Universal's New Park/Site B Blue Sky Thread

[Magic-Man]

It’s settled then.

Mario to USF and Pokémon as the big Nintendo anchor for Site B :tease:

:ban:

 

[Mike S]

:ban:

Well, if more people are excited for Pokémon it makes sense right? That’s the argument used for Mario anyway

 

[captainmoch]

Well, if more people are excited for Pokémon it makes sense right? That’s the argument used for Mario anyway

Nah, Mario would create a much bigger splash. As much as I love Pokemon, it has very little appeal/fandom outside of Millenials and kids. You have a hard time finding someone 30+ that's a huge Pokemon fan. Mario literally appeals to every age range.

 

[Mike S]

Nah, Mario would create a much bigger splash. As much as I love Pokemon, it has very little appeal/fandom outside of Millenials and kids. You have a hard time finding someone 30+ that's a huge Pokemon fan. Mario literally appeals to every age range.

My work network has a chat function to connect people who work stateside and in the Disney forums, they mentioned this upcoming gate.

My coworkers really really want LOTR and Pokémon more so than Mario, DreamWorks, Zelda, etc.

 

[zg44]

Pokemon is arguably... a fair bit bigger as a franchise than Mario. The long-running TV show and movies, TCG, and its merchandise sells in the multi-billion a year range (Pokemon International has revenue around $1.5-2.5 billion each year). It's really close though and like splitting hairs. They're the two largest gaming franchises by a mile...


But for a theme park situation, Mario's Super Nintendo World will be the headliner in a way that Pokemon can't be. When Universal goes to advertise to families across the country, they'll be advertising Super Nintendo World as the "Nintendo event" with Mario, Peach, Luigi, Bowser, Donkey Kong and landmarks like Peach's Castle, Bowser's Keep, DKC as well as Mario Kart.

There's just no way for Pokemon to compete with that in a theme park setting; Mario has all those advantages. That's why we're facing the likelihood of SNW being moved to the 3rd dry park. It will be the Harry Potter of the 3rd dry park; the headliner that draws people across the eastern US and Europe and South America to the 3rd dry park.

 

[quinnmac000]

Pokemon is arguably... a fair bit bigger as a franchise than Mario. The long-running TV show and movies, TCG, and its merchandise sells in the multi-billion a year range (Pokemon International has revenue around $1.5-2.5 billion each year). It's really close though and like splitting hairs. They're the two largest gaming franchises by a mile...


But for a theme park situation, Mario's Super Nintendo World will be the headliner in a way that Pokemon can't be. When Universal goes to advertise to families across the country, they'll be advertising Super Nintendo World as the "Nintendo event" with Mario, Peach, Luigi, Bowser, Donkey Kong and landmarks like Peach's Castle, Bowser's Keep, DKC as well as Mario Kart.

There's just no way for Pokemon to compete with that in a theme park setting; Mario has all those advantages. That's why we're facing the likelihood of SNW being moved to the 3rd dry park. It will be the Harry Potter of the 3rd dry park; the headliner that draws people across the eastern US and Europe and South America to the 3rd dry park.

Google wants to argue with you on the popularity worldwide of Mario vs Pokémon....
before 2013 you were right but now...Pokémon popularity is above Mario.
mario, pokemon - Google Trends

 

[JungleSkip]

Google wants to argue with you on the popularity worldwide of Mario vs Pokémon....
before 2013 you were right but now...Pokémon popularity is above Mario.
mario, pokemon - Google Trends

You're missing what he's saying. It's not that Mario is the bigger franchise. It's that Mario is the better theme park seller. Universal can paste the Mushroom Kingdom on posters and sell people on the new park. Pokémon doesn't have any similar iconic locations.

 

[Mike S]

You're missing what he's saying. It's not that Mario is the bigger franchise. It's that Mario is the better theme park seller. Universal can paste the Mushroom Kingdom on posters and sell people on the new park. Pokémon doesn't have any similar iconic locations.

This all assumes Universal isn’t capable of creating a compelling enough Pokémon area. I think it’s very possible.

