DEBATE: Debunking the AK "half day" myth.

[PKS44]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
I don't believe that it is because the AK is missing something, per se. I think it is just that what the AK has is not a theme that appeals to those people. That is why I don't know that there is a quick "fix" for the AK. People just aren't buying the atmosphere of the zoo/nathazu . Is it because AK is really so bad, or is it that it is decent (or maybe even pretty good ), but not what people want?

Apparently Mr Kidds would have us think of AK as the opera equivalent of theme parks..so good for the discriminating taste of the cognoscenti but lost on the masses who determine whether such things make it commercially.

What was that word again????

Oh yes.

PISH!

What is there was done on a budget and it shows. Disney got just what they paid for...IF they are willing to invest a LOT more now (because they have squandered their brand identity it will cost much more) the park can be rescued from failure...Feeding those critters won't be getting cheaper but the attendence will keep getting smaller without the right fix.

Paul

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron


Now, excuse me while I go back and actually read the post. It's bound to be great!!!

And it was!!! BRAVO MR. HEAD!!!

... and DITTO!!

 

[DisneyKidds]

Apparently Mr Kidds would have us think of AK as the opera equivalent of theme parks..so good for the discriminating taste of the cognoscenti but lost on the masses who determine whether such things make it commercially.

First off, this is not at all what I am saying or implying. Sorry if you feel that way. Secondly, I don't give a rats *** about what makes it commercially.

If you are an animal lover (or have kids that are) chances are you are going to like the AK and spend time there. It doesn't take a discriminating cognoscenti for that. If you have been to WDW umpteen times (and can't wait to get back umpteen more ) and you don't have a need or desire to ride rides all day long, there is a lot to be seen and appreciated in the AK. Do you dispute that (and if you do, have you seen it)? It doesn't take an opera fan for that. It is no knock on guests that they don't want to linger over the AK, especially since it suffers from the identity crisis the frozen one wowed the Baron with.

AK has it's problems - I have not and will not dispute that. It has simply been a miss for many in the theme and appeal department. We have had some good discussion on that. If the theme appealed more to people, the park could be much more successful with the current amount of attractions, IMHO (although more would be good).

Oh yes.

PISH!

I'm glad you like the word .

So where are they going to go?

Sure Matt, if people had to choose one over the other I agree they would choose MK over AK. MK is bigger, it has more to offer, and I haven't disagreed with that. That still doesn't change the fact that a family can spend a full day enjoying the AK.

the family wants to do about 4 or 5 at AK

Now, lets say the family leans towards the adventurous side, and consists of older children.

Have a couple of wee ones and have to stick to the tame stuff?

Thank you for FINALLY getting my point - even if you didn't realize it. Add up all those attractions it takes to keep the core family, the adventurous members, and the kiddies happy and you have hit just about all the major attractions in the AK. I'll bet you my next paycheck you didn't do it in a half a day!!!!!

Sure, MK gives the same family more. Well, I don't give a rats rump about that either. Sure, the family with limited days does, and they may choose to do the MK because it offers more. However, my point was never that people should choose AK over MK, or that AK was as good as MK.

I gotta tell you, I haven't been real enthusiastic about posting lately. Seems we covered this same ground a couple years ago

Sure, but isn't it good to see everyone talking again? (why do you think I started this thread - so I could get beat up again for liking the AK ) Think before you answer that question - because I know you have been reading along . Which has to make me say - you were so big on getting me to "answer the questions", and when I do not a word from you. While much of this may be old ground, we have had a few new twists and questions. Care to add something, or don't you think you are up to it . Come on Baron - we finally have a 10 pager, and without 5 of them being typed by you (the other three by me , and the rest by the fine folks here putting up with our literary gymnastics ). Can't ya give us one wee little page? Will 10 attractions "fix" the AK? Could those 10 be a similar mix of rides shows and exhibit as the AK currently has, or would they all have to be rides? Would those 10 have to redefine the theme and identity of the park? Is identity crisis the AK's biggest problem in your eyes? Could the AK thrive with just 20 someodd attractions if it didn't suffer from it's identity crisis? We may have harped on AK in the past, but I don't think we have answered all those questions, have we? Wudd'ya think, buddy?

