Universal's New Park/Site B Blue Sky Thread

[Casper Gutman]

You said Mario was transcendently successful! Those are your words!

That was a poor choice of words, you’re correct. I was using “transcendent” simply as a superlative, not to indicate it had transcended its medium. I screwed up.

 

[Imperius]

Again again, I said earlier in this conversation that I think translating video games to other mediums is trickier then folks here acknowledge. That was one of my key points.

And I really think folks here oversell how succesful Pokémon is even as a VG. Please note: it is VERY VERY succesful. It has 7 of the top 50 games of all time. That is extremely impressive. BUT if we look at the top 20 of all time, Mario has 3 entries. GTA and Call of Duty both have 3. Pokémon has 1.

Let me put this as a question: What is the actual, non-anecdotal evidence that Pokémon is a pop culture juggernaut on the level of a Marvel or a Potter?

The fact you can go just about anywhere and find someone who knows Pikachu. The fact you can find merchandise anywhere. The fact Pokemon Go, a cell phone game can hold a Go fest and have 21000 people show up and 180000 in the area. What makes Marvel and Potter such juggernauts? Because they make wife selling movies? They’re video games suck so they don’t translate well to everything. Can’t just choose movies and say well Pokémon doesn’t work there while comepltely ignoring all other things. The TV shows do great.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Pokemon sells more merchandise in any given year than Mario sells in a decade. Not sure why we're comparing those two franchises in that fashion.

Mario's success is 99% attributed to video games. Pokemon's TCG alone has reached around $10 billion in sales (more than 25 billion cards). Pokemon has had a long-running TV show with a lot of movies (yes they're not box office hits, but a lot of people grew up on it). Pokemon is a completely different beast.

Despite all that, Mario's probably a bit of a better fit for a theme park attraction because it combines iconic locations/scenes with its known characters. Still, I'd never write off the popularity of Pokemon.

This is a good argument, evidence, and conclusion. I buy it. I still have some quibbles about Pokémon’s fit for a theme park, but on the whole I agree.

I do seem to recall that Mario outranks Pikachu in global recognition, though some cursory googling doesn’t seem to pull up any reputable evidence that this is true.

 

[JungleSkip]

This is a good argument, evidence, and conclusion. I buy it. I still have some quibbles about Pokémon’s fit for a theme park, but on the whole I agree.

I do seem to recall that Mario outranks Pikachu in global recognition, though some cursory googling doesn’t seem to pull up any reputable evidence that this is true.

Sure, Mario may be more recognizable, but no one is saying they should build Pokémon instead of Mario.

 

[Alicia]

Good morning, everyone. Time to check in-

 

[Magic-Man]

If we do get a Christmas-themed holiday section, I only have one wish: Matterhorn Bobsleds-like coaster themed to Frosty.

 

[tielo]

In the end it's not how big a pull the brand is but how amazing the ride/attraction/show/foodthingy/shop is in the theme park (proof: Waterworld).

Can this discussion be transferred to a new topic called: My Nintendo ip is bigger than your Nintendo ip.

 

[JungleSkip]

Yea, I think people are getting in their head this weird idea that every land needs to be a headliner and attract the same amount of people as the others, which is nearly impossible.

Super Nintendo World is the headliner. It's going to be the thing they crow about. If we're comparing Park 3's opening to another recent park, Shanghai Disneyland, SNW is the Pirates. Sure, Fantastic Beasts and DreamWorks won't have the draw SNW does, whether because Potter is already in the parks or because the DW properties aren't record breakers, but they still have a large number of fans. And as long as the lands built around those properties are at a high quality level, no one is gonna complain about them.

Sure, getting LOTR would have been great, but they didn't, apparently. It is what it is, but I don't think it cripples this park in any way.

 

[quinnmac000]

To go back slightly to the Nintendo argument in regards to Pokémon.

Pokémon is a blank slate which makes it perfect for a theme park because Universal can build it however they want using elements from 3 different sources (Anime, movies, games) to create a wholly original location. Universal most likely will do something like Pokémon- Universal City....an original park exclusive land.