 

[happy bunny rabbit]

Google wants to argue with you on the popularity worldwide of Mario vs Pokémon....
before 2013 you were right but now...Pokémon popularity is above Mario.
mario, pokemon - Google Trends

I feel google trends doesn't represent all age appeal as well as something like a survey does

 

[JungleSkip]

This all assumes Universal isn’t capable of creating a compelling enough Pokémon area. I think it’s very possible.

I think Universal is totally capable. I also think no matter what there's not an iconic location that can be used to sell the land like the Mushroom Kingdom can sell it.

 

[Mike S]

I think Universal is totally capable. I also think no matter what there's not an iconic location that can be used to sell the land like the Mushroom Kingdom can sell it.

That’s the problem. The location doesn’t matter. It’s the Pokémon themselves that do and are what could catapult the land’s popularity to the stratosphere.

All they need to do is make a Pokémon nature preserve with plenty of chances to see and meet Pokémon and that’s all they’ll need. It would be huge.

 

[zg44]

Google wants to argue with you on the popularity worldwide of Mario vs Pokémon....
before 2013 you were right but now...Pokémon popularity is above Mario.
mario, pokemon - Google Trends

Yeah, that big spike was Pokemon Go I assume.

I'd say that Pokemon has always been a "better seller" as a franchise; even in its worst days it was still moving $1 billion+ in merchandise. Of course, Pokemon Go and the popularity of Sun/Moon and the sequels to those games have boosted Pokemon significantly.

I don't believe Mario has ever sold over $1 billion in merchandise. Of course Pokemon has TCG and tons of toys for the Pokemon that sell well.

But that doesn't have that much relevance to a theme park situation. I think the whole concept of Super Nintendo World can move at least a few million more people than Pokemon Land can.

I'd argue like this:

Projections for 10 years from now

USF (with Pokemon Land in KZ): 13 million a year
3rd dry park (with Super Nintendo World): 11 million a year

USF (with Super Nintendo World in KZ): 15 million a year
3rd dry park (with Pokemon Land): 9 million a year


In terms of merchandise, I'd imagine that a Pokemon Land will move as much merchandise as SNW will, but the attendance/visitor issue is that Super Nintendo World will likely be the much more impressive anchor to the general public.

You're talking about 25-50 year old parents with 1-3 kids; that's your target market. Splash ads with Super Nintendo World during the Super Bowl or talk about Super Nintendo World on the radio. I'd think Super Nintendo World will do a better job of actually shifting attendance higher than a Pokemon Land in the same ad spots.

That doesn't mean Pokemon Land wouldn't be a hit. You can design an impressive Pokemon Land that will be a hit. It'd be full all day, but that's more about shifting people once they're already in the gate. I think Super Nintendo World would have a much bigger impact on overall attendance as opposed to Pokemon Land which is more likely to just shift people once they're inside.

That's why I think the bean counters are a bit concerned about whether Pokemon and LOTR are enough to anchor the 3rd dry park. USF would have Harry Potter and Super Nintendo World. Those 2 are bigger hitters in terms of attendance draws.

 

[devinp267]

That’s the problem. The location doesn’t matter. It’s the Pokémon themselves that do and are what could catapult the land’s popularity to the stratosphere.

All they need to do is make a Pokémon nature preserve with plenty of chances to see and meet Pokémon and that’s all they’ll need. It would be huge.

This is what I was thinking, + a snap ride. And maybe a huge indoor park inside the area with ar goggles to go catching? Plus some flat rides

 

[quinnmac000]

Yeah, that big spike was Pokemon Go I assume.

I'd say that Pokemon has always been a "better seller" as a franchise; even in its worst days it was still moving $1 billion+ in merchandise. Of course, Pokemon Go and the popularity of Sun/Moon and the sequels to those games have boosted Pokemon significantly.

I don't believe Mario has ever sold over $1 billion in merchandise. Of course Pokemon has TCG and tons of toys for the Pokemon that sell well.

