The best themed land at a Disney theme park never got made.
Don’t take my word for it. Many of the Imagineers involved with designing and constructing the blueprints for this project share this opinion. Some of them felt so betrayed by the Disney CEO’s decision not to build the land that it became one of the earliest rallying cries against Michael Eisner, whose tenure with the company ended acrimoniously.
As the New York Times chronicled in 2005, his departure earned nothing more than a “one-page retrospective in the company newsletter.” For a man with a 21-year tenure as CEO to walk away with such little fanfare spoke volumes about the situation. Eisner exited Disney with a whimper rather than a bang.
A civil war with an actual member of the Disney family caused Eisner to lose his hold on the company he’d led since 1984. One of the reasons for Roy E. Disney stepped down from the company his uncle founded and his father ran was that he’d lost faith in Eisner. Under the CEO’s watch, The Walt Disney Company had added only two new gates to Walt Disney World plus one at Disneyland. The Orlando theme parks were considered half-day parks while the new Disneyland expansion, Disney California Adventure was widely regarded as a bust. And let’s not forget that “cultural Chernobyl” thing with Disneyland Paris, either.
Image: Disney
The park that infuriated diehard Disney fanatics, however, is one that’s probably the best of four. Disney’s Animal Kingdom is a hallmark achievement in themed park construction. Disney triumphantly blended the popularity and family appeal of a zoo with a collection of wonderful rides that continue to entertain to this day. Only Disney would have the daring to place thousands of animals within stampede distance of thousands of tourists yet somehow safeguard all the lives of creatures and humans alike. They did this while also controlling one of the most challenging aspects of a zoo: the smell. Even the opening day reviews for Animal Kingdom expressed amazement that Disney had overcome every issue that stems from a visit to the zoo.
What few people outside the company realized, however, is that all of those small and large victories came at a cost. The strongest potential draw at Animal Kingdom wasn’t a part of opening day at the park, at least not a meaningful sense. Corporate execs promised theme park tourists and Imagineers alike that the construction would occur as part of the second phase of the park. That promise was also broken by Eisner. In the end, THE best themed park concept in the history of the company went unbuilt, at least at a Disney theme park.
This is the story of how Disney park planners caught lightning in a bottle, inventing one of the most marketable themed lands of all-time. It’s also the story of how and why Disney’s upper management spit the bit, hurtling down a linear path of terrible decisions that eventually cost the world a chance at something special. This is the story of Beastly Kingdom, which is the most popular Disney destination in some alternate dimension. In our realm, it’s sadly a tale of what might have been.
Kill your darlings
Image: Disney
“Welcome to a kingdom of animals… real, ancient and imagined: a kingdom ruled by lions, dinosaurs and dragons; a kingdom of balance, harmony and survival; a kingdom we enter to share in the wonder, gaze at the beauty, thrill at the drama, and learn.”
The above is a snippet from Michael Eisner’s grand opening speech at Disney’s Animal Kingdom. You should pay attention to that one creature type listed in the same breath with lions and dinosaurs. You’ve seen those lions during a thrilling expedition on Kilimanjaro Safaris, and you’re intimately familiar with DinoLand U.S.A., the themed land that has a well-earned reputation as the junkiest themed land at Walt Disney World. But where are the dragons, you wonder?
Was Eisner referencing the komodo dragons that inhabit Asia’s Maharajah Jungle Trek or the central bearded dragons in Conservation Station? No, of course not. The CEO of the corporation used his introductory remarks to set the stage for a later expansion, one that hadn’t quite made the cut for the first phase of Animal Kingdom. The exclusion of this realm was the harshest budget-based reduction of the ambitious plans for the fourth and (thus far) final gate at Walt Disney World.
Image: Disney
In building the world’s most impressive functional zoo and natural habitat, Disney battled with their ledger sheet from the inception of the project. When guests think of Animal Kingdom, the first thing that springs to mind is the animals. What few folks contemplate is how much Disney has to pay for their food, health, and daily maintenance, not to mention keeping natural predators away from potential prey. It’s a costly endeavor.
Your natural inclination is likely to dismiss this expense, recognizing that the price of admission at Animal Kingdom in combination with food and merchandising revenue pays the bill for Disney’s animal upkeep. That’s absolutely correct today. It wasn’t the case in the mid-1990s, though. Back then, the corporation was trying to launch Animal Kingdom. In order to achieve this goal, they had to entice many of the finest zoologists in the world to leave their current jobs behind and join Disney. Simultaneously, they asked these experts for suggestions about the beasts the park would need to import to boost its profile and reputation within the theme park industry.
