Universal's New Park/Site B Blue Sky Thread

[Legacy]

I don't think anyone wants/wanted any lands/attractions dedicated to biopics to begin with.

I eagerly anticipate the “Ray” piano lounge and the “On the Basis of Sex” gigacoaster.

 

[RevFreako]

I eagerly anticipate the “Ray” piano lounge and the “On the Basis of Sex” gigacoaster.

No, "Ray" will be a dark ride. A reaaaaaaal dark ride.

 

[brianlo]

I know there is no such thing as perfect timing when your core existing gates are ready to accommodate a third. Sometimes I wonder though if the timing is still a little bit too early for this project.

I think we as fans see an additional gate as a means to an end - i.e. a massive bolus of new things. But, one of the things I think that has plagued WDW forever is that it really wasn't properly ready to handle 4 gates (or really even three at the time). Instead we've sat for decades with 3 gates with serious problems and a 4th with generalized overcrowding.

I cannot deny that there has not been some serious investment, especially recent times at USF. I sit back and question how much the park has meaningfully improved, even if things are new. Individually the things are 'better', but the overall menu has slowly degraded. Jaws and Disaster simply would have been better overall to stick around in slightly refresh forms at the behest of so many other newer things. On the docket we had/needed:
-An entire entrance refresh, Shrek ditched, probably Minions at this point as well
-Kidzone overhaul
-Fear Factor Theatre plot

IOA is in a much better state, but needs investment:
-Marvel attraction and overall land aesthetic refresh
-Complete Toon Lagoon replacement
-Jurassic Park attraction
-Complete Lost Continent redo
-Seuss attraction

I look at this list and think these are all the things delayed, on the back burner or completely cancelled. Things I wish were prioritized over trying to rush ahead of the competition. I'd almost in some ways rather a mid-late 2020's third gate without so much cannibalization of the existing parks.


Tokyo Disney is in a much better state overall with far more generous attendance than Universal Orlando. Instead of forging ahead with another dissociated gate they are instead doing the opposite and really dumping 'new park level money' into their existing gates.

Time will tell which is the healthier long term strategy. I just don't think it served WDW well other than being a talking point of 'we have more gates'. Yes... but 3 of them were in various states of broken or underinvested for most of their existence.

But... it's so hard to separate the excitement of that pure hit of new attractions and lands all at once from spreading out investment perhaps more wisely.

 

[Joey]

I have a question will this park open by 2022 or 2023 and how many lands can this new park fit and will we see 3 parks or 2 parks and 1 water park

 

[AlexanderMBush]

I have a question will this park open by 2022 or 2023 and how many lands can this new park fit and will we see 3 parks or 2 parks and 1 water park

TPU has somewhat hinted a 2023 date.

There has been more speculation to a late 2022/early 2023 opening period though, depending on how things play out in construction.

..as far as what should be on the table at launch, there will be one park with hotels, parking (possibly flat surface for initial), and a form of bus transport from the Northern/Endless Summer side to Site B (and vice-versa). As far as after that, we should be focusing more on what's happening for the immediate.

I know there is no such thing as perfect timing when your core existing gates are ready to accommodate a third. Sometimes I wonder though if the timing is still a little bit too early for this project.

I think we as fans see an additional gate as a means to an end - i.e. a massive bolus of new things. But, one of the things I think that has plagued WDW forever is that it really wasn't properly ready to handle 4 gates (or really even three at the time). Instead we've sat for decades with 3 gates with serious problems and a 4th with generalized overcrowding.

I cannot deny that there has not been some serious investment, especially recent times at USF. I sit back and question how much the park has meaningfully improved, even if things are new. Individually the things are 'better', but the overall menu has slowly degraded. Jaws and Disaster simply would have been better overall to stick around in slightly refresh forms at the behest of so many other newer things. On the docket we had/needed:
-An entire entrance refresh, Shrek ditched, probably Minions at this point as well
-Kidzone overhaul
-Fear Factor Theatre plot

IOA is in a much better state, but needs investment:
-Marvel attraction and overall land aesthetic refresh
-Complete Toon Lagoon replacement
-Jurassic Park attraction
-Complete Lost Continent redo
-Seuss attraction

I look at this list and think these are all the things delayed, on the back burner or completely cancelled. Things I wish were prioritized over trying to rush ahead of the competition. I'd almost in some ways rather a mid-late 2020's third gate without so much cannibalization of the existing parks.


Tokyo Disney is in a much better state overall with far more generous attendance than Universal Orlando. Instead of forging ahead with another dissociated gate they are instead doing the opposite and really dumping 'new park level money' into their existing gates.