But that doesn't have that much relevance to a theme park situation. I think the whole concept of Super Nintendo World can move at least a few million more people than Pokemon Land can.

I'd argue like this:

Projections for 10 years from now

USF (with Pokemon Land in KZ): 13 million a year
3rd dry park (with Super Nintendo World): 11 million a year

USF (with Super Nintendo World in KZ): 15 million a year
3rd dry park (with Pokemon Land): 9 million a year


In terms of merchandise, I'd imagine that a Pokemon Land will move as much merchandise as SNW will, but the attendance/visitor issue is that Super Nintendo World will likely be the much more impressive anchor to the general public.

You're talking about 25-50 year old parents with 1-3 kids; that's your target market. Splash ads with Super Nintendo World during the Super Bowl or talk about Super Nintendo World on the radio. I'd think Super Nintendo World will do a better job of actually shifting attendance higher than a Pokemon Land in the same ad spots.

That doesn't mean Pokemon Land wouldn't be a hit. You can design an impressive Pokemon Land that will be a hit. It'd be full all day, but that's more about shifting people once they're already in the gate. I think Super Nintendo World would have a much bigger impact on overall attendance as opposed to Pokemon Land which is more likely to just shift people once they're inside.

That's why I think the bean counters are a bit concerned about whether Pokemon and LOTR are enough to anchor the 3rd dry park. USF would have Harry Potter and Super Nintendo World. Those 2 are bigger hitters in terms of attendance draws.

While Mario has the location aspect and a long series of games (Mario Kart, Mario Tennis, Mario Party, Luigi's Mansion, Captain Toad, Paper Mario, Dr Mario, etc) that Universal could easily exploit by adding a resort to the Land and have the spinoff games being a part of but I don't think they will do that which leaves the main plans we have seen. Yoshi, Mario Kart, DK, and playgrounds. Essentially what we are getting is a real world dungeon crawl with a racing ride and a coaster which fits the main games. If Mario Party and that other stuff was being included and part of the land, I would argue it a much larger draw but in detail this is why I see Pokémon being a much better theme park land and advertisement.

You are right. Pokémon does lack a sole iconic location. However, everything about Pokémon fits levels of interactivity that Mario attractions being advertised do not. I think you missed a lot of hype that 20th anniversary Pokémon Commercial at the super bowl got. You had some many other things to do in the Pokémon games than just battle, you have the Team Rocket Game Arcade where you essentially gambled to win points to buy TMs or Pokémon back in Pokémon Red, Blue, Yellow. You had dungeon crawling elements where you can just explore and search away for things while using your Pokémon to help whether it was them using their strength or using their eyes to conduct Flash etc. You can groom and feed your Pokémon in the recent games. You had the safari zone which focus was solely capturing Pokémon and not battling. There was the Poke contests where you demonstrate how cool, cute, etc your Pokémon was. You have Pokémon snap and the Poke Camera thing in Sun and Moon where you take pictures of Pokémon and post them. You can make Poke blocks for your Pokémon, buy Poke beans, etc. You could solve puzzles and crimes at the fun house and in Detective Pikachu. You could just go exploring and walk around with no consequences at all. While Mario games are more linear, Pokémon was a bit more open allowing you the player to dictate what you did.

There is a level of world building, immersion, and experiences in Pokémon that crosses way more generational gaps than Mario. The only way and the only reason I see Mario being larger is I foresee is UC lacking the imagination or having creatives who actually have played every single game, seen every season, seen every movie, etc to actually hit that level of immersion that Potter has reached. A well built Pokémon land would be as relaxing or adventurous as the people there should want it to be. It shouldn't be limited to land but water, air, etc.

 

[Magic-Man]

While Mario has the location aspect and a long series of games (Mario Kart, Mario Tennis, Mario Party, Luigi's Mansion, Captain Toad, Paper Mario, Dr Mario, etc) that Universal could easily exploit by adding a resort to the Land and have the spinoff games being a part of but I don't think they will do that which leaves the main plans we have seen. Yoshi, Mario Kart, DK, and playgrounds. Essentially what we are getting is a real world dungeon crawl with a racing ride and a coaster which fits the main games. If Mario Party and that other stuff was being included and part of the land, I would argue it a much larger draw but in detail this is why I see Pokémon being a much better theme park land and advertisement.

