Home > Florida > Animal Kingdom > Killimanjaro Safaris > Review Comments


 Review of Killimanjaro Safaris @ Animal Kingdom
-1 Rating Posted by: BobFunland on 10/23/2006 4:09:00 PM
I thought Kilimanjaro was an enjoyable ride, but thats about it. There didnt seem to be a ton of animals, and the ride was about as dull as Rhino Rally. At least it lacked the cheesieness to an extent, and the lands seemed to be much better. Overall, just an ok ride in an ok park.
 

Review Comments

figment873 on 10/23/2006 7:08:20 PM said:
Alright...I cant believe you gave this a five. Have you ever been to a Safari like this at any other zoo type place? Rhino Rally isnt even close to the exhibitry that is displayed here. Seriously, this is one of the best designed zoo attractions in the nation. There is more to this then just the ride. They have created such a wonderful living area that these animals are breeding. You cant blame the fact that some animals were hard to see on Disney, time of day and tempeture play a larger factor here. Plus, it is a "zoo" experience. It would be like saying you didnt like a certain zoo because the animals werent entertaining. Not always are the animals going to be entertaining. They cant provide that level of entertainment. Plus, there are only so many animals that can be found on in that area of the world. I just think that you have look at more then just the "ride" factor here.
BobFunland on 10/23/2006 8:03:38 PM said:
Yes I have done several things like this - some better, some worse. Even if only this and Rhino Rally were the only two such experiences out there, that doesnt mean it deserves a 10 by virtue of being better than its Busch rival. It is definatley more than just a ride, but is a setting really worth everything? I really liked it, and thought it was quality stuff, but again that doesnt qualify it as a 10. Oh, and we rode first thing in the morning, and I dont care if they were napping or whatever because you can still SEE them even if they are, usually. Why keep using the word zoo - didnt Disney place emphasis on the fact that its NOT a zoo??

Sorry I didnt love the ride like you =/
figment873 on 10/23/2006 8:55:19 PM said:
The fact of the matter is that Animal Kingdom is not a zoo, however, this attraction is a zoo experience. Live animals qualify that factor. I never asked for a 10 but it definately deserves more then a five. The exhibitry itself qualifies for more then a five is all I am saying. I will agree that I dont like the story line. However, I have rode this ride at least six times and never thought there were not enough animals for show. Especially in the morning. That seems unfortunate that you didnt see enough for your standards. However, being a former zoo employee I understand the amount of work it takes to create an exhibit such as this. You have to have food, area to roam, and night quarters. Again, Disney has high standards, however, I understand the amount of work that go into something like this and understand that "maxium" number of animals is really out of the question. For most AZA accredited "zoos" (since this is AZA accredited)they are much more concerned about the animals living conditions and breeding statistics then how many animals are on exhibit that day. Disney doesnt want to be known as a zoo because they know that is not the marketing angle that would be beneficial to them. However, American Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) regulate all the big time zoos in the nation, therefore, I will continue to use "zoo" type exhibit. Again, I respect the fact that you stand up to not giving it a 10 I just think it deserve a higher mark then a 5, based on exhibitry and ride quality, not necessarly one or the other.
BobFunland on 10/24/2006 8:47:14 AM said:
I really just have two final comments: first, Im not a "zoo person". Ive been to probably a dozen zoos and they all seem the same to me, apart from the Rochester Zoo which just sucked. Secondly, I wasnt sure what number I was going with for the rating. Originally I had actually picked a 7 or an 8, but then I remembered I had given Rhino Rally a 2 or a 3 and thought "did I really like this one THAT much better than Rhino Rally?" - well, it was much better, but not THAT much, so I settled with a 5.
figment873 on 10/24/2006 4:54:08 PM said:
It deserved the orginal seven in my opinion. Only because if break down your numbers it is like a 2.5 for both the ride and the exhibit. You are obviously not going to change the rating and that is fine, my point was for you to look beyond the ride to the design, the maintence, and care of the animals as well. Sorry, I am a "zoo person" :-)
BobFunland on 10/24/2006 7:12:00 PM said:
Once again I dont agree with your beliefs - saying I should award points based on how well the animals are maintained, to me, it like saying I should award points based on how well a certain park takes care of a certain ride. Thats just not something that I look at.
figment873 on 10/25/2006 8:51:17 PM said:
Again, you dont understand the concept I am going after and that is fine.... give it a five. You are obviously not going to change it even though the point is definately one that should be taken into consideration (not believed in). You cant tell me if there was poop and all over, and terrible terrian, and sick looking animals that it wouldnt have effected your rating. I guess when I think about it, I do award points to park ride based on whether or not the experience was a positive one. So I do look at whether or not the park is clean and whether a ride looks like it is maintained to a certain standard. Again, you look at "ride quality" I look at "ride quality" and overall experience. But as I said before, you are obviously going to stay with the five and that is your choice. I dont agree with your beliefs either.
taylorb251 on 10/25/2006 11:11:21 PM said:
Bob I cantbelieve you wouldnt discount a ride if it had bad maintence. Like a ride that needed a paint job or park that had trash all over. So if a park was letting a ride fall down you wouldnt mark that against them, what ever. You gave a 8.5 ride a 5 and said it was better than different ride and it didnt deserve a 10 thats fine but you points on this is week. I just hope you dont lower your review because a few people disagree with you.
BobFunland on 10/25/2006 11:14:14 PM said:
figment - I understand exactly what you are saying. I just dont think that way. Oh well, I also dont think that because one disagrees with my review, that it is automatically "bad". Seems Ive stated my thoughts, backed them up and stuck to them, why hate like that? And no, a ride in need of a paint job or some cleaning probably wouldnt effect my rating much - it may warrent a comment or a joke and thats about all. Look at Williams Groves Cyclone - I think people rate it higher because its such a POS LOL
figment873 on 10/27/2006 9:11:02 AM said:
My only complaint is that in your orginal review you stated "the lands seemed much better" that obviously did affect your rating or you wouldnt have stated that. I dont think I think your review is bad, I think your rating is unfair. I also have stuck to my points and backed those up as well.
weaver23 on 6/7/2007 5:47:50 PM said:
Ughh why do we let anonymous people to post? And secondly can a moderator please delete that?
BobFunland on 6/7/2007 7:11:04 PM said:
anons can no longer post, and quite frankly, I doubt anyone would have seen that had you just reported the review and not posted about it. Thats what the best idea is.
weaver23 on 6/7/2007 9:52:08 PM said:
Yeah true but just in case. Anyways thx for deleting it.
Post Review Comment
You must login or create an account to post a review comment.

 
Clicky Web Analytics