The Future of The Simpsons Ride/Springfield (Orlando)

[RFRees]

You did, when you pitched Seoul!

No one said K-Pop land. So please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[UOR92]

Shrek hater. Like which ones?

I've been providing responses when people have said there are no food, bev, or retail options, or questioning the popularity or profitability of the IP. If there are so many other IPs that are "more profitable and streamlined", let's hear the ideas that aren't Pokemon or Wicked then.

I actually like Shrek. I think they're great movies. My opinion on the quality of the movies is useless with relevance to the actual conversation at hand. You wanna bluesky? By all means. If you wanna have a rational conversation, I'll be here for it when I'm "allowed" to use their two most profitable properties available.

Oh...and Zelda.

As far as more streamlined, they've got plenty. There's a reason they built a playground for Shrek instead of a land. There's a reason they demolished Shrek 4-D and replaced it with a half-hearted Dave and Buster's arcade game. I can agree with you that Shrek has potential. What I'm communicating is that it has no future as a stakeholder for UOR. Proof is in the pudding.

 

[Brian G.]

No one said K-Pop land. So please don't put words in my mouth.

I mean, this is ultimately splitting hairs here, but the whole crux of your BlueSky idea with adding Seoul was K-Pop as the headline attraction - to "tap into the growing anime + K-Pop market". I don't think it's necessary to get that defensive about it when you know the gist of @Clive's point.

 

[Clive]

No one said K-Pop land. So please don't put words in my mouth.

First of all, no need to raise the temperature like that.

This isn't exactly my cup of tea, but this could make sense... build Seoul with the headlining attraction being K-Pop Demon Hunters.

Seoul would perfectly fit within the current lineup of Hollywood, San Francisco, London, and New York. It's also 'close enough' geographically that Universal could toss in other eastern IP without general audiences noticing.

K-Pop Demon Hunters could potentially be a huge hit for an attraction. The movie set streaming records, had a decent box office (despite efforts to sabotage), the singles are often heard on the radio, and they're planning follow-ups/sequels, solidifying long term potential. This IP would also directly hit the young adult audience similar to Potter and Nintendo, with broad family appeal (rated PG), and tap into the growing anime + K-Pop market (despite it being neither real anime nor true K-Pop). Netflix has worked with Universal in the past (Stranger Things), but I could see a deal falling through due to $$$ or Netflix's other themed entertainment plans.

I haven't seen the movie but people seemed to have enjoyed it.

When you build a new land specifically to anchor an IP-related attraction, you are in effect creating a land around that IP, even if you drop in side/smaller offerings that aren't linked to it. If you want to split hairs about the specific terminology, fine, but my point remains the same.

 

[AustinT]

By all means. If you wanna have a rational conversation, I'll be here for it when I'm "allowed" to use their two most profitable properties available.

Your words, not mine:

they’ve got more profitable, streamlined properties to use.

Wicked is not more profitable than Shrek, and Pokemon is strongly rumored to be going into LC. If you've got other ideas, then sure, drop them here

 

[MagdolHauntsMe]

If they replace The Simpsons, I'd really like to the land to go to a Universal film IP, since that is what this park is about. Something that is well-known and well-respected. Something that was popular and did about $1 billion worldwide at the box office. Something for grown-ups since we now have enough kids stuff in the parks already. Therefore, I am proposing Simpsons be converted into an Oppenheimer land.

 

[Brian G.]

Wicked is not more profitable than Shrek

You'd be surprised how close they are - and the only reason is that Shrek has had more films over the years.

 

[RFRees]

When you build a new land specifically to anchor an IP-related attraction, you are in effect creating a land around that IP, even if you drop in side/smaller offerings that aren't linked to it. If you want to split hairs about the specific terminology, fine, but my point remains the same.

I wouldn't call New York the "Jimmy Fallon Land." I wouldn't call Hollywood the "Bourne land." I wouldn't call Epcot's Paris the "Ratatouille land." I could go on.

Seoul would be created as an eastern anchor, similar to other city based lands at USF (with London being the exception). As I mentioned, they could easily add IP that would fit with this general geographic region. Kaiju, giant robots, martial arts, cyberpunk / futuristic themes all could work for a Seoul land. Avatar The Last Airbender, Pacific Rim, and many other IP which reference eastern culture could fit there as attractions. (If kids aren't criticizing K-Pop Demon Hunters for not being genuinely Korean, I doubt they'll have any issues with other IPs in this land.)

With the entire land not relying on the success of a single IP, they could change the IP of the attraction(s) as needed without having to demolish an entire land. This idea relies on Universal building a really cool non-IP land, instead of going all in on a single IP.

I'm not saying this is my top preference, but the reasons this doesn't work really comes down to A) a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the concept ("splitting hairs"), B) assuming Universal will never build a non IP focused land (which is likely true), and C) business deals falling through / not getting appropriate IPs to tie into the land (which is also valid).

My preference would probably be Tokyo, with the same general concept of non-IP based city with blockbuster style attractions. But I've seen that suggested already, so I thought I'd offer something fresh instead of arguing about the merits of Shrek for another few pages.

As far as the K-Pop Demon Hunters IP itself: Universal almost surely agrees with the rest of this forum... Too early to build an E ticket. But I think the IP is worth keeping an eye on. Yes it's early for this IP, but we're also talking about rides/lands that might not open until the 2030s.

 

[fryoj]

People seemed receptive to the idea that Simpsons not being included in the UOR banner refresh is relevant to their inclusion going forward, so keeping that in mind, here's the lineup of IP shown off at the main entrace to the resort.

I'd ask them if that means marvel not getting a banner is also relevant to their future. Simpsons isn't one of universal's top 6.

So you speak for everyone?

He was literally replying to someone saying "every millennial".

 

[TheCodeMan95]

Getting a little feisty in here - maybe we should just keep Springfield forever

(This is not self-serving in the slightest despite my love of the tacos)