You are right. Pokémon does lack a sole iconic location. However, everything about Pokémon fits levels of interactivity that Mario attractions being advertised do not. I think you missed a lot of hype that 20th anniversary Pokémon Commercial at the super bowl got. You had some many other things to do in the Pokémon games than just battle, you have the Team Rocket Game Arcade where you essentially gambled to win points to buy TMs or Pokémon back in Pokémon Red, Blue, Yellow. You had dungeon crawling elements where you can just explore and search away for things while using your Pokémon to help whether it was them using their strength or using their eyes to conduct Flash etc. You can groom and feed your Pokémon in the recent games. You had the safari zone which focus was solely capturing Pokémon and not battling. There was the Poke contests where you demonstrate how cool, cute, etc your Pokémon was. You have Pokémon snap and the Poke Camera thing in Sun and Moon where you take pictures of Pokémon and post them. You can make Poke blocks for your Pokémon, buy Poke beans, etc. You could solve puzzles and crimes at the fun house and in Detective Pikachu. You could just go exploring and walk around with no consequences at all. While Mario games are more linear, Pokémon was a bit more open allowing you the player to dictate what you did.

There is a level of world building, immersion, and experiences in Pokémon that crosses way more generational gaps than Mario. The only way and the only reason I see Mario being larger is I foresee is UC lacking the imagination or having creatives who actually have played every single game, seen every season, seen every movie, etc to actually hit that level of immersion that Potter has reached. A well built Pokémon land would be as relaxing or adventurous as the people there should want it to be. It shouldn't be limited to land but water, air, etc.

While I agree with you on some areas, I just don't think that Pokemon would be a bigger draw than Mario. Mario is iconic in a way Pokemon isn't, no matter how much media presence it has.

You would also have to use up a lot of acreage just to build the things you described, and half the GP wouldn't even do the stuff you listed. In the end, most people go to theme parks to ride rides. Not groom fictional characters. Not feed fictional characters. They come to ride.

 

[Galaxy Defender]

My blue sky wish would be for one of the hotels on the new property. I would love to see a rotating restaurant at the top of a Universal hotel. In the course of 45 minutes to an hour you can get a panorama view while enjoying your meal.

 

[Mike S]

Yeah, that big spike was Pokemon Go I assume.

I'd say that Pokemon has always been a "better seller" as a franchise; even in its worst days it was still moving $1 billion+ in merchandise. Of course, Pokemon Go and the popularity of Sun/Moon and the sequels to those games have boosted Pokemon significantly.

I don't believe Mario has ever sold over $1 billion in merchandise. Of course Pokemon has TCG and tons of toys for the Pokemon that sell well.

But that doesn't have that much relevance to a theme park situation. I think the whole concept of Super Nintendo World can move at least a few million more people than Pokemon Land can.

I'd argue like this:

Projections for 10 years from now

USF (with Pokemon Land in KZ): 13 million a year
3rd dry park (with Super Nintendo World): 11 million a year

USF (with Super Nintendo World in KZ): 15 million a year
3rd dry park (with Pokemon Land): 9 million a year


In terms of merchandise, I'd imagine that a Pokemon Land will move as much merchandise as SNW will, but the attendance/visitor issue is that Super Nintendo World will likely be the much more impressive anchor to the general public.

You're talking about 25-50 year old parents with 1-3 kids; that's your target market. Splash ads with Super Nintendo World during the Super Bowl or talk about Super Nintendo World on the radio. I'd think Super Nintendo World will do a better job of actually shifting attendance higher than a Pokemon Land in the same ad spots.

That doesn't mean Pokemon Land wouldn't be a hit. You can design an impressive Pokemon Land that will be a hit. It'd be full all day, but that's more about shifting people once they're already in the gate. I think Super Nintendo World would have a much bigger impact on overall attendance as opposed to Pokemon Land which is more likely to just shift people once they're inside.