Time will tell which is the healthier long term strategy. I just don't think it served WDW well other than being a talking point of 'we have more gates'. Yes... but 3 of them were in various states of broken or underinvested for most of their existence.

But... it's so hard to separate the excitement of that pure hit of new attractions and lands all at once from spreading out investment perhaps more wisely.

Truth be told, but I am not exactly looking at this from the perspective of adding the park to justify the cost of the land purchase. And from what it seems, Islands and Universal Studios Florida are being looked at in what to add and change.

I just think..it's more that we don't entirely have a clear picture on what's happening yet. But I don't suspect we will have to wait long to find out.

 

[Joey]

TPU has somewhat hinted a 2023 date.

There has been more speculation to a late 2022/early 2023 opening period though, depending on how things play out in construction.

..as far as what should be on the table at launch, there will be one park with hotels, parking (possibly flat surface for initial), and a form of bus transport from the Northern/Endless Summer side to Site B (and vice-versa). As far as after that, we should be focusing more on what's happening for the immediate.



Truth be told, but I am not exactly looking at this from the perspective of adding the park to justify the cost of the land purchase. And from what it seems, Islands and Universal Studios Florida are being looked at in what to add and change.

I just think..it's more that we don't entirely have a clear picture on what's happening yet. But I don't suspect we will have to wait long to find out.

How many lands

 

[GadgetGuru]

When Islands opened up, MIB came online shortly afterwards to help even out crowds and act as counterprogramming.

Universal will probably do the same for USF + IOA. I would think Park 4 comes online in 2022, USF + IOA get new rides 2023, and then Park 4 gets its first expansion 2024

 

[AlexanderMBush]

My subconscious hope is that they address the lack of a proper nighttime show in IOA, in a similar vein to how they handled CineCele.

But I do think a lot of their time, outside of Kidzone for USF (I get the impression that whatever in Jurassic, was finalized when they were early in the delay {additionally, what is VB's Expansion}), is on Fantastic Worlds and Beijing.

 

[Alicia]

How many lands

Nobody knows. Maybe 4-6. All of us are pretty much speculating though.

 

[GadgetGuru]

My subconscious hope is that they address the lack of a proper nighttime show in IOA, in a similar vein to how they handled CineCele.

Since IOA is made up of multiple themed lands, I was always curious if a nighttime show was possible.

You can’t have park-wide parade because, for example, Seuss characters can’t parade through Marvel. Are Seuss characters allowed to be seen in the nighttime show from Marvel?

The park definitely isn’t set up for great viewing spots from most of the islands. Pretty much the entire audience would have to be in Port of Entry (there’s a great spot for an auditorium when PoE hits the water), but I don’t think that’s big enough.

 

[RevFreako]

Since IOA is made up of multiple themed lands, I was always curious if a nighttime show was possible.

You can’t have park-wide parade because, for example, Seuss characters can’t parade through Marvel. Are Seuss characters allowed to be seen in the nighttime show from Marvel?

The park definitely isn’t set up for great viewing spots from most of the islands. Pretty much the entire audience would have to be in Port of Entry (there’s a great spot for an auditorium when PoE hits the water), but I don’t think that’s big enough.

Wasn't there a lagoon show in ioa for a while?

 

[GadgetGuru]

Wasn't there a lagoon show in ioa for a while?

I don’t think so? There was the Skipper Boats, but that’s the only lagoon thing I know of.

Edit: Turns out there was a small stunt show there when the park opened?

 

[Brian G.]

I know there is no such thing as perfect timing when your core existing gates are ready to accommodate a third. Sometimes I wonder though if the timing is still a little bit too early for this project.

I think we as fans see an additional gate as a means to an end - i.e. a massive bolus of new things. But, one of the things I think that has plagued WDW forever is that it really wasn't properly ready to handle 4 gates (or really even three at the time). Instead we've sat for decades with 3 gates with serious problems and a 4th with generalized overcrowding.

I cannot deny that there has not been some serious investment, especially recent times at USF. I sit back and question how much the park has meaningfully improved, even if things are new. Individually the things are 'better', but the overall menu has slowly degraded. Jaws and Disaster simply would have been better overall to stick around in slightly refresh forms at the behest of so many other newer things. On the docket we had/needed:
-An entire entrance refresh, Shrek ditched, probably Minions at this point as well
-Kidzone overhaul
-Fear Factor Theatre plot

IOA is in a much better state, but needs investment:
-Marvel attraction and overall land aesthetic refresh
-Complete Toon Lagoon replacement
-Jurassic Park attraction
-Complete Lost Continent redo
-Seuss attraction

I look at this list and think these are all the things delayed, on the back burner or completely cancelled. Things I wish were prioritized over trying to rush ahead of the competition. I'd almost in some ways rather a mid-late 2020's third gate without so much cannibalization of the existing parks.


