Originally Posted By GOB >>Nope. Not at all. No need to, really. Still plenty of opportunity to add a dragon related attraction to the park at some point.<< Lee, do you know if they chose what's going on the CMM/BK plot yet?
Originally Posted By Lee hisownself >>Lee, do you know if they chose what's going on the CMM/BK plot yet?<< A whole lot of nothing at the moment. Always concepts and ideas out there, nothing really moving ahead that I know of.
Originally Posted By leemac >>>If Beastly Kingdom really is dead, I wonder if they'll ever get around to removing the dragon from the DAK logo as well as the dragon head over the DAK gate and renaming the unicorn parking lot.<<<< What a ridiculous suggestion - as Joe is always keen to say - the presence of the dragon is more a statement of intent that the park can (and will) encompass mythical creatures - and already does with the Yeti. There was a lot wrong with Beastly Kingdom - an awful lot.
Originally Posted By Krankenstein <<There was a lot wrong with Beastly Kingdom - an awful lot.>> Ok, so this has me wondering. Can you enlighten us a bit more as to what was wrong with the concept?
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>A whole lot of nothing at the moment. Always concepts and ideas out there, nothing really moving ahead that I know of.<<< Land was moved in 2008. That's about it. And I second Krank's question. Good to see you here, K.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Ok, so this has me wondering. Can you enlighten us a bit more as to what was wrong with the concept?>> The whole concept was very overwrought. There was a desire to layer an immense amount of storytelling as you entered the land (all closed narratives too) - it was a land that was trying too hard to transport you to a specific mythical place. The attractions were also over-conceived. The land was parked due to budget concerns but there was also a "wait and see" attitude to IoA's treatment of mythical creatures (like Duelling Dragons). It just didn't feel right to me - it didn't seem to mesh well with the rest of DAK. Michael was always very gun-ho on Beastly Kingdom. He felt that it could be DAK's Fantasyland (which wasn't quite right as the intensity of some of the proposed attractions were certainly not for young kids) but ultimately the capital was never set aside for the project. Instead Everest was chosen to be the first mythical storyline in the park. I always felt that the concepts for Australasia seemed to fit better into the park than Beastly Kingdom. There really wasn't enough humor or whimsy in the area for me - it was an incredibly serious and intense experience.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> <<Ok, so this has me wondering. Can you enlighten us a bit more as to what was wrong with the concept?>> The whole concept was very overwrought. There was a desire to layer an immense amount of storytelling as you entered the land (all closed narratives too) - it was a land that was trying too hard to transport you to a specific mythical place. The attractions were also over-conceived. << Interesting insight. What were the proposed attractions? Wasn't there a unicorn hedge maze at one point?
Originally Posted By Christi22222 >>Michael was always very gun-ho on Beastly Kingdom. He felt that it could be DAK's Fantasyland (which wasn't quite right as the intensity of some of the proposed attractions were certainly not for young kids) but ultimately the capital was never set aside for the project. Instead Everest was chosen to be the first mythical storyline in the park.<< To me, there is a big difference between flat out fantasy, and folklore. I think that folklore fits in DAK very well as it is often very cultural (like EE). Granted there is a spectrum with a whole lot of gray area, so folks will never totally agree on what fits and what doesn't. But for me, just focusing on dragons and unicorns is not the same as say, a Black Forest attraction that happens to have Hansel and Gretel. (This is a bad example in the sense of Europe isn't so interesting for DAK. But it was the only specific I could think of at the moment!)
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>The whole concept was very overwrought. There was a desire to layer an immense amount of storytelling as you entered the land (all closed narratives too) - it was a land that was trying too hard to transport you to a specific mythical place. The attractions were also over-conceived. The land was parked due to budget concerns but there was also a "wait and see" attitude to IoA's treatment of mythical creatures (like Duelling Dragons). It just didn't feel right to me - it didn't seem to mesh well with the rest of DAK.<<< Are you kidding? DAK needs that kind of whimsy, that fantasy, that charm to it. I;m all for layers of seriousness, and detail, like in WS, but it also needs it's moments of fun. It sounds incredible.
Originally Posted By leemac Each to their own. I had a lot of problems with the proposal - I felt it distracted from the overall MEP (Master Experience Plan) as it would detract from the animal experiences - it was such a massive development for DAK that it would have caused the entire flow of the park to shift. It was just too attraction-orientated for me - it didn't fit into DAK IMHO. It was a real Catch-22 - there is little doubt that it would have been hugely successful and drive attendance - but it would have been detrimental to the overall DAK experience IMHO. I'm a real stickler for ensuring that parks are appropriately menu- and master-planned. Beastly Kingdom wouldn't have been the right compliment to the existing experiences.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> It was just too attraction-orientated for me << Gasp! How dare they add attractions to DAK. Now it all makes sense: the design plan for DAK was to create a theme park without attractions! How clever and frugal, Mouse. But I'll go to a national park (or, like, the real Africa) if I want a theme park without attractions.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Now it all makes sense: the design plan for DAK was to create a theme park without attractions!<<<< I know.... I can understand there not being areas of DAK filled with attractions, and animals and exhibits instead, but that excuse is just bunk to me. I mean, it's a THEME PARK. DAK could be unique and have both! Why not?
Originally Posted By Christi22222 Sounds like a bit of an identity crisis to me. Are we Sea World/San Diego Wild Animal Park, or are we a traditional theme park? Even Sea World themselves struggle with that issue and how many attractions to have in an animal park. It's a tough one as the ideals are competing. One is very "wonders of the world we live in" and the other is very "transport me to another world." So far, I think DAK has handled it well. And I personally think they should remain a theme park first and foremost. But clearly there are many different options for future growth.
Originally Posted By ttalovebug Personally, I've always thought Beastlie Kindgomme was an unbelievably awesome concept. Plus, the set-up is so perfect- that mysterious, wooded trail leading to the proposed area still makes me feel something much more exciting than CMM is waiting on the other end. Of all the impossible fanboi dreams out there, BK is the one I always wanted to come true.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Sounds like a bit of an identity crisis to me. Are we Sea World/San Diego Wild Animal Park, or are we a traditional theme park? Even Sea World themselves struggle with that issue and how many attractions to have in an animal park. It's a tough one as the ideals are competing. One is very "wonders of the world we live in" and the other is very "transport me to another world." So far, I think DAK has handled it well. And I personally think they should remain a theme park first and foremost. But clearly there are many different options for future growth.<<<< I think they could do both very well. I mean, look at Dinoland. That doesn't have "real" animals in it, but it survives on attractions.
Originally Posted By brotherdave Yeah, Hester and Chester's is such a great themed area of DAK!!! ;-P Actually, remove H&C, and I would agree with you that Dinoland is a decent area of the park, but one that could be so much more than what was built.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***but it would have been detrimental to the overall DAK experience IMHO*** As opposed to the wonderful Chester and Hester experience they ultimately went with?
Originally Posted By GOB I'd like to see Dinoland re-themed as some sort of dig site in a jungle rather than a re-creation of roadside America. Put a nice facade on the Dino Institute as a temple or something, bulldoze Dinorama and add a Raging-Spirits kind of rollercoaster or C-ticket dark ride. That way, you'd be able to have a land about Dinosaurs, retain an E-ticket attraction, and add capacity in the form of a C/D-ticket in an air conditioned environment.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 I actually liked Dinoland better when the carnival stuff wasnt there and they had the building with the dinosaur skeletons in it. It kind of tied it all together a little better for me. I think AK has a lot going for it but I also think it has a lot of untapped potential. I think there is room for both Australia and Beastly Kingdom. I also think at some point Dinoland could use a rethink and Countdown to Extinction could use some plussing. It has never been the E-Ticket attraction that it could have been.
