Universal's New Park/Site B Blue Sky Thread

[Alicia]

Hmm... this new park will likely feature dinosaurs, beasts, Pokemon, dragons, talking animals, and misc. magic creatures. They're all some sort of animals or creatures... How about we name the park... Beastly Kingdom? What a nice, original name.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Ride Them

Universal's Menagerie of Enchantment

Universal's Kingdoms of Beasts

Universal's Monster Mash

Universal's Creature Park

Universal's Islands of Adventure: Part II

...
...
all still better than DHS's proposed names.

 

[Andysol]

Using a generous 5 lands- I’d think only a max of 2 could be single IP focus. Maybe even just one.
LoTR would be the obvious best choice with Star Trek or Jurassic World coming in second.
-Europe (say, France?) w/ A FB ride- but not FB only. It would need an original attraction as well or a restaurant, or live entertainment, etc.
-Either Illumination or Dreamworks- not both- with mini-lands. A mashup not single IP
-Nintendo- again, a mashup

And there’s your park.
And personally, I’d rather them have a monsters area and drop the 2nd dedicated IP land (sorry Star Trek or JW).
I don’t think the GP is going to want to go to a park with LoTR, Jurassic World, Hyrule, Far Far and Away, and Forbidden Beast land- and that’s all that’s there is- with no potential for Universal to shoehorn in temporary attractions or characters.

I want all of them- fully immersive and dedicated lands for LoTR, Star Trek, Hyrule, Jurassic World and even Far Far and Away. But the reality is, pick two.

 

[captainmoch]

Not to be the downer here, but isn't 7 properties quite a bit unrealistic considering how they create lands now?
Our two most recent examples domestically were- IoA with 5 (excluding entrance) DAK with 3 (3.5 if you include where pandora is now) even DCA had 4 or 5- no clue how to even count the areas in that original cluster F.

With how parks used to be, several of those could have been in "combined" lands. How they are now- with HP changing the narrative- people will expect dedicated areas. In particular when it comes to LoTR and Star Trek. FB can't really get combined unless its incorporated into a European town that could carry over to something else.
Dreamworks and Illumination can be catch alls or incorporate multiple mini-lands within them. Same with Nintendo.
Marvel would be interesting to say the least- both it or Jurassic World free up their spaces at IoA (although if they are going to tear down those areas anyway after park 4's new updated lands- why not just tear them down at IoA and update there?)

I say all that to say- that's way too many IPs and lands- no need to try beat ourselves up trying to incorporate them all into one park, as the park almost assuredly wont have 8 dedicated areas (including entrance) on opening day (or potentially ever).
With JUST that list, and just adding 1 more IP (Say Jurassic World) - you're looking at two full fledged parks.

For one, we can definitely rule out Illumination in Park 3. With DM and Pets in USF, there's not much left to bring into a 3rd park. I mean, I guess you could TECHNICALLY add Sing but... yeah, no. And Marvel contractually cannot appear outside of IOA, so that's ruled out of that list as well. And that brings us down to Lord of the Rings, Nintendo, Star Trek, Fantastic Beasts, Jurassic World, and DreamWorks, which is 6 properties. You are right that it's excessive by other park standards, but... Tokyo Disneysea opened with seven themed areas. And if Uni is really aiming to match Tokyo Disneysea and blow our socks off, than I wouldn't rule out the possibility of that many areas.

 

[Blue]

This park sounds like it could potentially end up as IOA 2.0. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I hope they get a little more creative than just creating 4-5 single IP lands.

 

[Teebin]

Not to be the downer here, but isn't 7 properties quite a bit unrealistic considering how they create lands now?

Those were examples of diversity not of quantity.

 

[Blue]

Using a generous 5 lands- I’d think only a max of 2 could be single IP focus. Maybe even just one.
LoTR would be the obvious best choice with Star Trek or Jurassic World coming in second.
-Europe (say, France?) w/ A FB ride- but not FB only. It would need an original attraction as well or a restaurant, or live entertainment, etc.
-Either Illumination or Dreamworks- not both- with mini-lands. A mashup not single IP
-Nintendo- again, a mashup

And there’s your park.
And personally, I’d rather them have a monsters area and drop the 2nd dedicated IP land (sorry Star Trek or JW).
I don’t think the GP is going to want to go to a park with LoTR, Jurassic World, Hyrule, Far Far and Away, and Forbidden Beast land- and that’s all that’s there is- with no potential for Universal to shoehorn in temporary attractions or characters.

