Universal Orlando Resort Expansion (Part 1)

[Legacy]

Just for argument sake why don't we base popularity on web search. If you compare lord of the rings to a lot of other IPs, you will notice that Lord of the Rings is somewhat weak.

Of note, Pokemon by far is the most popular and most searched IP out there. Its power literally is unmatched by any other IP including Star Wars and Marvel combined.

I also like looking at fan fiction. On one site, Lord of the Rings has 56k stories. Pokémon has 93k. Star Wars has 41k.

EDIT - Oh, and Harry Potter? 777k

 

[quinnmac000]

I also like looking at fan fiction. On one site, Lord of the Rings has 56k stories. Pokémon has 93k. Star Wars has 41k.

I avoid fanfiction as YA books tend to end up with way more than traditional (Looking at you Twilight and Hunger Games)

 

[shiekra38]

I also like looking at fan fiction. On one site, Lord of the Rings has 56k stories. Pokémon has 93k. Star Wars has 41k.

EDIT - Oh, and Harry Potter? 777k

600k of those are from ABC Family

 

[zg44]

Web searches are good at measuring which IPs are relevant at specific times in their lifecycle and how much overall resonance they have in the public's mindset; they're extremely dependent on specific events like new movies or new games (i.e. Pokemon Go resulting in the massive spike in pokemon web searches in mid-2016 to the point where it was arguably the most searched term on the internet during those early Pokemon Go days).

As far as LOTR goes, it's an IP in hibernation because there hasn't been a major movie other than the Hobbit movies. Back in 2000-2004 though I'm sure web searches of LOTR rivaled the sorts of numbers any of the movie spikes are leading to, but it's sitting on 250 million in book sales and the movies, which give it a substantial cushion like any other IP in long-term hibernation.

Beyond that though, the popularity of an IP in the context of a theme park setting is an entirely different calculation altogether. When you're measuring the popularity or robustness of a theme park IP, you're talking about specific aspects of the overall IP and how well they translate to a theme park experience. You're talking about whether it can drive non-regular visits or repeat visits or whether it just attracts people once they're in the park already.

Pokemon as a theme park IP has its strengths and weaknesses. Its strengths are the recognizability of the Pokemon and merchandise sales, but its weakness (a critical one) is the lack of any iconic landscape/scene (because the icons are the Pokemon themselves). That doesn't mean it can't have a popular attraction and sell merchandise well, but it's more similar to Minions; it's not going to end up as an immersive landscape that drives word of mouth or subsequent visits, but it'll end up being a location every parent that visits will take their kids because it's on site (like Frozen in Epcot).

 

[quinnmac000]

Web searches are good at measuring which IPs are relevant at specific times in their lifecycle and how much overall resonance they have in the public's mindset; they're extremely dependent on specific events like new movies or new games (i.e. Pokemon Go resulting in the massive spike in pokemon web searches in mid-2016 to the point where it was arguably the most searched term on the internet during those early Pokemon Go days).

As far as LOTR goes, it's an IP in hibernation because there hasn't been a major movie other than the Hobbit movies. Back in 2000-2004 though I'm sure web searches of LOTR rivaled the sorts of numbers any of the movie spikes are leading to, but it's sitting on 250 million in book sales and the movies, which give it a substantial cushion like any other IP in long-term hibernation.

Beyond that though, the popularity of an IP in the context of a theme park setting is an entirely different calculation altogether. When you're measuring the popularity or robustness of a theme park IP, you're talking about specific aspects of the overall IP and how well they translate to a theme park experience. You're talking about whether it can drive non-regular visits or repeat visits or whether it just attracts people once they're in the park already.

Pokemon as a theme park IP has its strengths and weaknesses. Its strengths are the recognizability of the Pokemon and merchandise sales, but its weakness (a critical one) is the lack of any iconic landscape/scene (because the icons are the Pokemon themselves). That doesn't mean it can't have a popular attraction and sell merchandise well, but it's more similar to Minions; it's not going to end up as an immersive landscape that drives word of mouth or subsequent visits, but it'll end up being a location every parent that visits will take their kids because it's on site (like Frozen in Epcot).

At the same time, it was argued on this very site that how well a IP translate for theme park doesn't matter, what matter is how popular the IP is. I personally prefer IPs that aren't popular that I may not even fully like but still are easily translatable into theme park environments. However that isn't the case for everyone.

I disagree with the issues with Pokemon for theme park integration. Universal Creative already completed a proof of concept with Yokai Watch Walkthrough attraction at USJ.

 

[zg44]

At the same time, it was argued on this very site that how well a IP translate for theme park doesn't matter, what matter is how popular the IP is. I personally prefer IPs that aren't popular that I may not even fully like but still are easily translatable into theme park environments. However that isn't the case for everyone.

I disagree with the issues with Pokemon for theme park integration. Universal Creative already completed a proof of concept with Yokai Watch Walkthrough attraction at USJ.

Whoever argued that was completely mistaken: it's the equivalent of saying the popularity of an IP would determine how well it does at the box office.

But that's an entirely different calculation, some IPs (most video games) don't translate well into event movies, and some IPs don't translate well into theme parks. Every IP has strengths and weaknesses that allow it to translate into other mediums.

