The Future of Lost Continent

[Mike S]

I found more evidence that this will become Pokemon when I unearthed this leaked concept art of the Mythos replacement. It appears to be legit by how professional the artwork looks. I believe the name will be Gloom's Gourmet Gastropub.

I have no idea if it’s purposely clever that you didn’t use Snorlax instead or not lol.

 

[quinnmac000]

If they only waited, they could just theme this entire space to the odyssey

 

[Imperius]

If they only waited, they could just theme this entire space to the odyssey

Yeah don’t think Odyssey has the same pull as Pokemon.

 

[Legacy]

If they only waited, they could just theme this entire space to the odyssey

It already was themed to the Odyssey, basically.

 

[Magistra]

I feel like the perfect spot for it is the comic strip town section of Toon Lagoon. Least popular section of the land? Check. Largest section of the land? Check. Enough room for a solid boat ride? Check.

Exactly. Why put it right slap up against Potter? (Yes, I know, because that's the land that needs a replacement now.) They need a strong IP on the other side of the park to draw crowds away from Potter, not next door. Plus they're tearing down a beautiful land to build a land of marts, gyms, and labs? Ugh. I feel Lost Continent is a terrible place for it. I won't even be able to avoid it like the plague because I'll have to pass through it to get to Hogsmeade unless I want to go around the entire park. But it will be popular AF and will give families another reason to spend money on power-up bands, I guess. Couldn't they at least make the land semi-attractive? A Japanese landscape appeal to those of use who aren't interested in Pokécrap. Build a beautifully-themed land (like HTTYD) populated with cute animals, and they will come. But you need both.

 

[Imperius]

Not sure how we’re hating the aesthetics of a land that hasn’t even started construction.

 

[Magistra]

Wanting Nintendo contained in EU is like wanting Universal's IPs to never leave USF.

"I don't want Jurassic Park at IOA, that's just more Universal and I'm tired of Universal".

Also, unlike Potter which is one IP, Nintendo's IPs have different fan bases. If they decided to announce that Animal Crossing is replacing Simpsons, that's a different crowd than the ones who'd get excited over Zelda at IOA/Epic. Or Kirby. Or Metroid. Or Splatoon. Or Pikmin. Or Star Fox.

Meanwhile if you don't like Harry Potter, well that's three giant lands across the parks you won't really be into, but that's okay, I'm sure Universal puts the same care and effort into things like JP and Seuss like they do HP!

hahaha....

True, but I've heard from people who aren't Potter fans who love Diagon Alley. There's something about a land that resembles a quaint English village with a fire-breathing dragon and wizards that is almost universally attractive whether you care for the Potter stories or not. A Jurassic-age jungle just doesn't have the same appeal. I agree that Nintendo has multiple properties that could be the basis of a land or at least an attraction and that it's smart to divide these up between two or three parks, though.

 

[Mike S]

Not sure how we’re hating the aesthetics of a land that hasn’t even started construction.

Yeah, for all we know the land could be designed to look like the upcoming Winds & Waves for the aesthetics and cross promotion while still having whatever Pokémon they want to include.

 

[Magistra]

They could always expand a bit into the water, as they have with Velocicoaster.

I was honestly hoping for an Oz/Wicked-themed boat ride that ended at the yellow brick road, with Mythos being turned into a beautiful Shiz dining hall and with the boats floating through/beside the restaurant like the Pirates of the Caribbean boats do. So that's not happening, but would a well-themed boat ride be a terrible vehicle for a Pokémon land? I'm not a Pokémon fan, so I can't say, but a beautifully landscaped boat-ride attraction would appeal to even me and my friends, who can't tell a Charizard from a MewTwo. (Yes, I had to look up those names.) Or maybe they'll at least build a walkway over the water, from Seuss Landing to Hogsmeade, so those of us who want to buypass the Poké Madness can do so.

 

[Clive]

I don't think they're going to build infrastructure to service folks who... don't like the aesthetics of Pokemon? I mean, there is that bridge right past Mythos if you want to use it, but...

...I gotta second @Imperius, this isn't really a productive conversation because we literally no idea how they're going to aesthetically execute Pokemon. It isn't worth getting worked up about at this stage.

(Also, Dinosaur jungles absolutely have appeal? Jurassic Park is one of the biggest IPs in Universal's repertoire, and the beasts themselves are as evergreen as you can get!)

 

[Magistra]

I don't think they're going to build infrastructure to service folks who... don't like the aesthetics of Pokemon? I mean, there is that bridge right past Mythos if you want to use it, but...

...I gotta second @Imperius, this isn't really a productive conversation because we literally no idea how they're going to aesthetically execute Pokemon. It isn't worth getting worked up about at this stage.

