NelleBelle
Well-Known Member
Curious, what couldn’t be maintained 1) re. Pandora and 2) what wasn’t maintained in Anaheim on ‘92? Serious question.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Beastly Kingdom vs Pandora
- Thread starter The Grand Inquisitor
- Start date
HongKongFooy
Well-Known Member
Since day 1.
Again, it is inherently impossible to maintain feasibly.
Unlike any other land from Star Wars to Carsland to Toy Story Land to even Potter up the street, Pandora is inherently different. It poses a different and far reaching set of challenges to keep it pristine.
Again, it is inherently impossible to maintain feasibly.
Unlike any other land from Star Wars to Carsland to Toy Story Land to even Potter up the street, Pandora is inherently different. It poses a different and far reaching set of challenges to keep it pristine.
HongKongFooy
Well-Known Member
Pretty much all of Pandora. Look at the level of detail carefully and you should be able to see the innumerable amounts of creviced molded and ultimately painted rock, vine, flower and misc vegetation. Maintaining those countless non flattened surfaces is feasibly impossible with the amount of colors in play.
Sure one can lightly power wash away the dust and pollutants but keeping it in its original opening day state just will not be done due to blazing sun and harsh rain and the current level of ordinary Disney maintenance. To repaint would be an absolute huge, huge, crazy big undertaking. Designers did a fabulous job of creating life like vegetation all throughout the land so good that good luck keeping looking like that.
I was at Pandora on day 6. On my next visit day 75ish or so I had already noticed discoloration and a lack of brilliance throughout the land.
After a year I would think anyone with working eyes could see the difference.
HongKongFooy
Well-Known Member
Toontown is(was) one terribly colorful place. My first visit it blew me away....the level of details, bump outs and color schemes were too much to take in. After several visits by the later 90's I was convinced unless Disney steps up its maintenance game there was no way to get it back to its original glory. By say around '05 ish I saw one sundrenched faded unimpressive land and the noteworthy part is that Disney was still maintaining it, minimally like so many other things.
JusticeDisney
Well-Known Member
When I was there on day 472, it looked exactly the same as it did when I was there on day 397 1/2. And I have working eyes.
Little Green Men
Well-Known Member
Dutch Inn '76
Well-Known Member
Beastly Kingdom. I would have loved more original content at WDW.
*Cinderelly*
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Here is the stuff I have learned about Beastly Kingdom. It looks super cool and looks like a concept that would work really well not only in the Animal Kingdom, but also maybe in a land in the Magic Kingdom as well. Now I also know it has been past up a ton of times for other projects in the past and what comes to mind right off the bat to me is cost of what Beastly Kingdom would take to create. If this projects cost is huge I just foresee it going down this same path of being passed over by a cheaper concept over and over. Now Pandora wasn't cheap, but and I am not 100% sure on this but maybe $$$$ from Mr. James Cameron might had a bit to do with this happening. Now I am not saying Pandora is not really nice because it is, but from the video I saw Beastly Kingdom knocked that Pandora out of the park. With all that is going on now I don't see a Beastly Kingdom happening anytime soon.
Disgruntled Walt
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
I'm not sure how I missed this thread when it first appeared, but I'm so into this debate. This is actually the debate that got me started on this forum several years ago.
I wanted to address a couple things that the "Pandorans" have brought up. Despite the possibility that some of the Beastly Kingdom designers went to Universal and worked on The Lost Continent/Dueling Dragons, that doesn't mean that Beastly Kingdom would have turned out the same way. Dueling Dragons, aside from its queue, was a set of two largely unthemed roller coasters. There was never any question in your mind that you were on a roller coaster instead of being carried by a dragon. The roller coasters were great! The dueling effect, while I only experienced it that way once before it was eliminated, was neat! But it didn't feel real.
In Animal Kingdom, there is no part of the park that doesn't feel real (except Dino-Rama, which I think everyone agrees on, including the Imagineers). Love him or hate him, Joe Rohde is good at making things feel real (except for the Collector's Warehouse being in Hollywood, but I have a suspicion he was forced to work on that project). I highly doubt that he would have allowed Beastly Kingdom to be a cheap shell of what it was supposed to be. Who knows, maybe that's part of the reason why it never got built! Maybe the choice was to do a cheap version of Beastly Kingdom or build Dinoland. Or maybe I'm just writing fan-fiction.