That's why I think the bean counters are a bit concerned about whether Pokemon and LOTR are enough to anchor the 3rd dry park. USF would have Harry Potter and Super Nintendo World. Those 2 are bigger hitters in terms of attendance draws.

Why do you keep differentiating the two? “Super Nintendo World” is a name that’ll likely go the same way “Wizarding World of Harry Potter” did. Any other Nintendo lands will have that moniker. It wouldn’t make sense to do otherwise. @quinnmac000 already went way farther than I did in showing how much of a draw a well done Pokémon area could be to the new park. If the main E Ticket is the Safari Zone like it should be putting it in the new park gives them whatever space they need. Mario on the other hand has already been fitted for KidZone and the plans were already amazing.

 

[quinnmac000]

While I agree with you on some areas, I just don't think that Pokemon would be a bigger draw than Mario. Mario is iconic in a way Pokemon isn't, no matter how much media presence it has.

You would also have to use up a lot of acreage just to build the things you described, and half the GP wouldn't even do the stuff you listed. In the end, most people go to theme parks to ride rides. Not groom fictional characters. Not feed fictional characters. They come to ride.

I would argue Pikachu is just as iconic as Mario. Hollywood Studios is a demonstration that people don't just go to theme parks just to ride rides otherwise they wouldn't go to Hollywood studios. You are wrong with the GP not doing half that stuff because if that was the case, interactive Potter Wands would not sell as much as they do nor would the banshee puppets.

People like things they can play with and use to interact within the land rather than just stand around, ride rides, and enjoy the scenery. Nothing I suggested stated those ideas couldn't be implemented into a queue and had to be sole attractions but the thing is those Pokémon games gave you the choice if you wanted it to be a slice of life game, a collecting game, an action game, a strategy game, etc. Universal should do that same thing with the land if they understood the ethos of the game.

 

[zg44]

While Mario has the location aspect and a long series of games (Mario Kart, Mario Tennis, Mario Party, Luigi's Mansion, Captain Toad, Paper Mario, Dr Mario, etc) that Universal could easily exploit by adding a resort to the Land and have the spinoff games being a part of but I don't think they will do that which leaves the main plans we have seen. Yoshi, Mario Kart, DK, and playgrounds. Essentially what we are getting is a real world dungeon crawl with a racing ride and a coaster which fits the main games. If Mario Party and that other stuff was being included and part of the land, I would argue it a much larger draw but in detail this is why I see Pokémon being a much better theme park land and advertisement.

You are right. Pokémon does lack a sole iconic location. However, everything about Pokémon fits levels of interactivity that Mario attractions being advertised do not. I think you missed a lot of hype that 20th anniversary Pokémon Commercial at the super bowl got. You had some many other things to do in the Pokémon games than just battle, you have the Team Rocket Game Arcade where you essentially gambled to win points to buy TMs or Pokémon back in Pokémon Red, Blue, Yellow. You had dungeon crawling elements where you can just explore and search away for things while using your Pokémon to help whether it was them using their strength or using their eyes to conduct Flash etc. You can groom and feed your Pokémon in the recent games. You had the safari zone which focus was solely capturing Pokémon and not battling. There was the Poke contests where you demonstrate how cool, cute, etc your Pokémon was. You have Pokémon snap and the Poke Camera thing in Sun and Moon where you take pictures of Pokémon and post them. You can make Poke blocks for your Pokémon, buy Poke beans, etc. You could solve puzzles and crimes at the fun house and in Detective Pikachu. You could just go exploring and walk around with no consequences at all. While Mario games are more linear, Pokémon was a bit more open allowing you the player to dictate what you did.

There is a level of world building, immersion, and experiences in Pokémon that crosses way more generational gaps than Mario. The only way and the only reason I see Mario being larger is I foresee is UC lacking the imagination or having creatives who actually have played every single game, seen every season, seen every movie, etc to actually hit that level of immersion that Potter has reached. A well built Pokémon land would be as relaxing or adventurous as the people there should want it to be. It shouldn't be limited to land but water, air, etc.

