We've discussed building out this building before though, right? I wonder if the delay is due to rebuilding behind the facade to accommodate a larger show?
Check out Google Maps. There's not a lot of room back there to build out, just a tiny triangle that's bordered by stuff that would require major demolition which simply won't happen.
There's not a lot of space to expand the seating area either. There's the pre-show area, the exit and a smallish gift shop. That wouldn't add that many seats. AND even doing that would require major demolition because theaters slope downward. Adding seating to the back would most likely require the roof be removed to improve sightlines for the new back rows.
When I heard about this project it was Bond or Bourne with live actors, screens, and effects. T23D 2.0.
Not Dreamworks.
Not StarTrek.
My biggest problem with that has been stated before: This theater is too small for any major production. Here are the general seating capacities of the Universal "spectacle" theaters: Animal Actors seats 1600+, Sindbad seats 1700+, Fear Factor seats 1900+ and the Toon Lagoon Theater seats more than 2000. T2 seats 700. For comparison, Shrek 4-D handles 324 people (I can't find info on the Horror Make-Up Show but it's probably between the two). A theater that is closer in size to Shrek than to any of the "real" theaters isn't going to get some major production. Especially considering it'll have to play hourly - at minimum - to make sure most of the people in the park have a chance to see it. Also, smaller theaters tend to house "kiddie shows" as many childless adults won't bother seeing them, so throughput isn't as much of an issue.
So, yeah, there's a possibility this could be a massively-scaled-down Jason Bourne show. The last movie "flopping" is not actually true. It's the second-highest-grossing film in the franchise. It just didn't have a lot of buzz after the fact. Even so, it's still a sad "franchise" compared to DreamWorks:
Shrek (5 films): $3.5B worldwide/
$702M average per film
Kung Fu Panda (3 films): $1.8B/
$606M average
Madagascar (4 films): $2.2B/
$564M average
How to Train Your Dragon (2 films): $1.1B/
$558M average
Bourne (5 films): $1.6B/
$327M average
James Bond: NOT a Universal franchise so stop talking about it
There are four "Universal franchises" that are not only far more popular than Jason Bourne, but all four are still alive with sequels on the way (Matt Damon has basically said Jason Bourne is done). The only way they would bother with him is if they have an idea for a show and they just needed a Universal IP to slap over it. So, yeah, for this space they could have stuff happening on a screen, and some actors doing something in front of it. But what would that show look like? Most of the excitement from these movies were from chase scenes or fight scenes. How would cars chase each other in a midsize theater? And will anybody be excited by a dude beating another dude with a rolled-up magazine on a tiny stage? It could end up something like the pre-show of the old Earthquake/Disaster ride or the old Hitchcock show, where guests are "inserted" into the movie via "movie magic". But is that considered "live action"? The PR makes it sound like it's going to be more "high-energy" than that. Universal can't afford another underwhelming attraction after Kong and Fast & Furious (which we KNOW will be underwhelming).
Comcast has proven time and time again that they like to go with sure things: Harry Potter, King Kong, The Simpsons, Transformers, Fast & Furious, Nintendo, DreamWorks Animation. Kung Fu Panda, with nearly twice the popularity of Jason Bourne, is pretty close to a sure thing. Jason Bourne is anything but.