Image: Disney
None of the above is cheap. Disney had to pay for it all, and they wouldn’t have an evergreen revenue stream for several years. This opportunity cost of park creation explains why every time Disney builds a new theme park, the output isn’t as great as early buzz had indicated. Also, the corporation inevitably winds up cutting costs at other parks to reduce overhead. In the case of the original Disneyland, Walt Disney famously sold his “dream house” to finance the project.
Once theme parks are operating and drawing in consistent crowds, they’re solid breadwinners. Getting them off the ground requires the clearing of a ludicrous series of financial hurdles. In the case of Animal Kingdom, the one hurdle they could never clear was their best idea. It was a land that would have proudly hoisted a sign stating, “Here there be dragons!”
Back to the drawing board
Image: Disney
Zoos have always maintained a steady popularity in terms of tourist visitation. In building Animal Kingdom, Disney faced a seemingly insurmountable problem. They had to build a bigger, better zoo, and it held additional challenges, too. The new gate at Walt Disney World had to sustain multiple habitats of creatures, many of whom were natural enemies. Literally thousands of inhabitants would call Animal Kingdom their home.
Park planners rightfully wondered what would happen if they struggled in their early days as zookeepers. What would happen to their latest park if the early buzz were negative? After the perceived misses at Disneyland Paris and Disney/MGM Studios, they couldn’t afford another high profile failure, even if they didn’t view either of the other two parks in that light. The media did, and their constant negative stories about each business became a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
To avoid a third mistake, Disney execs understood that they needed an ace in the hole. That ace was a premise that tested well with theme park tourists. Disney has been the master of the survey for decades now, and they meticulously sampled the population during the early phase of Animal Kingdom planning. When they pitched the idea of a Disney zoo of sorts, complete with creatures who weren’t indigenous to North America, guests were largely positive.
Image: Disney
The idea of a land of dinosaurs understandably did well in the wake of the Jurassic Park franchise. In fact, in the year prior to the opening of Animal Kingdom, The Lost World: Jurassic Park had earned the largest opening weekend ever for a movie up until that point. A Disney version of the Jurassic Park premise held a great deal of appeal.
As well as both of these premises tested, however, a clear winner emerged during the polling phase of Animal Kingdom. Disney pitched potential guests on the idea of a fantasy land predicated on the same fables that Uncle Walt had used as the backbone of some of his most famous films. Even with only a few details offered, pollsters lapped up the concept of what Disney was internally referencing as Beastly Kingdom. Their market research suggested that while all of their ideas for Animal Kingdom were good ones, their fantasy realm brought to life at Walt Disney World would sell the most tickets. Why would Disney choose not to build something that they knew would sell well? We’ll get to that in a bit. For now, let’s discuss the blueprints for the mystical realm that Imagineers never got to build.
The seed of both good and evil
Image: Disney
Whether you love Disney’s heroes or the villains that oppose them so aggressively, you understand the appeal of the bad guy. Even in the mid-90s, Disney had already understood just how popular their rogues gallery was. Selling merchandise of the mortal enemies of Snow White and Cinderella doubled the revenue potential for the brands. More importantly, it established the thin line between love and hate, that gray area that Disney embraced.
As they plotted Animal Kingdom, some enterprising planner had a historic epiphany. Disney could build an entire themed land that pitted good against evil. Patrons wandering this land of mythical creatures would explore two regions. The realm of virtue and goodness would feature a unicorn as its centerpiece. The realm of dark malevolence would have the grander showpiece. A dragon would lord above the ruins of a castle. Perched atop its highest tower, his baleful glare would dare any challenger to approach the crumbling façade.
The twin paths were classic Disney to the core. They would provide theme park tourists with the ability to choose their own adventures. Anyone seeking serenity and light could walk the path of the unicorn. A thrill seeker could eschew kindness, daring to trespass in the place where angels fear to tread. The premise of Beastly Kingdom was epic in scope, thrilling to contemplate, and insanely appealing even to the most casual of Disney guests. It would have catered to a much more populist crowd than any other themed land at Walt Disney World, save for the ones at Magic Kingdom.
The good place
Image: Disney
Unless you are a diehard Fantasia or It’s a Small World fan, you likely wouldn’t have preferred this side of Beastly Kingdom to its companion sector. The realm of good mythical creatures didn’t have the sex appeal of its competitor for reasons that will become abundantly clear in a moment. That doesn’t lessen the brilliance of its premise, though.
