To be honest, I'm kind of going to miss Little Red. It's very interesting about the whole fake dead elephant corpse and I'm surprised nobody thought that through enough before spending all the money to sculpt and paint such a large story element. Anyways, I can't really judge how it will be without it until I ride it with the changes. However, it will feel more like an African safarie without the story, which is what most people go on the ride for in the first place.

Building off of goofystich's final comments... I can appreciate Disney wanting to tell stories with the attractions however with Kilimanjaro people are going for an African like experience....the attraction is designed to be a Africa-like experience.. and I think that is enough.

On days when there are lots of animals out guests are so busy gawking and snapping pictures that they probably are not paying very close attention to the Big Red storyline that is unfolding.... I have always enjoyed the end of the attraction but if they severely change the ending I think it will work as well.....

We will have to wait and see....

I think that the original story made sense. But I also think that a elephant corpse is too much for kids. I wish they would have thought this through prior to just weeks before opening. I have been on that attraction a number of times and was impressed with all of the time effort and money that must have went into the attraction. However, I found the ride to be very anticlimatic. The animals mostly sleep in the day time and the story was lame. My 5 year old even thought it was lame and he loves the zoo. I think Disney should fire most of the people that have been making the decisions over the past 10 or so years and just keep a handful of VERY talented people to run the show. I know the upper management has changed recently, so we'll have to wait and see what the future holds.

This is outstanding news. The whole Big/Little Red storyline is dumb, and I think takes away from the ride's repeatability. After driving around seeing all sorts of animals and enjoying a genuinely pleasant experience, you suddenly have to speed around to "rescue" this baby elephant.

As we're in the era where Imagineers love to talk about how "it's all about story," this is an admirable instance where they've recognized that sometimes the story can hurt the attraction*. The ride does a great job of simulating an authentic experience, but how often does a real safari end in a poacher chase? I understand the desire to have some sort of climax, but I don't think pseudo-hokey drama is the way to go.

* This should be required reason for all Disney theme park fans:

http://imagineerebirth.blogspot.com/2006/11/myth-of-story.html

^^^ oops, meant to say required reading.

Does anyone know if there are any pictures of Big Red on the web? I'm just curious to see the lengths to which the Imagineers went to create a large elephant corpse,  only to have it removed.

With the removal of the whole Big/Little Red storyline, will the attraction be officially without a plot, or will something take its place? I really do think it needs a story, because, while I can appreciate the value of a straight-up faux African Safari, I think that's what zoos are for. People come to Disney World expecting a little more than that.

Wow, this was really frustrating to read.  You gotta be kidding me.  WDI went through all that just to get to a final solution I would have thought of in the first place.  I don't mean to sound cocky, but that was pretty lame.

When I first visited DAK and the safaris, the poacher plot kinda ruined my experience.  I wanted to listen to the animal facts and watch the animals and just be immersed in the safari.  I could deal with the poaching at the end.  The "message" indeed had good intentions, but if their inspiration was from "Bambi", how could they NOT have realized Bambi's mother's death was off-screen.  Did WDI have a script writer with them??  Having "items" such as this be written as off-screen is pretty common.

The obvious solution was to be similar to Jungle Cruise but on land and with real animals and a factual spiel.  Then the climatic poaching scene could have been dealed with.  Just a little reminder/foreshadow in the queue & beginning of the attraction may have been enough.  I think I read they were changing the final scene with the plane and trucks.  And the scene with poachers attacking you would be similar to Jungle Cruise's headhunters.

When today's WDI think of "story", I think KS tried to be too Hollywood-story structured if you know what I mean.  "Story" can still be unstructured and not like a predictable Hollywood movie all the time.

I actually like the burned-out rainforest part of Kali Rapids- that's a part I know I'll stay dry in...

