Universal's New Park/Site B Blue Sky Thread

[Imperius]

Shrek has a new movie coming and is still well known. Mixing that with other dreamworks IPs is better than wasting whole lands on Kirby and DK IMO.

 

[Mad Dog]

I can only see Nintendo for it's own park if UNiversal build two new parks, adjacent to one another like IOA & Studios, but only about 50-60 acres each. Then the second park could be Dreamworks, Illumination, LOTR if acquired. Money to be made off of park hoppers between the two, and a HE type transportation ride to connect the two parks. Pretty far fetched concept though.....Anyway, I could see other sites picking up Alicia's concept and using it for their own, like many sites are wont to do nowadays. Run with someone else's rumor, lie about it enough times to make it sound like they owned it in the first place, and then the Orlando print/tv Media will pick up on it too since they don't seem to have any real sources.

 

[Magic-Man]

Shrek has a new movie coming and is still well known. Mixing that with other dreamworks IPs is better than wasting whole lands on Kirby and DK IMO.

DK already has a whole land based off it. And who said that the Kirby land would be big?

If there's two parks built, it would make a lot more sense.

 

[zg44]

Also, don't be worried about WB's portion on the Tolkien rights.

WB only controls the "movie look" and those associated IP rights as far as LOTR goes. The Tolkien estate will determine where the LOTR theme park rights go.

So even if WB pulls out of those talks, the Tolkien Estate can still sell the LOTR theme park rights; it'll just be without the "movie look" arrangement that Amazon got for the TV show.

I'm sure UC can create their own designs if it comes down to it for the various cities/items in LOTR.

 

[quinnmac000]

Shrek has a new movie coming and is still well known. Mixing that with other dreamworks IPs is better than wasting whole lands on Kirby and DK IMO.

Shrek 5 is in development. Its not on the dreamworks release schedule nor does it have a guaranteed release. Just like Edgar Wright Shadow and Larrikins which both got cancelled.

 

[Imperius]

DK already has a whole land based off it. And who said that the Kirby land would be big?

If there's two parks built, it would make a lot more sense.

If it was only these lands they would need to expand DK to more than one ride. Mario only has 2 rides designed so far. They would need to add a Luigi’s Mansion attraction. Pokémon could get two E-tickets possibly, Zelda 1, Kirby? Can’t think of an E-ticket idea for that. So we would get like 8 rides worth anything in a brand new park?

 

[Alicia]

If it was only these lands they would need to expand DK to more than one ride.

I think a Super Smash Bros entrance street and plaza would be cool too, just didn't have time to add that in. That way all Nintendo properties could be included together, kinda like Port of Entry.

F-Zero and Metroid would make a great Sci-Fi land too.

 

[Imperius]

I think a Super Smash Bros entrance street and plaza would be cool too, just didn't have time to add that in. That way all Nintendo properties could be included together, kinda like Port of Entry.

F-Zero and Metroid would make a great Sci-Fi land too.

Ehhh. Reall think people blow those two properties way out of proportion.

 

[Magic-Man]

If it was only these lands they would need to expand DK to more than one ride. Mario only has 2 rides designed so far. They would need to add a Luigi’s Mansion attraction. Pokémon could get two E-tickets possibly, Zelda 1, Kirby? Can’t think of an E-ticket idea for that. So we would get like 8 rides worth anything in a brand new park?

Have you not been to USF?

 

[Alicia]

Ehhh. Reall think people blow those two properties way out of proportion.

F-Zero would be more fun to ride than to play though. Also, one of them could make a great coaster concept.

 

[captainmoch]

Remember how we used to ridicule people whenever they mentioned the idea of a video game only park? O:

 

[Alicia]

Remember how we used to ridicule people whenever they mentioned the idea of a video game only park? O:

I was one of the ones doing the ridiculing.

 

[Imperius]

Have you not been to USF?

Yes which is why this brand new not space limited park should want to be way better. More Magic Kingdom, less USF.

 

[Disneyhead]

Sooo, Trolls in KidZone, you say.

 

[Magic-Man]

Yes which is why this brand new not space limited park should want to be way better. More Magic Kingdom, less USF.

Yeah, I'm going to make a poll, and see what everyone has to say about this.

 

[shiekra38]

We've been having the LOTR discussion since before Harry Potter was at Universal...If that gives anyone perspective

I wouldn't bet my money on it

I would also rather see Universal and IOA rounded out with expansion of Dreamworks/Illumination/Universal franchises....and the Nintendo park be completely Nintendo....I'm warming up to the idea

 

[zg44]

Remember how we used to ridicule people whenever they mentioned the idea of a video game only park? O:

A Nintendo-only park is the only kind of video game park that would be profitable.

But it also sounds like you'd be leaving a lot of money on the table by not forcing park hopping to happen.

Despite the arguments over Mario and Pokemon... the reality is that their fanbases have a ton of overlap. If you drew a Venn diagram for those 2, you'd have like 80-90% overlap in terms of their fanbases (i.e. including people that are huge fans of both).

It just seems like a huge mistake to not separate them out and force Nintendo fans to visit all the parks...

 

[Magic-Man]

Just a hypothetical............

One park (Nintendo) is based mostly around kids. The other park (DW, LOTR, UCM, Star Trek) is based mostly around adults. Each park gets a hotel. CityWalk 2.0 divides the two parks.

 

[quinnmac000]

A Nintendo-only park is the only kind of video game park that would be profitable.

But it also sounds like you'd be leaving a lot of money on the table by not forcing park hopping to happen.

Despite the arguments over Mario and Pokemon... the reality is that their fanbases have a ton of overlap. If you drew a Venn diagram for those 2, you'd have like 80-90% overlap in terms of their fanbases (i.e. including people that are huge fans of both).

It just seems like a huge mistake to not separate them out and force Nintendo fans to visit all the parks...

If we saw the contract, it would make it a lot easier. The question is now whether Nintendo gets a percentage of admission profits based on parks they have IPs in or whether its just blanket all admissions. If its based on parks its in, Universal would have to give a cut of three/potentially four parks rather than one. Also, location wise...the parks seem more for convention goers. Convention goers aren't going to park hop because they aren't here to tour, they are here for a convention. Make sense to make a park that would attract those going to MegaCon WonderCon etc (which trends way harder towards Nintendo and Universal Television properties than Dreamworks/Universal Film IPs).

There are pros and Cons to all of this but until we actually see the contract Universal made with Nintendo like how they did with WB we can't say that its not as profitable.

 

[zg44]

We've been having the LOTR discussion since before Harry Potter was at Universal...If that gives anyone perspective

I wouldn't bet my money on it

I would also rather see Universal and IOA rounded out with expansion of Dreamworks/Illumination/Universal franchises....and the Nintendo park be completely Nintendo....I'm warming up to the idea

That's fair, but Christopher Tolkien (the one who hated exploitation of JRR's works) was in charge of the Estate until late last year.

Now the younger Tolkiens are in charge, and they know that the IP rights need to be exploited before they begin to enter the public domain in the next ~30 years.

The Amazon pre-LOTR TV deal is the biggest sign that the younger Tolkiens have opened the Estate for business and the theme park rights are up for grabs now.