Let’s call this side of the themed land The Good Place. Animal Kingdom guests wandering the path of light would discover a peaceful set of inhabitants living in an impossibly bright and colorful habitat. Gardens and ponds were a constant presence in the illustrations and early renderings of The Good Place.
The architecture intended to pay tribute to the classic Greek myths of yore in subtle and overt fashion. The subtle manner was that the buildings would honor the Greek design traditions, with Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian columns. Guests would feel like Odysseus as they encountered fantastic beasts in structures straight out of Homer’s epic poems. As was the case in his Odyssey, water was planned as a constant presence in The Good Place. Gentle streams and ponds would provide a soothing reassurance in this utopian environment.
Image: Disney
While a few minutes of peace and calm sounds at Animal Kingdom sounds blissful enough on its own, The Good Place would also offer a pair of attractions to its guests. The easier to understand of the duo was Fantasia Gardens. Drawn as a loving tribute to and recreation of Fantasia, this ride would have the same structure as It’s a Small World. A little boat ride would transport the visitors of this idyllic land into the movie Fantasia.
Specifically, the guests would visit the Dance of the Hours ballet and Pastoral Symphony segments of Fantasia. As a Disney fan, your synapses should already be firing with imagery of dancing ostriches and hippos, elephants blowing bubbles, and female centaurs frolicking in the water. Understandably, music was planned as an integral part of the ride experience. Your musical vessel would play Ponchielli and Beethoven as you journey through the whimsical land of mythical fauns and cupids.
Image: Disney
In recent years, Disney has mastered the art of recreating the best scenes from their most popular movies. The concept of a boat ride through Fantasia, with accompanying visuals akin to The Little Mermaid: Ariel’s Underwater Adventure is bittersweet to contemplate. It would clearly stand out as one of the best and most family-friendly rides not just at Animal Kingdom but on the entire Walt Disney World campus. The fact that it doesn’t exist is heartbreaking to any fan of the masterworks of Walt Disney the animator and filmmaker.
The other proposed signature attraction at The Good Place is a bit trickier to conceptualize. Entitled Quest of the Unicorn, it was projected as a maze environment that would appeal to fans of questing in particular. Guests of the hedge maze would walk through explorable sections, each of which featured puzzles to solve. Yes, you read that correctly. This wasn’t a ride per se but instead a walking expedition. Many of the times Disney has plotted such attractions, they’ve wound up becoming rides instead, with Haunted Mansion as the most famous example.
The novelty of Quest of the Unicorn may have required guests to explore, though. In considering it, Kim Possible World Showcase Adventure and Agent P’s World Showcase Adventure at Epcot are similar comparisons, although the Beastly Kingdom version would have been grander in scale.
While trying to solve the various puzzles, guests would interact with mythological creatures, all of which were benevolent to their visitors. These animals would guide their new friends to the correct answers, thereby activating five golden icons and sending them along to the next portion of the maze. Once a person had completed all five sections, they gained admittance to the hidden grotto where the gorgeous Unicorn resided. Presumably, this would have been a photo op for the ages, and the look of joy on a kid’s face when they saw the fabled Unicorn for the first time would have been unforgettable for parent and child.
As great as The Good Place sounds in theory, however, it pales in comparison to…
The Dark Side…
image: Disney
The other half of Beastly Kingdom wouldn’t have demonstrated friendliness to strangers. To the contrary, its purpose was to dissuade any potential visitors from stepping foot in these forbidden lands. The first step would involve crossing a bridge. Guarded by a troll. You’re on the internet right now. You know how annoying these things are. Disney strategized that they could make Beastly Kingdom even more foreboding by ostensibly denying entry. They wanted to foster a first person perception of a waking nightmare.
Once you’ve vanquished the troll, you step into a dystopian nightmare of fantasy horror. Imagine, if you will, a dark twist on the villages from The Sword in the Stone. These medieval constructs have the look and feel of any basic town, save for one key difference. The center of town includes the same structures as Stonehenge, hinting at dark rituals performed against previous villagers. Other indicators of discord litter the ground. The broken swords and lances of would-be heroes reveal their fates. This settlement isn’t welcoming to strangers.
As you enter the area surrounded by stones, your eye can’t help but be drawn to the most impressive building in town. Formerly the castle of a beloved ruler, it’s since fallen into a permanent state of disrepair. The castle stones look like they could collapse at any moment, and you wonder for an instant why no one has bothered with their upkeep. Then, your eye continues further up the ramparts, and you suddenly have your answer.
