Ghostbuster626
Member
its not going to be built....in the next two years and not in its current incarnation.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Beastly Kingdom
- Thread starter disneyland50
- Start date
stitchcastle
Well-Known Member
KentB3 said:Why wasn't Beastly Kingdom financially feasible, if any of the others lands in Animal Kingdom were?
because Beastlie Kingdomme had the big roller coaster that wasn't as thematically important as the big Safari Ride in Africa.
and BK did not become Everest, the only thing they share is the fact that they both revolve around cryptids. BK is more centered towards the European mythical creatures.
StarScream86
New Member
Why is there a dragon then mixed in with the other animals in the animal kingdom logo?
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Because Beastly Kingdom was to revolve around dragons.StarScream86 said:
Ghostbuster626
Member
Beastly Kingdom was to revolve around all fantasy animals. Animal Kingdom was suppsoed to be split up into three sections: Real Animals (Africa, Asia) Extinct Animals (Dinoland U.S.A) and Imaginary Animals (Beastly Kingdom)...then Eisner got cheap. Too bad Eisner aint in charge no more though (and neither is Iger) 
:sohappy: .
:sohappy: .
Tim G
Well-Known Member
Beastly Kingdom never made it from the drawing table... and you may see the Dragon on the DAK entrance sign as some sort of a "Hidden Mickey"...Ghostbuster626 said:Beastly Kingdom was to revolve around all fantasy animals. Animal Kingdom was suppsoed to be split up into three sections: Real Animals (Africa, Asia) Extinct Animals (Dinoland U.S.A) and Imaginary Animals (Beastly Kingdom)...then Eisner got cheap. Too bad Eisner aint in charge no more though (and neither is Iger)
It was Red-Lighted almost instantly...
Movies and Character tie-ins
Your question is understandable, and I'll try to be clearer.
An attraction that has a movie or character tie-in makes it more attractive. People, especially children, come to Disney in large part to see Mickey, Goofy, and a host of other characters that they saw in a movie or cartoon. Without characters and themes, Disney World is simply a really, really, really good county fair. EPCOT does not have a great deal of character and movie theming, but it does have wandering characters and other parks with plenty of classic Disney theming in the neighborhood.
Would Dumbo, Festival of the Lion King, Star Tours, or Tower of Terror be nearly as successful if they were called Spinning Elephants, African Musical Hoedown, Spaceship Attack, and Plummeting Elevator? I doubt it.
In short, more people will make a point of coming to Disney and visiting an attraction if there is a tie-in with a movie or character(s). Such theming to a multimillion dollar movie will automatically raise the attendance dramatically. Therefore, if Beastly Kingdom could tie-in to some overwhelmingly successful movies, more people would make a point of coming to see it, or spend a whole day at Animal Kingdom as opposed to a partial day. That was my point, and I hope I have made it clearer. My apologies for jumping conclusions.
By the way, Expedition Everest is not tied to a movie, but is still greatly anticipated. Oh well, it is an exception. Call me crazy, but I predict some future movie may try to feature it somehow, like they did with Pirates of the Carribean. Of course, Space Mountain and other successful attractions are not related to any movies. However, I am sure that the Disney decision-makers would prefer to have an available blockbuster Movie theme before spending hundreds of millions on a major addition to AK.
Pongo said:
Your question is understandable, and I'll try to be clearer.
An attraction that has a movie or character tie-in makes it more attractive. People, especially children, come to Disney in large part to see Mickey, Goofy, and a host of other characters that they saw in a movie or cartoon. Without characters and themes, Disney World is simply a really, really, really good county fair. EPCOT does not have a great deal of character and movie theming, but it does have wandering characters and other parks with plenty of classic Disney theming in the neighborhood.
Would Dumbo, Festival of the Lion King, Star Tours, or Tower of Terror be nearly as successful if they were called Spinning Elephants, African Musical Hoedown, Spaceship Attack, and Plummeting Elevator? I doubt it.
In short, more people will make a point of coming to Disney and visiting an attraction if there is a tie-in with a movie or character(s). Such theming to a multimillion dollar movie will automatically raise the attendance dramatically. Therefore, if Beastly Kingdom could tie-in to some overwhelmingly successful movies, more people would make a point of coming to see it, or spend a whole day at Animal Kingdom as opposed to a partial day. That was my point, and I hope I have made it clearer. My apologies for jumping conclusions.
