Nahtazu

[Lesley]

I think I've actually used the phrase "Kind of like a zoo, but......" and its usually followed by several very positive adjectives like "amazing", "incredible" and "unbelieveable" (though after seeing pics of TDS maybe I have to reserve my glowing descriptions for a place that is more those things than AK). AK is my favorite park...it does "zoo" and other attractions equally well, BUT I can see where the average family who is paying day by day rather than getting park hopper tickets would see it as not being as worth the admission as the other parks. But I think that the same arguement could have been made about MGM in the early days and could be made by some about Epcot now (those who aren't interested in learning anything new, which I think is a huge portion of WDW visitors).

I don't know that this rather amusing "nahtazu" approach will help the perception at all...because even though AK is not a zoo, its sure like one in many ways...just a whole lot better. Zoo on steriods...lol.

Something tells me the whole point of creating the word "nahtazu" was to try to define AK positively...."nahtazu" is something new that's never been heard of before, its not just a statement of AK being NOT a zoo. Its kind of weak..but I'm guessing that was the aim. Perhaps they're trying to create a buzz word like Volkswagon did with farferghnugen years ago? If so, I don't think its gonna work.

IMO the best thing they could do for AK is create BK....it was the promise in the initial planning- A park devoted to animals that exist, used to exist, and those of myth and legend, a celebration of our interaction with the other living things of our planet both real and imagined. Right now they're missing a third of that theme...and that's why there is an identity crisis...its not what is was planned to be. And that is also what makes it so easy to describe AK as "kind of like a zoo"

 

[Sarangel]

Two points:

One, when DVC-Landbaron, thedscoop, renknt and I were having drinks in the Contemporary last week, the topic of AK did come up and the best label we could come up with is that AK is an 'uniquie experience.' We debated the zoo-ness of it, the ride level, and the shows and concluded that there was nothing like it in either zoo-dom or theme park-dom.

Two, AK is *very* different than all the other Disney properties and (I presume) most of the Universal properties (I imagine that SeaWorld must share some similarities). But a quick anecdote from when they were imagineering the park: Originally they had discussed using a large number of animatronic animals for AK, but Joe Roth (chief imagineer) strongly backed the real animal philosophy. To prove his point about real animals being compelling, he arragned (without anyone's permission) to bring a live tiger to a storyboard session. He made his pitch without ever looking at the big cat being walked around the edges of the room, while everyone else paid more attention to the tiger than Joe. Point made.

Sarangel

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

My take is a little mixed on the whole Animal Kingdom experience. I believe it was in the meeting with Scoop that I quoted my daughter, saying that AK, while done beautifully, isn't much of an amusement park and it isn't much of a zoo. This was at about the same time AV wrote:

The problem, from my twisted point of view, is that Animal Kingdom is neither a zoo nor a theme park. It's a half-hearted attempt to be both and it fails.

Hmmm. Great minds thinks alike, I guess.

The point is that if you strip away the amusement park aspect (rides and shows) you are left with a rather puny zoo. Very well done, mind you, but very, very small. Animals of all sorts, that normal zoos have are missing. No penguins, polar bears, pandas, kangaroos, etc. My seven year old son kept asking all day long. "When do we get to the bears?" He also asked about penguins and seals. And if you take away all the zoo elements, you're left with a very half-hearted attempt at an amusement park. Again rather puny in size and scope. Not even a very good "Disney" style sit-down restaurant!!

Now mix the two together, as it stands today. Very well done. And for someone with a love for theming and exploration AK becomes just passable. For anyone else - it fails! And it fails at fifty dollars and eighty-eight cents a day! That's a hell of a failure.

And, of course, gcurling (a very nice guy) has the answer:

The bottom line for me is, this kind of reactive, apologetic, damage control processing could have been averted had AK opened as a big-time park.

That is absolutely the answer!!

In 1979 a CM told me that a new park was going in. EPCOT. It would be… It was going to be… Well… She seemed at a loss as to how to describe it. She finally said that it would be a big Tomorrowland in front and a sort of World's Fair in the back. Can you imagine what the response to EPCOT would have been if Future world opened with three pavilions (say Spaceship Earth, Energy and Imagination) and World Showcase had only four countries? Hmmm. Not much of a Tomorrowland and not much of a World's Fair.

But it didn't open that way, did it? No, back then they still did things right!! They opened with six pavilions (a seventh soon added) and nine countries!! Talk about WOW power!!

So, when I say it wasn't 'done right', I mean it's scope and size wasn't overwhelming enough. What they did, they did right. It's just not nearly enough.