A fearsome dragon towers above the castle. Its toothsome smile is readily apparent, even from the village below. Its breathing causes puffs of smoke to cloud the air, poisoning everything nearby. The posture of the most fantastic beast at Beastly Kingdom tells the story. You’re in in this wyrm’s domain, and all the evidence surrounding you suggests that it slays all intruders.
Image: Disney
Suddenly, you hear voices, whispers from above. You wonder for a moment if the sight of the dragon has driven you insane, but the sibilant murmuring continues. You look up and notice hundreds of eyes upon you. The dilapidated castle still hosts numerous residents. Mischievous bats live just beneath the dragon’s current perch.
These bats have spent years plotting and strategizing the perfect crime. They seek to lure the dragon out of his lair long enough to still the priceless treasures stored within. When they take notice of you, the first new visitor in ages, they hatch a play. The bats use an odd combination of mockery and humor to cajole you into stepping inside the castle. You know it’s an act of sheer madness yet you feel compelled to enter. The mysteries held within are too tantalizing. In this moment, you cast aside all your fear and doubt and step inside the Dragon Tower, ready to meet your fate.
As you can tell from the above description, the sole attraction on the dark side of Beastly Kingdom was epic in scope. Imagineers had the wildest ambitions for the linchpin ride at Animal Kingdom. They fully expected the Dragon Tower to stand as the primary monument not just in this themed land but for the entire park. During the blue sky phase of planning, they unleashed their creativity in plotting a ride epic in scope and truly badass in nature.
Image: Disney
Make no mistake on this point. Imagineers designed Dragon Tower as a roller coaster on a par with California Screamin’ or Rock ‘n’ Roller Coaster Starring Aerosmith, both of which would debut soon after Animal Kingdom. At the time, Disney was sensitive to the criticism that is parks lacked true thrill rides. The signature attraction at Beastly Kingdom would emphatically end those arguments.
The expected version of Dragon Tower would include your interactions with the sardonic bats. They’d goad you into boarding the ride and heading toward the proverbial dragon’s lair. You can figure out what would happen next. The dragon would stir from its slumber, take note of its unwelcome guests and proceed to chase you through the various rooms of the desolate castle. A few fireballs straight from the dragon’s maw would singe you a bit as you tried to escape. Eventually, you’d narrowly survive your encounter, leaving you and the bats in the belfry to split the spoils of your heist.
Basically, depending on your favored medium, Dragon Tower would place you in the role of Dirk the Daring from Dragon’s Lair or Bilbo and his team of dwarves in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. Based on the drawings I’ve seen, I say in complete sincerity that this is the best dark ride concept in the history of Disney…and I’m saying that while acknowledging that Disney is the originator and master of the dark ride. It would have been magnificent. While The Good Place would have had its supporters, the dark side of Beastly Kingdom would have become the biggest draw at Animal Kingdom and possibly anywhere at Walt Disney World outside of Magic Kingdom.
Why didn’t any of this happen? Well, mistakes were made…
They’re engaged but they haven’t set the date
Image: Disney
Despite spectacular net income results in 1996 and 1997, Eisner felt the need to show caution in building his latest themed park. Many of the people involved with the design of Animal Kingdom worried that fictional characters would distract from the zoo premise, even as they corrected anyone who had the audacity to describe it as a zoo, a huge no-no in Disney’s staff rooms. They felt the same way about dinosaurs, but they recognized they weren’t going to win that battle for a reason we’ll discuss in a moment.
Fictional creatures became a subject of a vast schism within the walls of Disney. It was a rare instance where the artists and the bean counters lined up on a subject. Disney’s most creative employees relished the idea of letting their imaginations run wild, recreating some of their favorite stories in a themed land that existed for precisely that reason. It was the first chance in 40 years to walk in the same footsteps as Walt Disney, who created Disneyland as a way to bring people’s dreams to life.
For the bean counters, the situation was more basic. Disney believes strongly in anchor products at theme parks. The reason why so many landmarks exist at each of their gates is hidden in plain sight. Cinderella Castle, Space Mountain, and Spaceship Earth all build awareness. They’re static monuments that have a second function as permanent billboards, warmly inviting guests inside. You may see a giant golf ball when you approach Epcot, but what you’re really noticing is a sublime marketing tactic.