(Also, Dinosaur jungles absolutely have appeal? Jurassic Park is one of the biggest IPs in Universal's repertoire, and the beasts themselves are as evergreen as you can get!)

What are the aesthetics of Pokémon exactly? Isnt' that the question?

But my thought was more along the lines of how crowded things are going to be on that side of the park and that even Pokémon & Harry Potter fans are going to get tired of having to wade through all those people to get to the Hogwarts Express, for example, or back towards the Port of Entry. (Edit: for example, I'm thinking of the area on the edge of Seuss Landing near the water that enables you to bypass most of the attractions themselves. Will the bridge next to Mythos expand all the way past the new Pokémon area? We'll see.)

Absolutely the dinosaurs themselves have appeal. But the rides have to be interesting. People don't go spend hours in the Jurassic Park shops or hang out eating ice cream just for the aesthetic. It's all about the characters (reptilian ones). Granted, the dino meet & greet and the occasional dinosaur statue do a lot to add interest to the scenery.

 

[Clive]

What are the aesthetics of Pokémon exactly? Isnt' that the question?

But my thought was more along the lines of how crowded things are going to be on that side of the park and that even Pokémon & Harry Potter fans are going to get tired of having to wade through all those people to get to the Hogwarts Express, for example, or back towards the Port of Entry.

Absolutely the dinosaurs themselves have appeal. But the rides have to be interesting. People don't go spend hours in the Jurassic Park shops or hang out eating ice cream just for the aesthetic. It's all about the characters (reptilian ones). Granted, the dino meet & greet and the occasional dinosaur statue do a lot to add interest to the scenery.

There are many ways to approach the aesthetics or even the pure setting to a Pokemon-themed land. We don't know what direction they're going in yet, so there's no reason to assume it will be ugly or unpleasant, which you did just a few posts ago. Specifically: "Couldn't they at least make the land semi-attractive?" I imagine they're going to try do so!

The crowded theme park is going to continue to be crowded, so I'm not sure what to tell you there. Again, we can't really assume if there'll be massive chokepoints or flow issues before the land is built. I'm sure it's something they're thinking about.

Velocicoaster is one of the biggest draws in the park, and River Adventure is at this point a classic attraction with very high ridership. The Raptor Encounter continues to be a big hit, hence the several moves to expand and plus it. You're making a lot of assumptions about what other visitors do and like because they don't map to the preferences of you or your circle.

 

[Magistra]

There are many ways to approach the aesthetics or even the pure setting to a Pokemon-themed land. We don't know what direction they're going in yet, so there's no reason to assume it will be ugly or unpleasant, which you did just a few posts ago. Specifically: "Couldn't they at least make the land semi-attractive?" I imagine they're going to try do so!

The crowded theme park is going to continue to be crowded, so I'm not sure what to tell you there. Again, we can't really assume if there'll be massive chokepoints or flow issues before the land is built. I'm sure it's something they're thinking about.

Velocicoaster is one of the biggest draws in the park, and River Adventure is at this point a classic attraction with very high ridership. The Raptor Encounter continues to be a big hit, hence the several moves to expand and plus it. You're making a lot of assumptions about what other visitors do and like because they don't map to the preferences of you or your circle.

I should have quoted the person who said all you need is a Pokémart and a gym or lab. That's where I got that description of the aesthetics from, not from my own head. My argument is that it needs to be an appealing-looking area one way or another. And yes, I think Universal will go that way, but there are some who seem to be suggesting that it's not necessary.

I never said anything about Jurassic Park not being an appealing IP. Where did you hear me say that? All I said was that the popularity of the land is different from that of the Wizarding World or Burk in that it's the appeal of the dinosaurs and the much-loved Jurassic Park movies that draws us to it, not the look of the land itself. Everyone finds dinosaurs interesting, even if they haven't seen the movies (but almost everyone has seen at least the first one and has probably even introduced their kids to it). Pokémon characters are also immensely popular, but not universally well-known the way dinosaurs are. It makes sense to try to check all the boxes, don't you think? Not because my tastes are the only ones, but because you want to appeal to people on as many levels as possible when dealing with a fractured, non-universal fanbase. If you agree and think Universal will absolutely try to create an appealing aesthetic for the land and not just rely upon character recognition and new interactive tech to attract guests, then it sounds like we agree!

I'm sure you're right that they'll do something to ease congestion if they put Pokémon right next to Hogsmeade. Hopefully it will be sufficient.

 

[Mike S]

I should have quoted the person who said all you need is a Pokémart and a gym or lab. That's where I got that description of the aesthetics from, not from my own head. My argument is that it needs to be an appealing-looking area one way or another. And yes, I think Universal will go that way, but there are some who seem to be suggesting that it's not necessary.

