DreamWorks Land coming to USF (2024)
- Thread starter Brian G.
- Start date
-
Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
- Apr 30, 2017
- 735
- 2,025
Not going into the specifics of this land, I think its interesting to consider how archaic Universal's approach to family-oriented properties has become. In stark contrast to the company that opened the Florida park back in 1990, Universal is now overwhelmingly dependent on its family-friendly cartoon output. With Fast & Furious flailing and Jurassic... Whatever-it-Will-be lurching towards an unclear future, the studios most reliable, high profile franchise output is its Dreamworks and Illumination properties - Minions, Despicable Me, Kung-Fu Panda, Mario, etc. Those are the films currently defining the Universal brand. Remarkably, over the last couple years, Universal has made a very serious move to unseat Disney as the dominant family film studio. In light of that, the parks clinging to the "more adult" approach of the 90s is severely out of step with what the Universal brand actually is today. The parks need to realign their overall strategy to acknowledge that Universal no longer means Kong, Jaws, and Back to the Future (as much as I love those properties), it means Minions, Kung-Fu Panda, and Mario. At the most basic level, that means they need a lot more rides - major, E-ticket rides, as well as supporting attractions - with no height limits.
Or they could build an Oppenheimer ride and hope that that film launches a durable franchise. But I think the cartoons are probably a better bet.
Or they could build an Oppenheimer ride and hope that that film launches a durable franchise. But I think the cartoons are probably a better bet.
Nope. BTTF & JAWS are STILL talked about & lamented by non-fanboys. The GP STILL asks where the JAWS Ride is 12 years later (and I hope they never stop)
A 3hr ride is not practical for capacity..
- Dec 28, 2009
- 309
- 647
I don't care what Universal says from now on all of these posts are canon in my mind for this coaster.
Well I have much more confidence in Pokémon.
Yes, it looks cute from afar to draw you into its attack range.
Okay for real it is mildly off-putting but hopefully it looks better in person. It could also be the Other Mother of kiddie coasters.
Anyway it is great to see it testing! The rest of the makeover for the ride has been a really to change to brighten up this spot and I'm sure the kids will love it. Or else.
Well I have much more confidence in Pokémon.
Since we don't have Alien Encounter anymore this is the next best thing. They don't even need to ride it just have them stare into its face as its coming down the hill. lolIf the little ones are being bad, threaten them with a ride on the mean scary Troller Coaster.
Yes, it looks cute from afar to draw you into its attack range.
That's what the riders are for.
Okay for real it is mildly off-putting but hopefully it looks better in person. It could also be the Other Mother of kiddie coasters.
Anyway it is great to see it testing! The rest of the makeover for the ride has been a really to change to brighten up this spot and I'm sure the kids will love it. Or else.
"You looked into my eyes! Your destiny now lies beyond the Gates of Doom!"
- Dec 28, 2009
- 309
- 647
No one complains about the Mummy taking everyone's souls so I don't expect to hear anything about this.
- May 26, 2010
- 5,823
- 16,240
Very interesting observation that I'd like to clarify a bit...
Universal Pictures (the specific department/outfit) has had a pretty strong slate by backing proven filmmakers (Jordan Peele, Christopher Nolan, M. Night), picking and choosing the (hopefully) most commercially powerful Blumhouse offerings, and putting out a ginormous blockbuster popcorn muncher every year or two (Jurassic World, Fast and Furious). Illumination and Dreamworks operate in their own little silos, with the C-suite Illumination really pulling the strings (hence the awful layoffs hitting Dreamworks over the past couple weeks). Together, though, you've got a very healthy studio with a varied menu.
As far as theme parks go, animation is the thing to keep an eye on. Animated properties are much easier to base theme park attractions on for a multitude of reasons.
- Jul 13, 2018
- 3,111
- 5,383
It makes logical sense.