Image: Disney
Beastly Kingdom would have this hook. The dragon lording over his domain would menace onlookers, accidentally adding mystery and intrigue to the lair it guarded. Guests would also embrace the challenge of overcoming the five great feats in order to gain an audience with the unicorn. Even ignoring both of these tactics, a more basic aspect appealed to the numbers crunchers. The data suggested that Beastly Kingdom was the ultimate draw at Animal Kingdom, not the zoo element. Most major cities have zoos, after all. The pervasive belief before the Disney version became a reality was that they couldn’t do much better than the ones already in existence. We know now that this was a shortsighted philosophy, but it explains the polling data. Beastly Kingdom promised something new and different, and that made it a draw.
When Eisner had to choose how to disburse his resources, he weighed all the options and promptly made a terrible decision. He sided with those who believed Animal Kingdom should highlight its animals, an understandable philosophy. Where history would bemoan his judgment was in the second call.
Image: Disney
When facing two options and understanding that he could only afford one, Eisner chose to pay tribute to dinosaurs with DinoLand U.S.A. It was the Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan moment in theme park history. Disney spent the bare minimum in bringing DinoLand U.S.A. to life, and even the most casual of theme park tourists could tell. From day one, it felt like a hastily thrown together attempt to boost the total number of attractions and distractions at Animal Kingdom rather than a viable themed land.
Meanwhile, Eisner promised all his park planners that Beastly Kingdom would become an integral part of phase two at the park. Going back to the original Disneyland, a quick series of updates was a staple of the company. While they hadn’t excelled as much in Eisner’s tenure, he planned for Animal Kingdom to change the perception of his leadership and vision. Beastly Kingdom was so critical to his vision for the quick expansion of Animal Kingdom that he included it in his introductory speech. The silhouette of a dragon is also part of the park logo to this day. Everyone involved was that confident of its inevitable arrival.
Cannibals at Walt Disney World!
Image: Disney
Why didn’t Beastly Kingdom become a part of phase two of Animal Kingdom? Let’s now have an odd discussion about park attendance and its shocking impact on the fate of Beastly Kingdom, starting with a simple question. Why did Disney build Animal Kingdom? The answer isn’t altruism. Yes, Walt Disney himself was a champion of environmental causes and animal conservation. Yes, even the early days of Disney television series featured interactions with nature, a premise they’ve honored with their recent line of Disneynature movie releases. But the corporation’s love of planet Earth and all of its inhabitants only goes so far. It’s money that matters.
The core concept to Animal Kingdom was that it would secure the short-term future of Walt Disney World after the hiccup at Disney-MGM Studios. Everyone involved from Eisner down to the Imagineers to loyal cast members believed that a fifth park was only a matter of time. Still, Animal Kingdom stood above the other 1990s structures as the most important project. Its overriding purpose was to boost attendance at Walt Disney World.
Even the harshest skeptics of this project never questioned its appeal. Analysts and fans alike universally acknowledged that their fears about Animal Kingdom involved functionality, not drawing power. Building and sustaining innumerable ecosystems in plain sight of the viewing public seemed like a daunting if not impossible situation for Disney. Everyone agreed that if they pulled it off, they’d reap the financial rewards.
Oops.
Image: Disney
A concept called cannibalism exists in the theme park world. Don’t worry. It’s not quite as Donner Party as it sounds. Disney execs describe one of their worst traffic problems by using this particular term. To them, cannibalism occurs when the creation of some new attraction or exhibition pulls attendance away from other, similar venues.
As an example, when Disney builds a new restaurant, they don’t want to siphon attendance away from existing restaurants. Instead, their goal is to expand the overall appeal at eating at a Disney theme park rather than bringing your own food or leaving the park to eat somewhere else. Disney is now paying additional costs for constructing and staffing a new business onsite. They need to counterbalance those expenses by earning more revenue thanks to customer patronage.
The concept of cannibalism drives a surprising number of decisions at the various Disney theme parks. Shows and fireworks in particular are worrisome since these activities require a lot of a guest’s free time. Disney has to structure the displays in a way that attendants will remember to keep their wallets open. Otherwise, by offering such wonderful distractions, Disney decreases its own bottom line each day.
Never celebrate until you’re in the end zone
Image: Disney
The ultimate cautionary tale of cannibalism at Walt Disney World is, perhaps fittingly, Animal Kingdom. After spending almost a billion dollars to build and staff their fourth gate, Disney execs were euphoric about its early reviews. Virtually all of them championed the park as a hallmark achievement in theme park design and execution. Of particular note to critics was that Disney somehow introduced thousands of animals to the natural habitat of central Orlando without endangering them or the strangers suddenly interacting with them on a daily basis. And a lot of folks, myself included, were shocked that Animal Kingdom didn’t have that zoo/country fair smell. In short, Animal Kingdom’s debut was best case scenario for Disney, a much needed win after a few years of theme park disappointments.
