WDW Kilimanjaro Safaris tale alters a tad

[Tom Morrow]

Kilimanjaro Safaris tale alters a tad



Disney safari tale alters a tad (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/orl-safari1607jun16,0,1558051.story)
Orlando Sentinel - FL

We had heard that the narration had changed on Kilimanjaro Safaris at Disney's Animal Kingdom, and now we have firsthand confirmation. It's different, but not jarring.

What this means to you: Wilson, the warden reporting from a helicopter, is still in touch with your driver, but there's nary a peep from his former guest, the very British Ms. Jobson. Sadly, that means no "Tommies . . . tommies" line to imitate for the rest of the day.

What we observed: It seemed Wilson was talking less frequently, and that the role of our driver, Alex, was enhanced. The poachers story line lives on but wasn't emphasized. Near the end, the safety of Little Red (who has wandered off) is demonstrated, and there's reference to making sure the mom is OK too.

Side note: Despite the heat, lots of animals were meandering during our Monday safari, including one aggressive giraffe whose head came very close to entering our vehicle. "He's a little possessive of his girlfriend," explained Alex.




Sent from Ezra (http://www.visionsfantastic.com/forum/z/Ezra/)

[CoryTheRaven]

I don't know why they don't just ditch the poacher story altogether... Like taking a safari amongst African animals isn't interesting enough?!?

[TimmyII]

When they built this, they should have hooked up with Steve Irwin and his line of Animal Conservation and being a "wildlife warrior". That would have been a great partnership!

[xfkirsten]

I'm glad the poaching storyline is still there, since it draws attention to what is a very serious issue. As of this past week, the last two white rhinos in Zambia were both shot - one killed, one injured. There's only about 30 northern white rhinos left in the wild. The African elephant population has decreased by 99% since the 1930s, largely because of poaching. And these are just a couple of the statistics - poaching has decimated wild populations horribly. So I am glad that they are doing whatever they can to bring attention to this issue. That's why zoos exist. It's not enough to be "interesting" - interesting just entertains, it doesn't save species. "Interesting" needs to be combined with learning about conservation.

[Chatterbug]

Hmm... imagining Steve Irwin as the Driver on the Kilimanjaro safari....the enthusiasm what an interesting ride that could have been.

I like the idea of the Poacher drama in the ride..even if it is not for everyone it gives opportunity to talk about conservation. Each person can make a difference & who knows it might inspire a few to make some Big Positive Changes.

Love to see your enthusiam Kirsten!! Keep it going!! :biggrin:

[PeoplemoverMatt]

Thing is...I'm not sure if anyone leaves Animal Kingdom thinking about conservation. Sure conservation is a big issue, but is the best way to convey the issue to take vacationing families through a harrowing romp through the jungle like the Safaris took us?

Then, they don't provide any real means to contribute to conservationism even if we, the guests, wanted to do something about it right after that ride. Instead we're basically whacked over the head with a frightful tale (Kali Rapids), or an over-the-top tearjerker tale (Safaris' early years), and it accomplishes...what? There are other means to convey issues that very well might be important, I don't think this is the right way to do it IMO.

-- PMM :cool:

[xfkirsten]

Thing is...I'm not sure if anyone leaves Animal Kingdom thinking about conservation. Sure conservation is a big issue, but is the best way to convey the issue to take vacationing families through a harrowing romp through the jungle like the Safaris took us?

Then, they don't provide any real means to contribute to conservationism even if we, the guests, wanted to do something about it right after that ride. Instead we're basically whacked over the head with a frightful tale (Kali Rapids), or an over-the-top tearjerker tale (Safaris' early years), and it accomplishes...what? There are other means to convey issues that very well might be important, I don't think this is the right way to do it IMO.

-- PMM :cool:

And you've just described the single biggest problem I believe exists in zoos today: effective education. Conservation education is a balancing act. Too much information and the guest gets bored and doesn't pay attention or remember anything. Too much fluff and the message is lost. It's not easy to make a program that effectively combines them both, and I think most zoos these days unfortunately tend towards the former, and places like SeaWorld more towards the latter. Going back to Steve Irwin, I think that's why he was so successful in getting his message across - he balanced them very well, and used the entertainment to promote the message.

