Good choices.... I'd like to make a personal request to U.C. "Hot Babes Land". It could be sponsored by Hooters or Hard Rock.
Universal's New Park/Site B Blue Sky Thread
- Thread starter OrlandoGuy
- Start date
-
Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
- Status
Considering Paramount didn't even mention the Trek movie they have coming out in a few months at CinemaCon, I think this seems more and more unlikely.
I'd rather a unique IP free park although that isn't going to happen. Let's see what Universal can do creating their own stories from scratch.
I think the studios park and Islands are slowly merging into one, how can a third park stand out if it's just an extension of the same? Yet the other side of my opinion is, what's the problem, they're both great parks so maybe more of the same isn't a bad thing?
I think the studios park and Islands are slowly merging into one, how can a third park stand out if it's just an extension of the same? Yet the other side of my opinion is, what's the problem, they're both great parks so maybe more of the same isn't a bad thing?
I don't mind IPs but I would like less known and maybe semi popular IPs to be used. Not everything has to be YUGE and massively popular but something that can become a great ride attraction (Tower of Terror, Splash Mountain, Popeye Barges)
That's not exactly true. Paramount brought out Abrams who did talk about the film. And posters and other advertisements were very prominate at the Con. They just didn't show any footage, which could have been for any number of reasons.
I mean, I follow a ton of people who were there for the presentation and all of them said Abrams didn't even mention the film during his speech.
Either way, not showing footage of what should be a premier franchise at a Con designed to get the most theaters possible for a film does not show much faith in the final product.
I don't think we'll ever see a park like that again. At least not for a long while.
IMO, the best course of action is to follow Tokyo DisneySea's model, where "original" lands are filled with IP rides.
That kind of defeats the point of using IP. And, IMO, your examples don't line up. In TOT the IP is secondary. Splash doesn't push itself as an IP attraction, and the only reason Popeye is there and not the Looney Tunes is because the CEO of Universal at the time was a cheap SOB
I don't think we'll ever see a park like that again. At least not for a long while.
IMO, the best course of action is to follow Tokyo DisneySea's model, where "original" lands are filled with IP rides.
That kind of defeats the point of using IP. And, IMO, your examples don't line up. In TOT the IP is secondary. Splash doesn't push itself as an IP attraction, and the only reason Popeye is there and not the Looney Tunes is because the CEO of Universal at the time was a cheap SOB
IP's sell tickets at the end of the day. The weird thing is that some bad IPs have created some great rides and shows. The WaterWorld show probably being the prime example of that.
He did indeed talk about it. He said he thought it was the most thrilling Star Trek yet (though I'm sure that was for PR purposes lol).
And everything I've read says that Paramounts entire presentation was very odd, not just the exclusion of Star Trek footage. I'm not willing to jump to the worst case scenario just yet, as there are likely many reasons we saw no footage.
And either way, judging an IP's chances based on a single Con just seems a little like jumping the gun.
I think it shows a lack of faith in the franchise. Considering how little hype in general there is for the movie altogether, I can't say it's a great sign.
- Mar 5, 2016
- 58
- 162
I agree with you in thinking that we'll see some of those IP's headlining a third park.
This is the list of things I could realistically see:
-Jurassic World
-Fantastic Beasts
-Nintendo (Zelda and Pokemon)
-Universal Monsters
-Illumination Land
-Godzilla
Okay, so Godzilla is a bit of wishful thinking but with him having a movie in 2018 plus the Kong crossover movie in 2020, I could see him getting a lot more attention from the general public.
Lack in faith for this particular movie maybe, but not the franchise. It is arguably Paramounts biggest IP. After the first trailer was received less then favorably because of how action oriented it was, they may be reevaluating the marketing approach. They could also be looking at focusing more on international marketing. Beyond should do well enough in the States (I don't see it doing better then the previous two) though I think we have seen the ceiling for how well a Trek movie will do at the box office in the US. However, after Into Darkness performed better than any other Trek movie internationally, I wouldn't be surprised if they focused more heavily on those markets to help boost there bottom line and try to broaden the Trek's popularity world wide.
Like I said, there are plenty of other reasons for the lack of footage. It could be you're right, but until there something more then just lack of footage at a Con to suggest that, I'm not willing to jump to conclusions.
With Jurassic World being an extension of Jurassic Park, I don't see it going into the 3rd gate. If anything, we are more likely to see updates at IOA's Jurassic Park to capitalize on JW.
Godzilla's 2014 movie made a good bit of change. I'm willing to bet it far outgrosses Kong: SKull Island.
I think you'll see the opposite.
For being the "best international take" of a Trek movie, Into Darkness's BO still wasn't all that great.
Godzilla 2014 surprised at the box office with how well it did. I'm hoping this means great things for the franchise.
As far as Into Darkness goes, its BO wasn't great by any means (Though for a Star Trek movie it did do well) but internationally it made a huge jump over anything the previous Trek movies did. That shows that there is an opening for an international marketing push to help its world wide popularity which is the franchises best chance of expansion at the moment.
If the third park does come to fruition, I'll be very curious to see what the park's overall thesis is. Studios is film/TV with backlot aspects; Islands is worlds of fantasy separated by "islands" (I still remember seeing a park map in 99 when I was 10 and was bummed they weren't actual islands )... so I'm really interested to see what the next park concept is going to be instead of the actual IPs themselves.
Honestly I'm stumped. Kudos to UC to figure that out, I know they'll come up with something great.
)... so I'm really interested to see what the next park concept is going to be instead of the actual IPs themselves.Honestly I'm stumped. Kudos to UC to figure that out, I know they'll come up with something great.
If Universal decides to build the lands upwards instead of outwards couldn't we see a lot more IPs potentially being utilized with opportunities for original attractions and potentially a huge line up of attractions to be a multiday park in its own right?
Call it Universal City and have it filled with skyscrapers filled with rides.
If Kong was built there, they could have had an Empire State Building with Kong hanging off the top.
- Jun 2, 2013
- 40
- 26
Would Game of Thrones ever be a viable IP? I could imagine a more Animal Kingdom style park with Game of Thrones/LotR/Fantastic Beasts would be really nice.
- Status
Book with our Travel Partners
Latest posts
-
-
-
Halloween Horror Nights 33 (UOR) - Speculation & Rumors- Latest: Lucky Planet