That's the wow factor of Pokémon. Going into the world, seeing Pokémon move and interact with you, having them battle and walking with you, capturing them, and being totally immersed into that world that has expanded over the past 20 years.

The upcoming parks wow factor isn't the IPs. IPs don't do anything if not used right. The WOW factor for the upcoming park is the employment and implementation of IPs. Fast and Furious is a huge IP with a mediocre ride and low guest scores whereas the Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon isn't even a top five ranked night show yet has a ride with high guest satisfaction ratings.

I disagree that every ride/land doesn't need to be a headliner. Every land should be marketable just as much as the next.

Every land/attraction needs to be good enough to stand on its own and compete with the land/attraction next to it. Parks with uneven lands end up being somewhat disappointing because it has huge capacity issues where everyone flocks to one area while neglecting the rest.

 

[JungleSkip]

I disagree that every ride/land doesn't need to be a headliner.

Every land needs to be good enough to stand on its own and compete with the land next to it. Parks with uneven lands end up with huge capacity issues and have a DCA problem.

There's a difference between "stand on its own" and "every land needs to be Potter-level popular". That's just an unrealistic expectation.

 

[Alicia]

In the end it's not how big a pull the brand is but how amazing the ride/attraction/show/foodthingy/shop is in the theme park (proof: Waterworld).

Yup. If a ride or theme park land is good, people will flock to it, even if they have no interest in the IP. Pandora comes to mind.

Yea, I think people are getting in their head this weird idea that every land needs to be a headliner and attract the same amount of people as the others, which is nearly impossible.

Super Nintendo World is the headliner. It's going to be the thing they crow about. If we're comparing Park 3's opening to another recent park, Shanghai Disneyland, SNW is the Pirates. Sure, Fantastic Beasts and DreamWorks won't have the draw SNW does, whether because Potter is already in the parks or because the DW properties aren't record breakers, but they still have a large number of fans. And as long as the lands built around those properties are at a high quality level, no one is gonna complain about them.

Sure, getting LOTR would have been great, but they didn't, apparently. It is what it is, but I don't think it cripples this park in any way.

In 1999 I never woulda guessed Spider-Main would have been the best thing at Universal's new park. I couldn't wait for Jurassic Park. That was the big draw for me. But Spider-Man's ride system was so "amazing" it stole the show. I didn't care about Spider-Man the property (or much of Marvel at all back then,) but you better believe when I went home I told everyone I knew how great that ride was. Headliner attraction, best in the park, not an IP I ever cared about one bit.

 

[JungleSkip]

In 1999 I never woulda guessed Spider-Main would have been the best thing at Universal's new park. I couldn't wait for Jurassic Park. That was the big draw for me. But Spider-Man's ride system was so "amazing" it stole the show. I didn't care about Spider-Man the property (or much of Marvel at all back then,) but you better believe when I went home I told everyone I knew how great that ride was. Headliner attraction, best in the park, not an IP I ever cared about one bit.

I was actually about to bring that up. When IoA was designed, JPRA was the park's "big ride". It's why the Discovery Center is right in front of you when you come in the park. It's meant to draw you back that way. No one expected Spider-Man to be the success it was and become the park's signature attraction, including the people who built it.

 

[quinnmac000]

There's a difference between "stand on its own" and "every land needs to be Potter-level popular". That's just an unrealistic expectation.

Agreed, not every land will be as popular nor do I think anyone would/should want every land to be Potter level popular. That sounds like a miserable day at a theme park in regards to times spent in line/crowd size wise.

 

[Magic-Man]

I hope that they have something similar to USF’s new lagoon show. That did wonders for USF’s attendance, and that was with limited space. Just imagine what they could do with a blank slate.

There's a difference between "stand on its own" and "every land needs to be Potter-level popular". That's just an unrealistic expectation.

While I agree with this, it would have been nice to have a second large IP in the park. Nintendo is going to get massive crowds, no matter how much attractions and mini-lands they put in.

Yea, I think people are getting in their head this weird idea that every land needs to be a headliner and attract the same amount of people as the others, which is nearly impossible.

