What will you do with Animal Kingdom Poll!

[bom_noite]

What would you do:

[arfisher12]

I would add a tarzen ride where you would swing on a vine through a jungle playing some Phil Collins


Posted from Disney Forums Reader for Android

[wiigirl]

Originally Posted by arfisher12

I would add a tarzen ride where you would swing on a vine through a jungle playing some Phil Collins


Posted from Disney Forums Reader for Android

I'd be in for that!

[Safari Queen]

I have trouble understanding why people think AK isn't complete. Of course there's room for more, but we can easily fill a whole day there. We adore animals and really take our time on the trails and in the aviaries, plus we like all the shows. We're not thrill ride people, so Everest and that evil wild mouse over in Dinoland aren't part of our plan. We love the shady paths, the relatively untamed beauty, the details on the buildings and other artifacts, plus the opportunity to see the animals in natural surroundings in addition to the attractions.

I see people who trudge through Pangani rapidly, looking straight ahead, paying no attention to the wildlife, exotic construction, and beautiful plants around them, searching for the next "ride". Clearly, AK is not the park for them.

[raidermatt]

Originally Posted by Safari Queen

I have trouble understanding why people think AK isn't complete. Of course there's room for more, but we can easily fill a whole day there. We adore animals and really take our time on the trails and in the aviaries, plus we like all the shows. We're not thrill ride people, so Everest and that evil wild mouse over in Dinoland aren't part of our plan. We love the shady paths, the relatively untamed beauty, the details on the buildings and other artifacts, plus the opportunity to see the animals in natural surroundings in addition to the attractions.

I see people who trudge through Pangani rapidly, looking straight ahead, paying no attention to the wildlife, exotic construction, and beautiful plants around them, searching for the next "ride". Clearly, AK is not the park for them.

Certainly there are those that agree with you. But Disney has to look at the big picture, and in that big picture, they can't afford to have so many people think of AK as not the park for them. Clearly they are still trying to find ways to make the park more compelling for more people.

Originally Posted by DRDISNEYMD

I tend to agree -- Australia is a better fit for Epcot.

It's been 25 years since a pavilion was added to Epcot. At some point, we need to face up to the reality that the economics, as defined by Disney, do not work out.

Australia, just like Asia and Africa, is a perfect fit for Animal Kingdom.

But should Disney ever decide World Showcase is worth the trouble of them spending some of their own money, there's no reason Australia couldn't be in both WS and AK. Asia is currently in AK and China/Japan are in WS and it works fine. Clearly the focus would be different.

Originally Posted by DRDISNEYMD

~This is just your opinion. There are other opinions just as strong that believe otherwise. Many Australian's here have voiced a strong opinion that they don't want their country represented in AK. I'm not saying, it's right or wrong, but I think we should respect their feelings. You may think it's a good idea, but that doesn't mean it's right.

In AK, Australia wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, be represented as a country, but rather as a continent. A geographic entity, not a nationality. Again, just like Asia and Africa. There will always be somebody upset, just as I'm sure there are people who live in Asia and Africa that don't like Disney's depiction in AK.

Originally Posted by DRDISNEYMD

~Wow! You are definitely entitled to your opinion, but the "Yeti" is a mythical creature & the "dragon" in AK's logo is a mythical creature, they are not real animals. Animal Kingdom is a theme park representing creatures "real, ancient & imagined." It's not a zoo.

As I'm sure you know, the dragon is representative of Beastly Kingdom, an area originally planned and announced by Disney to be added to AK after it opened. Of course, Disney retreated after the public's less than enthusiastic response to AK when it opened, and BK never came to be.

But the idea was that yes, mythical creatures would be included, but they would have their own area. Asia and Africa would remain based on actual animals.

Obviously Disney no longer believes in that philosophy as you correctly point out that the Yeti is in Asia. But that doesn't mean the idea is going to sit well with everyone. After all, there were very valid creative reasons for keeping the mythical creatures seperate, and nothing has changed that.

[bom_noite]

Originally Posted by raidermatt

Certainly there are those that agree with you. But Disney has to look at the big picture, and in that big picture, they can't afford to have so many people think of AK as not the park for them.

Australia, just like Asia and Africa, is a perfect fit for Animal Kingdom.

I agree with what you are saying: MORE OF THE SAME may not be healthy for the park, and, attendance.

I do think as you do though - Australia is a perfect fit.

As a family we trudged down there 10 straight years and avoided AK for the first 4 - I love animals but will not go across the street to see them. Our opinions changed the first time we went. It is now our favorite park and we never go without a visit to AK.

