Nintendo Coming to Universal Parks

[captainmoch]

I agree with the overall sentiment that IP popularity =/= land success. But I also agree with the sentiment that with how limited in space Uni is, and with how many other properties they have they can invest in, Zelda isn't exactly something that needs an especially large land. Lost Continent's plot is perfect, but any larger is a bit much to ask for IMO.

Also, using Toon Lagoon as a comparison is a poor example considering that was a cheap land built nearly 20 years ago that everyone, including Uni themselves, agrees needs to go.

 

[Mike S]

I agree with the overall sentiment that IP popularity =/= land success. But I also agree with the sentiment that with how limited in space Uni is, and with how many other properties they have they can invest in, Zelda isn't exactly something that needs an especially large land. Lost Continent's plot is perfect, but any larger is a bit much to ask for IMO.

Also, using Toon Lagoon as a comparison is a poor example considering that was a cheap land built nearly 20 years ago that everyone, including Uni themselves, agrees needs to go.

Well then we agree because both you and I are pushing for all of LC to be used for Zelda. @fryoj is saying it should only get half of LC which is absurd. Uni also isn’t that strapped for space anymore. The new land could hold at least 2 more theme parks.

 

[Galaxy Defender]

Also, let’s step back and look at the huge successful cash cow of a land that just opened last year in Orlando based on a single movie everyone claims no one remembers.

I think Zelda will be just fine as a 7 acre land.

Pandora also has the help of a billion dollar budget.

 

[Mike S]

Pandora also has the help of a billion dollar budget.

That’s because of Disney’s incompetence with budget. Many insiders have said this is a problem with them spending way more than necessary for the same outcome.

 

[fryoj]

Zelda has sold over 80 million copies over its lifespan not to mention merchandise over all 30 of those years. Let’s not forget a game is significantly more expensive than a movie ticket and I think it’s safe to say it’s a more successful IP than Avatar.

It took Zelda 30 years to do those numbers. Avatar did billions in a matter of months. The reason people can trash the Avatar IP is because Cameron dropped the ball and didn't start another movie right away. Do you think if Disney had Nintendo they'd even dream of green lighting a Pandora level land for Zelda? Not a chance. Take your personal biases out of it. If you just want to use numbers, "it would make a good land", "plenty of source material" and all that, World of Warcraft makes more sense for a land than Zelda. More sales, more people who've played it, just as easy to make a land off of. It was even a Universal movie, so they wouldn't have to pay as much for the rights to make the land. I think it's a coin flip on cultural significance. So when you look at it that way and know that theres no way in hell they make a WoW land, whats they tell you about what they should do with Zelda? Sounds like an IP you'd make a puzzle theatre show to me....

Oh wait...

 

[quinnmac000]

It took Zelda 30 years to do those numbers. Avatar did billions in a matter of months. The reason people can trash the Avatar IP is because Cameron dropped the ball and didn't start another movie right away. Do you think if Disney had Nintendo they'd even dream of green lighting a Pandora level land for Zelda? Not a chance. Take your personal biases out of it. If you just want to use numbers, "it would make a good land", "plenty of source material" and all that, World of Warcraft makes more sense for a land than Zelda. More sales, more people who've played it, just as easy to make a land off of. It was even a Universal movie, so they wouldn't have to pay as much for the rights to make the land. I think it's a coin flip on cultural significance. So when you look at it that way and know that theres no way in hell they make a WoW land, whats they tell you about what they should do with Zelda? Sounds like an IP you'd make a puzzle theatre show to me....

Oh wait...

That is extremely not true information. People trash Avatar because the story was overdone multiple times with Pochantas, Dances with Wolves, And Fern Gully. Secondly, Zelda is a world wide beloved IP not just in America but East Asia in particular Japan and certain parts of China and Europe as well.

Also want to point out Zelda is one of the top three merch sellers for Nintendo and #1 in particular in the apparel and collectibles area. (The other two are Mario Bros and Animal Crossing.) So yes Universal would get their money back because companies actually license the Zelda brand which only happens when things make money.

 

[fryoj]

That is extremely not true information. People trash Avatar because the story was overdone multiple times with Pochantas, Dances with Wolves, And Fern Gully. Secondly, Zelda is a world wide beloved IP not just in America but East Asia in particular Japan and certain parts of China and Europe as well.

Also want to point out Zelda is one of the top three merch sellers for Nintendo and #1 in particular in the apparel and collectibles area. (The other two are Mario Bros and Animal Crossing.) So yes Universal would get their money back because companies actually license the Zelda brand which only happens when things make money.

Avatar did $2 billion outside the US. It did over $100 million in 10 countries. It wasn't a US only movie.

Source for Zelda merch sales numbers? I'd like to see how many dollars are we actually talking about here?

