Universal's New Park/Site B Blue Sky Thread

[Andysol]

What if?...

So would I rather have an entire park be Nintendo?

Or would I rather have those exact same attractions. Except Pokemon/Kirby takes over Kidzone, Zelda takes over LC and SNW/DK be the anchor of the new park + Multiple other attractions in Park 3.

I'll take door number 2, please.

 

[Magic-Man]

1. Not saying it's confirmed or anything, but....

2. I made it, somewhat hastily. (Let's see how fast it gets posted on blogs and websites as breaking news!)

:stun:

 

[Imperius]

This would be a Fast and Furious level bad idea IMO.

 

[Magic-Man]

.......................what if they did both? What if they made a small park for Nintendo, and a bigger park for everything else?

:bolt:

 

[Viator]

.......................what if they did both? What if they made a small park for Nintendo, and a bigger park for everything else?

:bolt:

I would sincerely doubt that they'd go Boutique with Nintendo.

 

[Mike S]

1. Not saying it's confirmed or anything, but....

2. I made it, somewhat hastily. (Let's see how fast it gets posted on blogs and websites as breaking news!)

 

[Imperius]

.......................what if they did both? What if they made a small park for Nintendo, and a bigger park for everything else?

:bolt:

Only way this makes sense. Leaving out far better IPs such as Dreamworks, UC Monsters, and so on for all Nintendo is a bad idea.

 

[Disneyhead]

1. This time she did.

2. PhotoShop.

1. Yep. Why?

2. That's what I figured, but a lot of trouble for funsies. And not something @AliciaStella is proned to do just for trolling fun.

 

[quinnmac000]

I would sincerely doubt that they'd go Boutique with Nintendo.

But what if that is what Nintendo wants? Remember its not just Universal but a collaboration. Just like with Potter and how JK Rowling didn't want her property used in certain ways.

 

[Magic-Man]

I would sincerely doubt that they'd go Boutique with Nintendo.

I don't see why not? It's a way to promote two-park tickets.

 

[Viator]

But what if that is what Nintendo wants? Remember its not just Universal but a collaboration. Just like with Potter and how JK Rowling didn't want her property used in certain ways.

I see it as a honest risk, to when why are you segregating all of your Nintendo to when you can flesh it out, giving it to areas at the resort that need's things, and then in turn, giving the third gate a notable IP at the start, with Lord of The Rings, DWA, and Sanrio backing it up in the rear?

They don't have to light the entire candle at one instance. Nor does it seem financially profitable to me.

 

[Mike S]

I don't see why not? It's a way to promote two-park tickets.

As long as it’s not priced like Discovery Cove I’m good. Also if this is even a possibility this has to go further than typical licensing. Nintendo would be investing a good amount themselves into a whole park.

 

[Magic-Man]

As long as it’s not priced like Discovery Cove I’m good. Also if this is even a possibility this has to go further than typical licensing. Nintendo would be investing a good amount themselves into a whole park.

If there really is going to be an entire Nintendo theme park, any chance we see Metroid, F-Zero, Smash, and others? If so, count me in!

 

[shiekra38]

You all are super serious about LOTR

Also, thinking Nintendo is just a video game franchise is like soooo 90's

 

[Alicia]

Some things to consider:

• Jurassic Park getting overhaul/new ride over at IOA, indicates to me JW was moved off the table for the new park.
• While there was some speculation of Pokemon coming to KidZone, seems like Trolls is being eyed to go there now.
• Does anyone actually care enough about Shrek for it to get something new at a shiny new park?
• Lost Continent could just as easily become HTTYD or Kung Fu Panda as it could become Zelda (and they're repainting Mythos, so don't expect something new there any time soon anyway.)
• What if they never secured the rights to LOTR? Has anyone heard anything concrete on that?
• As much as I would love a Universal Classic Monsters land, lets be real, the Dark Universe crashed and left a bad taste in their mouths. You think Comcast wants to build something new based on that right now?
• Pacific Rim's sequel didn't do well enough to break even. They seem to have lost traction with Paramount over building Star Trek attractions. Can't think of any other Sci-Fi IPs they want to use at the moment.
  