I want all of them- fully immersive and dedicated lands for LoTR, Star Trek, Hyrule, Jurassic World and even Far Far and Away. But the reality is, pick two.

I mostly agree with this. Does Nintendo really need to be in one area though? Zelda and Pokemon are pretty different from each other. The only thing that connects them is Nintendo.

I'd prefer something like generic-themed lands (fantasy, horror, sci-fi, etc) with the appropriate IPs in each.

 

[Paulio]

Just had a weird thought...Universal can keep them both? lol Bring both fandoms to their parks. :shrug:

Take DC to the 4th park.

Yes, because prior to Disney's acquisition of Marvel, Universal Studios and Marvel agreed to a deal in the 1990s that gave Universal the rights to use Marvel properties in its parks, including an exclusive rights East of the Mississippi regarding the "Second Gate" (known as Islands of Adventure) of Universal Orlando, as well as the rights in non-American nations that will abide the same guideline as the East of the Mississippi clause should a Marvel attraction occur in a Universal park worldwide. So when Disney bought Marvel out in 2009, the rights for Universal to have any Marvel attraction beyond what they already have in several locations fell, but they can still keep the ones they already have. Orlando and Japan happened to be one of them.

Basically, Disney World and Tokyo Disney cannot use any Marvel characters who are specifically used in nearby Universal parks, such as Avengers, X-Men, F4, and Spider-Man (only that right exists in Japan). So you won't see any Spider-Man ride either at Disney World or Tokyo Disney anytime soon. However, they can use whatever Marvel characters it wants outside the specific Marvel character clause between Universal and Marvel. That's why the Guardians of the Galaxy roller coaster ride is coming to Epcot and Big Hero Six to come to Tokyo Disneyland, as they don't have any connection to the universes of the Avengers, X-Men, F4, and Spider Man. You can read more about this contract and let me know if you have any problems with it. Marvel Agreement between MCA Inc. and Marvel Entertainment Group

Take DC to the 4th park.

Won't likely happen, you have to convince Six Flags to give up the rights to DC Comics, which they won't do.

 

[Andysol]

I mostly agree with this. Does Nintendo really need to be in one area though? Zelda and Pokemon are pretty different from each other. The only thing that connects them is Nintendo.

I'd prefer something like generic-themed lands (fantasy, horror, sci-fi, etc) with the appropriate IPs in each.

I agree- Zelda and Pokemon are super different. So in this new park- pick one- you likely aren't getting two. Or at the very least, not two dedicated immersive lands like people have in their minds. Only way that happens is Zelda at IoA and Pokemon at new park, etc.

This is a pivotal time for a new park. Nothing will have been done domestically in almost 25 years by the time this thing likely opens. But since the last parks, it has been IP city domestically. IP lands are all the rage- even when they are mistakes; see Toy Story Land vs what should have been a large Pixar area comprising several IPs.

So will Universal follow the trend that, ironically, they set- on a huge scale in an entire park? Or go with, what I feel like is better, the tried and true and tested "generic areas" with appropriate IPs to follow.
They have the chance to hit it out of the park or be a dud. As crazy as it sounds, the "revolutionary" way with specific IPs might be the dud.

 

[captainmoch]

Honestly, I DO think a park with LOTR, Zelda, Pokemon, Jurassic World, Fantastic Beasts, and DreamWorks would be a good enough draw. LOTR and Pokemon are some of the last major IPs left for fully immersive lands and their huge fanbases would take meccas to go and see them brought to life. Jurassic World was one of the biggest blockbusters of recent years and will finally give JP the state-of-the-art land it deserves, which IMO would draw in huge crowds. DreamWorks would guarantee the park brings in families, as things like Shrek, Kung Fu Panda, and How to Train Your Dragon are extremely recognizable to kids and have great potential for attractions. Fantastic Beasts may have done mediocre domestically but it was a big hit overseas, which is one of UOR's biggest targets. Zelda is a bit more niche but would be the perfect supplementary IP to the larger scale ones, and is a beautiful series aesthetically that may even attract people that haven't played the games.

