Universal IPs vs Partner IPs

[Nico]

I've been thinking about this since OU Radio's last edition; do we have more faith in rides based on Partner IPs than Universal ones?

From Nintendo/Potter/Simpsons to Fallon/FF there seems to be some new doubts about Universal's abilities and/or focus. With only insider information on the new rides and lands to go off of, it seems most are concerned Uni only knocks it out of the park for external IPs and the property owners who remain in tight control. Kong seems to be a strange middle man/outlier.

I guess my questions are:

1. Do we believe Creative only shines with Partner IPs?
2. Could this be Comcast's plan - use one external IP to catch another big fish, and use the money to plus existing properties/rides to keep the park relevant enough for the GP?
3. Is that actually such a bad plan?

*Side Note: Admins, let me know if this thread is unnecessary based on existing Fallon and FF threads.

 

[ThemeParks4Life]

1. No. Case in point: The Mummy
2. Maybe? Hard to say, now that Universal had an amazing year at the box office I'm guessing they'll make more blockbusters. Their big three are already in the resort or on the way.
3. As long as we get good rides.

 

[JungleSkip]

Kong, Mummy, Minions, etc. I think they're fine. Also, I'm not sure we should judge Fallon before riding it. It's a baffling concept, but that doesn't guarantee it's bad

 

[Clive]

I know I'm in the minority here, but Revenge of the Mummy is a pretty bad attraction overall. Like... it's a fun coaster. But it's a hot mess otherwise.

Kong, Minions and Fast/Furious shows they'll still invest in their own IP when they have an IP to hawk. Otherwise, I don't really mind.

 

[Nico]

I love the queue of the Mummy, but yeah the theming on the ride itself needs an upgrade.

I guess my curiosity stems from the amount of money they are putting into FF. Potter and Nintendo are money making machines; FF should really be more akin to Kong. The other argument could be made that those IPs just lend themselves more to creative, immersive areas.

 

[Gillman]

Well let's see what UC does with Jurassic Park after the crazy success of Jurassic World.

 

[Cheezbat]

They have a number of timeless franchises they've given up on, which is a shame. Personally, I think Back to the Future and Jaws should ALWAYS be represented by an attraction in the parks. Those movies are Universal gold.

Of course they've still got the blockbuster Jurassic Park and Kong franchises, as well as Fast and the Furious on the way...

But I can see the interest in other outside IPs. They don't have anything like Star Trek or Star Wars in their parks, they don't own a popular comic property(but use Marvel from Disney), and they don't have something adventurous/action oriented like Indiana Jones or James Bond. Properties like all of those named are worth banking on. They're almost guaranteed successes.