DK say "I think we deserve some answers".
Baron replies "You want answers?"
DK says "I want the truth!"

Come on, the next line is yours..................................

 

[raidermatt]

Secondly, I don't give a rats *** about what makes it commercially.

Ah, but Disney does, and even Walt's Disney did. What we are seeing is a tale of two Disneys:

1- "Old" Disney. Create something because you BELIEVE in it, you have a TALENT for it, and you are PASSIONATE about it. Yes, you have to believe it will work commercially, but that's not what truly motivates you.

2- "New" Disney. Find something you think people will buy and try to make it effeciently.

AK, for all the things some of us love about it, was created using method #2. It shows in its content, its scope, and its attendance.

That still doesn't change the fact that a family can spend a full day enjoying the AK.

As has been pointed out multiple times, it does not matter that they CAN spend a full day enjoying AK. There are many places a family CAN spend a full day enjoying themselves, but that doesn't mean they all qualify for a Disney theme park.

Thank you for FINALLY getting my point - even if you didn't realize it. Add up all those attractions it takes to keep the core family, the adventurous members, and the kiddies happy and you have hit just about all the major attractions in the AK.

But as you hypothesized, and your poll shows, and most of us agree, Disney's CORE audience are families that for the most part tour together. They aren't going to spend the majority of their day splitting up. So the heart of the park, if it is to appeal to Disney's core audience, must be that "overlap" we spoke of. That has to be enough to convince a family to take another day off of work and pay for another night's lodging.

Not only does there have to be enough of these types of attractions, they must be appealing to enough Disney guests. AK falls short on both counts. The "whys" of the situation are summed up pretty well by the Frozen One.

Sure, MK gives the same family more. Well, I don't give a rats rump about that either.

Whether you do or not, others do figure this into their value equation.

Sure, the family with limited days does, and they may choose to do the MK because it offers more.

Yes, if its an either/or, they will choose MK. Why you can't see that as a problem for an equally priced park I'm not sure. Less value is less value, and its going to impact decisions regardless of whatever limits exist or don't exist.

Will 10 attractions "fix" the AK?

Look, the only thing that will truly "fix" AK, or DCA for that matter, is a philosophy change, which we've discussed many times. Do it right, not cheap. EXCEED expectations. Protect the brand name, not just exploit it. Provide value. Etc, etc, etc.

Without that, yes, the situation would still be improved with new attractions. But the liklihood that those attractions will be appealing/compelling is significantly diminished.

However, for AK to truly "work", it has to be appealing enough to convince more people not just to visit, but to add days to their trip to visit it. Not take that day away from Epcot, MK, or MGM.

That means Disney has to realize ALL of the parks must continually receive attention.

The only way I see that happening is with the before-mentioned philosophy change.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Disney's CORE audience are families that for the most part tour together. They aren't going to spend the majority of their day splitting up. So the heart of the park, if it is to appeal to Disney's core audience, must be that "overlap" we spoke of.

This is where our disconnect is. I don't see the overlap as the key. Are you saying that a family touring the park together will only do the rides that overlap? I couldn't disagree more. Lets say you are a group of 3. You get to an attraction. You ask the group - "does everyone want to do this attraction?" 1 or 2 out of 3 say yes. Do you do the attraction, or do you skip it? We do the attraction. Maybe a big part of AK's problem is that many families skip it. Personally, I don't see that, or get why a family would do that. Now if you decide to do the attraction you will hit a couple of scenarios. If it is a show all three might see it - together. If it is a thrill ride that person who doesn't want to ride might take the time to get a drink, hit the head, etc. Personally, I don't view that as "splitting up". It is not like they have seperated from the group to go tour the park on their own.

