Beastly Kingdom vs Pandora

Which land would you have preferred?

  • Beastly Kingdom

    Votes: 70 61.4%

  • Pandora: The World of Avatar

    Votes: 37 32.5%

  • Other/listed below for your idea

    Votes: 7 6.1%
  • Total voters
    114
yensidtlaw1969

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
Beastly Kingdom stoked my imaginagtion more than Avatar does both conceptually and thematically, though I will say that I think what they achieved with Pandora exceeded my expectations on several terms.

I will also say that Blue Sky Concepts that never see the light of day are not subject to budget cuts and the realities of moving a project forward that executed concepts all pass through.

So while I would have been more likely to give Beastly Kingdom the greenlight over Pandora if it had been up to me, I know better than to think that the Beastly Kingdom we talk about is the same Beastly Kingdom that would have actually been built.

That said, given my own personal tastes, interests, and interpretation of Animal Kingdom's theme, I would probably still pick some version of Beastly Kingdom. Ultimately for me it comes down to the timelessness of its theme and the desire to have creatures of that type represented in the tapestry of Animal Kingdom, mixed with my preference for the practical, Animatronic-and-Set-based types of attractions that BK was set on bringing us. So I voted BK.

That said, they really did a bang-up job with Pandora. I'd have to assume the money they spent there far exceeds what would have ever been spent on a Beastly Kingdom, and I think this is a rare case where the guest experience still made out like a bandit if this is what any of us consider a second-choice offering. Regardless of preference, Pandora is for sure the more ambitious of the two projects.
 
Imagineer45

Imagineer45

Active Member
I dislike how it is one or the other. I think Pandora is great and who knows what would have made it through budget cuts in the Beastly Kingdom, but DAK has multiple expansion pads. They could have built the Beastly Kingdom in the early 2000s and then Pandora elsewhere in the park. It is not like Pandora was built and there is a new consensus that DAK is a complete and without a need for new attractions.

But... I voted for Pandora because it is fantastic and the Beastly Kingdom easily could have been ruined by budget cuts. Too risky.
 
JIMINYCR

JIMINYCR

Well-Known Member
Beastly Kingdom by a mile. The concept drawings and descriptions of what had been planned was truly amazing. Disney could have really had a winner had they put the money into building the entire land. Pandora has been a colorful, interesting park add on but clearly lacks the thrill and excitement Beastly would have brought. And Beastly Kingdom would have had plenty of interesting offshoots to add on if and when expansion occurred. I believe there would have been more interest with the concepts of Dragons and plentiful mythical creatures than the few Pandora characters.
 
aliceismad

aliceismad

Well-Known Member
I've never seen Avatar and don't care to. I think Pandora turned out very well, and the rides are fun even for people who don't care about Avatar. That said, I'd prefer Beastly Kingdom.

(Also, the fact that Eisner chose Dinoland over Beastly Kingdom just makes me sad.)
 
Jphaddad96

Jphaddad96

Member
I prefer Pandora, because it's based on a Disney Original Movie, the Beastley Kingdom land it's just an random IP with no famous characters to see
 
Giss Neric

Giss Neric

Well-Known Member
You could actually base Beastly Kingdom to Universal Islands of Adventure since those who built IOA were supposed to build Beastly Kingdom.

I would prefer Beastly Kingdom IF they would be able to stay true to their original plans of attractions and no budget cuts. Pandora was a great replacement. I would prefer it to be bigger but the scenery is just beautiful.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom