Future of Toon Lagoon
- Thread starter Galaxy Defender
- 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.
- Jan 31, 2013
- 799
- 687
This and SNW are two reasons why I think they are holding off on revamping TL, unless the other reason has to do with the other discussions floating around WRT the TL theatre and a possible Avengers ride versus SLOP.
As much as I want to wander through a LOTR land, I want this to be a clean slate addition to Park #3 along with Zelda and a FFA dark ride (Shrek).
- Sep 11, 2015
- 53
- 8
Do you know are they working on more specifically like from a news report? They made something about Dudley Do Right, but it only came out on home video. There was a Popeye movie that Sony was making but that apparently got cancelled.
Wikipedia says Dreamworks bought the rights for a bunch of characters for millions of dollars (DreamWorks Classics - Wikipedia So I wouldn't be surprised if Universal doesn't change much of Toon Lagoon now that I learned that. They could just build something in a park near the Convention Center, but that would be more expensive than just building something to do with Nintendo there. They could maybe have something like the gondola idea connecting that new park to the Nintendo area in the original park possibly in addition to one or more areas like Wet N Wild.
I guess it might be hard to do something that has the equivalent effect of the history and familiarity people will have built up with what is already in Toon Lagoon and it is a very large variety of characters there that would be replaced. With that much variety, that is a lot of things that people might like or dislike. So, at least that increases the possibility of people likeing something there.
IMDB Pro, Tracking board in the members area. Universal has the trademark for Blondie, Dudley, all the general mills characters, and a lot more. They are making a netflix exclusive for Dudley just like they did with Mr Peabody and Sherman, Home, HTTYD, etc .
Forget Tom Cruise's new movie/Universal Monsters, give me a land with Count Chocula, Frankenberry, Booberry, Yummy Mummy and Froot Brute!!!
(No, I wasn't joking, actually ...)
How about a cereal restaurant in CityWalk?
The cereal restaurant is one of those weird trends that I'm surprised the Orlando area hasn't received yet. Granted, it hasn't really gone viral yet, but the concept would thrive in a super touristy area.
Use the raft adventure and theme it to the escape from the wood elves in "The Hobbit (Part 2). Orcs popping out, low hanging trees, all to escape and challenge a dragon.
- May 31, 2017
- 429
- 776
So many acronyms. What does WRT mean?
I'd be shocked if LoTR / The Hobbit ever reached a theme park. The IP is slipping in popularity in my opinion and the Tolkien estate isn't crazy about the movie adaptations. They'll never give up the theme park rights, which I don't think WB owns
- Mar 30, 2015
- 3,663
- 6,366
I'm just curious if they've gave a reason. Whether they had a bad experience with the movies, think a theme park would be a bad representation of the IP or simply just don't want the hassle.
JRR's son gave an interview, can't remember if it specifically brought up theme parks or not, but he has a really, really high opinion of his father's work. The movies offended him. The slot machines (or maybe it was pinball) set him off even more. Basically comes down to a dismissive "would you make a theme park out of Shakespeare???" Except he probably thinks old Will is a hack compared to his dad.
In any case, all the ancillary rights were tied up in court last I heard, between Tolkein estate and WB. While I'd be curious to see a LotR land, I think a more accessible IP will win out.
That kind of sums up pretty well just about everything I've read on the issue. The only thing going for a possible change in position is that the son is really really old, and sooner or later. :died:...It happens to the best of us.
- May 26, 2012
- 1,940
- 2,681
Because Christopher Tolkien thinks he is JRR and doesn't like anything other than the books, and he controls the rights. (He wouldn't even let WB open a museum based on the movie, so it had to be done as a limited touring exhibit)
