Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: A Bambi dark ride? Well, if they do it correctly, it might work. There were certainly some dramatic scenes from the animated film. But it really boils down to taste. Having read many comments from so many of you ducklings out there--who strongly feel you've had enough of the Disney characters--it seems to come down to a matter of personal preferences. ORWEN: Since we're Disney characters, ourselves, it would be hypocritical of us to agree with anybody who thinks there's too many rides or attractions with ties to the Disney characters. (After all, we're talking about Disney theme parks and everything DID start with a mouse.) So we just don't have any problems with all these tie-ins. As a matter of fact, we say the more they do with the Disney characters, the better! ORDDU: If we have any complaints at all, it's over the issue of quality. Any attraction can be successful if it's given the proper time and attention to details--which some attractions certainly have--while others certainly have not. So, we'll wait and see how this Bambi dark ride turns out before we express a final opinion.
Originally Posted By brotherdave Ladies, a Black Cauldron theme to a Beastly Kingdomme attraction (namely the proposed Dragon Tower ride) would be very welcome indeed!!!
Originally Posted By leobloom Just because "everything started with a mouse" doesn't mean the parks shouldn't incorporate attractions independent of movies. Or would we prefer Simba's Safari, Mickey's Dinosaur Hunt, Wall-E's Mission: Space, Stitch's Race through Space (Mountain), and Woody's Mining Adventure?
Originally Posted By brotherdave I totally agree, leobloom. Why can't they create totally unique attractions (like Haunted Mansion & POTC were originally) not related to movies and other franchises? Still, if we MUST have franchise connections to see new attractions built, let it be something really cool!
Originally Posted By RandySavage "Night kingdom is two years into its development, you can see photos on google earth, look at the magic kingdom and go directly to the left." There is no mini Disney park under construction east, west, north or south of the Magic Kingdom. You're looking at service areas. Regarding Jim Hill: While I can't stand his writing style ("Doesn't that sounds like a fun experience, boys and girls." = painful), I used to enjoy his pieces on attraction development, never-built rides and hard-to-find concept art. He doesn't do that very often any more. Alain Littaye's disneyandmore.blogspot.com now does better and more frequent updates with attraction stories and art.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Spirit, where are you?>> Right here on my sofa watching Craig Ferguson, the only late night talk show worth subjecting myself to. Where are you?
Originally Posted By blueharvest82 <<There is no mini Disney park under construction east, west, north or south of the Magic Kingdom. You're looking at service areas.>> this area has lots of construction vehicles and piles of dirt everywhere, and with a 2011 opening date, i hope they are working on it by now.
Originally Posted By Monty Moonlight I prefer to see the Disney characters spread out over the park in their appropriate areas and without overkill. I don't recall too much of the original idea, but I believe it was about fantasy animals? Would have been cool to have a section like that for fantasy animals/cryptids, but I guess now they would have to locate it near the new Yeti attraction. Haven't been to the park in years so not sure if that's possible. But I feel a section just for Disney characters is a mistake, though I guess they kinda already have a little section like that (or did when I last was there) over where the Lion King show was. Isn't that area called Camp Mickey Minnie, or something like that?
Originally Posted By RandySavage "this area has lots of construction vehicles and piles of dirt everywhere, and with a 2011 opening date, i hope they are working on it by now." I don't think WDW could or would secretly begin constructing something the scope of a mini-themepark without official press releases, permits, or at the very least substantial and sustained rumors leaking out (Jim Hill doesn't count). If you're referring to the site to the left of the MK on the western edge of the WDW property (bordered by a canal on the east), that doesn't strike me as an efficient shape or location for this rumored park.
Originally Posted By danyoung While it seems to me that Mr. Hill has a less than stellar track record, I stopped reading him because I simply couldn't stand his style any more. Which is how he wrote articles. Which included sentences that started with "which". Which style was also included in the letters from readers with so much frequency that made it obvious that he was writing the questions as well, destroying all credibility. Which made it easy for me to cut him out of my daily perusings.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub Adult theme park behind Pleasure Island will come true??? anybody else know anything about this?
Originally Posted By DisDream I listened to a March 2nd podcast where Jim Hill was talking about the new version of Beastly Kingdom. Apparently, its in the earliest stages of development. He said that it probably wouldn't be there until about 5-10 years. I hope it's sooner than that. - He also mentioned how they were looking at backgrounds from the Black Cauldron and Gummi Bears! This is probably just for inspiration for how the land will look. He also mentioned that Narnia may be included - depending on how well the next movies perform at the box office.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris "I stopped reading him because I simply couldn't stand his style any more." Indeed. That whole homespun, folksy way he writes just makes me want to puke. It's an overly familiar manner replete with all the journalistic ability of a fifth grade Mississippi school student. I always wonder, when reading blogs and articles posted to websites whether the authors actually proof read them.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <P<I know I am in the minority, but I have no interest in a Beastly Kingdom full of fake animals. I'd rather they put those things in Fantasyland or at DHS, and keep DAK more real-world based. Additions of Australia or South America would be my preference.>> My thoughts exactly!!
Originally Posted By DisDream You have to understand that Animal Kingdom is a theme park, it's not a traditional zoo. Most people go to Disney theme parks for the rides, characters, and escapist fantasy. That's hard to do with live animals. So, they need to have something for the traditional theme park guest. Beastly Kingdom would offer the imaginative storytelling that Disney does best.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub I still want to know if anybody has heard about an adult theme park behind Pleasure Island area?Can anybody help me to "google earth" to see that location in relation to the new Hilton/Waldorf/Golf Resort being built on prop? I think WDW has to respond to "Harry" and all the new resorts being built on property. I am not "Al" and never read any site besides LP.I still think it will be an adult theme park behind Pleasure Island and if I reveal my accidentally overheard source I would create problems....