1- "Old" Disney. Create something because you BELIEVE in it, you have a TALENT for it, and you are PASSIONATE about it. Yes, you have to believe it will work commercially, but that's not what truly motivates you.

2- "New" Disney. Find something you think people will buy and try to make it effeciently.

AK, for all the things some of us love about it, was created using method #2. It shows in its content, its scope, and its attendance.

I believe that there is a combination of 1 and 2. Unfortunately, the detrimental philosophy of cheap and efficient has affected what could have been a great park. There goes Burbank ruining things again. However, there were a lot of TALENTED, PASSIONATE people who BELIEVED very much and worked very hard at making the AK the best it could be given the constraints placed upon them. It is not like nobody cared - and a lot of the TALENT and PASSION those who worked on the park in Orlando possessed can be seen.

 

[raidermatt]

I don't see the overlap as the key

It was the initial inspiration for Walt to create Disneyland. He wanted a place where families could go and experience things together.

Now, don't get absolute on me. It doesn't mean EVERY attraction must appeal to EVERY member of EVERY family. That's impossible. But it does mean the park must slant in that direction. Besides the quality and showmanship, this was going to differentiate Disneyland from other parks/fairs/carnivals.

Its very well documented that this was a critical goal of the park.

Are you saying that a family touring the park together will only do the rides that overlap?

Like I said, don't get absolute on me....

You ask the group - "does everyone want to do this attraction?" 1 or 2 out of 3 say yes. Do you do the attraction, or do you skip it?

We are talking about families on family vacations, as opposed to the more generic groups, and that is important to keep in mind.

Do the 1 or 2 family members do the attraction? Sometimes. But if the park requires too much of this, and doesn't offer enough "overlap", they won't come back, or will spend less time there.

Maybe a big part of AK's problem is that many families skip it.

No, the problem is that it forces families to make too many of these choices for the number of attractions it has, especially given the questionable appeal of some of those attractions. Granted, its not the only problem, but it is a problem. And of course it all stems from the philosophy issue.

Personally, I don't see that, or get why a family would do that.

For those that make the choice, the time spent together is more important than the attraction itself. Several things come into play...how much does that family member REALLY want to do that attraction, and how do they balance that against their time with the whole family.

There's nothing wrong with either choice, its just that Disney parks were meant to be geared towards those who don't want very many of these split-ups during the day.

However, there were a lot of TALENTED, PASSIONATE people who BELIEVED very much and worked very hard at making the AK the best it could be given the constraints placed upon them. It is not like nobody cared - and a lot of the TALENT and PASSION those who worked on the park in Orlando possessed can be seen.

Time for my periodic disclaimer...

When I make statements like "lacking passion and talent", I do not mean to say that there are no individuals left at Disney who have a talent and/or passion (though certainly there are fewer than there once were...). I just mean that the driving forces behind these projects, the ones that make the strategic decisions and set the budgets, are lacking in these areas. So while an end result can have flashes of brilliance created by somebody who is talented and really cares, the overall project is more often than not going to come up short.

 

[curtisl]

Just to add my 2 cents and the to duck out of the way of the big boys who are better at this stuff then I am.

Here are the places, taken by themselves, that I felt keep the Disney Magic alive in the AK

1. The Tree of Life - So much detail that you could never find all of the animals no matter how many times you visited.

2. The entrance to Africa - When I turned the corner into Harambe, BAMM, I was there and a continent away from the US.

3. Festival of the Lion King - Disney caliber show worth seeing over and over again.

4. Tough to be a bug - fits in perfectly with the roots of a tree. If you were a bug, where else would you put your theater? Loved the punny bug show posters.

Now if the penny pinchers had let the Imagineers keep up this quality throughout the rest of the park (like TDSeas), I would have been completely content.

 

[HB2K]

I'll tell you the other problem I have with DAK...although I'll probably be in the minority on this.

I don't need to be reminded that the other countries depicted in DAK are poor. I know the point of the theme was to be realistic, but there are times I look at the signage, architecture, etc and just shake my head.

