Universal's Epic Universe Wish List & Speculation

KentNelson

Newcomer
Aug 6, 2019
16
Smurfs were a rampant rumor for KidZone before the Nintendo deal went down. It received largely negative response on this Forum.
Why were Smurfs bad received in this forum? I hate the 3D movie versions but the originals from French albums or even the HannahBarberah versions were quite cool. In their origins they were close to The Hobbit or that kind of European fantasy than silly Trolls

Talking about clasic cartoons
Does anybody here remember Dungeons & Dragons 80's cartoon. Super cool and nostalgic IP. Same for Masters of the Universe. Both could do nice rides/lands, Id spend tons of $ of merchan if they were on Uni parks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: therock

RFRees

Member
Dec 24, 2015
828
How would you get from the final lap in the innermost circle back to the unload area? Bridge?
Yep, that's the somewhat transparent grey area after FINISH and before the FINALE/TROPHY. This concept does require one pass over the other tracks with a single track.

I imagine the final bridge (single track) would be a scene where you just barely pass Mario/Bowser, and get to the finish line in first place.

Because each track is independent, you could technically go wild and have numerous bridges, with tracks passing above/below one another... I think this would increase cost though.
 
Last edited:

Mad Dog

Premium Member
Jan 30, 2013
18,126
Pittsburgh area
Why were Smurfs bad received in this forum? I hate the 3D movie versions but the originals from French albums or even the HannahBarberah versions were quite cool. In their origins they were close to The Hobbit or that kind of European fantasy than silly Trolls

Talking about clasic cartoons
Does anybody here remember Dungeons & Dragons 80's cartoon. Super cool and nostalgic IP. Same for Masters of the Universe. Both could do nice rides/lands, Id spend tons of $ of merchan if they were on Uni parks.
I don't know why any individuals were, but forum posters were pretty much anti Smurf. Myself, I couldn't care less one way or another.
 

Alicia

Premium Member
Jul 17, 2014
9,476
Orlando
I don't know why any individuals were, but forum posters were pretty much anti Smurf. Myself, I couldn't care less one way or another.
Because the rumor had it based on the new (at the time) live-action films. And given how that film series fell out of existence and out of most people's minds since then, I think we were right to be against it coming to the parks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dhdhddh and |Q|

KentNelson

Newcomer
Aug 6, 2019
16
Because the rumor had it based on the new (at the time) live-action films. And given how that film series fell out of existence and out of most people's minds since then, I think we were right to be against it coming to the parks.
What if they built it based on original french comics/Hannah Barberah series? Would you like them this way? But I totally agree you. Live action movies versions sucked and of course they dont deserve a place in Uni Resort.
 
  • Like
Reactions: therock

tielo

Veteran Member
Nov 9, 2013
1,982
The Netherlands
What if they built it based on original french comics/Hannah Barberah series? Would you like them this way? But I totally agree you. Live action movies versions sucked and of course they dont deserve a place in Uni Resort.
I love the original comics and cartoons, but that doesn't matter. It isn't owned by Universal and it isn't hot property in the US. Above that the theme parks rights are in use all over the world. So we won't so the Smurfs at Universal ever. Trolls is owned by Universal and is hot property (for whatever reason) and we are 1000% more likely to get Trolls than Smurfs unfortunately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mad Dog

Nick

Staff member
Moderator
Sep 22, 2011
19,800
Orlando
FB 2 underperformed, but making over half a billion is not being a flop lol and its still the Potter brand. Im not worried. Paris seems wonderful choice for them.
I know this is an old post, but wanted to do some movie math:

If a movie has a $200M budget + $100M Marketing (which I believe FB easily had), your movie now needs to make just about $800-$900M before it starts to MAKE money. Remember, the studio doesn't keep but about 50% of the lifetime domestic cume and internationally, films only make about 25% from the theaters.

FB2 was a money loser for Warner Brothers.
 