Kali, you're right - that one's just plain dumb. Their message isn't even explained well there. In fact, I think most guests probably don't even get what the point is.

I like that while you wait in line for Kilimanjaro, there's an educational video. It may not be the most memorable part of a trip, but they're doing what they can to promote the message while guests wait in line. Kilimanjaor certainly isn't perfect, but I think removing the poaching aspect altogether would have been a step in the wrong direction. And you're right, they do need to educate guests more about what they can do. There's donation boxes here and there, but conservation begins at home. It's what you do, the products you use, the way you live your life that really make the difference. And I think that's where they're really missing the boat: teaching people how to make that difference.

[CoryTheRaven]

Then, they don't provide any real means to contribute to conservationism even if we, the guests, wanted to do something about it right after that ride. Instead we're basically whacked over the head with a frightful tale (Kali Rapids), or an over-the-top tearjerker tale (Safaris' early years), and it accomplishes...what? There are other means to convey issues that very well might be important, I don't think this is the right way to do it IMO.

Or worse, they may come out thinking that somehow they HAVE done something about poaching by being on a Disney ride.

[HMF]

Or worse, they may come out thinking that somehow they HAVE done something about poaching by being on a Disney ride.
If the ride teaches young children the importance of poaching prevention it could be a step in the right direction. For example maybe because of the ride a lot of kids today might become serious conservationists when they grow up and work to stop poaching.

[Chatterbug]

Disney has always worked to make each ride have a story line correct? So what is wrong with including some conservation education in the story told on Kilimanjaro Safari? Is it really that much of a tear jerker? A gloom and doom kind of story? I only rode it once I don't remember it that way. As of last January when I rode it, the message that was being put across seemed subtle enough not to be upsetting to guest but rather a little reminder that not all is perfect in the world.
OK Fantasy is great and yes Disney has made the majority of my experiences in all of it's parks a Disneyfied version to help me escape what I don't like to see, but I still think a little balance can be used to entertain as well as educate. The way that Steve Irwin educated his audience was brilliant with his energy and excitement, celebrating the aw some joys that can be found in nature. I do think it goes much further to get the audience excited about what our world around us has to offer with small reminders of what we can do to preserve and protect it. Hope for the future generations to pick up on consistent messages of important values can't be a bad thing.

[PeoplemoverMatt]

And you've just described the single biggest problem I believe exists in zoos today: effective education. Conservation education is a balancing act. Too much information and the guest gets bored and doesn't pay attention or remember anything. Too much fluff and the message is lost. It's not easy to make a program that effectively combines them both, and I think most zoos these days unfortunately tend towards the former, and places like SeaWorld more towards the latter. Going back to Steve Irwin, I think that's why he was so successful in getting his message across - he balanced them very well, and used the entertainment to promote the message.

Kali, you're right - that one's just plain dumb. Their message isn't even explained well there. In fact, I think most guests probably don't even get what the point is.

I like that while you wait in line for Kilimanjaro, there's an educational video. It may not be the most memorable part of a trip, but they're doing what they can to promote the message while guests wait in line. Kilimanjaor certainly isn't perfect, but I think removing the poaching aspect altogether would have been a step in the wrong direction. And you're right, they do need to educate guests more about what they can do. There's donation boxes here and there, but conservation begins at home. It's what you do, the products you use, the way you live your life that really make the difference. And I think that's where they're really missing the boat: teaching people how to make that difference.

Well educational videos in the queue is nice, but they largely go totally unnoticed. People have such tunnel vision in parks, I don't even have to elaborate on that. We've all seen it in action. Also, people tend to not take things seriously on any theme park ride. So it's easy for the people who do notice some of the images coming on the screen to shrug it off as drummed up fiction. Realisitic fiction, but fiction none the less.

