Originally Posted By bhb007 Beastly Kingdom (the land of mythical animals) was always supposed to a part of DAK's phase II. Without it, the park retains a half-day, incomplete feel. Everest will certainly help, but this land really felt like undefineable magic touch that would have made the park a special place to spend several days. With Narnia doing boffo box and Disney a sucker for synergy, it seems like a no-brainer that Beastly Kingdom will be returning to DAK... in the form of Narnia. A couple questions: 1-What sort of attraction should be the lynchpin for the land? (to me, nothing short of an AA intensive, Pirates-style, LOOOONG boat ride would do the trick) 2-Would a decidedly European land work in a park that is so gloriously non-European? 3-Would talking fake animals cloud the park's real animal ethos? 4-Would Fantasyland at MK (and DL, TDL, DLP, & HKDL for that matter) be a better fit for Narnia? Interested to hear your thoughts...
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I am not the kind of person who 'gets' the whole fantasy animal thing, so I wouldn't say as fact that without Beastly Kingdom, DAK retains a half-day incomplete feel. I don't need another fantasy element to make DAK more like the MK... to me this park is closer in spirit to EPCOT than anything else, and I am happy to spend a whole day at DAK exploring the natural settings, and watching the animals. Having said that, I can appreciate rides as much as anyone, and can understand that some people feel DAK is not a good value when it comes to more traditional Disney entertainment. I wouldn't be opposed to Beastly Kingdom at all. Answering your questions: 1.) What sort of attraction should be the lynchpin for the land? (to me, nothing short of an AA intensive, Pirates-style, LOOOONG boat ride would do the trick) The land would almost have to incorporate some AA technology. I can't picture in my mind a slow boat ride, but that's not to say it couldn't be done. 2.) Would a decidedly European land work in a park that is so gloriously non-European? I don't think Beastly Kingdom would have to have a European backdrop, and in my opinion, imagineering it that way would make it too much like another Fantasyland. 3.) Would talking fake animals cloud the park's real animal ethos? Many people feel that DAK is nothing more than a glorified zoo, so adding talking fake animals would help the park to become more Disney to those folks. 4.) Would Fantasyland at MK (and DL, TDL, DLP, & HKDL for that matter) be a better fit for Narnia? I don't know a thing about the mythos of Narnia, but I think all the Fantasyland's are already too congested. If Disney built a Beastly Kingdom, adding Narnia to it would probably happen anyway, as recent history shows they like to build attractions that tie into their movies.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn If a Narnia themed land were build in the MK, it could occupy the land taken by the ex-20K Leagues, Toontown Fair and the Tomorrowland Speedway - one very large arc.
Originally Posted By Kylesmom <3.) Would talking fake animals cloud the park's real animal ethos?> I don't think so, they already have "It's Tough to be a Bug" and dinosaurs, specifically Chester and Hesters area. I think a Narnia area would be fun, and they can sell Turkish Delight at the snack stands.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper The day Pooh Playground comes down is the day vbdad will acknowledge that all is right with the world.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 The universe is askew right now-- and I do think that is the correction needed.. My biggest concern is thatthe odds are much higher we will see the construction of another Pooh level playground long before we see the one we have now gone....kinda makes you appreciate the wand
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn >>kinda makes you appreciate the wand<< BLASPHEMER!! Be gone with thee!
Originally Posted By RandySavage Beastly Kingdom was and is an essential part of the Animal Kingdom design and should have opened with the rest of the park in 1998. It should (but probably won't) be on WDW management's front burner after Everest, as the AK will never feel whole until the land is built. I would much prefer, however, to see Beastly Kingdom get built without any motion picture tie-ins. There are very few film franchises that have the lasting power to deserve $100 million+ attractions built around them. Narnia is not among them. How about building attractions with original storylines (like Expedition Everest) that are so compelling that blockbuster movies are made about the attraction (like PotC), not vice-versa.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: My sisters and I totally understand where you're coming from with your suggestion, bhb007, duckling and we heartily agree with your concerns! We DO happen to 'get' what is missing from Animal Kingdom without the originally planned land that would have been called Beastly Kingdom. Narnia would, indeed, provide Disney management with a whole new world of possibilities for a fantastic addition to a park that still seems incomplete.