Before Eisner could take his victory lap, the attendance numbers started to pour in. They were…surprising. Yes, attendance was solid at Animal Kingdom. In its first year, which was really just the last eight months of 1998, six million guests attended. That was a larger total than Universal Studios Hollywood managed for the entire year, and it crushed a couple of other popular local theme parks, SeaWorld Orlando and Busch Gardens Tampa Bay, too. That was the good news.
The bad news for Disney and Eisner was that attendance at all three other gates at Walt Disney World dropped in 1998. And then they dropped again in 1999. It’s true. In 1997, Magic Kingdom counted 17 million visits from guests. The following year, that total dropped a hefty eight percent to 15.6 million and then fell another three percent to 15.2 million in 1999. Epcot started with 11.9 million in 1997 but finished 1999 with only 10.1 million. Disney-MGM Studios also fell from 10.5 million to 8.7 million.
Image: Disney
Take a moment to think about these statistics from the Disney perspective. They had just invested a billion dollars to earn a traffic spike from loyal theme park tourists. Instead, something wildly unexpected had happened. Animal Kingdom had cannibalized the other three gates in a historically unprecedented manner.
Yes, the fourth gate garnered 14.6 million in attendance in 1998 and 1999. At the same time, the other three gates lost 9.1 million worth of tourists over a two-year period, with the losses being measured against 1997 park traffic. In other words, MGM fell by a million in 1998 from 1997, and its 1999 total was down an almost incomprehensible 1.8 million from 1997 totals. Disney’s “net gain” was 5.5 million park visits over two years, legitimately a fraction of what they’d projected. The worst news of all for Disney is that every lost customer meant lost revenue in the form of meals, merchandise, snacks, hotel stays, and incidentals.
What’s the consequence of this revenue shortfall? For a multinational conglomerate like Disney, the areas of impact are myriad. The Parks and Resorts division understandably felt it the most since their portion of the ledger was the one with the most troubling numbers. Walt Disney not only failed to capitalize on the addition of a fourth gate but found itself struggling to pay for the venture due to shaky attendance figures across the entire Walt Disney World campus.
Beastly Kingdoomed
Image: Disney
You don’t have to have a degree in Economics to see where this is going.
The underlying strategy of Disney’s Animal Kingdom was to entice theme park tourists to expand their travel plans. Guests would now need to stay an extra day at Walt Disney World to see and do everything. Disney’s Animal Kingdom was for all intents and purposes a strategy Disney execs employed to increase their vacation from four days to five or from six days to seven. This may not seem like a huge deal to you, but it’s as much as a 25 percent increase in revenue for a theme park owner. Disney was COUNTING on that income, first to pay for the cost of construction and then later to become a source of evergreen revenue. The traffic shortfall was a setback with far-reaching consequences felt for years in Orlando.
With Animal Kingdom having failed in its primary task, improving Disney’s bottom line in the Parks and Resorts division, reality hit home for most of its champions. Even the most ardent supporters of the concept appreciated that the CEO and board of directors wouldn’t look at Animal Kingdom as worthy of further expenditures, at least not in the short term. Any hope of a massive phase two expansion at the park fell by the wayside.
Twin postscripts
Image: Disney
As Animal Kingdom approached its target opening date, Earth Day of 1998, one more bit of bad news hit Eisner’s desk. Park planners had serious concerns about the volume of park attendees relative to the number of attractions and areas available. They felt the pinch of not having the three spectacular attractions from Beastly Kingdom as well as the expected walking area of that themed land.
After a brainstorming session, Disney’s upper management hastily threw together a permanent summer camp known as Camp Minnie-Mickey. It originally featured a pair of live shows, only one of which has stood the test of time. The failed endeavor was Pocahontas and Her Forest Friends. It lasted a decade but claimed sparse attendance in its final years. The more popular stage show remains today; it’s Festival of the Lion King, the best thing to come out of the failed attempt at building Beastly Kingdom. Other than it, Camp Minnie-Mickey was largely a glorified time killer with some character meeting spots. Disney mercifully shut it down in 2014. And the reason for that is the second postscript.
In 2011, Disney shocked theme park observers, movie analysts, and basically everyone in the business world when they announced a new expansion for Animal Kingdom. Whether you want to call it Phase Two or something else, Pandora – The World of Avatar debuted in 2017. It exists in the same space that Eisner and a team of optimistic, creative Imagineers had once slotted for Beastly Kingdom.