The point I was really trying to make was that I think it's misguided to target vacationing families with something like conservation education. First problem is more of a political one where people will completely tune out if they hear anything that even sounds remotely like a tree hugger. Secondly, people go to places like Disney World to leave the real world behind. Who wants to spend all the time & money to escape the world only to have someone getting in their face about terrible consequences from human activity? If you try, people simply tune out, and usually hate tree huggers even more. To me it seems like more of a wasted effort to target people there.

If the ride teaches young children the importance of poaching prevention it could be a step in the right direction. For example maybe because of the ride a lot of kids today might become serious conservationists when they grow up and work to stop poaching.

Gotta live more in the real world here. How likely is that really? Kids who go on Backdraft at USH might make up their mind at that moment to be a firefighter, but to carry that through to the rest of their lives? No, neither the Safaris or Kali's going to do that & I don't think there's anything a theme park attraction can do to indoctrinate a child to that extent, nor should there be.

Furthermore, kids are taught all the time about all the negatives of underage smoking, drinking, drugs & what not, and it seems more teens today are involved with that sort of stuff. If we can't even convince kids away from real world everyday issues like smoking & drugs, how can we think a ride's going to convince them to stop something like poaching which largely happens on a continent we don't live on.

Disney has always worked to make each ride have a story line correct? So what is wrong with including some conservation education in the story told on Kilimanjaro Safari? Is it really that much of a tear jerker? A gloom and doom kind of story? I only rode it once I don't remember it that way. As of last January when I rode it, the message that was being put across seemed subtle enough not to be upsetting to guest but rather a little reminder that not all is perfect in the world.

I was talking more about when Safaris first opened. What we saw when we were there was a more dumbed-down version of the poacher storyline. When it first opened guests were hit so hard, they were even shown the rotting carcass of Big Red for effect. What we saw started with a cheeseball 'Hey do you guys want to help us go get some poachers? Yeah! I said should we HELP GET THOSE POACHERS???? YEAH!!!' and off we were speeding around trying to get those bad guys. Way too much drama, not enough message IMO.

True education involves both sides of the story, not just the simple-minded poacher kill elephant - poacher bad message.

OK Fantasy is great and yes Disney has made the majority of my experiences in all of it's parks a Disneyfied version to help me escape what I don't like to see, but I still think a little balance can be used to entertain as well as educate. The way that Steve Irwin educated his audience was brilliant with his energy and excitement, celebrating the aw some joys that can be found in nature. I do think it goes much further to get the audience excited about what our world around us has to offer with small reminders of what we can do to preserve and protect it. Hope for the future generations to pick up on consistent messages of important values can't be a bad thing.

True but you have to remember Steve Irwin's audience came & tuned in because they wanted to be Steve Irwin's audience. People who come to WDW have no earthly idea what to expect with Animal Kingdom. They're a very different crop of people. If they come following the latest marketing scheme, they know they can ride a roller coaster somehow involved with Mt. Everest, and that's about it. The reception is very different between the two audiences. Education that can bear fruit needs to be more directed at Steve Irwin's audience and not basically wasted on a Disney theme park audience IMO.

-- PMM :cool:

[xfkirsten]

Well educational videos in the queue is nice, but they largely go totally unnoticed. People have such tunnel vision in parks, I don't even have to elaborate on that. We've all seen it in action. Also, people tend to not take things seriously on any theme park ride. So it's easy for the people who do notice some of the images coming on the screen to shrug it off as drummed up fiction. Realisitic fiction, but fiction none the less.

The point I was really trying to make was that I think it's misguided to target vacationing families with something like conservation education. First problem is more of a political one where people will completely tune out if they hear anything that even sounds remotely like a tree hugger. Secondly, people go to places like Disney World to leave the real world behind. Who wants to spend all the time & money to escape the world only to have someone getting in their face about terrible consequences from human activity? If you try, people simply tune out, and usually hate tree huggers even more. To me it seems like more of a wasted effort to target people there.

You're right, people do have tunnel vision. But look at it this way - are they losing anything by having the video screens there? Are more animals dying because Disney puts a video screen there? Are the TVs really that expensive to run, relatively-speaking? Is there something more effective that could reasonably be there (taking cost and practicality into mind)? So why not have them there? Give those few guests looking for something to do while they wait something educational to watch. How much of it they retain is questionable, but it's certainly better than having nothing there at all.