RFRees

Member
Dec 24, 2015
828
I know this is an old post, but wanted to do some movie math:

If a movie has a $200M budget + $100M Marketing (which I believe FB easily had), your movie now needs to make just about $800-$900M before it starts to MAKE money. Remember, the studio doesn't keep but about 50% of the lifetime domestic cume and internationally, films only make about 25% from the theaters.

FB2 was a money loser for Warner Brothers.
Not sure where you're getting that math. If that was true, many more movies would be losing money. (Though it's possible these production companies are reporting losses for tax purposes.)

According to this article, films need to make twice the budget globally to break even. This also doesn't count merch / DVD / tv / streaming.

This article about Alita agrees, stating it's budget was $170 million so its break even was $340 million (it probably didn't make enough for a sequel).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mad Dog

Nick

Staff member
Moderator
Sep 22, 2011
19,800
Orlando
Not sure where you're getting that math. If that was true, many more movies would be losing money. (Though it's possible these production companies are reporting losses for tax purposes.)

According to this article, films need to make twice the budget globally to break even. This also doesn't count merch / DVD / tv / streaming.

This article about Alita agrees, stating it's budget was $170 million so its break even was $340 million (it probably didn't make enough for a sequel).
$340M is absolute minimum break even on that type of a budget and that's assuming that the $170 includes marketing costs. If not, then there's no way it recoups at $340. I agree that what I stated is probably a bit high, but not by too much. Say $300-$350M was spent on FB2 once you include marketing. That movie now needs to make AT LEAST $700M, if not more to break even.
 

RFRees

Member
Dec 24, 2015
828
$340M is absolute minimum break even on that type of a budget and that's assuming that the $170 includes marketing costs. If not, then there's no way it recoups at $340. I agree that what I stated is probably a bit high, but not by too much. Say $300-$350M was spent on FB2 once you include marketing. That movie now needs to make AT LEAST $700M, if not more to break even.
I gave two sources for my math, can you cite sources which disagree with the 2xbudget rule and state it needs to be four times budget as your math shows?

BTW $170 million was not including marketing. It is generally agreed that Alita made money but not as much as they had hoped, and not enough to warrant a sequel (though still possible).
 
  • Like
Reactions: allaboutthatchase

Andysol

Veteran Member
Jun 21, 2016
3,518
Finally catching up after going through what seemed like 20 pages of nauseating back and forth on where MoM should be located.

Spoiler: we don’t even know MoM will be featured in EU, but we know Paris will. So... why the ridiculous back and forth again? (Please don’t answer, it was hyperbole and I’d rather not have to endure the “MoM should be in London!” Tripe anymore).
My wish list for Fantastic Beasts (aka Wizarding World):
I walk into a well known location, Paris, but it's the 1920's. Not the picture perfect, clean and sugar coated Paris of Epcot that doesn't has the feel of the real thing, no a faithful recreation.
Trees line the impressive buildings and there are little cafe's. At night it gets even more magical.

An artist sells his artwork in a Montmartre street and there is a small souvenir shop.

There is a posh restaurant, art nouveau style of course, with amazing food.

From Montmatre we travel trough an arch and the world changes. It is getting darker. I'm in the wizarding world. There is a tiny circus and in front of it people seem to fly and there are fire eaters.
This is the holding room for an exiting ride. Eventually we are let into the tent.

We meet Newt. He secretly tells us the magical creatures there have a terrible life in the circus and he is going to save them. We step into a ride vehicle and go trough his magical suitcase. Here we meet many environments. The saved magical creatures are happy but there is 1 who creates a problem, a Runespoors it's a huge three-headed snake . During our tour we see how Newt eventually wins the trust of the mistreated animal and we end in the Runespoors' environment and wave Newt and the animal goodbye.

Still exited from the ride I order a croissant with Camembert and a glass of campaign when I notice another ride.
I enter a small courtyard with a beautiful Wallace Fountain in the middle. You can drink some water from it. It's getting quite crowded here as the area fill with people.