Pandora is well done, I will admit. I'm impressed by the level of detail and the floating mountains. I enjoyed FoP when I rode it, but it is essentially Soarin' on steroids (which is fun, but I guess I want more from them). The Navi River Cruise was incredibly disappointing; I found it to be boring and uneventful.
Beastly Kingdom, even scaled down slightly, would be superior to Pandora. I'm still hopeful that some form of Beastly Kingdom, or what was planned for it, is implemented somewhere in the park.
I wanted to address a couple things that the "Pandorans" have brought up. Despite the possibility that some of the Beastly Kingdom designers went to Universal and worked on The Lost Continent/Dueling Dragons, that doesn't mean that Beastly Kingdom would have turned out the same way. Dueling Dragons, aside from its queue, was a set of two largely unthemed roller coasters. There was never any question in your mind that you were on a roller coaster instead of being carried by a dragon. The roller coasters were great! The dueling effect, while I only experienced it that way once before it was eliminated, was neat! But it didn't feel real.
In Animal Kingdom, there is no part of the park that doesn't feel real (except Dino-Rama, which I think everyone agrees on, including the Imagineers). Love him or hate him, Joe Rohde is good at making things feel real (except for the Collector's Warehouse being in Hollywood, but I have a suspicion he was forced to work on that project). I highly doubt that he would have allowed Beastly Kingdom to be a cheap shell of what it was supposed to be. Who knows, maybe that's part of the reason why it never got built! Maybe the choice was to do a cheap version of Beastly Kingdom or build Dinoland. Or maybe I'm just writing fan-fiction.
Pandora is well done, I will admit. I'm impressed by the level of detail and the floating mountains. I enjoyed FoP when I rode it, but it is essentially Soarin' on steroids (which is fun, but I guess I want more from them). The Navi River Cruise was incredibly disappointing; I found it to be boring and uneventful.
Beastly Kingdom, even scaled down slightly, would be superior to Pandora. I'm still hopeful that some form of Beastly Kingdom, or what was planned for it, is implemented somewhere in the park.
The Empress Lilly
Well-Known Member
So perfect as a Kali IP-overlay then...
Donaldfan1934
Well-Known Member
Beastly Kingdom and it’s not even close. Don’t get me wrong, Pandora was extremely well-done and actually feels like a natural part of DAK. However, in the astronomically unlikely event that Disney announces Beastly Kingdom as a replacement for Pandora at any point in the foreseeable future, I would more than welcome it. Despite its quality, I still have no emotional attachment to anything in the land, so an alternative that could’ve possibly had stronger emotional resonance along with not being entirely dependent on a singular IP would’ve been preferable.
Kate F
Well-Known Member
Why would Beastly Kingdom need to be a replacement for Pandora? I know this company can’t be trusted with making the best decisions, but why could we not have both?
Donaldfan1934
Well-Known Member
It’s just a hypothetical based on the fact that Pandora sits on the plot that was intended for Beastly Kingdom and used to highlight my lack of attachment to Pandora. This thread is based around the question of ”Which land would you have preferred?” after all.
JusticeDisney
Well-Known Member
I fully understand that this debate is subjective and that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. That said, I get quite a kick out of people - no matter which side they pick - saying that their choice “isn’t even close” or is “by a mile.” How can anyone be so certain about their preference when one land exists and the other is nothing more than some conceptual artwork? For example, I went with Pandora, but no way in the world could I ever claim that it is the clear winner over a land which has never even been built and experienced. Oh well, just my $.02.
I think a lot of things have to do with timing, budgets etc... - and in short - things just didn't line up for "Beastly Kingdom". Grass is always greener - until you actually start observing some of the weeds. So, I'm okay with Pandora.
But addressing Pandora......really?......11 years for a sequel is a bit much (Feel like I'm waiting for a Zeppelin-Page-Plant reunion or the next Def Leppard album.)