In terms of making the park feel unique and not like IOA 2.0, I think there's subtle ways they could do that while still sticking with an IP formula. Having a hub and spoke design with a large icon in the middle of the park alone will give the park a completely different feel than IOA. Plus, with all of the free space Universal has on this new plot, they could give each land plenty of breathing room rather than cramping them together like IOA. I also believe that the IPs I listed each have similar design traits, with each heavily featuring nature and landscaping, that would make them blend together very nicely unlike the more hodgepodge-y IOA.

 

[Andysol]

Honestly, I DO think a park with LOTR, Zelda, Pokemon, Jurassic World, Fantastic Beasts, and DreamWorks would be a good enough draw.

I agree. But 7 lands (incl entrance) isn’t going to happen. Remove two

 

[Alicia]

I agree. But 7 lands (incl entrance) isn’t going to happen. Remove two

Really? Magic Kingdom has Main Street USA, Adventureland, Frontierland, Liberty Square, Tomorrowland, Fantasyland, and Storybook Circus, and it seems just fine. And that's excluding the hub.

(And yea, I consider Storybook it's own land, but you could split it between classic FL and New FL instead if you prefer.)

Of course there's Disneyland too:

1. Adventureland
2. Critter Country
3. Fantasyland
4. Frontierland
5. Main Street, U.S.A.
6. Mickey's Toontown
7. New Orleans Square
8. Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge

I haven't been following this thread too closely, but I don't think there's ever a real limit to the number of lands for any theme park, as long as it's fun and easy to get around.

 

[zg44]

I agree- Zelda and Pokemon are super different. So in this new park- pick one- you likely aren't getting two. Or at the very least, not two dedicated immersive lands like people have in their minds. Only way that happens is Zelda at IoA and Pokemon at new park, etc.

This is a pivotal time for a new park. Nothing will have been done domestically in almost 25 years by the time this thing likely opens. But since the last parks, it has been IP city domestically. IP lands are all the rage- even when they are mistakes; see Toy Story Land vs what should have been a large Pixar area comprising several IPs.

So will Universal follow the trend that, ironically, they set- on a huge scale in an entire park? Or go with, what I feel like is better, the tried and true and tested "generic areas" with appropriate IPs to follow.
They have the chance to hit it out of the park or be a dud. As crazy as it sounds, the "revolutionary" way with specific IPs might be the dud.

To be fair though, the movie industry (and as an analogy theme park industry) has completely changed since the last major US park opened.

Now the IP is the draw, not the actor/actress. And the same is true of parks where IPs have replaced specific thrills as the strongest drawing power.

Comcast's ownership of Universal has accelerated that trend across Universal. Of course, the Harry Potter deal for theme parks was put in place before that, but look at the way that Universal's movie slate has almost completely shifted towards IP over the past 3-5 years. (And the financial results followed with Jurassic reboot, F&F, animated films leading to much bigger box office hauls).

All I'll say is, don't be surprised if we see record-breaking levels of IP immersiveness for a new park in this next park.

 

[captainmoch]

I agree. But 7 lands (incl entrance) isn’t going to happen. Remove two

Islands of Adventure opened with six lands, including the entrance, so if we're going by that, it'd only need to remove one. If we're REALLY sticking closely to this, than Zelda can be removed and placed in IOA and Park 3 would be mostly fine.

I haven't been following this thread too closely, but I don't think there's ever a real limit to the number of lands for any theme park, as long as it's fun and easy to get around.

I agree, it's arbitrary. Of course, they only have so much money and space, but...
1) Not every area would have to be huge. Fantastic Beasts and Zelda in particular would likely be smaller, supplementary lands compared to the rest.
2) The opening area doesn't count. It'd likely not have any attractions, and even if it's nicely themed, it'd still be a bunch of gift shops and restaurants. Extremely easy to design and build.
3) Uni's going to want to make this park look attractive compared to the existing USF and IOA... both of which are parks that currently have eight lands. Of course, they didn't start with that many, but when it comes to marketing a new park, it'd make sense to pour in a bit of extra money to make the new property look beefy and attractive. If not, they risk tourists thinking "Well that park looks cool, but come on, there's only one park with five lands. Why not go to these two much bigger. familiar ones in close proximity?"

 

[Mad Dog]

To be fair though, the movie industry (and as an analogy theme park industry) has completely changed since the last major US park opened.

