raidermatt
Be water, my friend.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2000
The Monterey Aquarium really is beautiful, and its in a wonderful setting. We go about once a year, and if you get the chance Mr. Pirate, I recommend it as well.
My initial reaction was to agree with this statement. After all, its logical, and "clean", which I like.
However, I realize I do not have all the answers, and when it comes to entertainment, logical and clean just doesn't always cut it. To paint things broadly, I see three possible directions:
1- AK is ABOUT animals. In this case, adding an aquatic area makes the most sense. You just can't pretend to be about animals and leave out those that occupy 2/3 of the Earth. Most of the current rides/shows would have to go, or at least undergo extreme modifications. More things like the Mahrajah (sp) Trek and Pangini (sp) Walk would need to be added, possibly with Australian and South American mini-lands. Other types of educational and interactive "slow" attractions would be added. No BK.
2- AK is an amusement park themed toward animals. This lets most of the current rides/shows stay, but would probably require replacing the Trek/Walks, and "jazzing-up" the Safari. Allows for BK, an aquatic area, or Australia/South America.
3- AK continues to try to be both. I know some disagree, but I honestly think this can work. I think it DOES work now, its just that Disney has not really built on the foundation it had since 1999. Under this scenario, it would make sense to eventually add one or two lands/mini-lands. BK does make sense, but isn't necessary. An aquatica area, and another land themed area can work just as well. Add an E-ticket and a couple of minor attractions to Asia/Africa, mixing education and amusement.
Lesley, while I disagree with the idea that BK is a necessity, I completely agree with your above statement. Whether its BK, Australia, or Aquatic, follow-through on the idea. Continue to develop the current areas, and finish* the park (but not with DR quality).
*(Stealing AV's use of footnotes) finish means complete it in scope, with the understanding that, per Walt, no park is ever finished.
The big question to be resolved is a fundamental issue with the places theme: is Animal Kingdom supposed to be ABOUT animals, or is Animal Kingdom an amusement park THEMED around animals.
My initial reaction was to agree with this statement. After all, its logical, and "clean", which I like.
However, I realize I do not have all the answers, and when it comes to entertainment, logical and clean just doesn't always cut it. To paint things broadly, I see three possible directions:
1- AK is ABOUT animals. In this case, adding an aquatic area makes the most sense. You just can't pretend to be about animals and leave out those that occupy 2/3 of the Earth. Most of the current rides/shows would have to go, or at least undergo extreme modifications. More things like the Mahrajah (sp) Trek and Pangini (sp) Walk would need to be added, possibly with Australian and South American mini-lands. Other types of educational and interactive "slow" attractions would be added. No BK.
2- AK is an amusement park themed toward animals. This lets most of the current rides/shows stay, but would probably require replacing the Trek/Walks, and "jazzing-up" the Safari. Allows for BK, an aquatic area, or Australia/South America.
3- AK continues to try to be both. I know some disagree, but I honestly think this can work. I think it DOES work now, its just that Disney has not really built on the foundation it had since 1999. Under this scenario, it would make sense to eventually add one or two lands/mini-lands. BK does make sense, but isn't necessary. An aquatica area, and another land themed area can work just as well. Add an E-ticket and a couple of minor attractions to Asia/Africa, mixing education and amusement.
But it seems they've written that idea off as a failure before ever finishing it. Kind of like building half a grocery store....and then declaring the whole concept of a grocery store a failure because people stop visiting it.
Lesley, while I disagree with the idea that BK is a necessity, I completely agree with your above statement. Whether its BK, Australia, or Aquatic, follow-through on the idea. Continue to develop the current areas, and finish* the park (but not with DR quality).
*(Stealing AV's use of footnotes) finish means complete it in scope, with the understanding that, per Walt, no park is ever finished.