I don't think that I'll miss the Big Red/Little Red storyline too much if it gets taken out.  While you're zooming around trying to find the poachers, though, you're not looking at animals...would they change the track?  Or will the last part of the ride have no animals and no story and you'll just be driving and being bored?    I am glad that they never put Big Red in there, and thanks for the heads-up- I'll know why there's an elephant corpse in Mouse Surplus if I see one.  Smart move not to put Big Red in there.  She must have looked amazingly real, though, if so many adults were sad/mad.

If nothing else is changed in the last part of the ride, maybe the driver could answer questions from the guests.  That would fill up time (hopefully) and be educational, too.

What WDI failed to recognize is that one consistent storyline underpins all other experiences at WDW.  That is: you are at Disney World; in reality, everything that is happening is being done by Disney; anything else is make believe.

Poachers at WDW are no more real than Pirates.   They are just less sexy, and they have no memorable theme song.  

But the animals are real.  So, just like oiling the flying elephants and scooping up the cigarette butts, the assumption for guests is that Disney must be taking care of All God's Creatures great-and-small.

A dead animal on a "live animal" ride is jarring.  In a way, it would be like Disney having a ride where you wait at a fake monorail station, thinking you'll be going to the Poly for a rum drink. Just as the train pulls in the station, it jumps the track, bursts into flames, and death screams are pumped through speakers that are cleverly-hidden in the area trash cans.  

Then a one-armed man hops out of the bushes, saying "and that's why you always wait behind the yellow line!"   Then the whole show resets itself.

People do not blame Gary Sinise when they get sick on Mission:SPACE and they do not blame poachers when dead rubber animals are tossed at them on the Safari.  These folks are smart enough to know this is all a Disney contrivance.  The Mouse is to blame!

I saw Big Red when I first rode the Safari during Cast Preview.  Since I now 'knew' the story, it has influenced every time i've experienced it since then.  But I also felt that most of the people on the truck had no idea what was going on, and would ask my companions "What was going on?" to see if they got it.  But, no, they weren't sure, and if there was no cast member holding a rifle on the poacher's jeep at the finale, they were even more confused by the elephant in the truck.  One question I always got was, "Where did that airplane land?"

I don't offer criticism without proposing a solution, so here goes (although I know that whatever will be installed there is well underway in planning and it is much too late for suggestions, but, WTH):

Disney produced a movie back in 1985 called Baby:Secret of the Lost Legend, which featured the Mokele-Mbembe, a cryptic animal that resembles the apatosaurus.  With the yeti inhabiting the Forbidden Mountain (that is NOT Everest you are riding up!), this would not be out of place.  So here's the story, which borrows some lines from E:E

In the queue you hear about all the different animal you will see, and then a few that are so secretive or rare you may not see, and then animals that have been reported but never actually observed, like the Mokele-Mbembe.  Somewhere along the way, the driver spies a 'fresh' footprint of a large animal they've never seen before.  Perhaps Mokele-Mbembe?  Be on the look out!  After you pass the lions, a large tree has fallen (been pushed?) across the road, so the driver decides to shortcut down the dry riverbed,  you round the corner just in time to see the hind end of a large creature with a long tail cross the river ahead of you.  Everyone is silent as they now get a glimpse of Mokele-Mbembe.  But the driver, obviously in denial,insists it was the biggest snake he's ever seen.  He maintains it was a snake and implore passengers not to talk about his unauthorized shortcut down the river.  Signage as you leave tell of other mythical animals of world.

Anyway, I've never been bothered by a change in story.  I only get upset when elements are removed that no discernable storyline exists.

I have always thought that the structured story interfered with the attraction's repeatability.  We ride once a trip, but would do it more if it were more of a straight forward safari experience.  I think that re-tooling the experience is a great idea.  Hopefully they do this well.  Good for Disney for trying.