Originally Posted By bhb007 RandySavage- I am 100% with you... linking attractions to movies is short-sighted (yes, Virginia, there will come a day when people even forget who Indiana Jones is). I'd also rather see a Beastly Kingdom that immerses me in a universe I have yet to visit. But like it or not, I sense Disney's preference is towards synergistic links to other parts of its entertainment empire. Thus, I could see Narnia being the Trojan horse by which the Imagineers get Beastly Kingdom back on the map... Not necessarily my preference, btw.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<linking attractions to movies is short-sighted (yes, Virginia, there will come a day when people even forget who Indiana Jones is).>> Linking attractions to movies has been done since day one. Most of the attractions Walt Installed in Fantasyland are movie-based. Rides only need to be well imagineered to be successful... one does not need to have seen a movie for it to be enjoyable. I am sure most people have never seen Song Of The South... I know I haven't... yet it's one of Disney's most popular attractions.
Originally Posted By Britain I agree that there may come a day when people don't know who Indiana Jones is (however the argument can be made that the attractions help the character stay in the public's conscience). However, even though it may seem that Narnia is the hit du jour (or rather, the hit du last weekend, since Kong is out now) we should remember that the books have been around longer than your average movie-tie in. Plus, unlike Lord of the Rings, so much of Narnia is GENERIC fantasy. Fauns and centaurs, as opposed to Uriki or Ents. Heck, Father Christmas is a character in Narnia! They could build a Beastly Kingdom and have a Narnia attraction, or they could build a Narnia area and build any Beastly Kingdom attractions they have sitting on shelves. Either way, it works fine.
Originally Posted By Kylesmom You're right movie tie ins are a bad idea... Mr. Toad, Swiss Fammily/Tarzan Tree house and that Peter Pan ride will never fly ;-).
Originally Posted By RandySavage It’s an interesting topic to debate. Classic, ageless stories give rise to many classic Disney attractions: Mr. Toad (Disney film based on Kenneth Grahamme classic) Tea Cups (Disney film based on Lewis Carroll classic) 20,000K Under the Sea (Disney film based on Jules Verne classic) Snow White (Disney film based on Brothers Grimm classic) Swiss Family Treehouse (Disney film based on Johann Wyss classic) Star Tours (based on a classic film by Lucas) Indy Jones Adventure (based on classic film by Spielberg) Peter Pan’s Flight (Disney film based on JM Barrie classic). When I look at it this way, I think a Narnia film tie-in attraction could work, since the recent film version can probably considered the definitive film version of a classic story by CS Lewis. Unfortunately, Disney is building attractions based on recent/popular hollywood screenplays, not classic, time-tested stories. They may be entertaining, but “Finding Nemoâ€, “Monster’s Inc.â€, “Buzz Lightyearâ€, “Lilo & Stitchâ€, “Dinosaurâ€, “Pirates of the Carribeanâ€(the movie), can’t touch the classic stories listed above. There are still many, many classic stories out there (many of which have definitive film versions; some that Disney has already made). Tolkien’s “Lord of the Ringsâ€, Andersen’s “Little Mermaidâ€, Sherizade’s “Arabian Nights†(Aladdin), “The Once and Future Kingâ€, “Princess of Marsâ€, “Black Cauldronâ€, “Gulliver’s Travelsâ€, etc. Disney should take their ride budget in this direction, not spend hundreds of millions on rides tied to recent popular films that aren’t that great and will never be considered classic stories. Interestingly, in some cases newer films may eclipse Disney’s version of the story: The recent live-action version of Peter Pan by PJ Hogan is a far superior and more faithful version of Barrie’s story than Disney’s.
Originally Posted By Kylesmom Although in essence I agree RandySavage, I don't think Disney is making a mistake with these rides based on non-classic movies. Riding the Buzz Lightbeer ride totally re-invigorated my kids interest in Toy Story, if we hadn't already owned the DVD he would have buggeed me into getting it on our return from WDW. How many people will run out and buy DVDs of Nemo, Monsters, etc. because their kids loved the rides? Smart marketing, if nothing else.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss Interesting that you would see Star Wars and the Indiana Jones series as classics, but not the Toy Story films. I know they're not technically old enough to be judged as such, but I have no doubt whatsoever that they are modern classics that will stand the test of time. FWIW, Disney has made attractions for The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and The Black Cauldron.