Too me it is not Everest or the Animals - it is the subtle details and picturesque beauty that makes it a wonderful place to spend a day.

The problem Disney faces is that the family from Topeka who goes once every 10 years limited time / funds. AK would be the one they skip. Disney has to find a way to get these folks in the door - and - I admit that Australia may not do it.

While I am still anti-Avatar, I do agree with that fact it may get people in the door - and - that may not be a bad thing.

[bom_noite]

Originally Posted by raidermatt

Certainly there are those that agree with you. But Disney has to look at the big picture, and in that big picture, they can't afford to have so many people think of AK as not the park for them.

Australia, just like Asia and Africa, is a perfect fit for Animal Kingdom.

I agree with what you are saying: MORE OF THE SAME may not be healthy for the park, and, attendance.

I do think as you do though - Australia is a perfect fit.

As a family we trudged down there 10 straight years and avoided AK for the first 4 - I love animals but will not go across the street to see them. Our opinions changed the first time we went. It is now our favorite park and we never go without a visit to AK.

Too me it is not Everest or the Animals - it is the subtle details and picturesque beauty that makes it a wonderful place to spend a day.

The problem Disney faces is that the family from Topeka who goes once every 10 years limited time / funds. AK would be the one they skip. Disney has to find a way to get these folks in the door - and - I admit that Australia may not do it.

While I am still anti-Avatar, I do agree with that fact it may get people in the door - and - that may not be a bad thing.

It's been 25 years since a pavilion was added to Epcot. At some point, we need to face up to the reality that the economics, as defined by Disney, do not work out.

Not sure where you are going here - hope you can expand.

Will say that Epcot, despite it's massive size, is just flat out land-locked! Their only chance at expansion is to cannibalize what they have already.

My son just got done with a 9 month College Program working at Epcot. His opinion was that other then Soarin', Test Track and Living Seas (to some extent) the place was a Restaurant / Bar park. The real draw was the World ShowCase. He felt they should lose many of the under-loved exhibits and just expand the show case outwards and add the likes of Russia, Brazil, Greece, Australia, Austria, India, Turkey, etc., etc., etc.

That might be a 20 year transformation, but, it would get them out of trying to keep the North Portion relevant.

[DRDISNEYMD]

Originally Posted by raidermatt

Certainly there are those that agree with you. But Disney has to look at the big picture, and in that big picture, they can't afford to have so many people think of AK as not the park for them. Clearly they are still trying to find ways to make the park more compelling for more people.

~I think Disney is looking at the big picture. Avatarland is unique, if the attraction(s) are well done, it will be a huge success for Disney! It's a bold, daring & exciting venture -- Disney is taking a huge risk for sure, but I *love* that!!! The Imagineers and James Cameron teamed together will create an amazing *new* theme park experience!

It's been 25 years since a pavilion was added to Epcot. At some point, we need to face up to the reality that the economics, as defined by Disney, do not work out.

Australia, just like Asia and Africa, is a perfect fit for Animal Kingdom.

~India would be the perfect fit for Animal Kingdom!!!

But should Disney ever decide World Showcase is worth the trouble of them spending some of their own money, there's no reason Australia couldn't be in both WS and AK. Asia is currently in AK and China/Japan are in WS and it works fine. Clearly the focus would be different.

~Like I said before, I would love to see Australia in Epcot, with the Sydney Opera House as the centerpiece. I know this will probably never happen.

In AK, Australia wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, be represented as a country, but rather as a continent. A geographic entity, not a nationality. Again, just like Asia and Africa. There will always be somebody upset, just as I'm sure there are people who live in Asia and Africa that don't like Disney's depiction in AK.

~I'm not *against* Australia in AK. You've been here a while, this is hardly some new groundbreaking concept, this Australia at AK thing has been beaten into the ground on these boards for years. I just don't think it's all that great of an idea. I like Avatarland way bettter! I'm so glad, it's actually happening soon, and not some random "concept" like the Outback.

As I'm sure you know, the dragon is representative of Beastly Kingdom, an area originally planned and announced by Disney to be added to AK after it opened. Of course, Disney retreated after the public's less than enthusiastic response to AK when it opened, and BK never came to be.

But the idea was that yes, mythical creatures would be included, but they would have their own area. Asia and Africa would remain based on actual animals.
Obviously Disney no longer believes in that philosophy as you correctly point out that the Yeti is in Asia. But that doesn't mean the idea is going to sit well with everyone. After all, there were very valid creative reasons for keeping the mythical creatures seperate, and nothing has changed that.