That might’ve been me and my point there was that as long as you have those recognizable buildings and the Pokémon themselves the aesthetic around it doesn’t matter much. I was defending the idea of basing the look of the land on the new games coming next year.

 

[Clive]

I never said anything about Jurassic Park not being an appealing IP. Where did you hear me say that? All I said was that the popularity of the land is different from that of the Wizarding World or Burk in that it's the appeal of the dinosaurs and the much-loved Jurassic Park movies that draws us to it, not the look of the land itself. Everyone finds dinosaurs interesting, even if they haven't seen the movies (but almost everyone has seen at least the first one and has probably even introduced their kids to it). Pokémon characters are also immensely popular, but not universally well-known the way dinosaurs are. It makes sense to try to check all the boxes, don't you think? Not because my tastes are the only ones, but because you want to appeal to people on as many levels as possible when dealing with a fractured, non-universal fanbase. If you agree and think Universal will absolutely try to create an appealing aesthetic for the land and not just rely upon character recognition and new interactive tech to attract guests, then it sounds like we agree!

I'm sure you're right that they'll do something to ease congestion if they put Pokémon right next to Hogsmeade. Hopefully it will be sufficient.

I mean, at a certain point I think we're splitting hairs here when it comes to IP vs environment, and you're dodging half of what I'm saying.

You also can't seem to decide if Pokemon is as close to a Universally beloved IP as you can get (it is) or "not universally well-known the way dinosaurs are." I think the real issue is that you just aren't into Pokemon, which is fine. I personally would've preferred it go to the Studios for a litany of reasons (crowd flow being one of them!), but I don't think where it appears to be landing is the big issue you seem to think it is.

 

[Magistra]

That might’ve been me and my point there was that as long as you have those recognizable buildings and the Pokémon themselves the aesthetic around it doesn’t matter much. I was defending the idea of basing the look of the land on the new games coming next year.

What recognizable buildings did you mean, though?

I don't see them building a second Asian-skinned Paris or a second jungle area, but I do think a Japanese village look would appeal to a large swathe of people.

I was rooting for an Isle of Berk land long before it was announced because it has a distinct type of architecture, fashion, and food loosely based on a civilization most people have heard of (Viking / Scandinavian) in addition to appealing characters. An aesthetically pleasing land that ties into a historical or fictional culture (or both historical and fictional, like Harry Potter) and style of architecture can do a lot to smooth over differences between generational fan bases and even attract people who otherwise might not be interested in the land at all.

Or they could go for something entirely new and creative. But tell me more about these recognizable buildings.

 

[Magistra]

I mean, at a certain point I think we're splitting hairs here when it comes to IP vs environment, and you're dodging half of what I'm saying.

You also can't seem to decide if Pokemon is as close to a Universally beloved IP as you can get (it is) or "not universally well-known the way dinosaurs are." I think the real issue is that you just aren't into Pokemon, which is fine. I personally would've preferred it go to the Studios for a litany of reasons (crowd flow being one of them!), but I don't think where it appears to be landing is the big issue you seem to think it is.

There have been a number of posts on here about how different people are interested in different generation Pokémon characters and don't give a crap about the other generations. That's what I'm talking about. Granted, they can manage that problem by selecting characters from each generation. I still think aesthetics matter.

 

[Mike S]

What recognizable buildings did you mean, though?

Pokémon Center, PokéMart, a Lab, a Gym, etc.

As long as those locations are represented I think most fans wouldn’t mind if they’re not draped in nostalgia of looking 100% like whatever game they grew up with.

 

[Magistra]

Pokémon Center, PokéMart, a Lab, a Gym, etc.

As long as those locations are represented I think most fans wouldn’t mind if they’re not draped in nostalgia of looking 100% like whatever game they grew up with.

I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. I thought you meant that the aesthetics of the buildings don't matter so long as their function aligns with the needs of a Pokémon universe. But what you're actually saying is not that you can just slap up a building that says "gym" and "lab" and whatever, but that Universal could get inventive with the look so long as the basic functions are there. Is that what you're saying? If it's the latter rather than the former, I agree.

Sorry if I misunderstood. I always loved the Lost Continent and go to Mythos every time I visit the parks (I'm from out-of-state) and even miss Poseidon's Fury in spite of how lame it was. I hate to see it replaced by a higher-tech version of the PokéPark Kanto. Not because I think Pokémon is a bad idea for a land. It's an absolute no-brainer and am surprised it hasn't been added already. To me, Pokémon would be an excellent replacement for Toon Lagoon both thematically and because there's more space there. But I get it; that's not an option.

 

[SkiBum]

On Screamscape, they have posted new Bio videos that show the back portion of the Poseidon building being deconstructed.