 

[Mike S]

It took Zelda 30 years to do those numbers. Avatar did billions in a matter of months. The reason people can trash the Avatar IP is because Cameron dropped the ball and didn't start another movie right away. Do you think if Disney had Nintendo they'd even dream of green lighting a Pandora level land for Zelda? Not a chance. Take your personal biases out of it. If you just want to use numbers, "it would make a good land", "plenty of source material" and all that, World of Warcraft makes more sense for a land than Zelda. More sales, more people who've played it, just as easy to make a land off of. It was even a Universal movie, so they wouldn't have to pay as much for the rights to make the land. I think it's a coin flip on cultural significance. So when you look at it that way and know that theres no way in hell they make a WoW land, whats they tell you about what they should do with Zelda? Sounds like an IP you'd make a puzzle theatre show to me....

Oh wait...

You mean the puzzle theater that got the axe with rumors now going around for something more ambitious? That puzzle theater? I’ll remind you those plans also had an even smaller presence for Pokémon which is a bigger IP than Zelda.

Avatar did $2 billion outside the US. It did over $100 million in 10 countries. It wasn't a US only movie.

Source for Zelda merch sales numbers? I'd like to see how many dollars are we actually talking about here?

I think you really need to just admit you’re wrong here.

 

[twebber55]

It’s also successful because it’s a great area with a great main attraction and merchandise and food people want. If Zelda follows that then once again IP shouldn’t matter. In my experience I’ve seen plenty of typical tourists in the area that are the furthest thing from your typical fans.

BTW the point I was making was if this is the turnout for Avatar what do you think it would be like for Zelda that actually has a much more sizable and dedicated fan base?

Edit: you guys seriously have a problem giving Disney any sort of credit.

you know me mike
ive always been big on two things
is the IP adaptable to a theme park land?
is the company truly invested in the product to make a great land?
if the answer is yes to both you ll have a hit
Nintendo should be a yes so im sure a zelda area will be great

as far as the ongoing debate to me is apples and oranges
hard to compare to a movie to a video game (series)
but does it really matter?

 

[JungleSkip]

Land is at a premium at UOR. Why give Nintendo's third level IP 7 acres when you can give it 3 or 4, which will still draw the Zelda fans, and still have 3 or 4 acres for another IP that will draw other fans?

No, Land WAS at a prememium. Those days are over

Uni now has enough land to build whatever the hell they want. Fretting about the space in Lost Continent is meaningless

 

[Imperius]

That is extremely not true information. People trash Avatar because the story was overdone multiple times with Pochantas, Dances with Wolves, And Fern Gully. Secondly, Zelda is a world wide beloved IP not just in America but East Asia in particular Japan and certain parts of China and Europe as well.

Also want to point out Zelda is one of the top three merch sellers for Nintendo and #1 in particular in the apparel and collectibles area. (The other two are Mario Bros and Animal Crossing.) So yes Universal would get their money back because companies actually license the Zelda brand which only happens when things make money.

Are we not including Pokémon or?

 

[twebber55]

No, Land WAS at a prememium. Those days are over

Uni now has enough land to build whatever the hell they want. Fretting about the space in Lost Continent is meaningless

do we have a rough timeline of
1. when we get an announcement of any new park?
2. what will anchor the new park?
3. when will it be ready?

 

[rhino4evr]

Oh my, so much biased nonsense in the last few pages. Let me throw out some of my thoughts for good measure.

Zelda will do just fine. It's popular enough and has enough source material to have it's own theme park land.
Mario will be bigger, but that's because it has a slightly larger age demographic. Both lands (if done well) will be a huge success.

Pandora isn't popular just because Disney fans are "starved" for rides. It's also because FOP is an incredible ride/experience. If you disagree, that's fine, but consider yourself in the minority on this opinion.
IP is important, but a bum ride is a bum ride. Frozen is one of the biggest Disney franchises ever, and it's wait times have dropped dramatically in the past year, despite the terrible capacity. The Frozen ride isn't all that, and it shows. Test Track still gets the largest lines at opening, partly because it's you know...a fun ride...with no actual IP.

Yes, Pandora cost 2 Billion or whatever to build, but to say that's only because "its Disney, and they can't handle funds", have maybe never seen the place? I mean the land looks like 2 billion dollars were spent. It may not feature your favorite Wizard, or have a decent walk around character/side show, but the land overall is an impressive sight to behold, and in NO way looks "cheap".

Ok. that's all for now.

 

[JungleSkip]

do we have a rough timeline of
1. when we get an announcement of any new park?
2. what will anchor the new park?
3. when will it be ready?