Here's the thing; Pokemon Land in KZ may even move more merchandise than Mario Land in the 3rd dry park. I wouldn't discount that from happening; I know how strong the attraction of Pikachu plushies and all of the Pokemon merchandise is.

But the problem in terms of advertising and bringing people to the parks is that the Mario Land is going to be seen as the "main Nintendo Land" by the lay audience.

I think a Pokemon Land can do as strong as job as a Mario Land of entertaining people, but if you have a multi-million dollar ad campaign with the iconic places in Mario Land, I think that measurably shifts attendance more than the equivalent campaign for Pokemon Land will. And the general theme park audience will see it that way as well.

They're both going to do well; we're talking about 2 of the most iconic gaming franchises ever. But I just think that Universal executives believe that Mario Land is the better anchor.

Why do you keep differentiating the two? “Super Nintendo World” is a name that’ll likely go the same way “Wizarding World of Harry Potter” did. Any other Nintendo lands will have that moniker. It wouldn’t make sense to do otherwise. @quinnmac000 already went way farther than I did in showing how much of a draw a well done Pokémon area could be to the new park. If the main E Ticket is the Safari Zone like it should be putting it in the new park gives them whatever space they need. Mario on the other hand has already been fitted for KidZone and the plans were already amazing.

Because I do think that Universal will change its advertising plan slightly. With WWoHP, those 2 lands are treated equally for all intents and purposes, and they make clear that you need a hopper to use the train.

With Super Nintendo World, for all intents and purposes, the Mario Land will be treated as the "main Super Nintendo World", the flagship land that's anchoring the 3rd dry park.

The Pokemon Land and Zelda Land may also have SNW affixed to the front of their names, but I think they'll want to at least make clear that people need to go to the 3rd dry park to really experience it, i.e. to make sure the 3rd dry park has healthy attendance from it.

The whole thing comes down more to presentation and advertising than it does other considerations. There's no doubt in my mind that Pokemon will be as successful in terms of merchandising.

But I think if the main Super Nintendo World - Mario Land is in USF, that will create a possible long-term attendance imbalance that isn't worth risking.

 

[fryoj]

Here's the thing; Pokemon Land in KZ may even move more merchandise than Mario Land in the 3rd dry park. I wouldn't discount that from happening; I know how strong the attraction of Pikachu plushies and all of the Pokemon merchandise is.

But the problem in terms of advertising and bringing people to the parks is that the Mario Land is going to be seen as the "main Nintendo Land" by the lay audience.

I think a Pokemon Land can do as strong as job as a Mario Land of entertaining people, but if you have a multi-million dollar ad campaign with the iconic places in Mario Land, I think that measurably shifts attendance more than the equivalent campaign for Pokemon Land will. And the general theme park audience will see it that way as well.

They're both going to do well; we're talking about 2 of the most iconic gaming franchises ever. But I just think that Universal executives believe that Mario Land is the better anchor.


Because I do think that Universal will change its advertising plan slightly. With WWoHP, those 2 lands are treated equally for all intents and purposes, and they make clear that you need a hopper to use the train.

With Super Nintendo World, for all intents and purposes, the Mario Land will be treated as the "main Super Nintendo World", the flagship land that's anchoring the 3rd dry park.

The Pokemon Land and Zelda Land may also have SNW affixed to the front of their names, but I think they'll want to at least make clear that people need to go to the 3rd dry park to really experience it, i.e. to make sure the 3rd dry park has healthy attendance from it.

The whole thing comes down more to presentation and advertising than it does other considerations. There's no doubt in my mind that Pokemon will be as successful in terms of merchandising.

But I think if the main Super Nintendo World - Mario Land is in USF, that will create a possible long-term attendance imbalance that isn't worth risking.

Don't waste your time trying to use logic or numbers in this thread. Certain people are locked on what what they want and will not have any rational discussion that deviates from their dream scenario.