Frankly, I think WDI would do well to re-theme all of Animal Kingdom. It's still, IMO, the least cohesive of any of the three parks in terms of backstory and theme. I've always found KS and Kali to be weak, weak, weak in terms of story. I mean Kali's "story" is a joke ... you're on this blank raft ride getting soaked and then all of a sudden ... THERE'S BURNING RAINFOREST OH MY GOD WHAT SHALL WE DO!!! ... and then it's back to blank raft ride again. Horrible ... simply horrible ...

Same with KS ... you're sort of meandering along staring at all the animals ... maybe half paying attention to the hard-to-decipher radio stuff playing over the speakers ... and then all of a sudden the truck takes off, you whip around a few corners, catch a glimpse of an elephant's rear end sticking out of a truck ... and then it's over. Huh???? What happened to all the animals???

I think AK is the most poorly planned and executed of all the Disney theme parks (except maybe DCA). The whole Dinoland area is an abomination (oh ... it's not really cheap ... it's just THEMED to look cheap!!), there is a complete dearth of things to do (Everest has helped a little bit), there are no sit down restaurants, and the whole park is too darn HOT.

Anything WDI can do to perk this $800 million disaster up is okay by me.

You mean people were actually listening to a spiel at one point? Wonders never cease.

Good riddance. This ride's plot has always been an incredible distraction, and completely unnecessary. The animals are enough...

As someone who saw the original version of the ride (with the big dead red mama) I have to say that the corpse's presence or absence didn't have that much effect on the climax.  What DID destroy this ride was the gradual removal of all the other elements that made the ending exciting.  

Once upon a time, a jeep would drive alongside your truck and fire at you.  Geysers would erupt dramatically.  The driver would negotiate the diving S-turn past the poacher's camp at ludicrous speed.  And a live cast member would greet you at the end, holding an assault rife and assuring you that Little Red was "ok".  

All of that (with the occasional exception of the geysers) is gone.  The end of the ride has gone from a thrilling high-speed chase to a pointless low-speed slog.  I would actually prefer going straight from Pride Rock to unload: a real lion is a better finale than a fake "adventure" anyday.

i will not miss the little red part of the attraction...i go on the ride to see the animals...that's enough for me.

my favorite part of the ride is when we turn a corner and they flip the african music on and we just stroll around looking at the animals...i wouldn't mind if that music was played throughout the attraction.

jim, good article...i did not give you my opinion a few days ago...i feel you should go with what kind of articles give you the most hits, obviously that's what people want to read about...if there are 10 people who whine about it at the bottom of the page, who cares, i don't think everyone else feels that way or they wouldn't read them.  i like to read any news about disney, whether good or bad.  keep up the good work.

My little boys have been walking around for the past three years saying "Grow EYES for poachers"... The story line has reached its potential guest audience pretty well, i do say...

And this isnt the only change to this attraction. At the end scene with Little Red, there were live castmembers participating with the *capture* of the poachers...last time i rode last year, the castmember holding the semi-automatic weapon was gone (and i also heard the gun turned into a walkie-talkie at some point, as well)

And does that shaky bridge still shake???

They spend millions and millions on the park's signature attraction, and their genius idea for a story is to show a fake dead elephant right after people have just seen a bunch of live ones? Then they only realize this would be a public relations disaster with 4 weeks until opening?

Are these government people or Disney Imagineers?

I am a bit torn on this issue. On the one hand, I am incredibly angry at people for thinking that Disney would actually murder and elephant for the sake of a ride. I mean, how stupid do you have to be to believe that? On the other hand, I do think that a big, bloody, mother Elephant corpse is a little much. So basically, I think that it was a good idea to take it out (why would they put it there to begin with? Nobody wants to get punched in the face by a message), but I want to smack all of the people that complained about Disney "letting poachers kill an elephant." Gah!

Also, I'm okay with the Little Red story being taken out, as it felt forced to begin with. Why couldn't Disney just have a Safari trip? All I cared about going out there was seeing some animals up close.

I think the change is fine.  My favorite part of the ride has nothing to do with the hokey story of Big Red.  I consider it a distraction to the best part of the ride - the part provided by the real animals.