By the way, Expedition Everest is not tied to a movie, but is still greatly anticipated. Oh well, it is an exception. Call me crazy, but I predict some future movie may try to feature it somehow, like they did with Pirates of the Carribean. Of course, Space Mountain and other successful attractions are not related to any movies. However, I am sure that the Disney decision-makers would prefer to have an available blockbuster Movie theme before spending hundreds of millions on a major addition to AK.
Pongo
New Member
Ralphlaw said:
Thank you for clarifying. Now I understand.
But I don't quite agree. I don't think AK's success pends on movie tie-ins. They're nice, but the park is still good without them. I'm not saying that characters should NOT be integrated into AK, just that I think they're unnecessary.
I think the main reason why Narnia and BK aren't meshing in my head is because BK was imagineered WAY before Narnia. The original plans didn't incorporate the Chronicles, and since they're the only plans we have to go by, the link just isn't being made.
Either way, I'm with Corrus.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Iger is still very much in charge. And Beastly Kingdom being shelved had nothing to do with Eisner being cheap.Ghostbuster626 said:Beastly Kingdom was to revolve around all fantasy animals. Animal Kingdom was suppsoed to be split up into three sections: Real Animals (Africa, Asia) Extinct Animals (Dinoland U.S.A) and Imaginary Animals (Beastly Kingdom)...then Eisner got cheap. Too bad Eisner aint in charge no more though (and neither is Iger)
Tim G
Well-Known Member
I call these words, simply ignorance...Ghostbuster626 said:Beastly Kingdom was to revolve around all fantasy animals. Animal Kingdom was suppsoed to be split up into three sections: Real Animals (Africa, Asia) Extinct Animals (Dinoland U.S.A) and Imaginary Animals (Beastly Kingdom)...then Eisner got cheap. Too bad Eisner aint in charge no more though (and neither is Iger)
Sorry...
M:SpilotISTC12
Well-Known Member
I think they should build it. I read somewere that EE would be the first step to the coming of Beastly kingdom. Anyone else hear that???
steve2wdw
WDW Fan Since 1973
As someone posted earlier, Beastly Kingdom was a proposed land that was to open after the opening of DAK. I seem to recall it being mentioned in both "Since the World Began" and "The Making of Disney's Animal Kingdom". In fact on opening day, the hint of a fire breathing dragon existed along the banks of Discovery River near Camp Mickey-Minnie. You could also witness the fire from the bridge going into CMM. While it has been said that the imagineers who worked on the concepts for this land ended up working on attractions for IoA, the Dueling Dragons coaster would not have appeared at DAK. DD was probably just inspired by the work they had already completed for Disney. As for the future of Beastly Kingdom, I would never count an old idea out. Beastly Kingdom could arrive in a completely re-imagineered format, with ideas based around mythical beasts from the Narnia film(s), (yes, they are planning on a sequel as we speak), as well as any number of other creatures that Disney wants to use (whether they appear in a Disney movie or not). With John Lasseter on board, who knows what might appear in any of the parks. DAK has to expand. There is a whole lot of money invested in the infrastructure of this park (restaurants, shops, etc...) that have gone unused at night for the past eight years. Disney needs to recoup their investment here. The company has made it's first great stride (with EE) to turn it into a full day park. Camp Mickey-Minnie is prime real estate that can easily be turned into a new land. Locating a land based on the mythical at the front of the park would ensure nighttime operation without bothering the real animals at the back of the park. The greeting areas would be easy to relocate ANYWHERE in the park while FotLK could be relocated to Africa (where it belongs). The theatre building itself is a pretty stock structure and actually could be salvaged and moved for little cost (in Disney dollars.)
So all you nay-sayers should be patient and see what Disney has up it's sleeve planned for DAK. I forsee many more mythical beasts, in addition to the Yeti, setting up camp at some point in the future. Could be 10 months, could be 10 years. Let's wait and see while we hope and dream.
So all you nay-sayers should be patient and see what Disney has up it's sleeve planned for DAK. I forsee many more mythical beasts, in addition to the Yeti, setting up camp at some point in the future. Could be 10 months, could be 10 years. Let's wait and see while we hope and dream.
Ghostbuster626
Member
It was supposed to open with the park (at least a portion of it). I have a Disney magazine article that talked about what we would see when the park opened in 1998. Proposals are never shown in Disney Magazine.
Ghostbuster626
Member
Corrus said:But it never did... please "read" this thread...
Thanks!
heh