There are few "photogenic" spots in DAK...whereas you can pretty much be anywhere in EPCOT, MK or MGM and take great pictures of wonderful architecture, scenery, etc.

 

[airlarry!]

M. Head:

Ditto. Sure seems like we'd all be happy if they had built AK the way it was supposed/rumored/planned to be, with the Tiger Raft Ride, Excavator, Australia, and BK present on or about Opening Day. And why have these trails...when they lead back to the main road? Why not have the rides at the end of the trail? An extended queue area...and more people will use the trails....

M. DK:

I do thank you for bringing up the topic and I know it is not just because you like AK. BUT YOU ARE NOT the only one who likes AK. Look at my pic. I loved the concept, and pored over some of the original drawings and rumors for what it was supposed to be. But when I got there and saw what they ended up opening up with, I could not help be disappointed. I would think less of any Disney fan that isn't disappointed with the opening day lineup of AK. And the additions have been tepid at best.

My thought? AK is like ordering a pizza from your favorite place with the works, paying full price, and getting half a pizza with two toppings. Might have to send it back...

M. Scoop:

It is just my opinion, but Pop Century, while utterly distasteful, has no bearing to this topic. It was not developed by Imagineers. It was developed by the Resort guys, the Hotelineers. The original concept for Kali was the Tiger, and it was longer, grander, and had a clearer storyline. With the proper budget they can do it right...apparently Grizzly is much better than Kali.

 

[DisneyKidds]

I know the point of the theme was to be realistic, but there are times I look at the signage, architecture, etc and just shake my head.

Maybe you have, but this is where I just have to ask if you have really looked and seen what is there? The coordination and themeing of the buildings is incredible. Harambe is very good, but I am more impressed by most of the other areas of the park. The intricate animal carvings on a multitude of buildings is amazing. Just for yuks, next time you are at AK wander down behind the Flame Tree BBQ. Ever been there? It is one of the most relaxing spots in all of WDW. The fountain and pond are great, the seating right on the water is great. Then look up at the architecture around you and all of the carvings, etc. Then notice that kind of detail throughout the rest of the park. I don't see how you can shake your head in any other way than to think "this is amazing".

I would think less of any Disney fan that isn't disappointed with the opening day lineup of AK. And the additions have been tepid at best.

I hope you haven't missed everything I have said about the problems the AK has. It has them. However, despite some of those problems there is still enou..............I won't say it again, because it really is a minor point, and was only a way to open up the discussion (bit it isn't a hlf day park ).
I agree that AK should have been built to original plan. Half of this discussion would be moot had they done so. However, I still think the concept and theme would lack the appeal that Disney thought it would have, even with the original plan.

We were fortunate enought to visit AK before it officially opened (AP preview), as well as shortly after it opened. Know what? - we didn't spend more than a half day there. However, we were more commando back then, and we didn't have kids. Our more relaxed pace of park touring, and the addition of kids, have allowed us to appreciate the AK much more than we did in the early days. AK lacks universal appeal, it opened without things it should now have, and the additions have not been what they should - I agree.

 

[airlarry!]

Flametree BBQ. Best seat in the house, right down there by the water.

Ever get the feeling though that as you look out on the water that there is something missing? That usually Disney gives you something more to look at than Florida vegetation?


That's 'cause you were right. There was something that was supposed to be there. If memory serves, Beastly Kingdom would have been visible, and enticing you, right over where your field of vision was. Hints of a dragon attraction, with a battle between a good knight and the evil treasure-horder.

So when I go down there, I always get the feeling that I'm missing something. (And yes, I felt that way on our first trip right after it opened even before I knew about the missing view).

Even the name "Flame Tree BBQ" to me is an ironic reference by the Imagineers as to what the view was supposed to be. Allegedly.

 

[Sarangel]

apparently Grizzly is much better than Kali.