You can't beat the animals - Disney Magic should play a subtle behind the scenes roll on this one.

The ride is about the  live animals, not the silly Big Red/Little Red story.   I think they give enough information about the evils of poaching in the queue line.  The story just gets distracting  while trying to enjoy the real sights.

misterjohnson: Nice use of the Arrested Development one-armed man analogy.

Many other people have said it far more eloquently, but I am sorry no one else will get the chance to meet Steve Irwin. After five minutes, you would walk away with many "messages" that would last a lifetime. He didn't have an advanced degree in marketing, finance, or business, but he knew people don't kill things they love - the trick is to get people to really see how beautiful animals are. Kilimanjaro Safari gets its message across simply by introducing you these animals; the message continues in the park's other trails and shows. Poaching could be dealt with in an educational exhibit marked "mature", but there's nothing thrilling or glamorous about it.

Disney Co should have signed Irwin up and licensed his image - "Australia Zoo's Reptile Outpost" would have fit quite nicely into the Asia section of AK. His ability to talk to kids without talking down to them was a perfect match for Disney Co. Guess  this wasn't presented as an option to Eisner at the time (am I the only one getting the feeling that CEO's must have done well at multiple choice exams, rather than straight essay exams in school?)

I guess the Florida government folks haven't been to AK, since they keep approving regular gator hunts in the state. Some folks just never get the message I guess...

//In a way, it would be like Disney having a ride where you wait at a fake monorail station, thinking you'll be going to the Poly for a rum drink. Just as the train pulls in the station, it jumps the track, bursts into flames, and death screams are pumped through speakers that are cleverly-hidden in the area trash cans.  

Then a one-armed man hops out of the bushes, saying "and that's why you always wait behind the yellow line!"   Then the whole show resets itself.//

J. WALTER WEATHERMAN!

Anyway...whenever I ride Kilimanjaro Safaris, my main objective is generally photography; I like to take pictures of the animals.  Some days, I get good pictures, and others, I don't.

And seemingly every time we come to Pride Rock and there's actually a lion out, that's the time when we're in a rush to go save Little Red, making photography impossible, and also making it difficult to put my camera back in my bag, as we bounce around on the rough terrain.

Obviously the vehicle can't come to a stand still anytime an animal is spotted, but speeding up when we see one makes things difficult.

Besides, the ending always just fell flat for me after the first time.  As has been mentioned, many elements have been removed, and once you've seen it once, it's hard to be invested in "Is Little Red OK?"

I agree with just about everyone here.  I never got to see the original ending, but I was there soon after the park opened, and the Little Red story was fine - once.  After that it seems contrived and now I'm just annoyed that it means the fun part looking at animals and trying to get great pictures is done, and I have to hold onto my camera for dear life.  I too have noticed the decline of the story elements, but even from the beginning for most of us, the plot was unclear.  I had no idea until I read Jim's first article on this that Big Red is supposed to be dead.  I had always assumed she was alive somewhere.  If they do another story, fine, but I'm really ok getting a safari experience and not having the ubiquitous "Everything's great, OH NO something bad, oh at the last minute everything's great again Ha ha!"  That's a big part of my problem with Mission Space too.  Why does there have to be conflict and high speed chases and near crashes?  If it doesn't serve the story, it should be gone.  If the story doesn't serve the attraction, it should be gone.  I'll welcome a safari without story if it doens't just limp to the end...I should be seeing something.

While you are shopping at MouseSurplus, keep an eye out for the orignial animatronic warden.  He would stand beside the truck with Little Red (who wasn't so covered up by that curtain) and gesture with his gun back and forth.  I don't recall if he was cut before or after Big Red's corpse, but as a driver at the time I certainly heard more outcry about him; how after a 20 minute ride full of live and lively animals it ends with a reject from the Hall of Presidents.  Very early on, he was pulled and a live cast member was put in his place and given a line: "Little Red is Okay!"