~I had never heard of Beastly Kingdom until Avatarland was annouced. I have to admit, I love the concept, it's too bad Disney abandoned the project. But, like I said before, I'm not under the impression that Disney is eager to invest more $$$ in WDW.

~Anyway, I can't wait for Avatarland, it's going to be so fabulous!!! I know James Cameron prides himself on new tech & innovation, he will not settle for mediocrity!

[disneyfreakjackie]

Originally Posted by Safari Queen

I have trouble understanding why people think AK isn't complete. Of course there's room for more, but we can easily fill a whole day there. We adore animals and really take our time on the trails and in the aviaries, plus we like all the shows. We're not thrill ride people, so Everest and that evil wild mouse over in Dinoland aren't part of our plan. We love the shady paths, the relatively untamed beauty, the details on the buildings and other artifacts, plus the opportunity to see the animals in natural surroundings in addition to the attractions.

I see people who trudge through Pangani rapidly, looking straight ahead, paying no attention to the wildlife, exotic construction, and beautiful plants around them, searching for the next "ride". Clearly, AK is not the park for them.

LOVE Animal Kingdom!! The details in that park are GORGEOUS!! I love to explore EVERY inch!!!

[keishashadow]

Originally Posted by ChrisFL

It was in the works, but was canned...we got the jungle trek experience instead.

disney is big on recycling ideas, maybe it'll crop up in the future, so much land @ AK to develop

[DizCaptain]

I would visit it and look at the animals.

[jgh]

I'm definitely not super excited about Avatarland (though of course I'll go see it if it happens). I hadn't heard about the Australian Outback...that might be cool. I'm really not sure WHAT I would like them to do with AK...but they DO need to do SOMETHING.

[bom_noite]

Originally Posted by jgh

I hadn't heard about the Australian Outback...that might be cool.

The Australia idea, was not born from any rumor past or present (as far as I know). Rather, a few people on posts regarding Avatar tossed it out as a different option.

[DRDISNEYMD]

~Many Australians here have said, they don't wish to be defined by the "Outback." They find the association of their culture with the "Outback" to be somewhat offensive, in a stereotypical manner. Australia should be in Epcot -- the Sydney Opera House right off of the Epcot lake would be so fabulous!!!

~As for the poll, there is no "concept" of Avatarland. We have no idea, what Disney & James Cameron have planned. We do have Fantasyland, that's based on everything Disney, the perfect "concept". And, so far it sounds like a real bore!!! A very beautiful, detailed, well executed bore!!! I can't wait to see what James Cameron & the Imagineers put together!

[bom_noite]

Originally Posted by DRDISNEYMD

~Many Australians here have said, they don't wish to be defined by the "Outback." They find the association of their culture with the "Outback" to be somewhat offensive, in a stereotypical manner.

As for the "Outback" comment - my apologies if anyone was offended! I have had many dealing with Australians through the years, never realized that.

Australia should be in Epcot -- the Sydney Opera House right off of the Epcot lake would be so fabulous!!!

That is a very interesting comment / idea.

~As for the poll, there is no "concept" of Avatarland. We have no idea, what Disney & James Cameron have planned. We do have Fantasyland, that's based on everything Disney, the perfect "concept". And, so far it sounds like a real bore!!! A very beautiful, detailed, well executed bore!!! I can't wait to see what James Cameron & the Imagineers put together!

Well, there have been some posts on other threads regarding the initial plans that were found: A Soarin' type ride and a boat ride of some type. From what I understand, the disagreements between Disney / Cameron are not based on what has been proposed thus forth, rather, Cameron would like to see more.

But, cannot the same argument be made for Australia Land? It is just a concept idea. A white sheet of paper. On other threads suggestions ranged from: A Barrier Reef log ride, restaurants (of course) and native animal areas.

Think of all of the indigenous critters running around that are very foreign to Americans. Latin Americans, Europeans and are not represented in the Animal Kingdom (let alone many Zoo's) today.

While I cannot speak for all of my fellow Yank's, I think the majority of Americans have: A rabid fascination and tremendous amount of respect with Australia. Certainly, it would achieve the ultimate goal of increasing attendance.

I also strongly believe that an Australian area fit's better then Avatarland. Education and Preservation of the natural environment is what AK is all about. And, I believe that showcasing Australia's magnificent natural wonders is 100 times better then Blue whatever's from a mythical world.

If they want to put Avatarland at the Studio's - have at it! But, I cannot get past the thought of adding mythical creatures to the AK. It is like fingernails on a chalk-board to me.