Subtle hint on the future of Beastly Kingdom?

[The Disney Kid]

There was a BK thread about a year ago where someone said that it was being acted upon per a source in WDW named Rhonda Kendal. Seeing that WDWMagic Members are quite ingenutive, some members sweeped the CM data base, and found that it was fake.:lol:


Since then, her name has been used as a sort of inside joke to DAK threads and claims that large projects are coming.


[/WDWMagic Historian]

I bit. I Googled her before I got to the punchline. I found several Rhondas. None of them had anything to do with WDW.

 

[sublimesting]

The book is referring to the new plan to populate the WHOLE PARK with mythical creatures, much like they did with the Yeti. They will be placed in their real settings, as opposed to the mish mash of what BK would have been.


I'm fine with that, BTW.


:ROFLOL:


In this form, yes.

Prior to reading your post this very thing dawned on me. They won't devote a whole area but instead intersperse mythological attractions throughout. For one it is less costly to do it piecemeal than to devote a whole area that nees to be developed. Fanother it will help diffuse people's incorrect notions that AK is "just a zoo" if you have things not related to real animals. You can only have so many animal exhibits and not be a zoo, eventually by definition you are just that a zoo.

 

[protiius]

the idea of no bk kinda sucks, but to have a number of mythical creatures spread throughout the park could offer up a very interesting alternative. afterall, most mythical creatures have their stories steeped in the history of particular continents (ie the yeti in asia).

 

[krankenstein]

There was a BK thread about a year ago where someone said that it was being acted upon per a source in WDW named Rhonda Kendal. Seeing that WDWMagic Members are quite ingenutive, some members sweeped the CM data base, and found that it was fake.:lol:


Since then, her name has been used as a sort of inside joke to DAK threads and claims that large projects are coming.


[/WDWMagic Historian]

You forgot to mention that someone started an account under the username of RhondaKendal and proceeded to post in the same thread and backup the claim. :lol:

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

I bit. I Googled her before I got to the punchline. I found several Rhondas. None of them had anything to do with WDW.

:lol:

Prior to reading your post this very thing dawned on me. They won't devote a whole area but instead intersperse mythological attractions throughout. For one it is less costly to do it piecemeal than to devote a whole area that nees to be developed. Fanother it will help diffuse people's incorrect notions that AK is "just a zoo" if you have things not related to real animals. You can only have so many animal exhibits and not be a zoo, eventually by definition you are just that a zoo.

Exactly...though this won't have the same and amazing theme or aesthetics, as BK, this'll work much better...AND provide for annother area for them to expand on.

You forgot to mention that someone started an account under the username of RhondaKendal and proceeded to post in the same thread and backup the claim. :lol:

HAH! True! :lol:


And then, they were banned. :lol:

 

[MarkTwain]

The book is referring to the new plan to populate the WHOLE PARK with mythical creatures, much like they did with the Yeti. They will be placed in their real settings, as opposed to the mish mash of what BK would have been.


I'm fine with that, BTW.

I wouldn't mind that either, actually.

I wonder how the mythical animals could be distributed though?

Dragons - Europe/China
Unicorns - Europe
Centaurs - Greece
Pegasus - Greece
Phoenix - Greece/Egypt/China
Sphinx - Greece/Egypt
Loch Ness Monster - Britain
Kraken - Northern Europe
Mermaids - European/American
Trolls - Northern Europe/Message boards

It seems like it'd be difficult to introduce many familiar mythical creatures to the park in their "natural" setting without first creating a new land based on Europe... unless they were to introduce some African/Asian mythological animals we're not familiar with? :shrug:

 

[Disneyson 1]

OMG I remember Rhonda! That was the BEST... why don't we have any new threads like that?

 

[Epic Epcot]

Trolls - Northern Europe/Message boards

You sir, have won the internet.

 

[captain marvel1]

no i think disney may be on to something im thinking warcraft would be a great idea if Disney merges with blizzard entertainment.

 

[Dinoman96]

I still think Mythological creatures should stay in one land. The whole point of the park is to have a land based on each animal. Besides CMM and RPW, Real animals are already covered with Asia and Africa, and Dinosaurs have been covered with Dinoland USA.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

I wouldn't mind that either, actually.

I wonder how the mythical animals could be distributed though?

