Narnia Coming to WDW?

[MJMcBride]

Iger hinted in a "Florida Today" article on April 7th that Narnia would be the next movie franchise to branch out into theme park rides. I guess the only debate is not if, but when and where. Will a Narnia attraction be in the Studios or the basis for the often rumored "Beastly Kingdom"?

 

[YoHo]

Ignoring any discussion of Execution, I really think that it would make the most positive impact as a part of Beastly kingdom.

 

[dbm20th]

Considering the role played by a Lion, I would think AK would be the best place as well. Though why not scrap Beastly Kingdom and just call the land Narnia? The themeing would be terrific and already has mass-appeal.

Now, let's discuss execution. Attraction ideas anyone?

 

[dbm20th]

Here's the link

Iger hinted that the 2005 live-action film "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" could be the next successful film product to translate into a theme park product. The second "Narnia" film, based on a series of books by C.S. Lewis, is in pre-production.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Well, there's already Journey Into Narnia: Creating The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe at Disney-MGM Studios.

I wonder how well Narnia would translate to an actual ride-through attraction? The movie has sweeping vistas, massive battle scenes, and incredible special effects (such as the melting waterfall). Even a huge "E" ticket attraction would be unlikely to capture the grand scale of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.

Maybe one of the future Narnia movies will offer more appropriate inspiration for a ride.

 

[MJMcBride]

The more I think about it the more I think turning Narnia into the long rumored "beastly Kingdom" makes sense. Imagine DAK with Africa, Asia, Dinoland, Narnia, and Camp Minnie-Mickey (which I think they should turn into a North and/or South America anyway).

I have never read the 7 Narnia novels. Obviously, unicorns, griffons, minotaurs and talking animals fit the old Beastly Kingdom idea. But are there dragons in the novels. Dragons are the quientessential imaginary animal. Do they appear in the novels at all?

Although they could put them in Asia as they are fundamental legend in that area as well.

 

[civileng68]

Well, there's already Journey Into Narnia: Creating The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe at Disney-MGM Studios.

I wonder how well Narnia would translate to an actual ride-through attraction? The movie has sweeping vistas, massive battle scenes, and incredible special effects (such as the melting waterfall). Even a huge "E" ticket attraction would be unlikely to capture the grand scale of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.

Maybe one of the future Narnia movies will offer more appropriate inspiration for a ride.

Aaarrggggg, but tis Disney me friend. No swashbuckling pansy park. Tis DISNEY!

 

[dbm20th]

How about a Dinosaur-style, fast moving dark ride? A 3-D film?

 

[MJMcBride]

You could probably design some sort attraction in and around the White Witch's ice castle, maybe even a flume with menacing wolves and minotaurs. But I would plenty of space open for future development based on future movies.

By the way, does anyone know if dragons figure in these books at all?

 

[mbaker1277]

Yes, dragons do fit in the series of books, but only one book. I believe if they are working on "Prince Caspian", one of the main characters becomes a dragon in the book. You should read the series, it is great! Also, "The Magicians Nephew", which is the first book in the series will make" The Lion, The Witch, and the Wordrobe", much more sense. You come to understand how the wordrobe and Narnia came to be. Also, you will see how the professor fits into the story.

 

[MJMcBride]

Well then if Narnia makes even more sense as the "Beastly Kingdom" since they could logically have a dragon attraction.

 

[mrsR123]

While Narnia might very well fit into Beastly Kingdom, I wouldn't want to see an entire land themed to just one franchise/series. Beastly Kingdom needs to come on as Beastly Kingdom. (But I'm not holding my breath at all.)

 

[MJMcBride]

I disagree. Narnia would be a perfect Beastly Kingdom. It has unicorns, minotaurs, dragons, etc. You could easily fit an entire land called "Narnia". Heck Universal has an entire land on Jurassic Park.

 

[dbm20th]

I disagree. Narnia would be a perfect Beastly Kingdom. It has unicorns, minotaurs, dragons, etc. You could easily fit an entire land called "Narnia". Heck Universal has an entire land on Jurassic Park.

I agree with you totally. Narnia seems like a Beastly Kingdom to me. Also, it is a rather large franchise already

 

[YoHo]

I disagree. Narnia would be a perfect Beastly Kingdom. It has unicorns, minotaurs, dragons, etc. You could easily fit an entire land called "Narnia". Heck Universal has an entire land on Jurassic Park.

But what about HErcules and Fantasia? There are great opportunities for rides based on these. (assuming we're just talking about movie tie-ins which in and of itself is really cruddy imagineering.)

What about all the fantastical creatures of myths not covered by Narnia.



The flip side of course is that Expedition Everest pretty much proves that there will be no beastly kingdom, but that the creatures of that part of the park might show up elsewhere.

 

[sodaseller]

The more I think about it the more I think turning Narnia into the long rumored "beastly Kingdom" makes sense. Imagine DAK with Africa, Asia, Dinoland, Narnia, and Camp Minnie-Mickey (which I think they should turn into a North and/or South America anyway).

I have never read the 7 Narnia novels. Obviously, unicorns, griffons, minotaurs and talking animals fit the old Beastly Kingdom idea. But are there dragons in the novels. Dragons are the quientessential imaginary animal. Do they appear in the novels at all?

Although they could put them in Asia as they are fundamental legend in that area as well.

I like that except I have one more suggestion - keep it Beastly Kingdom, not Narnia, to accomodate the long rumored Harry Potter area, or at least part if - "Hagrid's Corner"? There's your dragons! That is if that rumor ever happens

 

[mrsR123]

I agree with you totally. Narnia seems like a Beastly Kingdom to me. Also, it is a rather large franchise already

The size of the franchise is not the issue; it's the principal of developing an entire land to just one franchise. And the fact that Universal has done it is not a sufficient justification on this board.

Only Mickey himself is big enough and has enough clout to pull an entire land-- and calling Mickey's Toontown Fair a full land is enough of a stretch.

Finally, YoHo's right, movie tie-ins are sloppy engineering and not worthy of a full land, either.

 

[MJMcBride]

But what about HErcules and Fantasia? There are great opportunities for rides based on these. (assuming we're just talking about movie tie-ins which in and of itself is really cruddy imagineering.)

What about all the fantastical creatures of myths not covered by Narnia.



The flip side of course is that Expedition Everest pretty much proves that there will be no beastly kingdom, but that the creatures of that part of the park might show up elsewhere.

You answered your own question. Other legendary animals can be put into other areas of the park like the Yeti in Asia.

Narnia doesn't have to be "cruddy " imagineering. A movie tie-in isn't necessarily unimaginative. I mean Splash Mountain, Star Tours, The Indiana Jones Adventure in DL, and most of Fantasyland are essentially movie tie-ins. It really depends on how they handle the source material. And that source material is rich.

 

[MJMcBride]

I like that except I have one more suggestion - keep it Beastly Kingdom, not Narnia, to accomodate the long rumored Harry Potter area, or at least part if - "Hagrid's Corner"? There's your dragons! That is if that rumor ever happens

I would expect Harry Potter to be in the Studios. How cool would a Hogwarts Haunted Mansion type ride with ghosts, werewolves, and evil wizards.

 

[MJMcBride]

And the fact that Universal has done it is not a sufficient justification on this board.

All I meant was that it has been done and not necessarily poorly either.