Having been on both, I must say that I really prefer Kali. Grizzly River Rapids has no real storyline, no views (except cement), and no center well for dry stuff.

Kali has a rudimentery storyline (I'll grant it could have been executed better), great views of the river in AK, and someplace to keep your shoes dry. It also seems like a longer ride to me, since GRR is pretty short (though it does have a better drop).

Sarangel

 

[DisneyKidds]

Ever get the feeling though that as you look out on the water that there is something missing? That usually Disney gives you something more to look at than Florida vegetation?

You are absolutely right that there was most likely supposed to be something else there to look at (although I hope it wouldn't have been rides or buildings as even the view of the Florida vegitation is oh so relaxing). I can't say I ever sat there and thought something was missing, as I like to spend my time enjoying what is there, as opposed to thinking about what isn't.

A question for you. Does the fact that BK is not there to be seen when enjoying that terraced area behind Flame Tree make the detail in the architecture, decoration, and themeing any less intricate? Sure, there could be more in your field of vision, but my point still stands about the architecture, carvings, etc. It is some of the most detailed in all of WDW.

 

[airlarry!]

Well, M. DK, that's kind of a trick question. No matter which way I answer, one can find fault with it...I've erased my answer three times because I'm stuck.

That's like asking me if Spaceship Earth had never been built, would I have ever noticed whether or not my view from the boats was diminished. Or if I ever noticed if standing by the Kodak picture spot near the Mark Twain and the entrance to the Haunted Mansion...whether before Splash Mt was built, had I noticed something was missing there?

That's impossible to answer. Now that I know what was supposed to go there (at three different stages in AK's development and post-development, mind you), yes it does make me sad that we don't have something to look forward to at that most beautiful location. Everything you quote is why I love the place, especially the feeling it gives of being 'out of the way.' But...oh for what might have been...."Flame Tree" = "Dragon Coaster View".

Does the fact that BK is not there to be seen when enjoying that terraced area behind Flame Tree make the detail in the architecture, decoration, and themeing any less intricate?

 

[SnackyStacky]

Oh the things you miss when you're gone for almost a week!!!!

I have two interesting points to make about Animal Kingdom from this past trip.

1.) Remember that friend I talked about? The one who kept saying "Oh! It's a zoo?" Well, she really cared nothing for Animal Kingdom. We spent two hours doing the rides, and asked her if she wanted to do any of the exhibits. She said no. She still thinks it's a glorified zoo.

2.) While waiting in line for the Backlot Tour at MGM, a cast member overheard us discussing the parks. We said something to the effect that there were four parks. He said, AND I QUOTE! "Well there ARE four, but the Animal Kingdom is kind of....eh.... don't waste too much time there...".

From a cast member.

Someone who is supposed to promote Disney.

Not trying to support any points because I haven't caught myself up with this debate, just sharing. I may need those later.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Well, M. DK, that's kind of a trick question. No matter which way I answer, one can find fault with it...I've erased my answer three times because I'm stuck.

Bwaaahahahahahah...................................Now I've got you right where I want you .

Seriously, it is a difficult question to answer and it's relevance depends greatly on the focus of the conversation. If I were focusing this question on assessing the AK offerings overall, and what is missing, and what could be better, etc., etc. it would be hard to not consider what could have been. In the "big picture" I can see your not being able to keep from longing for a view of what should have been.

Now that i have said that, remember what I was replying to with that original comment..................

I know the point of the theme was to be realistic, but there are times I look at the signage, architecture, etc and just shake my head.

There are few "photogenic" spots in DAK...whereas you can pretty much be anywhere in EPCOT, MK or MGM and take great pictures of wonderful architecture, scenery, etc.

My particular focus here was on the intricate deatil of the achitecture and level of deatil in the themeing, and that it is just as elaborate as anywhere else on property. Focus on that small picture for a moment. Easier to asnwer now?

Yeah, combine that samll picture with the overwhelming view that could have been beyond it and AK would be even better, but AK still has the goods when it comes to detail of architecture and theme.