Beastly Kingdom?? About This Page:

[EddieCVS]

I'll believe it when they break ground!

[bsblady01]

I don't think we are going to see a new park for a while. we may see a new park years from now. they just need to add some new rides to their current parks to keep people comeing back.

[orionchika]

Originally Posted by Dave Marx

Nothing at all new on Beastly Kingdom. It's just one of those older rumors that keeps circulating. Overall, I think the notion has been taken in other directions. It was originally assumed it would be a land at Animal Kingdom, signified by the dragon in the park logo. Since then, a mythical beast has been added to the park. It's just that the beast is 40-foot tall and furry, instead of green and scaly.

I think the time has also passed for the Villains concept (as either a park or a land). It's an idea that I think reached its peak with Fantasmic! I haven't seen a growth in Villains interest lately, possibly because the Pixar films generally don't have old-fashioned Disney-style villains. Oh, yeah, there are always villains in Pixar films - protagonists need antagonists - but they don't quite have the same "edge." Walt's classic villains (and even villains from the 90s animation renaissance like Ursula, Jafar, Scar, Gaston, and Frolo) never had a hint of humor to them - all menace, and evil from beginning to end. When the villain is done for, the film is almost at an end. All that's left is to kiss the girl and enter the castle. In Pixar films, the films tend to continue on for a while after the villain meets his/her end, as it's the values of friendship/family that triumph in the end, rather than basic good over evil. (After the escape from Sid, Buzz and Woody still have to catch up with the moving van before being reunited with Andy. Linguine, Colette, and Anton Ego open the new restaurant; the Incredibles attend Dash's track meet; Mater goes for a helicopter ride and Radiator Springs is put back on the map...)

Let's see... what's up with the Pixar villains and the traits that take the edge off their villainy?

Sid Philips (Toy Story) - Bad and threatening, but still just a child who can be brought to tears.
Hopper (A Bug's Life) - He's bluffing, and he knows it. Once they call his bluff, he's bird food.
Randall and C.J. Waternoose (Monsters, Inc.) - Greedy and bad, but again, not really evil.
Al (Toy Story 2) - Larcenous and greedy, but still obviously a loser and a bit incompetent. A Wile E Coyote type.
Darla (Finding Nemo) - Spoiled brat (see "Sid Philips")
Chick Hicks (Cars) - More of a rival and a garden variety cheat than a true villain.
Buddy/Syndrome (The Incredibles) - Child starts good (overeager and nerdy) but goes wrong (very wrong), rather than evil from beginning to end.
Chef Skinner and Anton Ego (Ratatouille) - Skinner is greedy, bullying, and incompetent, rather than truly threatening (see "Al"). Ego seems threatening, and his criticism was fatal to Gusteau, but his heart can still be reached with a bit of eggplant, zucchini, tomatoes, green pepper, onions, garlic, olive oil, and herbs.
Wall-E - No real villain. The greedy corporation made the mess, but doesn't impede the hero from achieving his goal. The ship's computer may stand in the way of a happy ending, but there's no evil intent.
Charles Muntz (Up!) - He's bad now, but he started out as a hero, who was then unfairly scorned.

No, none of these will ever find a place for themselves in Fantasmic 2 (or cause a child's nightmares).

Interesting.....

[Steph K]

i found tht really interestin reading dave, thanks for taking the time to post that, very good observations

[DVCBird941]

Even IF they have decided to do a 5th park it could take years to finalize all the details needed to even start construction. I don’t doubt that there is a 5th park idea in the works, but its probably still in the brainstorming days. I’m sure they have tons of ideas in their vault for rides and such that just need a re-theme/tweak to work, but to have a complete vision could be far off. One day we will see a 5th park open up, I just hope its not 2030 before it opens

[jimmymac]

I don't buy it. Disney right now is too wrapped up in building DVC

[mom2twingirlies]

I think long before they break ground on a new park, they will add/tweak to existing parks.