I always thought that Big Red had been shot, but not killed.  I wont miss the storyline, but it was kind of fun to go fast.  Maybe they can still go fast to get away from some stampeding animal or something.  Conservation is thrown at you so much at AK that I don't think the Little Red storyline is necessary.  I also hate the rainforest section of Kali.  It is pointless and I don't think it gets its message across either.

Honestly, I think KS is the least of Animal Kingdom's problems.  Aside from Everest it's one of the most popular rides in the park (mostly because of re-rideability like previously stated)  What the should do is kick some money up into RPW and Conservation Station.  Get bigger pathways and better guest flow up there.

"I guess the Florida government folks haven't been to AK, since they keep approving regular gator hunts in the state. Some folks just never get the message I guess..."

The alligator is a protected species.  Once we place a population under government control it is their responsibility to maintain that population.  If the gator population grows too large, it will effect other specie populations as well as endanger the human population.  Hunts are controlled, licensed, and restricted.  Allowing the population to overgrow  would be poor environmental management.  This is a far different issue than poaching, which goes on in the state and is also subject to state law enforcement.

The poster who mentioned Steve Irwin had the point:  Make people feel connected to the animal and they will desire to protect it.  If you allow animals to become a nuisance they will be exterminated.  Better to allow the hunt and control the population than have it destroyed entirely.

My wife and I would laugh everytime we would pass the Cast Member holding the rifle at the end as that had to be one of the most pointless jobs in WDW...what do you do?

Oh I stand out in the hot sun pointing a gun at make believe poachers and say "Little Red is ok".......oh its magical...

skubersky said:

"As someone who saw the original version of the ride (with the big dead red mama) I have to say that the corpse's presence or absence didn't have that much effect on the climax.  What DID destroy this ride was the gradual removal of all the other elements that made the ending exciting.  

Once upon a time, a jeep would drive alongside your truck and fire at you.  Geysers would erupt dramatically.  The driver would negotiate the diving S-turn past the poacher's camp at ludicrous speed.  And a live cast member would greet you at the end, holding an assault rife and assuring you that Little Red was "ok".  

All of that (with the occasional exception of the geysers) is gone.  The end of the ride has gone from a thrilling high-speed chase to a pointless low-speed slog.  I would actually prefer going straight from Pride Rock to unload: a real lion is a better finale than a fake "adventure" anyday."

You know this is an excellent point ... I had kinda forgotten about that aspect of the ride. I always knew on some level that it had been watered down and wasn't as good as it used to be, but I think you described quite well why that is.

More budget cuts brought to you from the desk of Michael Eisner.

Well, considering the safari is poorly and Little Red was the only part of the ride I found good, I'm disappointed. :P

I can't believe that WDI used Bambi as inspiration for the Little Red storyline, and that nobody thought about the difference between an implied death and a big bloody corpse in full view of the ride-going public.  Bambi's traumatic enough even with the implied death; more than half of the 200 + students (including me) in a media effects class I took last year named Bambi as a movie that traumatized them when they were little.  Disney could've saved itself a lot of time and public relations hassle by doing some research.  

It's kind of a toss-up for me.  On the one hand, it's kind of unfortunate that this attraction will be losing its storyline.  What sets the Disney parks apart is that there's more to the rides than "ooh, a roller coaster!", even if the story isn't the strongest.  It will be kind of sad to have the ride lose its plot and become a more generic animal park ride.  On the other hand, it is just kind of anticlimactic already to end a ride in which the main attraction is real live animals with a single animatronic baby elephant.  It seemed especially silly the first time I went, when the ride actually featured a really-for-real baby elephant.  I'm hoping the Imagineers can come up with a way to bring a sense of conclusion to Kilimanjaro Safari that doesn't feel like a letdown.  Overall though, the live animals are still the stars and I don't think Little Red will be that deeply missed.

