Greg Maletic
Page 2 of 4
The Tree of Life
Leaving the theater, it was hard not to be under whelmed by the bug show. Isn't there something else that can be done with 3-D movie technology? (Judging by my later experience at Universal's Spiderman ride, the answer: yes!) Moreover, considering its location at the geographic and emotional center of the park, under the Tree of Life, couldn't this attraction have been a little more special?
The next step was the "Asia" portion of the park, which promised a look at the native animals of that region, as well as the Kali River Rapids, a "shoot-the-rapids" boat-ride that has very similar counterparts in amusement parks across the country.
Asia looks spectacular. I've only been to Tokyo once for five days so I'm hardly an Asia expert, but Animal Kingdom's Asia looks a lot like what I suspect the real thing does. Not that realism should be a goal of a theme park--fun should always be #1--but Disney's Asia was beautiful to look at, and I really had the sense that I was somewhere else besides Central Florida. The queuing area for Kali River Rapids was similarly impressive, which is why it was such a disappointment when I got on the ride and took off down the "river." The big problem with the ride was not that it was too short, or that it lacked any real excitement, though correcting both of these shortfalls wouldn't have hurt. The big problem with the ride was, in fact, the big problem with the entire park, and that was its preachy, overbearing, pro-environment attitude.
It's not that I'm anti-environment: a pro-environment theme is fine, and probably appropriate for this park. But Disney's recommendations about solving today's environmental crises are to "think" about them, and to "be aware." Not "make sacrifices," or "contribute to important environmental causes," or "avoid companies with anti-green policies."
Sophisticated arguments pro or con concerning the environment are hard to find at Disney's Animal Kingdom: Kali River Rapids has one scene that showcases a logging truck hauling lumber from a burnt-out forest. The fire and smoke elements are supposed to give the riders the feeling that what has happened here is bad, and the people who did this are evil, or at best, misguided. It's never brought up that making the green decision involves making real sacrifice, like loss of jobs or escalating prices, or that perhaps logging under certain circumstances could actually be a correct decision. I'm not taking one side or the other, but Disney's simple view of the situation doesn't acknowledge that pro-environmental decisions could be anything but right-minded.
Kali River Rapids
Some would probably argue that asking for Animal Kingdom to have that kind of nuance is asking too much: after all, it's only an amusement park. Nevertheless, in walking around Animal Kingdom, it's clear that its designers felt they were on a mission to develop something more meaningful than the other Disney parks, something that would touch people and cause them to think. There's too much here that's supposed to be educational--and unfortunately, it's neither educational nor fun--to warrant simply being evaluated as an ordinary amusement park. ("There must be SOME good reason for this," is probably the only thing you could have been muttering to yourself as you wandered around the phenomenally boring Conservation Station) Animal Kingdom takes on big topics, and in doing so, it invites this kind of criticism.