I'm not a big Nintendo fan but I certainly do love the look/feel of the upcoming lands.
I'd agree about Star Wars and Harry Potter. The question in my mind is what reaction the average Joe would have to the idea of Lord of the Rings as a theme park attraction. When you initially hear the words "Harry Potter" and "theme park" together it's easy to immediately conjure mental images of rides where you fly along with the kids and zoom through Gringott's and such, or same thing with Star Wars and Star Trek where you can immediately envision zipping through space in battles with TIE Fighters and Klingons, but I just don't see that immediate instinct for Lord of the Rings adventures. I can certainly see more passive experiences like hanging out in a tavern with elves and dwarves and hobbits and such, but a ride would have to be incredibly clever, beyond anything we've seen so far, to avoid seeming totally incongruous in that world.Agree to disagree. LOTR has a massive, decades long fan base. It may not be as big as Nintendo but it’s close. Neither is as big as SW/Potter
That is logical. Still don't know how well it could really come to life at a theme park, but maybe Universal will surprise me and actually do something that manages to be both engaging and respectful to the legacy of these stories.It's not that simple because of the overlap in terms of Harry Potter and Nintendo in how they aim at young people and the fact that many attractions at most of the major parks already do. In an economic sense, there's more marginal value to adding Star Wars or Tolkien to a theme park because they bring in larger groups that may not necessarily already be in your audience or it increases the # of visits specific target groups make. Star Wars and Tolkien hit a broad group of people aged 18 through 55 that are probably rarer theme park vacationers than average (for a variety of specific reasons).
It's similar to how with Harry Potter, Universal has taken a giant chunk of the UK's foreign vacations market and is probably drawing its highest market share out of that market (probably as high as 40% compared to WDW, that's a massive % given the # of parks disparity between UOR and WDW). Even SeaWorld pointed out that the UK was around 15% of SeaWorld Orlando's attendance, but that group has almost entirely dried up by now (due to Harry Potter).
In terms of how specific IPs can drive attendance, only Harry Potter should be considered above Star Wars and Tolkien.
Don't have to worry about that issue with Nintendo.Given the current state of Hollywood with all the sexual allegations coming to light, you have to wonder if the people picking the lands and IPs are making extra sure that the stars of the show are absolutely squeaky clean.
Yeah, there's two major and separate categories of importance for IPs; raw popularity measures and how they impact attendance.I'd agree about Star Wars and Harry Potter. The question in my mind is what reaction the average Joe would have to the idea of Lord of the Rings as a theme park attraction. When you initially hear the words "Harry Potter" and "theme park" together it's easy to immediately conjure mental images of rides where you fly along with the kids and zoom through Gringott's and such, or same thing with Star Wars and Star Trek where you can immediately envision zipping through space in battles with TIE Fighters and Klingons, but I just don't see that immediate instinct for Lord of the Rings adventures. I can certainly see more passive experiences like hanging out in a tavern with elves and dwarves and hobbits and such, but a ride would have to be incredibly clever, beyond anything we've seen so far, to avoid seeming totally incongruous in that world.
I also have questions about the appropriateness of translating Lord of the Rings to a theme park environment at all. To use the idea about a dwarf barrel river ride for an example, something like that seems ham-fisted and even disrespectful towards a literary masterpiece like Lord of the Rings. It's like trying to make a theme park ride out of the Great Gatsby or A Tale of Two Cities or something. It just seems wrong somehow. Just because it's a literary masterpiece that's also within the fantasy genre doesn't mean it should just automatically also be eligible for theme park shenanigans. From what I've read about who J.R.R. Tolkien was as a person, I don't think he'd really be thrilled with the idea of all of this.
This all isn't to say I have anything against Lord of the Rings at all, I really enjoyed the movies and everything, but the idea of theme parking it up just rubs me in a weird way.
That is logical. Still don't know how well it could really come to life at a theme park, but maybe Universal will surprise me and actually do something that manages to be both engaging and respectful to the legacy of these stories.
I do have a much better time imagining LOTR in a DisneySea-type setting more so than USF or IoA. As for an attraction, maybe they could get away with going the Poseidon's Fury route and you go on a special effects-laden quest revisiting key locations of the saga. Or something like that.You do bring up a good point about LOTR, and I think that the immersive aspects as other people talk about with the next park being different from just a movie IP park but more like DisneySea are where Middle Earth and Zelda can shine if that's the direction they go.
I do have a much better time imagining LOTR in a DisneySea-type setting more so than USF or IoA. As for an attraction, maybe they could get away with going the Poseidon's Fury route and you go on a special effects-laden quest revisiting key locations of the saga. Or something like that.