And yes, putting a fake dead elephant in among the real live animals was an exceedingly poor idea.  While there's not much excuse for adults thinking Disney would actually take out an innocent pachyderm for entertainment purposes, kids who have been seeing exclusively real anmals up to this point can be easily forgiven for believing that a real elephant has been killed.  Not exacly the kind of fmaily fun experience you'd want in a Disney ride.

One other thing to note...last time I was there (end of December, 2006), the whole "cross your fingers while crossing the old bridge...ok, who didn't cross their fingers" bit was missing...was it just a cut made to allow traffic to move faster, or was this a permanent change to the ride?

The re-rideability, in my opion, suffers from the Little Red story.  I'd like to see several different scenarios play out so you don't get the same speil every time.

I prefer the ride to have a storyline and be educational.  Epcot was my favorite park as a child (mid to late eighties).  Now AK may be my favorite.  I like to learn something new on vacation or at least teach my child something in addition to having fun.  While I thought the old story line was OK, it could have been a bit clearer and less hokie.  I will not be upset if it goes as long as they replace it with a better storyline.  I want more than a good zoo would offer.  I want experiential learning.  Also since it is one of the only family-friendly rides in the park, it should be something fit for the whole family.  I cannot believe they actually thought the fake mother elephant carcass was a good idea.    

UNfortunate if true. We just returned Tuesday from our 1st trip ever to WDW and AK, and my 6 year old after the safari was actually mad that poachers would cut off some stupid tusks just for money and kill animals. He got the message - without us parents prodding one bit...

"...one of Michael's minions actually watched "'Bambi...'"

You're joking, right? They hadn't even seen it? Of course you're not joking.

I feel the fake animal story detracted from the real animals; leave the fakes for the Jungle Cruise.  I have found the cast members to be quite knowledgeable, but the story line waters down that opportunity.

In addition, what could be a pleasant drive through the savannah is uncomfortable for some people because of the "need for speed."  

There are some details of the ride that Jim left out that were removed at the same time as Big Red that made this whole attraction much more of the "harsh reality experience" prior to Big Red.  See, the goal of the WDI team was to present as real a picture as possible of life on the savannah, which included the good, the bad and the ugly.  Big Red was never a bloody corpse.  Big Red's body did sit off to the side of the path, but there was no visible blood, which did allow the script to read that "Big Red is down", but we never said she was dead when there were guests onboard, even during cast previews.  Now there was another bloody corpse on the ride at one time.  For a while there was a zebra corpse on Pride Rock, complete with exposed bloody  ribs, torn skin, and moist looking red flesh.  It was designed originally to be a watering trough for the lions so that they would come drink from it and look like they were enjoying a fresh kill, and when they pulled their muzzle up from the carcass, it would be moist.  There also was a Tommy carcas in the cheetah area.  All this was done to give more of the feeling that this was truly Africa where things aren't always sweet and pretty, but they are real.  This reality based story helped soften some of the jarring aspects of the poacher thread, as it slowly introduced that realistic picture to the audience.  I think without introducing that conflict earlier in the ride, the poacher scene did become to disjointed from everything else.

somepirateguy said:

My wife and I would laugh everytime we would pass the Cast Member holding the rifle at the end as that had to be one of the most pointless jobs in WDW...what do you do?

Oh I stand out in the hot sun pointing a gun at make believe poachers and say "Little Red is ok".......oh its magical...

February 1, 2007 1:38 PM

Don't be fooled! There are dull jobs at WDW but that cast member would be also part of a rotation where he/she would do the spiel, driving, crowd control etc etc etc!

I'm glad they are getting rid of the Big Red/Little Red story. Our kids (8 years old) figured out immediately that Little Red was fake. Hopefully they can use the "speed up" area for more animals.

I absolutely hate the burned out section of Kali River Rapids. It completely blows the experience of being in a beautiful rain forest. I know that is the point of that part of the ride, but I don't go to Disney for that experience.