Dragons - Europe/China
Unicorns - Europe
Centaurs - Greece
Pegasus - Greece
Phoenix - Greece/Egypt/China
Sphinx - Greece/Egypt
Loch Ness Monster - Britain
Kraken - Northern Europe
Mermaids - European/American
Trolls - Northern Europe/Message boards

It seems like it'd be difficult to introduce many familiar mythical creatures to the park in their "natural" setting without first creating a new land based on Europe... unless they were to introduce some African/Asian mythological animals we're not familiar with? :shrug:

IMHO, that works perfectly.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I've long been a proponent of a land for Europe in the Animal Kingdom - it would keep with the continents idea they've been using, and it would lend itself to more mythical creatures.

 

[heartodisney]

I wouldn't mind that either, actually.

I wonder how the mythical animals could be distributed though?

Dragons - Europe/China
Unicorns - Europe
Centaurs - Greece
Pegasus - Greece
Phoenix - Greece/Egypt/China
Sphinx - Greece/Egypt
Loch Ness Monster - Britain
Kraken - Northern Europe
Mermaids - European/American
Trolls - Northern Europe/Message boards

It seems like it'd be difficult to introduce many familiar mythical creatures to the park in their "natural" setting without first creating a new land based on Europe... unless they were to introduce some African/Asian mythological animals we're not familiar with? :shrug:

You did forget North America - Bigfoot/Jackalope/Snipe

:lol:

 

[GizmoDuck]

When I was younger I went through a phase when all I read about was cryptid creatures...and there are a TON from all over the world.

There's everything from the central American chupacabra to the Australian bunyip to the Mongolian deathworms, to the plethura of North American Lake Monsters

IMO I think we're going to see attractions featuring creatures who are presented as plausible (such as the Yeti in EE), instead of Centaurs, Minotaurs, etc.

Those creatures tread to far from what typically makes an "animal". In order to be concurrent with the story of DAK, I think any future cryptid or mythological creature will be presented in a form where it COULD exist in the real world, and not be too farfetched.

 

[MKeeler]

^

In many ways, this is the direction I would love to see a Europe section take. I woudl focus the area on cryptozoology, with the added bonus that some of the mythical animals are "real." In this sense, you could bring the mythical into the exploration of animals that DAK represents without just having the "land for made up animals."

You could have a Cryptozoologist/Explorer's house in the center of a European village with several areas for attractions. Cryptozoology itself could be explained in the library and showing how looking at fossils lead people to imagine strange animals or how Centaurs could have been invented by seeing someone ride horseback for the first time. You could add an omnimover through the Cryptozoologists menagerie. Bring back in the hedge maze with other creatures in it as well.

 

[GizmoDuck]

You could add an omnimover through the Cryptozoologists menagerie

I had a very very similar idea! I posted it under the Imagineering board a few months back.

Great points too :wave:

 

[plutoismyhero]

I've long been a proponent of a land for Europe in the Animal Kingdom - it would keep with the continents idea they've been using, and it would lend itself to more mythical creatures.

Exactly but i do think that if they start to add mythological creatures they will most definitely add centuars and minotaurs and such...how could they not??

 

[GizmoDuck]

Exactly but i do think that if they start to add mythological creatures they will most definitely add centuars and minotaurs and such...how could they not??

I dont think they'd add centuars, minotaurs, mermaids and such at this point IMO. In mythology, and even pop culture these creatures tend to exist as sub-races, rather than animals. They are portrayed more humanoid than "animal".

 

[plutoismyhero]

I dont think they'd add centuars, minotaurs, mermaids and such at this point IMO. In mythology, and even pop culture these creatures tend to exist as sub-races, rather than animals. They are portrayed more humanoid than "animal".

But if they add a Europe land you dont think they would start with these or do you think they would go in a more lochness monster approach?

 

[GizmoDuck]

But if they add a Europe land you dont think they would start with these or do you think they would go in a more lochness monster approach?

I think they'd take the Nessie approach. Continuing along the lines of creatures that could possibly exist without seeming entirely "made-up".

Here's a few European creatures I think would work well:

-Loch Ness Monster
-Kraken
-Dragons of course
-Unicorns
-Tazelwurm
-Griffins
-Pegasus (if approached correctly)
-Roc