But at the same time, I'd be lying if I said I didn't sense that the IP composition has started to skew a little young, which I think has happened for two reasons:
1. Universal's recent live action film output -- while clearly filled with successful offerings -- doesn't really have any cultural mega-hits (like JAWS, BACK TO THE FUTURE, and E.T.) that also appeal to all ages, are ready-made for theme park implementation, and aren't already represented (i.e. the JURASSIC films, FAST & FURIOUS).
2. A general sense that kids want explicitly kid-centric properties to be more represented, which leads you animation as source material. I think that's a misread of kids' willingness to handle "older" IPs (I was a kid once, and I loved all the properties that were part of USF's first iteration, for example), but you can see how the thought process gets there.
I hope, despite some of my reservations about it, that Dark Universe is a huge hit at Epic Universe, because that's ostensibly a "live action" and more "adult" set of characters that can appeal to a wide age range.
Skew young? There's only one example I can think of - DreamWorks; and it's an area that USF needed to address. Minions is the most family-friendly of recent additions which appeals to a lot of ages. Over at Epic Universe, Dragons is filled with rides for older-age families. I'm not following the logic here?
We can't apply our sensibilities and what we liked as a kid to what kids want today. My nephews love Mickey. You would've thought I was committing an atrocity when I showed them the Mickey "I" grew up with. They wanted their version of Mickey.
My point is that modern Universal does not have many additional BIG live action franchises to tap for theme park usage, so they're leaning more on animation, game, and licensed IP.
I would again point out that I've been pounding the table for a SLOP-esque family dark ride for years at this point, which would almost certainly be themed to an animated property of some kind, so I'm not making a value judgment about themes that have an explicit kid appeal.
(Though would I like it if there were more things like Jaws, Hitchcock, Earthquake, Ghostbusters, Twister, etc.? Of course.)
I would again point out that I've been pounding the table for a SLOP-esque family dark ride for years at this point, which would almost certainly be themed to an animated property of some kind, so I'm not making a value judgment about themes that have an explicit kid appeal.
(Though would I like it if there were more things like Jaws, Hitchcock, Earthquake, Ghostbusters, Twister, etc.? Of course.)
That’s not really a Universal problem, though. No studios are putting out monster hits like the ones you mentioned. That’s more of a market issue than a theme park one.
Off the top of my head, the only recent smash hit movie that could benefit from a brand new thrill ride would be Top Gun…and even then, that’s an IP that could have been (and was) tapped for theme park use 40 years ago. When all of the major blockbusters are franchise reboots and sequels, the well is going to be dry regardless of what portfolio you have the rights to.
I think your point is more of a chicken-and-egg situation; yes, animated (“kid’s”) movies are more widely available to draw inspiration from, but that’s because kids are a built-in audience. It’s the second-least risky product Hollywood can put out. So is it really that kid-friendly IP are what should be/will be dominating the parks in the future? Or is it the opposite, that there are so many kid-friendly IP available because none of them have to hit that level of cultural relevance that a Jurassic, Fast & Furious, etc. to push through their target audience?
That's certainly true, but this is a Uni-centric thread, so I confined my commentary to that.
I would be happy to discuss how I think Disney should be responding to this issue elsewhere!
- Jan 30, 2013
- 1,951
- 4,700
Potential benefit of animation is it feels like there’s a higher chance for animatronics. That was definitely a point of contention with Shrek’s replacement. But if we’re doing live action, we typically need the actors, which apparently means we need screens.
A continued mix of both live action and animation is probably their best bet.
A continued mix of both live action and animation is probably their best bet.
I guess I should’ve specified that it’s not a problem specific to any theme parks with IP licensing agreements. The movie landscape is not as accommodating to the movies that gave us the best rides in the past, so the lack of new Jaws/BttF/Kong speaks more to that than to a shift in any park’s ideology.
- Dec 3, 2020
- 961
- 3,081
This, the only new live-action property I can think of from the last however many years that makes a great translation to theme parks is Guardians of the Galaxy, but even that is a spinoff of Marvel.
- Dec 29, 2022
- 1,801
- 5,114