 

[Planogirl]

I always refer to Animal Kingdom as Disney's version of a zoo. And I say this with nothing but praise because I love zoos.

However, I am disappointed in Disney's version of a zoo. Disney had a chance to dazzle visitors with their magic while at the same time examining the questions of conservation and endangered species among others. They instead gave us not much more than a few beautiful animal displays, a good safari and some musical acts. Now they're adding carnival style attractions.

They also had the chance to immerse us in the theming of other continents while teaching us about the animal life and culture of these areas. We do get a bit of this but they could have gone into so much more detail than they did.

Disney could have really pulled out all the stops at Animal Kingdom. They really had a chance to teach. After all, learning is a lot easier if it's fun.

By the way, I really do like Animal Kingdom and easily spend more than a half day there. I'm just lamenting what could have been and perhaps what may still come. One can always hope!

 

[hogie1]

I went to WDW last Dec for the first time and I wanted to a least try every park. I
did what my Mom always said at dinner, "you won't know if you like it or not until you
try it!" So even though animals are not my thing I made an attempt at going. Well
some people like animals and some don't. I don't really think they fit into my vacation
enjoyment, but some people like going to AK. I do think they have built the place kind
of tight from where I was walking around. They should open it up a little bit to allow
for better walking access. I have never seen what MK is like during peak times of the
year, but I never felt crowded when we went. But whether or not the place is a "zoo"
I think doesn't really matter. The crowds that want to go there will and Disney is
probably planning AK's direction now. That's just my 2 cents anyway. If you like it,
great. If not, I'll c-ya in MK, MGM, or EPCOT!

 

[Dznefreek]

There is a large billboard in Central Florida on I-4 with this phrase on it and I hate to say it but, "Yes. it is". and a poor one at that.

My wife was right when she said, "I am not paying $50.00 to go to a Zoo."

The animals are too far away. There are not enough rides. The rides that are there are lackluster at best.

Directional signage is poor, 1000 animals; where? Oh I know 30 crocs (3%), 60 fish (6%), who knows how many birds???????

I remember Joe Rhodes saying in an interview, "We won't have 1 or 2 Hippos, but a pod(?) of 30+." Sorry Joe, I cannot wait the 10+ years for that to occur.

Busch Gardens has it all over DAK when it comes to animals (3200+) and yes I klnow they have been around longer but SO WHAT!

What did they spend 800 million dollars on???????????? Oh, I know; Souvenir Design!

I have always been a BIG Disney fan but they missed the boat or should I say Safari on this one.

 

[YoHo]

JeffJewell,
I am one of the few Non AP holders that refuses to to be rushed when on Vacation. (If I had the money and Vacation Days, I actually would add extra days for AK.)

(More Comments)
But that leads to something I brought up in another Thread. At least Part of AK's Problem has little to do with how good the elements that are there are. Its that WDW has reached a saturation point IMHO. Companies aren't giving employees more days off. If the average family trip to WDW was 1-2 weeks (is it? I don't know) Before AK, then it simply can't change, unless foriegn Tourism explodes (which makes DLP a henderence not a Help).Which means that If AK had opened as a full park, what would likely have happened would be that MGM would lose numbers. Then IOA is Opened and is beginning to draw away people.

At this point, to my mind, the only way your going to increase attendence at AK without hurting attendence elsewhere is to make sure that it and all the other parks draw better then IOA and your other cometitors. When People simply can't devote more then 7 days to you, you have to ace out the competition.


By the way, I agree that a Zoo is not a bad thing to be. HOWEVER, you can not expect the average vacationer to devote the amount of time there that they do at even a regular zoo.


P.S. Landbaron, tell your kids that they're spoiled by having 2 excellent Zoos(World renowned) and a famous Aquarium/Oceanarium right in their backyard. Animal Kingdom is like a big OutDoor Tropicworld. Habitat specific, so no Polarbears

 

[YoHo]

Hey,
Dznefreek
Don't ever go to the San Diego Zoo then, They Charge $50.

Of course they have more animals.....

 

[Dznefreek]

<b><i>Don't ever go to the San Diego Zoo then, They Charge $50.</b></i>

Yes, I know but is quite possibly the BEST Zoo on the Planet. That is the difference.

 

[AKemel]

On our trip to WDW just after AK first opened, I did not want to go there. With other Disney parks available, I did not want to waste my time in a Zoo. I can go to a Zoo at home or on vacation to San Diego, were there is not much else to do. That was my perception of the park. A Zoo is a Zoo. That is how many others must feel.