As an example: I do believe that if the Fantasyland expansion got green-lit a few years later than it did - we'd all be visiting the Arendelle section of the Magic Kingdom.
But addressing Pandora......really?......11 years for a sequel is a bit much (Feel like I'm waiting for a Zeppelin-Page-Plant reunion or the next Def Leppard album.)
As an example: I do believe that if the Fantasyland expansion got green-lit a few years later than it did - we'd all be visiting the Arendelle section of the Magic Kingdom.
Last edited:
I agree 11 years for a sequel is just nuts
Letteyeti
Well-Known Member
This is my little brain and how it works. Pandora is beautiful and it is already there with probably what is the AK's most popular ride in the entire park in Flight of Passage even though mine is Expedition Everest. So keep Pandora as it is or even expand on it and add a Beastly Kingdom which I think would also be fantastic. Come on Disney dig into those pockets and use that space that is always talked about.
Ghost93
Well-Known Member
I mean, I wish we could have BOTH!! 
. Pandora is my favorite section of any Disney park and I might give it the slight edge to the Beastly Kingdom because the land itself looks more original (I know Pandora is based on an IP, but the aesthetics are more unique whereas the concept art for Beastly Kingdom — while pretty — looked a lot more like generic fantasy and would have clashed more with the overall look of Animal Kingdom). I will admit though, a "Beastly Kingdom" is a more broad concept that would give Imagineers more freedom to expand and experiment than Pandora will.
For instance, the original concept of the land had the Dragon Tower, Loch Ness Landing Restaurant, The Quest for the Unicorn, and the Fantasia boat ride. Since the theme of the land is mythical creatures, I could have seen this land adding in attractions and rides based on movies like Hercules (Pegasus and the Hydra would be right at home), Angelina Jolie's Maleficent (the Moors creatures) and Raya and the Last Dragon (Sisu and the other dragons).
I think elements of Beastly Kingdom can still be used. Maybe there could be an expansion to Asia that has a heavy emphasis on Asian mythological creatures (including a dragon). It could use the same general ride concepts as the Beastly Kingdom, but make the aesthetic Chinese instead of medieval Europe.
. Pandora is my favorite section of any Disney park and I might give it the slight edge to the Beastly Kingdom because the land itself looks more original (I know Pandora is based on an IP, but the aesthetics are more unique whereas the concept art for Beastly Kingdom — while pretty — looked a lot more like generic fantasy and would have clashed more with the overall look of Animal Kingdom). I will admit though, a "Beastly Kingdom" is a more broad concept that would give Imagineers more freedom to expand and experiment than Pandora will.For instance, the original concept of the land had the Dragon Tower, Loch Ness Landing Restaurant, The Quest for the Unicorn, and the Fantasia boat ride. Since the theme of the land is mythical creatures, I could have seen this land adding in attractions and rides based on movies like Hercules (Pegasus and the Hydra would be right at home), Angelina Jolie's Maleficent (the Moors creatures) and Raya and the Last Dragon (Sisu and the other dragons).
I think elements of Beastly Kingdom can still be used. Maybe there could be an expansion to Asia that has a heavy emphasis on Asian mythological creatures (including a dragon). It could use the same general ride concepts as the Beastly Kingdom, but make the aesthetic Chinese instead of medieval Europe.
Robbiem
Well-Known Member
I mean, I wish we could have BOTH!!
For instance, the original concept of the land had the Dragon Tower, Loch Ness Landing Restaurant, The Quest for the Unicorn, and the Fantasia boat ride. Since the theme of the land is mythical creatures, I could have seen this land adding in attractions and rides based on movies like Hercules (Pegasus and the Hydra would be right at home), Angelina Jolie's Maleficent (the Moors creatures) and Raya and the Last Dragon (Sisu and the other dragons).
I think elements of Beastly Kingdom can still be used. Maybe there could be an expansion to Asia that has a heavy emphasis on Asian mythological creatures (including a dragon). It could use the same general ride concepts as the Beastly Kingdom, but make the aesthetic Chinese instead of medieval Europe.
An area based on Asian mythology would be a great addition. Beastly Kingdom sounded fun but would have been an animal fantasyland at heart