Pokemon as an IP succeeds brilliantly in games (the catch 'em all/collector aspect is brilliant and extremely addictive), but in many other aspects it has weaknesses.

Book-based IPs have an advantage in that they lend themselves to "event" formats like movies. Why? Because the nature of books lend themselves to those sorts of expository details in the context of grand adventures, and that's why many books end up as event movies (Jurassic Park, LOTR/Hobbit, Harry Potter, etc.). Those same event movies then translate well into theme parks because of landscapes/immersion that they offer in the context of a theme park experience.

I'm not saying you can't make a successful Pokemon attraction based on the concept's strengths, but I am saying that as an IP, it has specific limitations that others IPs don't have.

For example, Mario may have less overall popularity than Pokemon in a general sense, but it's a stronger theme park IP because it comes with various iconic landscapes like the Mushroom Kingdom, it comes with Bowser's Castle; it has iconic characters with stories behind them. It has a narrative that also lends itself to a theme park setting. And that's fine, every IP is different, every IP has a different set of competing strengths and weaknesses.

That's partially what I've referenced in a lot of places when I mention the strength of Zelda as a possible theme park IP is that it literally comes built for theme parks in that the games are largely set around a kingdom with a princess castle (which is a very natural theme park translation), and that most of the games reinforce that aspect.

 

[Teebin]

What is meant by, “a more immersive park”? More immersive than what?

 

[Frank Drackman]

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 feel like there are a few 'needles' that one can move. We all know UoR needs something younger, but better than Kid Zone. Nintendo hits that, but where I feel it differs from say a LotR is that the MERCH that UNI will be able to sell....I would guess things like shirts and plushes and that sort of thing would bring a decent jump in retail revenue at the park.

For something like LotR, I get the beauty the recreation of characters and lands for another demo that is not represented...something non familiar folks can still enjoy...Hobbits, Trolls (dream works)...dragons...in some ways I see so much overlap yet still different 'views' or' periods' or something...but if these things have any 'cult' status...OCCC nearby, how big these 'fantasy' conventions have become...

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.

I just look at the chance for interaction and grabbing/sharing 'audience' it starts to be things for APPs, say a pokemon that you can only get at the park...a car for Mario Kart that you can toss in your account for the home game that you only get from riding the physical ride...I just like to dream and just see so much this partnership could bring. So many people know Mario...I can't see this whole area not being fun for all.....

 

[quinnmac000]

Whoever argued that was completely mistaken: it's the equivalent of saying the popularity of an IP would determine how well it does at the box office.

But that's an entirely different calculation, some IPs (most video games) don't translate well into event movies, and some IPs don't translate well into theme parks. Every IP has strengths and weaknesses that allow it to translate into other mediums.

Pokemon as an IP succeeds brilliantly in games (the catch 'em all/collector aspect is brilliant and extremely addictive), but in many other aspects it has weaknesses.

Book-based IPs have an advantage in that they lend themselves to "event" formats like movies. Why? Because the nature of books lend themselves to those sorts of expository details in the context of grand adventures, and that's why many books end up as event movies (Jurassic Park, LOTR/Hobbit, Harry Potter, etc.). Those same event movies then translate well into theme parks because of landscapes/immersion that they offer in the context of a theme park experience.

I'm not saying you can't make a successful Pokemon attraction based on the concept's strengths, but I am saying that as an IP, it has specific limitations that others IPs don't have.

For example, Mario may have less overall popularity than Pokemon in a general sense, but it's a stronger theme park IP because it comes with various iconic landscapes like the Mushroom Kingdom, it comes with Bowser's Castle; it has iconic characters with stories behind them. It has a narrative that also lends itself to a theme park setting. And that's fine, every IP is different, every IP has a different set of competing strengths and weaknesses.

That's partially what I've referenced in a lot of places when I mention the strength of Zelda as a possible theme park IP is that it literally comes built for theme parks in that the games are largely set around a kingdom with a princess castle (which is a very natural theme park translation), and that most of the games reinforce that aspect.

Ahh okay I see where you are getting at. Pokemon interactivity, plot, and setting is a lot more limiting due to the nature of the games especially with every new non remake game representing a new region. At the same time for pokemon they don't really need a story. The main thing that represents pokemon and continually stated within pokemon games is developing a bond between human and pokemon. So for myself I think the location is the only issue for Pokemon. There already is a proof of concept for pokeballs and pokedexs already been seen with projection technology, screens, AAs, and AR.

Spoiler: pokemon proof of concept

LOTR issue is the opposite, they have story, they have settting, however the issue is theme park integration that fits within the story.

 

[captainmoch]

I feel like if the new park consists of, say, Lord of the Rings, Legend of Zelda, How to Train Your Dragon, Kung Fu Panda, and Fantastic Beasts, I think you could get decent cohesion out of that. All consist of beautiful, detailed environments that take place in "fantasy" environments from the past. One could argue Shrek fits in there as well. However, if Star Trek is also supposed to be in Park 3, I have no idea how that'd fit in with the rest.