How does one change it? Word of mouth is good. (Safari ride is my favorite of all Disney adventures- it is not a ride.) Advertising also works. (I can't believe what people buy, just because it is advertised to them.) Or you can always add Shamu...

 

[JeffJewell]

I am one of the few Non AP holders that refuses to to be rushed when on Vacation. (If I had the money and Vacation Days, I actually would add extra days for AK

That's the way to appreciate AK as it stands; as kick-back time. I'm an AP holder, but even when I wasn't, I rarely left the property. I'm a big fan of cats, so I spend a significant amount of time taking pictures along the Maharajah's Trek, but most of my cool AK memories involve sitting or strolling, as opposed to the more frenetic type of fun I have in the other parks (well, I guess World Showcase has a similar feel to AK, in this context). I suspect that the "general public" who considers AK "merely" a zoo might not kick back enough on an expensive vacation to appreciate the good parts of AK.

Its that WDW has reached a saturation point IMHO.

That's true in the context you're using it: it would take something truly spectacular to encourage the average vacationing family to add a day or days to their planned vacation (and as you allude, even something spectacular might, to a certain extent, just cannibalize the other parks).

But I do think that WDW leaves some money on the table, as it were. I don't think it'll come from longer hotel stays (unfortunately, "guests will add a hotel night for this" was a big part of the business model for both AK and DCA. Both are failing to meet expectations), I think it will come from pay-for-play high end experiences. It's hugely disappointing to me that Disney's US parks seem to be completely out of the high-end experience business.

HOWEVER, you can not expect the average vacationer to devote the amount of time there that they do at even a regular zoo.

Actually, I disagree with that. Despite the backlash against the "zoo" perception, it seems to me that most of the folks (myself included) who really enjoy AK actually appreciate the high-end zoo aspects. We're back to the problem of "if not a zoo, then what?" AK isn't a significantly better zoo than other zoos, and it isn't a significantly better amusement park than other amusement parks. If AK was _either_ of those things, I believe it would be doing much better than it is.

Jeff

 

[normr]

Instead of Animal Kingdom they should have built something like California Adventure, IMHO.

 

[Cindy B]

Saw those commercials while we were there...thought it was pretty clever on their parts.. unfortunately, it did come across as an apology than a "come on over, we are a FUN park"

 

[HBK]

Instead of Animal Kingdom they should have built something like California Adventure, IMHO.

Please tell me you're joking.

 

[DisneyFanGuy]

We voted AK to be our least favorite park.

So I think that the Crummy attendance has nothing whatsoever to do with the number of days that we spend at the world. We choose to go to Universal Studios, IOA, or Sea World instead of AK because we like any of those parks better.

My families preferences:

Disney/MGM
Universal Studios
Epcot
IOA
Magic Kingdom
Sea World

And a very distant last.....AK.

We drive down to visit my parents every year in South Florida, and always stop for a couple of days in the World. Last year we stayed in Fort Wilderness, and went for two days to Universal Studios and IOA. We debated all the other parks and it was quite a discussion (As it always is!) At no time, was AK even considered.

It just doesn't stack up to the other parks. Kids don't care about brand awareness, or loyality or anything like that. They care that there ISN'T ENOUGH TO DO!

I know of a few folks that really like the AK. Couples mostly, but nobody with kids that I know of wants to go back twice. K. Safaris is very special, and Dinosaur is scary, but the rest.......OK at best. My kids want rides. My wife wants rides. I want rides. Immersive, fun experiences that you cannot find anywhere else. We really felt like we paid 50 bucks to look at the pretty animals. Now with the parks closing earlier than ever, we don't even want to spend 1/2 a day there because we can't find enough time to go anywhere else. It's a beautifully themed park with not enough to do.

Kali River Rapids.....You are out on the water (Away from the dock) for about 1 1/2 minutes. My six flags park ride is longer. (A LOT longer, actually) What the heck were they thinking?

Conservation Station (Now Rafikis...)...My kids practically passed out walking in the heat from the train to find zoo exibits. What the heck were they thinking?

It's tough to be a Bug.....We always enjoy these kinds of shows.....once.

Animal exibits.....We have better locally.
Animal Shows.....We have similar locally.

Disney built 1/2 a park and they are getting 1/2 the attendance. Hmmmm. Have they learned anything here? Add a few really creative rides and make it easier to get around. Give us another real dining option. If people don't like the park, they won't go. Very simple.

Give us a transportation option that doesn't involve busses! (Another discussion for another time!)

 

[JeffH]

My 7 yo daughter has loved AK since it opened and can never get enough of the shows and play areas. Oh, and I love it, too.