AEfx
Well-Known Member
There was no inconsistency, simply a misunderstanding.
I just haven't had time to come in and review the thread until now, and it's kind of funny all the assumptions people have made about me. The funniest one is that I'd rather Everest be a great big monster coaster, haha. My favorite ride at WDW is Snow White's Scary Adventures, followed by The Great Movie Ride.
So no, I'm not looking for thrills.But this point is the one people keep coming back to, so even though I thoroughly explained my positions and don't feel the need to revisit them (other people disagree, well within their rights), I think this misunderstanding is relevant to discuss.
AK is supposed to be a theme park with rides *and* animal experiences. Unfortunately, it does not do either of them well enough.
There simply are not enough rides in the park, and the ones that are there are generally lackluster. We have Disco Everest, we have Dinosaur (which I love but has horrible upkeep), the two off-the-shelf things in Dinoland, and the Safari.
Well all know about the issues with Everest. Dinosaur works, but again, the upkeep/broken effects are pretty sad. The two Dinoland things - well, I know some people think they are appropriate because of the carnival theme, I feel more like they picked the carinval theme so they could throw down two cheapo rides, but in any case, they are there should people wish to ride them.
Safari is subjective, I guess. The environments are great, but much of the day the animals are not active and sleeping. Literally every time I go the tour guide has to either explain why we can't see the lions, or points out that if you look 100's of yards away behind a rock you can see an ear popping up. They spend a lot of time explaining the habitat to you, but if you rarely see the animal...it's kind of useless. Add that to the fact that when you DO see animals, they just speed you by (presumably so the following ride vehicles can see the animals while they are actually out there).
What I was explaining was that they don't "wow" with the rides, they don't "wow" with the animals. Both are done better elsewhere. Rides are done better right there at WDW, and there are many zoo's across the country that allow much more interaction (and reliability of such) with animals. (And to answer RedSox's question earlier - yes, indeed, I would MUCH rather have more animals, and get closer to them, than have pretty environments that don't offer a lot of animal interaction or viewing.)
I'm not a huge zoo/animal person, but I do enjoy them. And, it's hard to sit and think of that many experiences I've had at AK over the years that really made me go "wow I really was impressed with that animal interaction". And except for Dinosaur, which I love just because I adore dark rides, there aren't enough rides (or quality of them) to impress either.
So there is no inconsistency on anyone but Disney when it comes to AK. They say it's, "Nahtazoo", and it's not. But they offer animal experiences. It's certainly not a theme park, at least as Disney usually builds them revolving around rides and mostly moving attractions, either. Thing is, you can get better ride experiences elsewhere, and better animal experiences elsewhere. Just putting them together in a park doesn't matter, that's just location - if the experiences don't wow on either level, that's where I have a hard time keeping interest in that park.
It's interesting, because I think Disney knows this. That's why they keep adding those very expensive experiences to get "deeper" into AK. I'm all for paying more for premium experiences, but on the other hand if I have to spend $200/pp on top of admission to get some decent animal interaction/views, then that right there speaks to itself in the overall design of the attractions available to "regular" guests.