 

[zg44]

Ahh okay I see where you are getting at. Pokemon interactivity, plot, and setting is a lot more limiting due to the nature of the games especially with every new non remake game representing a new region. At the same time for pokemon they don't really need a story. The main thing that represents pokemon and continually stated within pokemon games is developing a bond between human and pokemon. So for myself I think the location is the only issue for Pokemon. There already is a proof of concept for pokeballs and pokedexs already been seen with projection technology, screens, AAs, and AR.

Spoiler: pokemon proof of concept

LOTR issue is the opposite, they have story, they have settting, however the issue is theme park integration that fits within the story.

Yeah, in a way Pokemon and LOTR are somewhat polar opposites as IPs. Pokemon can lead to a strong interactive/gaming style experience and naturally that will come with very strong merchandise sales. I'd expect Pokemon to perform extremely well in those conditions, and LOTR is something of the opposite, any Hobbits/LOTR experience probably won't lead to merchandise but if you can set up an immersive setting, it should do well traffic-wise. I think food/drink sales would be much easier to target for LOTR as long as it's a cohesive concept.

That's pretty much what I mean by different strengths; they'll both be profitable as long as you bring out their strengths.

What is meant by, “a more immersive park”? More immersive than what?

I think we're talking about something like DisneySea or Volcano Bay. Where sort of the entire experience takes you into the setting, and the transitions to other parts of the park are seamless.

 

[quinnmac000]

No wonder the LOTR theme park news came up

‘Lord Of The Rings’ Series Being Eyed By Warner Bros. TV | Deadline

 

[zg44]

No wonder the LOTR theme park news came up

‘Lord Of The Rings’ Series Being Eyed By Warner Bros. TV | Deadline

Yep; the main issue was always financial; Tolkien Estate believed it wasn't getting a fair share of the revenue (i.e. Hollywood accounting may have been reducing their shares from the movies and such).

But now that they're opening up to more LOTR TV, it definitely sounds like theme park rights are just around the corner.

I'd also point out that an LOTR TV series would solve the issue of people saying LOTR IP is in hibernation compared to other active IPs. Definitely good news for future theme park rights if there's a TV series worldwide at the same time.

 

[fryoj]

Just for argument sake why don't we base popularity on web search. If you compare lord of the rings to a lot of other IPs, you will notice that Lord of the Rings is somewhat weak.

Of note, Pokemon by far is the most popular and most searched IP out there. Its power literally is unmatched by any other IP including Star Wars and Marvel combined.

If you are going to use that as an argument, then Video Games are irrelevant.

 

[Universal 4 Life]

In terms of relevance, this TV undertaking is good news. Conversely, it may be bad news. I would not want a TV series interpretation to taint the LOTR/Hobbits attractions/rides. Albeit the TV series could be immensely popular, I want only the movies represented in the park(s).

 

[quinnmac000]

If you are going to use that as an argument, then Video Games are irrelevant.

Overall, its actually true. Video Games that aren't family based are pretty much irrelevant as they push little merch and extremely limited and isolated audience as not all games are global. (COD aka Call of Duty's popularity stateside doesn't translate oversesas, League of Legends and Starcraft popularity in Asia outside Japan isn't seen anywhere else, just as Japan's love for Monster Hunter and Persona isn't identified here stateside). Universal luckily decided to go with the company with the most international appeal and popularity.

 

[Mad Dog]

Just for a point of reference, on Magic this week both Marni & Disneyhead stated they know of "at least" ten D/E ticket attractions already planned for the two existing Universal Orlando parks.

 

[Ashhanbre]

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.

I think its more of an opinion than something that can be proven with numbers. But just like there are Potter diehards and Star Wars diehards, there is a very large segment of population that are gaming diehards. And it will be these people's dream come true to be able to actually walk inside the Mushroom Kingdom and Princess Peach's castle. I can tell you for sure, Nintendo won't be just for kids and families. There will be a lot of people who normally don't care about theme parks that will specifically visit just because Nintendo is being built.

 

[Viator]

Just for a point of reference, on Magic this week both Marni & Disneyhead stated they know of "at least" ten D/E ticket attractions already planned for the two existing Universal Orlando parks.

To list some rumor's...

• SNW (P1/P1.5)

1. Mario Kart (concept art fully seen from original pitches)
2. Yoshi (Indications of Omnimover, first for UPR)
3. Donkey Kong (Patent exists, titled "Boom Coaster". Seen in original pitch aswell)
4. Pokemon (Seems to be best guess of the .5 for SNW)

• Potter

1. Forbidden Forest Family Thrill Coaster (Announced, but indications are of multiple animatronics with indoor and outdoor component)
2. Ministry of Magic

• Little things for USF..

1. Secret Life of Pets (Reported multiple times in past from sources across different platfoms, including IU that it was in development. Recently, things popped in of it's possibility of coming to Orlando increasing)
2. Bond/Bourne (Seems to be the rumored replacement for T2)

• Other..

1. Iron Legion? (Patents exist, but may be in R&D hell)
2. Something else?

 

[Teebin]

I wonder if the art and design for such a TV series would be based on the art from the original films, or would it be started fresh. The latter would seem financially unfeasible.