesterday and my observations were:

-There was no Yeti, just pitch black. Are they fixing this or did they give up?

-Saw tons of animals. To the person who said the park failed because of small glimpses, that's just not a good way to measure AK as pass or fail. I think we saw virtually every animal possible except the otters.

-I still love this park and my friend who was a first-timer thought it was awesome. I just think this place needs one or two big time attractions to really complete the circle.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I'm not gonna read through pages of this, but I was just at AK yesterday and my observations were:

-There was no Yeti, just pitch black. Are they fixing this or did they give up?

-Saw tons of animals. To the person who said the park failed because of small glimpses, that's just not a good way to measure AK as pass or fail. I think we saw virtually every animal possible except the otters.

-I still love this park and my friend who was a first-timer thought it was awesome. I just think this place needs one or two big time attractions to really complete the circle.

Apparently they no longer have the Asian Small Clawed otters. Evidently they are looking to replace the Otters and the Malayan Tapir (Maharajah Jungle Trek).

 

[jjharvpro]

I'm not gonna read through pages of this, but I was just at AK yesterday and my observations were:

-There was no Yeti, just pitch black. Are they fixing this or did they give up?

-Saw tons of animals. To the person who said the park failed because of small glimpses, that's just not a good way to measure AK as pass or fail. I think we saw virtually every animal possible except the otters.

-I still love this park and my friend who was a first-timer thought it was awesome. I just think this place needs one or two big time attractions to really complete the circle.

When I was there a little over Spring Break, my family/friends and I rode Everest 5 times! It was awesome to do it that much! We asked a CM working at the ride why we couldn't see the Yeti. He told us he was behind tarps being fixed and would be back up in about a month.

There are a TON of animals! Maybe it was just one of those days .. :ROFLOL:

I agree about them needing 1-3 new E-tickets!

 

[Bolna]

You aren't that close to the Animals on the Safari, but the habitats themselves are the most realistic of any zoo that I've ever been to. So what is it that you want, unrealistic habitats but better access to the animals?

I think this what makes AK so special: it tries to make it look so realistic. Having been to South Africa and Namibia before my first visit to AK, I was very skeptical about Kilimanjaro Safaris. But I was so impressed by how real it feels (the main difference being how many animals you see on Kilimanjaro Safari within such a short time period as compared to being out in the real savanna).

I have read quite a few reviews about the new Wild Africa Trek where people complained that they did not get to interact with the animals more. I was rather shocked by that. I think the great thing about AK is that they try to treat the animals which as much dignity as possible. For en eland, zebra, elephant etc. being petted by tourists isn't a natural thing to do!

 

[njDizFan]

I think that is what seperates AK from a zoo. You cannot guarantee an animal's whereabouts and disposition on a day to day basis. You may be guaranteed to see an animal at a regular zoo because it sits in a 10X10 cage or has maybe a half an acre behind a wide open fenced off patch of land.

I have seen my fair share of zoos, and the AK gives it's animals the greatest amount of mobility and land to roam.

Granted I have not seen all the zoos in the county so there are probobly some out there which gives them due space but I would doubt as highly themed and authentic.

BTW, I have been to the drive thru safaris at six flags/great adventure and have had my vinyl roof torn off the top of my car by baboons(circa 1979).

 

[Bolna]

BTW, I have been to the drive thru safaris at six flags/great adventure and have had my vinyl roof torn off the top of my car by baboons(circa 1979).

That sounds very authentic! :lol: Even though it probably wasn't the kind of authenticity you wanted. We experienced the baboons taking apart a trash can at our camp in Namibia...

 

[Chef Mickey]

I may be a Disney apologist, but I am genuinely sad to see all the complaining and negativity surrounding Disney and their ability to realize AK's potential.

Do I agree there could be more to do at AK and better execution on some fronts? Of course, but it's still an amazingly beautiful park with diverse animals, rides, and shows. They do need more, but this park is still young. Something this big evolves.

Unfortunately, I have noticed some cost cutting and failure to maintain detailed effects. That can be cleaned up, but Disney has such an enormous operation, it gets difficult and cost ineffective. The problem I see is that there are so many details, it's hard to keep up with them in a cost effecient manner. At the end of the day, they answer to shareholders and fixing things that don't affect park attendance get put aside. For me, it doesn't take away from the experience because they do so many things well.