• What else? Sanrio? Would make a great re-theme for the southern half of Toon Lagoon if you ask me, or share KidZone with Trolls 50/50.

And most importantly, what properties have we actually gotten truly confirmed for a 4th gate so far, besides Nintendo? Any? Or have we just been guessing all this time?

 

[Viator]

You all are super serious about LOTR

Also, thinking Nintendo is just a video game franchise is like soooo 90's

1.) I am taking Lord of The Rings more seriously, given the Toliken Estate has opened up more now.

2.) I am not seeing it as a franchise, but that I am seeing the company as something that can not hold it's own, and that I see it needing assistance from another major IP, hence Lord of The Rings.

 

[Disneyhead]

.......................what if they did both? What if they made a small park for Nintendo, and a bigger park for everything else?

:bolt:

I mentioned back if Feb. that one park may not be Universal at all.

And that I wouldn't count out them building 2 dry parks at once.

Of course my info is horribly incomplete and I was thinking Warner Bros.

But now, duh, Nintendo.

What was I thinking.

 

[quinnmac000]

I see it as a honest risk, to when why are you segregating all of your Nintendo to when you can flesh it out, giving it to areas at the resort that need's things, and then in turn, giving the third gate a notable IP at the start, with Lord of The Rings, DWA, and Sanrio backing it up in the rear?

They don't have to light the entire candle at one instance. Nor does it seem financially profitable to me.

I think Universal would be fine regardless. The hype for Nintendo is the parks is at an all time high thanks to the switch and Dreamworks is collecting up kid and family IPs for the parks with international coverage thanks to Netflix and Amazon prime and Universal itself essentially is starting to work on developing all the Image Comics as well as the unused Dark Horse Comics into movies/tv shows.

Remember the goal for the new land is two parks not one. If they blow all their good IPs for the three already existing parks, they have nothing at all left for the 4th dry park.

As for LOTR, AT&T chief stated he didn't really want to work with Comcast anymore and they would not work with Comcast. This makes me think WB would rather work on their own theme parks rather than get money from Comcast.

“I’m not going to cooperate with someone I don’t like,” Stankey said under questioning by Daniel Petrocelli, the lead attorney for AT&T and Time Warner in the government’s lawsuit to block the deal. Stankey also said that coordinating with Comcast would be detrimental to AT&T’s plans to innovate. “We don’t want to cooperate with Comcast and play their game,” he said.

 

[Magic-Man]

@Marni1971 - can you give us anything? Confirmation or otherwise?

 

[zg44]

As far as LOTR goes, with the younger Tolkiens in charge of the Tolkien Estate, they'd have to be willing to leave millions on the table for there not to be a theme park rights arrangement. That's not likely.

Someone will end up with the LOTR theme park rights: Disney? (hard to see given all they've announced, it's possible). Universal? (the obvious suspect). Anybody else? How do they match the money Disney or Universal can offer (multiple millions a year + a % of a huge merchandise/food sales operation in much higher trafficked parks)?

Basically, I'd nearly be willing to bet the farm that Universal will end up with the LOTR theme park rights. Unless Disney decides they want to outbid Universal for it (which just sounds unlikely given they're focused on their own IPs and buying Fox).

They don't have to light the entire candle at one instance. Nor does it seem financially profitable to me.

I don't see how it's better than the alternative.

Would I love that park that @AliciaStella mocked up? Yes, of course. I'd visit that every year to get my Nintendo fill.

But I think that would be leaving money on the table with respect to the general audience: you would have a measurable number of people that prioritize either the north resort or the 3rd park and may skip the other. i.e. the biggest Nintendo fanboys no longer have as much of an incentive to park hop to the north resort. The family vacationers that aren't as into Nintendo may skip that park.

It just seems like an unnecessary risk after Harry Potter's shown just how strongly it can lift 2 parks at the same time by splitting up the attractions. Splitting up the Nintendo attractions in all 3 parks makes way too much sense in Orlando.