Yes attendance has been good in light of the economy, however, how many of these are paying full price. I think the majority on site are staying under the 4/3 or free dining plan. Disney is getting cash flow in the door, but only at very discounted rates. Good enough for the current economic environment, but not good enough to go spending on a new park. I don't think people are spending as much on souvenirs either.

I remember in the past, there weren't really that many "deals" to be had for Disney, that's why we didn't go very often. Now, if you wait, there will be some kind of deal offered. Sometimes are better than other, but until its high season, there's a deal of some kind to be had.

[Dave Marx]

The cost of building DVC resorts when compared to building an entire new park... no, one thing has little to do with the other. On the assumption that they wouldn't build another park unless they were planning on a significant increase in visitorship, they'd have to build additional resorts just to absorb the increase in attendance (or at least, the additional day that most resort guests would be adding to their stays). What's more, the DVC construction gets paid-off very quickly, due to the up front money paid by the members.

[Disday]

That's where it gets interesting. Disney is investing in more hotels, or more specifically, allowing non-Disney related hotels build on property. There's the Four Seasons and Flamingo Crossings will have something like 5,000 hotel rooms. This seems odd since at certain times of the year they have to offer discounts to put heads in beds. The only way it begins to make since is if they are planning a new theme park. Sure, the exciting new Fantasyland plans will give them a boost, but a new park could add the real numbers.

[Yankees]

I have yet to hear anything on a new park yet.

[Dave Marx]

Originally Posted by Disday

That's where it gets interesting. Disney is investing in more hotels, or more specifically, allowing non-Disney related hotels build on property. There's the Four Seasons and Flamingo Crossings will have something like 5,000 hotel rooms. This seems odd since at certain times of the year they have to offer discounts to put heads in beds. The only way it begins to make since is if they are planning a new theme park. Sure, the exciting new Fantasyland plans will give them a boost, but a new park could add the real numbers.

No way to prove this one way or the other, but my feeling is that when Disney plays "landlord" (which they've already done historically at Crossroads, the Hotel Plaza Blvd. hotels, and the Swan and Dolphin), it's because they'd rather let someone else take the big risk. In this case, the big risk is building new hotel capacity at a time when Disney does not foresee large growth potential. If Disney was sure there was going to be increased growth due to the addition of a new park, I think they'd be more likely to build things themselves.

Also, I suspect that, in the case of Flamingo Crossings, this is a case of diverting business that normally would have taken place in the 192 corridor onto Disney property. There are a lot of older hotels in the 192 corridor, and the general trend in the lodging chains is to build new, rather than do major rehabs of the old. So, a lot of the Flamingo Crossings rooms may simply be replacements, rather than expansion.

[Disday]

How do they plan to fill the rooms they have if not with a major addition like a new park? Sure, the new Fantasyland will give them a bump and so will the newly rumored Beastly Kingdom project at DAK, but this type of expansion usually results in an increase in the attendance of individual parks - not the whole resort. I'm afraid that if they aren't serious about a new park within the next 5 years that attendance may stay flat or even decrease a bit. They can make the excuse about Central Florida being "built out" but this can only cover the fact that they're too concerned with Wall Street conservatives' reaction instead of growing the parks to their "real" potential.

[Nahtezuh]

but Disney attendance has increased even in the economic problems we have had. Other parks, most notably Universal, has seen decreases in attendance.

They best way to increase park attendance may be just waiting for the economy to get better

[Disday]

I could be wrong, but I believe that Disney's attendance has been flat this last year. The special hotel offers have helped some, but attendance hasn't gained much if any. This is better than the other theme parks that have reported losses. I guess that one could consider that a success. However, guest spending has been down this year. What I'm referring to is that WDW's attendance hasn't experienced significant gains in years. Even before the recession, they only had modest gains.

[Caldercup]

I agree with you that it's been flat this past year, but there has been significant gains since the fall-off immediately after 9/11. In fact, it was back to pre-9/11 levels in late 2007, I believe. And other theme parks in this same timeframe have done nothing but lose attendance.

I'd have to dig up my TEA reports from the past few years to give actual numbers, but this is my recollection of that data.
Eileen