I always thought the biggest flaw in the end chase of the story is that we were going to go chasing after a bunch of poachers who were armed with high powered rifles and automatic weapons where as we were armed with nothing more powerful than SLR cameras!

The story has degraded over the years with the removal of live cast members from the climatic capture scene. The whole conclusion is a little embarassing now, like running across a part of the park that badly needs maintenance. I hope that they can find something interesting to fill the end of the ride and I won't miss Little Red too much. Besides the real baby elephants on the Safari were much more interesting.

EpcotFan said:

I always thought the biggest flaw in the end chase of the story is that we were going to go chasing after a bunch of poachers who were armed with high powered rifles and automatic weapons where as we were armed with nothing more powerful than SLR cameras!

That's really funny!  Especially since I had to hold onto my SLR for dear life, because I never had enough time to get it back in the bag before we went tearing after the poachers.  He he.  Thanks for the laugh.  :)

While it's understandable that Disney chose to remove "Dead Red", you can't deny that the original concept was a much more powerful and moving presentation then the watered down version they ended up with. I think parents shouldn't chalk up every time their child cries to some kind of trauma. Children cry. Sometimes for reasons seemingly insignificant to an adult observer. It's often in their nature to react to things  that are intended to be very moving with an outburst of tears. It would be impossible to construct an entire theme park that didn't, at some point, bring tears to your child's eyes. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing. The fact that your child shows emotion at a site like that should be an indicator that his or her heart condition is in the right place. If anything, more of our future conservationist may come from the small group of kids who saw the full version, then from the millions who've seen the current one.

But that's a cultural anomaly, and a perception we couldn't hope to enforce with a single Disney attraction. I'm a huge advocate of putting the Guest first when it comes to their experience at the parks. But at the same time, I feel that this was one instance where the ride was speaking up to the audience, rather then just tickling their eyes and ears. It used powerful imagery to make them think, without them realizing they were thinking. It presumed their intellectual capacity was high, rather then presuming they were too sensitive or too shallow to get it. Children will be children, and not all react to things the same way. But sometimes tears are simply an indicator that your child is intelligent enough to grasp the meaning of something, just without the emotional control maturity will eventually bring. It isn't necessarily a sign that their day, or life, were ruined.

maybe Big red could have been injured as a result to being attacked by poachers, but before the poachers fully got to her, you (in the safari vehicle) were able to chase them away in time, and in the end Big Red has a full recovery, people are aware of the evils of poachers, and people get to enjoy a climactic finale.

There was a storyline!? All I remember is looking at the animals...hmmmm

The first time we went there was no story. It was getting ready to rain and our insane Aussie driver was rolling us through the safari faster then I could get my camera out. I ended up getting drenched on one side because I didn't get my parka on before we drove passed a hill with water pouring off it. My wife got stuck with her head through the sleeve of her parka. We rounded a corner only to nearly collide with a charging hippo and her baby, who were both looking to get out of the rain. Most of the animals had gone inside, save for a Giraffe that peeked around a corner like we were insane and the elephants who reminded me of a seen from It's a Small World. All in all, I'd say it's the best run through we ever had. And no red to be seen.

Count me as another who's glad the "poachers" are gone. My first impression, which has stayed the same since, was that it was a lame and cheesy story-line for what is otherwise a great attraction, with beautiful animals and a near-real feeling of being on an African preserve. I remember saying to my wife after our first time, "Is that the best story they could come up with? It would've been better if they just left that out."

As for KRR, I'm a little slow, so I didn't get the whole Rainforest clearing story-line until my second time on the ride, then I was ticked at Disney's attempt to "preach" to me. I'm still not a fan of that scene, but I think the ride itself is great, just a little short.

From what I remember from my early December trip to DAK there was no reference to little red or big red, no breaking bridge, nothing.  The only thing they did say at the end was look the baby elephant is safe. And yes I went on the ride a few times to check.  So now there are no real thematic elements to the ride.