What about when people go to a more traditional zoo? Do people really go in thinking "I want to learn about conservation"? Speaking as someone who's worked in zoos for several years now - no, they don't. They go to look at the animals and have a fun day with the family. Does that mean that they shouldn't be learning about conservation in the process? Absolutely not! And despite their claims to the contrary, DAK is a zoo, albeit more of a theme park one (did you know that the last Association of Zoos and Aquariums chairman of the board comes from DAK? And DAK is accredited by AZA). Just because something is supposed to be "fun" doesn't mean that the education part can't be there! When you go to swim with the dolphins at Epcot, you also spend time in a classroom learning about conservation issues surrounding marine mammals. Does that make the whole experience less enjoyable? Is swimming with the dolphins less fun because of it? Adding education to something doesn't have to make it "preachy."

And I didn't see Kilimanjaro coming off as "doom and gloom" at all. In fact, the poaching aspect of the ride was fairly minimal. It was mentioned early on in the attraction, then the bulk of the ride is just a safari trip, and when the poaching story does come back, it's an exciting adventure, not a horror movie. Talking about a serious issue does not automatically equate to doom and gloom!

You make a generalization about people thinking all conservationists are tree-huggers, and its been my experience that that's simply not the case. Sure, some people think that, but they're a small minority. I think you'd be surprised how receptive people are to learning. When I go out to feed even just the puffins, I have families that stick around and talk to me for 15 minutes or more, asking me every question they can think of about the puffins. Not to mention all the questions I get working with the more charismatic animals like the belugas or polar bears. People do have an interest in it, even when they're just out for fun. Most, however, won't go out of their way to learn, but if given the opportunity (eg a show, keeper talk, close-up encounter, enrichment/training session, etc.) will become very eager and curious. That's the thing in zoos - guests don't go looking for information themselves 99% of the time. You make the opportunities to teach the messages, and that's exactly what Kilimanjaro does.

After all, what are these animals here for? Are they here just to be pretty pieces of scenery on a ride for our entertainment? If so, that's pretty disgusting. They're here as ambassadors, to help teach people. They're here so that people can learn how to better care for their wild counterparts and protect them. And if they're not being used for that purpose, they shouldn't be in the zoo. Period.

[Disney_Guy]

With the two sides of this conversation taking part, I'll agree with everything xfkirsten says.
I mean, does it really matter that much that it's there? I'm all for keeping it, it's educational, with fun put into it. You're in a safari. I'm sure people know safaris can provide educational facts about the creatures they encounter. Some people go just because they want to see things they don't see in everyday life. Disney went beyond the safari lines and added an important story line that doesn't really overpower the overall experience, but can provide thoughts of conservation to the people who want to. No one is forced to think about it, it's not crammed into your faces, and it's there for the people who do care. Care less? That's fine, those people will get off the safari and carry on with little or no thoughts. No harm done. Doesn't mean this theme should be trashed.

[CoryTheRaven]

I'm just saying that I find the poacher storyline contrived. I believe there are ways to educate about serious issues like this without necessarily having to make it into a hollow, contrived theme park ride. Poachers aren't Disney Villains.

[linklewtt]

i think the conservation message is a good one, but poorly done on the Kilimanjaro Safaris as well as Kali River Rapids. it seems force-fed rather than natural. i think it would be much more effective for the Safaris if the driver mentioned a little more about poaching, like when you see the elephants he spends some time talking about how X amount are poached every year or something.

[xfkirsten]

Oh, I definitely agree that the storyline could probably be done better. No argument there! Like I mentioned before, it's very hard to strike the balance between "not strong enough" and "too preachy." But I do think that the ride is more effective as a conservation tool by actually having the poaching storyline there as it is now than if it were removed completely. :smile:

[Pirate665]

Wow... the other site I'm a memeber of took this conversation with the same post a totally different way...

>Steve