DCTooTall
<MARQUEE BEHAVIOR=ALTERNATE><img src=http://www.em
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2008
I'm thinking and my interpretation of the story is a combination of the 2. Beastly Kingdom got cut for budget reasons..... and with the project cut because of budget, the imagineers working on that project became unneeded weight who were also cut to save even more $$$
Those imagineers then got hired by Universal, and even if they didn't intentionally scuttle Beastly Kingdom by directly porting the ideas, Because they were so heavily involved in that BK project and now were working on the Lost Continent which dealt with a similar premise of legends and myths you ended up with a lot of overlap in the design, feel, and look of the 2 projects.
It's only logical that if you've been researching and designing ideas on a subject for awhile, that those core ideas and research are going to flavor 2 different projects worked on by the same people.
But it doesn't fit the missing "originally intended" piece of the AK park.... The 'mythical beasts'. There is a reason a Dragon is on the official logo for the park, and one of the parking lot sections is called "Unicorn".
The point he was making is that the days of Disney creating new and unique IP for an attraction are over. Everything they are designing today has to have some sort of tie in with an existing property in order to increase it's ability to generate revenue thru merchandise sales. The majority of the attractions you listed were designed before Eisner started his push for synergy within the parks. The ones not predating Eisner are the exception and not the rule, and often have another reason or design aspect that gets them out from that requirement....
Expedition Everest= I'm going to say this one's ability to avoid the tie-in is a combination of Animal Kingdoms need for a major E-Ticket, The location within the park being already themed for Asia, and the lack of a good well known property which it could be tied in around. That being said... It's another monument to Rodhe's addiction to 'artistry', realism, and 'attention to detail' at the expense of keeping a budget intact. You could also make an arguement that it's a modern version of Disneyland's Matterhorn....complete with a Yeti encounter.
Kilimanjaro Safari= True, But it's also an Animal Safari. Not much room to theme it around a Disney Property, and it's actually lost a lot of the story it once had. It could also be said that when AK first opened they had a very minimal presence of existing Disney Properties as they were very focused on the edutainment and 'realism' within the park. [it was the drive for synergy and hopefully improving the park's draw that helped force the retheme of Countdown to Extinction to "Dinosaur"]
Soarin= Direct Clone of a California Adventure attraction which was designed to showcase the many different environments and "adventures" available within the state of California. Honestly, You could almost say that 'Soarin' is designed to be synergistic with the California Adventure park as a whole in that it's taking you on a California Adventure. (The attraction's name in California was/is 'Soarin' over California'. The film is the same in Florida and California)
Rockin Roller Coaster= No movie.... true... But it has Aerosmith as it's tie-in/draw. The synergy or existing property requirement isn't limited to a Movie. Just like the Kim Possible Adventures and now the Agent P stuff in the World Showcase are based on TV Shows, Disney can base their new attractions on any existing property and tie that in for merchandise or marketting purposes. It's that completely virgin ideas for attractions that they have an issue with these days.
And I am only half kidding.