Then the lights go out for a second and we are transported too the "Ministrè des Affairs Magiques". In the grand hall we are greeted by young Albus Dumbledore from the first floor. We are recruited to collect information about an evil that threatens the wizarding community. I and the rest of the recruits enter several elevators that takes us, with the power of the Floo network trough the wizarding world. We get to the ministry of magic in Londen, New York, Japan and more. In each location we find multiple rooms and come back with a clue. Fun thing is that every elevator got some different rooms and locations. In the end Dumbledore catches the evil and it ends well as we exit the ride and are back in Paris.
Great post. That’s a key thing people seem to be overlooking regarding Paris and FB. The time period. Paris now? Meh. Paris in the 20s? All of that romanticism and allure that still draws people there today.
Even if it’s mainly nostalgia and not reality, it’s what people think of when they think of Paris.

Between the music, Gardens, fountains and food. It has the potential to be absolutely lovely and a distinct contrast from the fast paced energy of the Hub.
 

Nick

Staff member
Moderator
Sep 22, 2011
19,800
Orlando
I gave two sources for my math, can you cite sources which disagree with the 2xbudget rule and state it needs to be four times budget as your math shows?

BTW $170 million was not including marketing.
If the $170M wasn't including marketing, which almost assuredly was around $75M (probably a conservative estimate) or so itself, there's no way it makes back it's money at the amount you gave based on the amount the studio will receive back from the theaters domestically and internationally. You're talking around $250M+ sunk into a film between production and Marketing, which means, the ACTUAL amount the movie needs to make is $550-$600M just to break even.

I don't care about your "sources" because they're wrong. You can't ignore the facts of doing business and once you add in marketing and the fact that studios only receive, on average, 50% of Domestic box office and 25% of Foreign box office. But you can keep thinking that somehow they're gonna spend $250+M and make it back with $340M.
 

RFRees

Member
Dec 24, 2015
828
If the $170M wasn't including marketing, which almost assuredly was around $75M (probably a conservative estimate) or so itself, there's no way it makes back it's money at the amount you gave based on the amount the studio will receive back from the theaters domestically and internationally. You're talking around $250M+ sunk into a film between production and Marketing, which means, the ACTUAL amount the movie needs to make is $550-$600M just to break even.

I don't care about your "sources" because they're wrong. You can't ignore the facts of doing business and once you add in marketing and the fact that studios only receive, on average, 50% of Domestic box office and 25% of Foreign box office. But you can keep thinking that somehow they're gonna spend $250+M and make it back with $340M.
  1. You can disagree with my sources, I was just asking you to provide your own. Hell, I'm OK with agreeing that my sources are wrong... just prove them wrong instead of just saying they are.
  2. You have already admitted that your original math was wrong, so there was good reason for questioning your original post (and asking for you to provide a source to back it up). Now instead of saying FB2 needed to make $800-900 million to break even, we're just debating over a couple dozen million.
  3. Break even isn't the end of the world. A company isn't super happy on operating at a break even point, but break even does mean that everyone at the studio got paid. The investors will want to see a return, but they shouldn't be expecting a massive return on investment, otherwise everyone would own a movie studio (or a piece of it with stock).
  4. The 25% return from China does not consider any sorts of deals big companies make with the country. 25% is the minimum a company would receive, but likely this is higher for WB, Disney, Universal, etc.
  5. The box office is only one part of the profit of a movie, then you have the merch, royalties (like theme parks maybe?), dvd, streaming, etc. Even if the movie broke even, you could rake in huge afterwards. Horror movies don't do well at the box office, so you could say they're all flops, but they end up making money back on streaming. Something like Fantastic Beasts has great merch potential, and in this case, the movie itself is essentially a commercial for the product.

Anywho...

EU will not be judged on the box office of FB2, though it may be judged on the box office for FB3 (which is slated for Nov 2021). I'm hoping WB+JK realize where they went wrong with FB2 and fix it for the next one. If they do, hopefully FB3 does well and is generally well received by the critics/audiences.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: allaboutthatchase