The competition might do a few things better, but for me, Disney remains high above the rest overall.

 

[cheezbat]

I may be a Disney apologist, but I am genuinely sad to see all the complaining and negativity surrounding Disney and their ability to realize AK's potential.

Do I agree there could be more to do at AK and better execution on some fronts? Of course, but it's still an amazingly beautiful park with diverse animals, rides, and shows. They do need more, but this park is still young. Something this big evolves.

Unfortunately, I have noticed some cost cutting and failure to maintain detailed effects. That can be cleaned up, but Disney has such an enormous operation, it gets difficult and cost ineffective. The problem I see is that there are so many details, it's hard to keep up with them in a cost effecient manner. At the end of the day, they answer to shareholders and fixing things that don't affect park attendance get put aside. For me, it doesn't take away from the experience because they do so many things well.

The competition might do a few things better, but for me, Disney remains high above the rest overall.

Us fanboys complain because we have been spoiled in the past with true Disney immersion...Parks and rides at the top of their game. Now, WDW may have 4 parks, but two of them are seriously in need of new attractions. The other two in some places date themselves and could use some updating as well.
The biggest problem is knowing that DAK could be so much more, and SHOULD be much more than it currently is. Disney is amazing with theming. Always has been. But you have to have rides and attractions on top of theming or it really gets you nowhere. DAK has so few things to do in comparison to other parks. And seeing so much bad show from them on various rides and attractions(my last visit there over a year ago Yeti was down, the Carnatour from Dinosaur was missing, Hopper was missing from It's Tough to Be A Bug, fire effects not working on Kali...that's just too much from one park).
The park is not that young. It's been around now for 13 years. That's plenty of time to see a new land, some decent expansions, and a few big E-tickets. We have not gotten much in that time.

 

[Magenta Panther]

:veryconfu
Unless you're just rushing back and forth from Everest to the dino area it's hard not to see more animals than that. If you go on Maharajah you're guaranteed to get close ups of tigers.

Well, the days I've been to AK were very hot and humid (which was why I was there...again, all those lovely shade-providing trees!). Maybe the animals I missed were sitting in the shade, cooling off, somewhere away from the major tourist trails. Anyway, I was very underwhelmed by the Kilimanjaro Safari. Didn't see many critters both times I rode it, and I thought the storyline was kind of meh, frankly. I did see tigers in the Maharajah Jungle Trek, and the buildings there are beautiful and very atmospheric, but still...sorry to gripe again, but to me it's all just a very elaborate zoo, and I guess I expect something else from a Disney park, more fantasy, I suppose. Still, the theming in AK is amazing, and it is a fun place to walk through. And I understand that AK is a young park, and that more attractions will no doubt be added in time. I hope they're fantasy-themed, rather than nature-themed, though, as per the original Everest attraction...

 

[inluvwithbeast]

Well, the days I've been to AK were very hot and humid (which was why I was there...again, all those lovely shade-providing trees!). Maybe the animals I missed were sitting in the shade, cooling off, somewhere away from the major tourist trails. Anyway, I was very underwhelmed by the Kilimanjaro Safari. Didn't see many critters both times I rode it, and I thought the storyline was kind of meh, frankly. I did see tigers in the Maharajah Jungle Trek, and the buildings there are beautiful and very atmospheric, but still...sorry to gripe again, but to me it's all just a very elaborate zoo, and I guess I expect something else from a Disney park, more fantasy, I suppose. Still, the theming in AK is amazing, and it is a fun place to walk through. And I understand that AK is a young park, and that more attractions will no doubt be added in time. I hope they're fantasy-themed, rather than nature-themed, though, as per the original Everest attraction...

It's funny that you say that. I read somewhere that Roy E. thought that AK was too realistic-- too real life. The point of Disney parks was to provide an escape into the world of fantasy. Hmm.

 

[Magenta Panther]

It's funny that you say that. I read somewhere that Roy E. thought that AK was too realistic-- too real life. The point of Disney parks was to provide an escape into the world of fantasy. Hmm.

Hmmm, indeed. I didn't know that.