Soarin' Over Sauron?I think any LOTR rides would have to be similar in style to the Avatar rides. More atmospheric than story based
I agree completely.I think any LOTR rides would have to be similar in style to the Avatar rides. More atmospheric than story based
This brings up a side note to my “needle mover” remark, that being the importance of what elements of an IP are used. We talk about Nintendo as a singular IP, when it’s not. Mushroom Kingdom and Pokemon are likely the biggest specific IPs in the zeitgeist, followed at a distance by Zelda. But to say Star Fox or Kirby could drive traffic the same as Mario is silly. Zelda won’t drive Mario or Pokemon level traffic either.TBH i have no idea what Hyrule is
This brings up a side note to my “needle mover” remark, that being the importance of what elements of an IP are used. We talk about Nintendo as a singular IP, when it’s not. Mushroom Kingdom and Pokemon are likely the biggest specific IPs in the zeitgeist, followed at a distance by Zelda. But to say Star Fox or Kirby could drive traffic the same as Mario is silly. Zelda won’t drive Mario or Pokemon level traffic either.
With Tolkien, Mordor and the Shire will attract more people than Laketown.
That’s an important element to this. An area themed to Fantastic Beast won’t push a needle the way anything from the core HP series will just because it’s Harry Potter.
We can talk about Nintendo driving people to P4rk, but it’s not “Nintendo’s” responsibility; it’ll be Link’s.
This brings up a side note to my “needle mover” remark, that being the importance of what elements of an IP are used. We talk about Nintendo as a singular IP, when it’s not. Mushroom Kingdom and Pokemon are likely the biggest specific IPs in the zeitgeist, followed at a distance by Zelda. But to say Star Fox or Kirby could drive traffic the same as Mario is silly. Zelda won’t drive Mario or Pokemon level traffic either.
With Tolkien, Mordor and the Shire will attract more people than Laketown.
That’s an important element to this. An area themed to Fantastic Beast won’t push a needle the way anything from the core HP series will just because it’s Harry Potter.
We can talk about Nintendo driving people to P4rk, but it’s not “Nintendo’s” responsibility; it’ll be Link’s.
Looking at the possible IPs though, if the next park can properly integrate them into an overall experience then you don't necessarily need a specific centerpiece.Zelda definitely won't draw the same as Mario or Pokémon, but as one of a few anchors (LOTR, Star Trek, etc) I think it'd work. Definitely couldn't be the centerpiece
Which is why Link should be in IoA and Pokémon should be in “P4rk” (even though Universal only has two theme parks right now).This brings up a side note to my “needle mover” remark, that being the importance of what elements of an IP are used. We talk about Nintendo as a singular IP, when it’s not. Mushroom Kingdom and Pokemon are likely the biggest specific IPs in the zeitgeist, followed at a distance by Zelda. But to say Star Fox or Kirby could drive traffic the same as Mario is silly. Zelda won’t drive Mario or Pokemon level traffic either.
With Tolkien, Mordor and the Shire will attract more people than Laketown.
That’s an important element to this. An area themed to Fantastic Beast won’t push a needle the way anything from the core HP series will just because it’s Harry Potter.
We can talk about Nintendo driving people to P4rk, but it’s not “Nintendo’s” responsibility; it’ll be Link’s.
I think we'll definitely see a theater with the new park/Citywalk. I also think that we'll see TV production facilities for Today Show/Telemundo/Golf Channel/etc. broadcasts to originate from with a view of the park/windows into the studio for park guests.And let's not forget they need to utilize Wicked somewhere. Either a Broadway Theater in CityWalk 2.0 or Oz in the park.
Just sayin'.
I think the issue there is that most have said that Universal is aiming at a more immersive park for the next one; Pokemon may not go alongside the other IPs they're choosing for the next park. They'll have to stick with a set of IPs that works together and can seamlessly shift from one to another if they try to create a park that's unique.Which is why Link should be in IoA and Pokémon should be in “P4rk” (even though Universal only has two theme parks right now).
Nintendo really is separate from the more "hardcore" gaming companies (i.e. Valve/Steam, EA, Activision-Blizzard, TakeTwo, Capcom, Square); Nintendo's audience is probably already mostly counted among theme park goers, since it's more of the 8-35 crowd that got Nintendo consoles/games when they were young. It's really a unique gaming company in that respect that they aren't as focused on the FPS (first person shooter) or sports or arcade gaming crowd.Something I haven't seen for a while is discussion concerning game players and their relation to theme parks. This is not something I'm familiar with, since I've rarely played a video game since the old Atari systems....But, I recall some posters, way back when Nintendo was first talked about & prior to the official announcement, saying that the hard core "gamers" demographic, on the whole, are not big theme park attendees, and that it would take something like a Nintendo IP to get them to attend theme parks. Anyone have any info on that theory? If the theory is accurate, then SNL would actually be attracting a whole new group of people to the Universal parks, that wouldn't normally be attending a theme park.