Epic Universe Expansion Speculation

[LPCaptainDeath]

Apparently, Warner Bros Movie Land in Australia is getting an Oz themed section with two rollercoasters - which i hadn't known before researching the topic - and i'm not sure if that complicates things further, being outside the U.S., but i can only assume it does.

That all being said, i do want to say that IF IT WERE TO HAPPEN, it *should* be an addition to Islands of Adventure out of the three parks:
ONE because it doesn't fit the studio/backlot nature of USF as well as it does the other two,
TWO because EU certainly won't need it or the attention of it anytime soon,
and THREE because Islands of Adventure is still a park where everything there is based off of stories; whether literary or mythological.

Until solid ground is broken on anything replacing anything in IoA, i'd like to see them continue with that theme and OZ would be perfect for that.

 

[Collin]

Apparently, Warner Bros Movie Land in Australia is getting an Oz themed section with two rollercoasters - which i hadn't known before researching the topic - and i'm not sure if that complicates things further, being outside the U.S., but i can only assume it does.

That all being said, i do want to say that IF IT WERE TO HAPPEN, it *should* be an addition to Islands of Adventure out of the three parks:
ONE because it doesn't fit the studio/backlot nature of USF as well as it does the other two,
TWO because EU certainly won't need it or the attention of it anytime soon,
and THREE because Islands of Adventure is still a park where everything there is based off of stories; whether literary or mythological.

Until solid ground is broken on anything replacing anything in IoA, i'd like to see them continue with that theme and OZ would be perfect for that.

The Warner Bros Movie World land will not affect anything with Wicked. Wicked is made and owned by Universal. They just cleverly dodge copyright issues with the 1939 film. This is why the shoes are silver/crystal in the Wicked movie. The green they use for Elphaba isn't the same shade as Margaret Hamilton's.

 

[TheUniC6]

Apparently, Warner Bros Movie Land in Australia is getting an Oz themed section with two rollercoasters - which i hadn't known before researching the topic - and i'm not sure if that complicates things further, being outside the U.S., but i can only assume it does.

That all being said, i do want to say that IF IT WERE TO HAPPEN, it *should* be an addition to Islands of Adventure out of the three parks:
ONE because it doesn't fit the studio/backlot nature of USF as well as it does the other two,
TWO because EU certainly won't need it or the attention of it anytime soon,
and THREE because Islands of Adventure is still a park where everything there is based off of stories; whether literary or mythological.

Until solid ground is broken on anything replacing anything in IoA, i'd like to see them continue with that theme and OZ would be perfect for that.

Plus Zelda for IOA is stuck in development hell at the moment apparently. At least USF has Pokemon lined up post EU and it appears to be making decent progress development wise. A Wicked land would be great to fast track while they figure out what to do for Zelda.

 

[Jake S]

I just feel bad for the poor horse that keeps needing to push this cart along with its face

 

[Magic-Man]

I just feel bad for the poor horse that keeps needing to push this cart along with its face

Breaking news: people will speculate in the speculation thread

 

[Brian G.]

Breaking news: people will speculate in the speculation thread

And people are allowed to respond accordingly. No one is shutting down spec.

The Warner Bros Movie World land will not affect anything with Wicked. Wicked is made and owned by Universal. They just cleverly dodge copyright issues with the 1939 film. This is why the shoes are silver/crystal in the Wicked movie. The green they use for Elphaba isn't the same shade as Margaret Hamilton's.

Well....aktually...

The silver/crystal shoes are novel-appropriate. The movie changed the color because color was a new tech they were pushing and silver was boring.

 

[Cup_Of_Coffee]

Honestly, the reality for speculation other than it being a forum is that Universal themselves have a billion dollar IP in the wings here that in many ways naturally leads to a theme park. Just wait till we see the movie and get even more and more specific on speculation!

 

[illumination]

And people are allowed to respond accordingly. No one is shutting down spec.


Well....aktually...

The silver/crystal shoes are novel-appropriate. The movie changed the color because color was a new tech they were pushing and silver was boring.

Both of you are correct. The shoes were silver in the original book, which is now over 100 years old and is public domain so anyone can use that story. The 1939 film made specific changes that are widely recognized but universal cannot use, such as the ruby slippers.

I think Wicked would translate so well to a theme park and would appeal to all ages. Even people who don't like The Wizard of Oz would enjoy it, much like everyone is impressed with the Harry Potter lands even if they didn't read the book or enjoy the movies. Would be a big mistake not to use it in one of the parks. Especially since IOA and Studios has some aging IP areas that are not nearly as popular and nobody would miss.

 

[Milo Davis]

I think if part 2 lands as well as part 1, something Wicked is almost a guarantee at this point

 

[RFRees]

When people think of Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and The Beast, Rapunzel, Pocahontas, The Little Mermaid, etc, people generally think of Disney. Disney has a very powerful way to take public IP and brand it as if they own it. Any other company who attempts their own version is just an off brand version. Universal has done/continues to do this with Monsters, for example.

I guarantee that Universal is attempting this with Oz. It's not just about Wicked, it's their attempt to brand the entire IP as theirs. I'd bet Universal would be willing to take a bigger financial risk in building a land if it meant cementing the IP as their own.

 

[belloq87]

I think it would be hard for any company -- even assuming both WICKED movies are giant hits -- to try to usurp the wider cultural conception of Oz from THE WIZARD OF OZ (the 1939 movie specifically). The WICKED films can gross a combined $3 billion, or whatever, but more people are still going to be more familiar with the '39 film just through cultural osmosis.

My point there is not that I don't think an attraction could happen (if both movies land big, I expect it's likely to happen somewhere), but more that I think it would be very specifically themed to (and named after) WICKED to set a guest's expectation levels (i.e. you're not going to be hearing the original songs, you're not going to be seeing a straightforward-evil Wicked Witch, Dorothy's not your protagonist, etc.).