Now the IP is the draw, not the actor/actress. And the same is true of parks where IPs have replaced specific thrills as the strongest drawing power.

Comcast's ownership of Universal has accelerated that trend across Universal. Of course, the Harry Potter deal for theme parks was put in place before that, but look at the way that Universal's movie slate has almost completely shifted towards IP over the past 3-5 years. (And the financial results followed with Jurassic reboot, F&F, animated films leading to much bigger box office hauls).

All I'll say is, don't be surprised if we see record-breaking levels of IP immersiveness for a new park in this next park.

Yes, I agree. Plus Comcast didn't over pay for Dreamworks with the idea of not using DW IP's in the theme parks, especially the new one. .

 

[Disneyhead]

We have to readjust our thinking about "Lands". I think several of this parks "lands" will be more on the scale of World Showcase pavilions than full blown lands.

Of course, there will be the big anchor lands (Zelda, Jurassic World, Nintendo, Potter).

 

[zg44]

They don’t have to give away their rights completely. If Six Flags have no interest in Orlando, I don’t know if it would be possible or not for them to extend their license to Universal. They’d probably want something hefty for it though.

It could be something that Warner might be interested in given the success of Potter.

This is another reason to closely watch the SeaWorld situation. If Six Flags takes over BGT or SeaWorld Orlando, then any chance of a DC World at a future Universal park is probably toast. As it is now, I could see Warner agreeing to carve Florida out of the next Six Flags-Warner agreement as long as Six Flags stays out of Orlando and Tampa.

 

[Scott W.]

This is another reason to closely watch the SeaWorld situation. If Six Flags takes over BGT or SeaWorld Orlando, then any chance of a DC World at a future Universal park is probably toast. As it is now, I could see Warner agreeing to carve Florida out of the next Six Flags-Warner agreement as long as Six Flags stays out of Orlando and Tampa.

I think the idea is toast anyway. They have Marvel in IOA and plenty to go around the new park without paying over ends for an IP that’s losing popularity and it’s not really worth annoying Disney or the Marvel contract people as I think this could be a violation of it.

I’d file it away as possible but unlikely.

 

[captainmoch]

DC is well known and all but they flat-out don't need it when they have Marvel. As nice as it'd be to see a fully-realized Gotham City area, it's just not in Universal's interest. There's much bigger and more worthwhile fish to go after first.

 

[zg44]

I think the idea is toast anyway. They have Marvel in IOA and plenty to go around the new park without paying over ends for an IP that’s losing popularity and it’s not really worth annoying Disney or the Marvel contract people as I think this could be a violation of it.

I’d file it away as possible but unlikely.

The one worth really forcing out (other than getting LOTR/Middle Earth rights now that the Warner-Tolkien Estate lawsuit is settled) is Star Trek theme park rights from Viacom. Honestly, if they want to have major Star Trek attractions (some key acreage in Beijing and Orlando), now's the time to cut a deal or watch Star Wars be the only game in town. I mean, it's a license in exchange for free money and huge exposure, at this point why turn it down?

Yes, I agree. Plus Comcast didn't over pay for Dreamworks with the idea of not using DW IP's in the theme parks, especially the new one. .

Yeah, the price for DreamWorks ($3.8 billion) pretty much assumes that you maximize its relevance across platforms (the Netflix streaming deal, Universal Kids cable channel, 2 DreamWorks movies a year, the RC cruise license, and in the theme parks/merch. sales).

Realistically, Illumination is just too young right now to have a full set of IPs like DreamWorks has developed over 2 decades. It'll be more interesting to see where Illumination is after they get through their current set of IP movies planned through 2020 to see if they launch other properties to the heights that DM/Minions has reached.

By the time the next park is around, there might be more animated IPs to consider.

 

[Paulio]

DC is well known and all but they flat-out don't need it when they have Marvel. As nice as it'd be to see a fully-realized Gotham City area, it's just not in Universal's interest. There's much bigger and more worthwhile fish to go after first.

Especially since the DC Cinematic Universe is still in the limbo despite Wonder Woman at the moment. However, that said, the Marvel area at Universal's Islands of Adventure would soon be outdated especially with the MCU and X-men movies coming out these days, and Universal hasn't done anything significantly with it since its inception.