Super Nintendo World is the headliner. It's going to be the thing they crow about. If we're comparing Park 3's opening to another recent park, Shanghai Disneyland, SNW is the Pirates. Sure, Fantastic Beasts and DreamWorks won't have the draw SNW does, whether because Potter is already in the parks or because the DW properties aren't record breakers, but they still have a large number of fans. And as long as the lands built around those properties are at a high quality level, no one is gonna complain about them.

Sure, getting LOTR would have been great, but they didn't, apparently. It is what it is, but I don't think it cripples this park in any way.

Hopefully Classic Monsters is this park’s surprisingly awesome IP, similar to how Toon Lagoon was at opening. Except, you know, have other things to do that aren’t water-rides.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

I was actually about to bring that up. When IoA was designed, JPRA was the park's "big ride". It's why the Discovery Center is right in front of you when you come in the park. It's meant to draw you back that way. No one expected Spider-Man to be the success it was and become the park's signature attraction, including the people who built it.

Not to mention JPRA was in USH for years before IOA....

 

[Disneyhead]

Ok, guys, let's nail this down.

4 worlds.

1. SNW
2. WWJKRowling
3. ?
4. ?

Even though they are upgrading JP, Jurassic World isn't totally out of the question. And I would imagine that DreamWorks is one.

 

[Mad Dog]

Universal surveys often and seems to base many of their decisions on their surveys. I would guess Nintendo has done so well on the surveys, and with their own Comcast/Universal internal decision makers, that the decision was made to stop the Kidzone expansion and use Nintendo as the flagship of the new, accelerated opening, theme park. I'm not a gamer myself, but I can see how demographic broad based the Nintendo land potential is. This park will not have the opening issues IOA had. Universal has expanded their footprint and public acceptance as a major player since then. And all of these hotel rooms will certainly help to guarantee a decent opening attendance. Marketing is only going to be able to accentuate X number of IP's and attractions anyway. Those will be the drivers and the rest the gravy. On the secondary IP's the 'quality' of the rides/attractions will be more important than the IP's themselves.....And, I seem to recall a really long non confidential survey from a few years past that almost seems to align with most everything we're hearing about this new park. And the key to that was a diversified mix of rides (family, thrill,different types of ride systems, dark rides, hybrids, coasters) all set in fully fleshed out lands (worlds). Nintendo and some form of Potter will guarantee initial success. As long as the quality of the rides/attractions/shows is top flight, which I would expect especially after the F&F disaster internal UC discussions, the park will continue to stay strong after the initial opening. I'm very optimistic this will play well. :thumbsup:

 

[Magic-Man]

Ok, guys, let's nail this down.

4 worlds.

1. SNW
2. WWJKRowling
3. ?
4. ?

Even though they are upgrading JP, Jurassic World isn't totally out of the question. And I would imagine that DreamWorks is one.

DreamWorks is definitely going to be there. As for Jurassic World, although that would be awesome, I doubt it.

However, if they did put it in there, they could choose to make an entire Monsters section with Jurassic World and Classic Monsters.

 

[JungleSkip]

Ok, guys, let's nail this down.

4 worlds.

1. SNW
2. WWJKRowling
3. ?
4. ?

Even though they are upgrading JP, Jurassic World isn't totally out of the question. And I would imagine that DreamWorks is one.

Okay...total shot in the dark:

The "Worlds" will be supersized lands made up of multiple smaller lands and minilands. This has been my running assumption ever since the "Only 4 Lands" thing popped up.

1. Super Nintendo World

-The Mushroom Kingdom
-Donkey Kong Country
-Pokemon Safari Zone
-Expansion Plot​

2. Wizarding World of JK Rowling

-Fantastic Beasts New York
-Fantastic Beasts Paris​

3. World of DreamWorks

-Far, Far Away
-Island of Berk
-Trolls World Tour
-Expansion Plot​

4. Holiday World

-Halloween (Uni Classic Monsters)
-Christmas (Rankin&Bass, Grinch)
​

In my head, the Main St/Hub is a mixture of all the worlds, almost like the intersection of a bunch of different Universes.

 

[Teebin]

I am so big picture that I worry most what the central icon will be. I personally would dislike it if it was a Nintendo or any other IP. An original catch-all would probably satisfy me the most.