AK Dragon on Logo Explained

[ctwhalerman]

No! Comparing BTMR to Everest is like comparing apples and oranges likewise for Matterhorn and BTMR!!! Beastly Kingdom was supposed to be a land for mythical/legendary/fictional creatures. Everest contains a Yeti, a creature that fits the description of mythical/legendary/fictional. Therefore, it would be hard to justify an entire land on such creatures.

Now I do agree with you that it would be much easier to spread these legends around, and that would help Animal Kingdom in the long run. The point I was trying to make was that just because two separate things have a very common underlying theme, it is still possible for them to be built within relative distance of each other.

Therefore, Beastly Kingdom and Everest could simultaneously inhabit the same park, and with complete integrity in the theme of each. Beastly Kingdom, as I understood it, was completely based around these theme of a dragon in a castle, which most likely means a type of Medieval European landscape. Since the legendary Yeti is in no way connected with Medieval Europe or any related time or place, it makes sense to put it in its Asian mountain, but would have no negative effect on the theme of Beastly Kingdom being mythological animals. In other words, all the animals in Beastly Kingdom must be mythological or legendary, but at the same time all mythological or legendary animals do not have to be inside Beastly Kingdom and can be spread around to a place where they would fit in easily.

I also tried to make a distinction between the Yeti and the animals that would be in Beastly Kingdom, but I do admit it may be a bit of a flawed distinction. I see things like dragons and unicorns are things everyone knows do not exist (and no lame jokes about existence of komodo dragons). But things like the Yeti (or Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster) are somewhat different, because you will always find people who say and insists that they are extant somewhere in the world, and that we have yet to find them. This distinction is why I figure these types of animals are able to be found outside Beastly Kingdom, and instead should be in their supposed habitats.

Sorry for the ramblings but hopefully this helps...

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

I think come may the 5th there will be a lot of "is that it?" comments.

Cant think of any recent ocassion when rumours like this have gone out that anything substantial has developed.

Every park needs two major attrcations to lure return guests
Every park needs three or four smaller attractions to support the major rides
Every Park needs less unused buildings and show space
every park needs shops with variety and merchandise specific to it not cut n paste t's and trinkets
Every park needs greater choice than burgers and nuggets for fast food

Every park is still ahead of the competition, but needs to remember what put it there.

 

[stitchcastle]

Now I do agree with you that it would be much easier to spread these legends around, and that would help Animal Kingdom in the long run. The point I was trying to make was that just because two separate things have a very common underlying theme, it is still possible for them to be built within relative distance of each other.

Therefore, Beastly Kingdom and Everest could simultaneously inhabit the same park, and with complete integrity in the theme of each. Beastly Kingdom, as I understood it, was completely based around these theme of a dragon in a castle, which most likely means a type of Medieval European landscape. Since the legendary Yeti is in no way connected with Medieval Europe or any related time or place, it makes sense to put it in its Asian mountain, but would have no negative effect on the theme of Beastly Kingdom being mythological animals. In other words, all the animals in Beastly Kingdom must be mythological or legendary, but at the same time all mythological or legendary animals do not have to be inside Beastly Kingdom and can be spread around to a place where they would fit in easily.

I also tried to make a distinction between the Yeti and the animals that would be in Beastly Kingdom, but I do admit it may be a bit of a flawed distinction. I see things like dragons and unicorns are things everyone knows do not exist (and no lame jokes about existence of komodo dragons). But things like the Yeti (or Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster) are somewhat different, because you will always find people who say and insists that they are extant somewhere in the world, and that we have yet to find them. This distinction is why I figure these types of animals are able to be found outside Beastly Kingdom, and instead should be in their supposed habitats.

Sorry for the ramblings but hopefully this helps...

A more polite version of what I said ....I'm glad somebody else understands the darned concept.

Where else would you put the more popular medieval european mythological creatures? you can't possibly build a castle with a dragon in it and put it in Africa! or you can't make a maze full of fanciful Unicorns and put it in DinoLand! Beastly Kingdom is for the more "mythological" creatures while the Yeti and Everest is more of a legend than a myth.

 

[askmike1]

That can be debated since Dragons are not specific to Europe. In fact Dragon's are very popular in Chinese Culture. This site offers origins of various dragons. So you can't really say that Dragon's can't be put anywhere else.

 

[ctwhalerman]

That can be debated since Dragons are not specific to Europe. In fact Dragon's are very popular in Chinese Culture. This site offers origins of various dragons. So you can't really say that Dragon's can't be put anywhere else.

This, as we all know, is true. But the fact is that Beastly Kingdom was/is based on the Medieval European model of a dragon, and the legends of knights saving ladies that were held by dragons in run-down castles. (As a side note, one of these legendary knights is St. George the dragon-slayer, whose statue can be found in the German pavilion in Epcot, and who is also the Patron Saint of England.)
The European dragon myths are probably more approachable to the American audience, because not many Americans know the dragon myths that are common to Asia. Also, dragons seem to be close to the heart of many Asian cultures, and so maybe a ride based on them would be offensive to these people in a way European/American culture does not understand, and we know how Disney thinks of political correctness.

 

[Captain Chaos]

I do not care if they spread mythical creatures throughout the park or create BK... ANy addition to AK right now would be welcome because there is not much to do in my opinion. Half a day park at best. I know things will change a bit when EE officially opens, but still, AL needs another big ride and maybe another themed land.

 

[speck76]

Although DAK is lacking E-ticket rides, I feel the key to making it a full-day park is adding C/D-ticket attractions.

 

[Captain Chaos]

As long as the C/D ticket rides are enjoyable, I say go for it... Anything to help AK.. I think AK has so much potential, but we all know what budget cuts and rushing to get parks open can do....

 

[askmike1]

This, as we all know, is true. But the fact is that Beastly Kingdom was/is based on the Medieval European model of a dragon, and the legends of knights saving ladies that were held by dragons in run-down castles.

Of course, I was just saying that one can't say that dragons are specific to Europe. I think there are two kinds of dragons, the big winged dragons of Midieval Europe and the long non-winged dragon of Asian culture. In fact, when I think of ancient Asia, dragons are probably what come to mind first. For BK though, I'd rather see the winged firebreathing European dragons. Either way though, I agree that new rides anywhere would be great.

 

[arcsbite]

CAREFUL!!!!

His mother hasn't got ANYTHING to do with that...
What you did was RUDE, tasteless, and offending... keep it friendly...

it's amazing, no matetr where I post, I seem to find you jumping the gun and yelling.

First of all, my comment to Thrawn was meant in the simple basis that his name IS James,

Thrawn: I don't think I've ever heard anyone call him James other than this thread.

My comment was merely stating that his mother CALLED him James, it was meant in jest and in no way RUDE, tasteless, or offending.

So please, if you have an issue, that is most understandable, but please, do think twice and maybe take what is said on the internet with a grain of salt.
this post is only made as this is the second time you have singled out my posts to "warn" me for making general, non offensive comments and it is getting tedious.
again, thank you.

 

[ctwhalerman]

For BK though, I'd rather see the winged firebreathing European dragons. Either way though, I agree that new rides anywhere would be great.

Perfectly said.

We're debating what kind of rides AK should get, when in fact we should realize it needs anything it can get, whether its a thrilling Medieval dragon ride, or a thrilling Asian dragon ride. As long as there is no horribly egregious mismatch in theme, I'm all for whatever is added to Animal Kingdom...