1. No. I wouldn’t be surprised if we heard about an evolution plan ala USH sometime this year, but with no real details
2. Mario
3. 2023 (estimated guess)

 

[zg44]

This whole Zelda discussion is interesting, but whatever is enough to build Hyrule with Zelda's castle and a good attraction or two is whatever size they should use.

As for a comparison of Zelda versus other IPs, Zelda has plenty of strong attributes (its sales numbers are nothing to scoff at given the much higher cost/"difficulty of sale" of a console video game versus a movie, doing $250 million in sales for a console video game is much harder than doing so for a movie; in the first place your target market is limited to your console base).

Virtually every main Zelda game has been a success, and of course the regularity of its title attributes is comparable to Mario: Mario/Link, Peach/Zelda, Peach's Castle/Zelda's Castle, Mushroom Kingdom/Hyrule, Bowser/Ganon, the Triforce. The regularity of those same characters and their relationships is important to reinforcing the strength of the IP across decades.

Also there's room for growth there, don't forget that the Mario movie may lead to a Zelda movie. Even if that's completely speculative (i.e. a Zelda movie would only happen if Mario does well and there's a Zelda story that Nintendo would want to tell), it makes sense to plan ahead.

One other thing strongly in Zelda favor; Zelda has held strong as an IP over 30 years. Zelda will be a strong IP in 30 years. That guaranteed longevity is something that some other IPs don't necessarily have.

A movie IP for example, you can't guarantee that it will be relevant in several decades. Book-derived IPs have the best longevity, Nintendo's IPs are closer to book-derived IPs than movie IPs.

In my mind, all of those attributes justify giving the full space to Zelda if needed. Especially when we're considering that Universal is working with a potential 4 dry park plan over the next 20 years; then all of a sudden you're talking about 420-450 acres of space across 4 parks instead of just 210-220 acres across 2...

 

[twebber55]

Oh my, so much biased nonsense in the last few pages. Let me throw out some of my thoughts for good measure.

Zelda will do just fine. It's popular enough and has enough source material to have it's own theme park land.
Mario will be bigger, but that's because it has a slightly larger age demographic. Both lands (if done well) will be a huge success.

Pandora isn't popular just because Disney fans are "starved" for rides. It's also because FOP is an incredible ride/experience. If you disagree, that's fine, but consider yourself in the minority on this opinion.
IP is important, but a bum ride is a bum ride. Frozen is one of the biggest Disney franchises ever, and it's wait times have dropped dramatically in the past year, despite the terrible capacity. The Frozen ride isn't all that, and it shows. Test Track still gets the largest lines at opening, partly because it's you know...a fun ride...with no actual IP.

Yes, Pandora cost 2 Billion or whatever to build, but to say that's only because "its Disney, and they can't handle funds", have maybe never seen the place? I mean the land looks like 2 billion dollars were spent. It may not feature your favorite Wizard, or have a decent walk around character/side show, but the land overall is an impressive sight to behold, and in NO way looks "cheap".

Ok. that's all for now.

this times a 1000
people tend to have an opinion and then fit a narrative around that opinion no matter what facts say
i mean we all do it to an extent

 

[Nick]

No, Land WAS at a prememium. Those days are over

Uni now has enough land to build whatever the hell they want. Fretting about the space in Lost Continent is meaningless

Land will always be at a premium in the current resort. There's nothing the land at UO South can do about that. USF and IOA are land locked for the foreseeable future. The only way that changes is if the Soundstages get demolished.

 

[JungleSkip]

Land will always be at a premium in the current resort. There's nothing the land at UO South can do about that. USF and IOA are land locked for the foreseeable future. The only way that changes is if the Soundstages get demolished.

And? Handwringing over space is irrelevant when you're building at least one new theme park, and have space for a third. Not to mention there are still expansion plots inside the park we're talking about. Giving Zelda the remnants of Lost Continent isn't some great injustice that will handcuff the park.

 

[Nick]

And? Handwringing over space is irrelevant when you're building at least one new theme park, and have space for a third. Not to mention there are still expansion plots inside the park we're talking about. Giving Zelda the remnants of Lost Continent isn't some great injustice that will handcuff the park.

I'm not making any big point. I'm just saying that they are still going to have to be creative in how they use space at the current resort. Sure they are building an entire new park and resort down there, but they aren't just going to let their current parks rot, either.

Worth noting that I'm thinking far into the future.

 

[JungleSkip]

I'm not making any big point. I'm just saying that they are still going to have to be creative in how they use space at the current resort. Sure they are building an entire new park and resort down there, but they aren't just going to let their current parks rot, either.

Worth noting that I'm thinking far into the future.

Sure, and not saying you’re saying this, but I don’t get how “Zelda getting 7 acres” would hurt them in the future when there’s things like KidZone, Toon Lagoon, FFL, MIB, etc that will probably be in line for redevelopment down the road