Subsonic Radio

I've seen a few disparaging remarks about Animal Kingdom as I read through some of the threads recently and I was curious, does anyone here actually find A.K. to be an entertaining park in and of itself?

Even though I am a diehard DisneyWorld fan, I cannot fathom what they were thinking when they created A.K..... Busch Gardens does the same thing, bigger and better in my most humble opinion.

Am I alone in this belief?

I agree 100%. But then, what other kind of park could they have done, maybe take the dinosaur theme to a bigger level. Or the Americana theme. How about a Wild West theme, like Westworld, where nothing can go wrong..go wrong..go wrong..

I've never been to Busch Gardens.. so I can't compare them. I think AK gets a bad rap, due to the lack of rides. I would agree that its half a day park and needs some work. Disney should have opened the park with all of the lands fully functioning. Hopefully they will build it up and make it a full day park, similar to MGM. I will say that landscaping and themed lands, in my opinion are good, and I enjoy just walking thru Africa, Asia, etc. But that's just one man’s opinion

Rich

They even took out rides. When it first opened, you could take a boat ride around to the different lands.

rdeacon wrote:Disney should have opened the park with all of the lands fully functioning.

It's ALWAYS been like this at ANY Disney park. The park is opened with only about half of the rides/attractions built and running. The facades for all the rest of them are built, but the attractions themselves are not.

and, as far as AK is concerned, sure, there are not alot of rides there. Sure, there were budget cuts and ideas kaizens. However, has Disney ever touted AK (or any of the parks, for that matter), as a park for alot of rides?

WDW official site wrote:Walt Disney's life-long love of all creatures on the planet was the inspiration for his animated animal characters and his award-winning "True Life Adventure" series. These in turn were the inspiration for Disney's Animal Kingdom® Theme Park.

I don't remember there ever being rides in the True Life Adventure series. I just remember alot of animals. And, if I also remember correctly, it's the same with the park. While I agree that it's only really good for half a day, it's still an enjoyable park

Then why didn't they expand on the Discovery Island Theme? The idea here was to create another park to collect an admission price for, not to show their love for animals. And since they are charging the same price as the other parks, it should be a full days worth of entertainment.
As they say, it is "natazu". It is suppose to be entertainment, that, based on the price, equal to the other Disney Parks.
Of course this is my humble opinion as a business person. You should get what you pay for. Most people don't even know about half the areas there. It was a year before I found the petting zoo and animal hospital.

I agree with js3901 and rdeacon - look at MGM in the first 5-10 years, maybe a half day park at best. Today it is really booming. It takes time to build up the park - and with the new area opening with EE [a village, not just the ride] I expect we'll see some more to do at the park. Sure, the Planet Watch area isn't exactly exciting to many and it could use some work but it seems like they are expanding and working and learning much like MGM in its early days. And the theming is extremely well done all around the park. The "make it a full day of fun" line doesn't cut it with park hopping, you can still go to Epcot, etc. and stay till 9 or later...

And I've been to Busch - to me it was like a rip-off of a six-flags wannabe mixed with a few animals. If you want the standard theme park rides go to six-flags [or the likes]. Dinsey never uses rides alone to get visitors, it is the experiance.

Never been to Busch Gardens but isn't Busch Gardens somewhat far away from WDW? That may be too far for a day trip and still get money out of Busch Gardens.

As for AK, it is alot like MGM when MGM first opened. But Disney thinks the problem is people think it's a zoo, not that they have no rides.

Well, what is AK if not a zoo?

They have some animals, nothing horribly impressive unless you count the ant eater. They have perhaps one ride that could be considered unique, and that's Dinosaur (but even that can be compared to Jurassic Park.) They have shows which border on interesting, but they still don't have any real imaginaeer quality. Essentially, if AK were owned by anyone else, I probably would have few qualms about the place. However, since Disney created the park, I hold it to a higher standard, and this is the primary reason why it fails to meet my expectations.

When we last visited, I leaned over to my wife and told her that this place would be great for the 65+ crowd. Plenty of atmosphere, but very little substance. AK should have been a new land within one of the existing parks, although I'm not sure how it could be worked in to anything other than the Magic Kingdom itself.

It all boils down to personal preference I imagine.

Edit: QG, Busch Gardens is about 1 hour from Disney.

By G2-4T
And I've been to Busch - to me it was like a rip-off of a six-flags wannabe mixed with a few animals. If you want the standard theme park rides go to six-flags [or the likes]. Dinsey never uses rides alone to get visitors, it is the experiance.

Considering that Busch Gardens and Six Flags were both created in the same basic era, I don't see that one is a copy of the other. And even if that were true, it still makes my comparison valid. Be it Busch Gardens or Six Flags, the mere fact that AK can be compared to these other parks is a sad statement by itself.

As for Busch being a Six Flags "mixed with a few animals." How well do you remember Busch Gardens? They are a state-of-the-art animal facility, complete with hospital, nursery and 60 acres full of African wild life from lions to giraffes to gorillas to elephants, there are few zoos in the nation that can match their status. Now if you went to Busch Gardens looking for rides, sure, you got plenty to choose from. But rides have always shared center stage with the animals at BG. Busch has a firm grasp on their entertainment concept, which is something I cannot say about AK.

Ok, ok, ok, I'm done b*tching.

I still think it was built to give them another revenue source and not due to their love of animals.

I have visited both Busch Gardens and Animal Kingdom several times over the years. In my opinion each offers a unique experience. Its always been a bit of a mystery as to the identity of the Animal Kingdom, and I'm not sure if Disney truly knows. Does it really matter Its obvious that AK falls a bit short for attractions, but I'm sure that future plans include more rides, shows, etc. Expedition Everest should be a good start.

Nearly every visit we make to WDW includes a day at AK. My kids just love the Kilimanjaro Safaris and its Tough to be a Bug. Without a doubt our visits to AK will continue in the future.

And yes it does boil down to personal preference

Vonderbach wrote:Well, what is AK if not a zoo?

They have some animals, nothing horribly impressive unless you count the ant eater. They have perhaps one ride that could be considered unique, and that's Dinosaur (but even that can be compared to Jurassic Park.) They have shows which border on interesting, but they still don't have any real imaginaeer quality. Essentially, if AK were owned by anyone else, I probably would have few qualms about the place. However, since Disney created the park, I hold it to a higher standard, and this is the primary reason why it fails to meet my expectations.

That's really an excellent summary

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I have really grown to like the Animal Kingdom. I, too, didn't think much of it when it first opened, but it has changed quite a bit since then, and the few major attractions there are pretty decent. The addition of EE will give it a big boost, I think. We usually only spend a day there when we go, but it's kind of a break from the hustle and bustle of the other parks, and the surroundings are really beautiful. I do agree that the theming is a bit unclear-Asia, Africa, dinoland, etc??? Not sure where they were going with it, but I enjoy it none-the-less! I think it's under-rated, but that's just me

mickster68 - I agree with you. I didn't like it at first - only did 1/2 day. My family then realized that if you take your time and look around at all the surroundings and beautiful landscapings, it's really a breathtaking park. My son (16) really loves all the birds @ the entrance before the Tree of Life. I wonder how many people actually take the train to Conservation Station. We did for the 1st time 2 years ago and were pleasantly surprised at how neat it was.

Did you ever see the vine lady? (I forgot what they call her) My husband and I were there last October and saw her. HOW COOL! Once she entered the greenary areas, she really did disappear into the foilage

Funny you should mention that. My husband and I were just talking about how we've never taken the train to conservation station! We've been to AK several times, and for some reason never thought to do it, or really even realized where/what is was. It's definetely in our plans for our Dec. trip.