 

[Mike S]

Why not get the rights to the 1939 movie as well? It’s not like Universal isn’t right now building a land that crosses time periods…

 

[quinnmac000]

II think it would be hard for any company -- even assuming both WICKED movies are giant hits -- to try to usurp the wider cultural conception of Oz from THE WIZARD OF OZ (the 1939 movie specifically). The WICKED films can gross a combined $3 billion, or whatever, but more people are still going to be more familiar with the '39 film just through cultural osmosis.

My point there is not that I don't think an attraction could happen (if both movies land big, I expect it's likely to happen somewhere), but more that I think it would be very specifically themed to (and named after) WICKED to set a guest's expectation levels (i.e. you're not going to be hearing the original songs, you're not going to be seeing a straightforward-evil Wicked Witch, Dorothy's not your protagonist, etc.).

AMERICANS. Most AMERICANS will be more familiar but its the opposite in other parts of the world as they did not grow up in a world with the yearly viewings of Wizard of Oz on network/cable tv as Americans did prior to streaming becoming a major thing. So for some places where this film is coming out, it is their first exposure to this big IP in general which means Wicked's Oz especially if both parts are a massive juggernaut will be their Oz.

It is also very likely Marc Platt who is the producer of Wicked the musical, the film, and also the producer of the reimagining of the New Wizard of Oz remake being developed at Warner Bros likely will work out some sort of deal for design continuity from these films so the interest for Oz can continue (which is likely why some surprising things and design elements showed up in the Wicked film despite copyright and why the markup director for Wicked also stated she had no limitations on the green tone for Elphaba compared to Disney).

Lastly a rising ship lifts all ships. Wicked fuels interest in Wizard of Oz and subsequent versions meaning they go to the stage show or see other variants which still benefits as Universal still gets a cut of the Wiz touring shows from what I've heard.

In the big picture, OZ has been relevant for over 100 years. Wizard of Oz based media has been prevalent for over 80 years ranging from influences in Film, Television, Music, and stage covering and moving hearts in over 25 top markets. It will need to be well done but I don't have any doubts Universal can succeed in that. The only risk is making something too stylized its ages fast.

 

[Collin]

Wicked has intentionally included references to the 1939 film and they try their best to avoid contradicting it. The only thing is the shoes, but we still have part two so who knows how they might try to dance around the copyright for that. I would think about it similarly to the Harry Potter lands. The lands are based on the movies but have easter eggs from the books. Think about Wicked in the same way. Wicked is the land but will have easter eggs to the 1939 film, along with things from the Oz novels. The Wicked movies are going to introduce Oz to a younger audience. I've seen plenty of parents making their kids watch the 39 movies before going to Wicked.

 

[rageofthegods]

Could they not partially get around the Oz problem by using film/play specific locations for a land? Shiz University and the surrounding forest are the main settings for the film. A land that emphasizes that with a section in the Emerald City could be fun.

 

[Collin]

Could they not partially get around the Oz problem by using film/play specific locations for a land? Shiz University and the surrounding forest are the main settings for the film. A land that emphasizes that with a section in the Emerald City could be fun.

Maybe I'm misreading, but they can do whatever with Oz since the books are public domain. They can't use unique elements of the 1939 film, for example, the shade of green for the wicked witch and the ruby slippers. The land can have Munchkinland, Emerald City, Shiz, and Kiamo Ko (aka the wicked witch's castle).

 

[fryoj]

The ruby slippers are kind of a big deal. Between that and the yellow brick road, those would be some of the iconic things from the movie. Is Yellow Brick Road fair game?

Emerald City would be the most likely iconic location for them to build, but I don't think the movie look of that is essential. Hell, a large scale green crystalline castle would probably be close enough that most wouldn't know the difference.

The look of the characters might be a bigger deal. How much of that is covered by copyright?

 

[mccgavin]

The ruby slippers are kind of a big deal. Between that and the yellow brick road, those would be some of the iconic things from the movie. Is Yellow Brick Road fair game?

I don't think it's a big deal to use the silver shoes, as they've been used in every other version of the story, including the original books. Guests can understand what they are.

Every other aspect of Oz is fair use, as long as it visually differentiates itself enough from MGM's version, which we can see in Wicked and Disney's theatrical Oz films.

 

[RFRees]

If the Wicked films are successful, there's no reason Universal would stop where the play ends. I'd expect them to expand the universe with more films / other media. It just makes sense from a business perspective.

 

[Milo Davis]

I think it would be hard for any company -- even assuming both WICKED movies are giant hits -- to try to usurp the wider cultural conception of Oz from THE WIZARD OF OZ (the 1939 movie specifically). The WICKED films can gross a combined $3 billion, or whatever, but more people are still going to be more familiar with the '39 film just through cultural osmosis.

My point there is not that I don't think an attraction could happen (if both movies land big, I expect it's likely to happen somewhere), but more that I think it would be very specifically themed to (and named after) WICKED to set a guest's expectation levels (i.e. you're not going to be hearing the original songs, you're not going to be seeing a straightforward-evil Wicked Witch, Dorothy's not your protagonist, etc.).

Tbh, I don’t think the Wicked themeing will make much of a difference for visitors - You still get the yellow brick road, you still get emerald city, you still get munchkin land, you still get the Lion, Tin Man, Scarecrow, Dorothy, Oz, a Good Witch, a wicked witch, flying monkeys and extremely popular songs (pun intended). The loss of ruby shoes and the movies songs is negligible in the big scheme of things. You can call the land Oz and people would still get to experience everything they’d expect to find.