Tokyo Disney is in a much better state overall with far more generous attendance than Universal Orlando. Instead of forging ahead with another dissociated gate they are instead doing the opposite and really dumping 'new park level money' into their existing gates.

Time will tell which is the healthier long term strategy. I just don't think it served WDW well other than being a talking point of 'we have more gates'. Yes... but 3 of them were in various states of broken or underinvested for most of their existence.

But... it's so hard to separate the excitement of that pure hit of new attractions and lands all at once from spreading out investment perhaps more wisely.

The flipside to that argument is that they are hoping that by adding capacity with a new Resort, they can then focus on fixing up IOA and USF. Granted it's speculation and unconfirmed at this point, but most of your To-Do list is on the docket within the next 5 years, along with adding the new park.

 

[tielo]

I know there is no such thing as perfect timing when your core existing gates are ready to accommodate a third. Sometimes I wonder though if the timing is still a little bit too early for this project.

I think we as fans see an additional gate as a means to an end - i.e. a massive bolus of new things. But, one of the things I think that has plagued WDW forever is that it really wasn't properly ready to handle 4 gates (or really even three at the time). Instead we've sat for decades with 3 gates with serious problems and a 4th with generalized overcrowding.

I cannot deny that there has not been some serious investment, especially recent times at USF. I sit back and question how much the park has meaningfully improved, even if things are new. Individually the things are 'better', but the overall menu has slowly degraded. Jaws and Disaster simply would have been better overall to stick around in slightly refresh forms at the behest of so many other newer things. On the docket we had/needed:
-An entire entrance refresh, Shrek ditched, probably Minions at this point as well
-Kidzone overhaul
-Fear Factor Theatre plot

IOA is in a much better state, but needs investment:
-Marvel attraction and overall land aesthetic refresh
-Complete Toon Lagoon replacement
-Jurassic Park attraction
-Complete Lost Continent redo
-Seuss attraction

I look at this list and think these are all the things delayed, on the back burner or completely cancelled. Things I wish were prioritized over trying to rush ahead of the competition. I'd almost in some ways rather a mid-late 2020's third gate without so much cannibalization of the existing parks.


Tokyo Disney is in a much better state overall with far more generous attendance than Universal Orlando. Instead of forging ahead with another dissociated gate they are instead doing the opposite and really dumping 'new park level money' into their existing gates.

Time will tell which is the healthier long term strategy. I just don't think it served WDW well other than being a talking point of 'we have more gates'. Yes... but 3 of them were in various states of broken or underinvested for most of their existence.

But... it's so hard to separate the excitement of that pure hit of new attractions and lands all at once from spreading out investment perhaps more wisely.

First of all, growth of the resort is necessary. More hotels and longer stays can only be triggered by more gates. Universal (under Comcast) added quite a lot of capacity to their current parks. An in disrepair Jaws ride was replaces by a very successful mini land with shows, rides and shops. Twister was dead and now houses a good 20 minutes of entertainment. Kong was added on an empty plot of land as was the simpsons spinner and the new nighttime show. Sure there is personal taste and all that but they added a lot of entertainment and continue to do that. Currently the new potter coaster and T2 replacement get significant investments. Volcano Bay, a great selection of new hotels and a huge refresh of the Citywalk tops that of (and is ongoing). Now Universal has the chance to add a new theme park (maybe 2 and another water park) and hotels they have to make choices. There is so much money, time and people you can put on projects (I see F&F as a victim of that growth). I'm sure Universal is painfully aware of their mistake and take a step back.

In the future there will be (at least) 3 (dry) theme parks. All 3 of them are competing against Disney but also with themselves. So I expect Universal is happy to have replacement spots in the parks to be able to continue to build new rides and experiences over many years. There is value in having rides that need replacement, not for us theme park uber fans but for the relevance for these parks in the future. Take the updates for Spider-man and the rebuild of the Hulk coaster. That are huge investments that can't be advertised and won't make the general public go to Universal. It is done to polish the crown jewels and to enhance the experience for old and new guests to the resort. But only new rides with new names that are relevant will fill hotel rooms.

 

[shiekra38]

How many lands

I think you mean...

Worlds...

 

[truejonas]

I know this is jumping the gun, but does anyone have thoughts as to how annual passes are going to be handled once this thing opens?

If I had to guess, I'd say us 2/3-parkers would probably be grandfathered if we kept our current passes, otherwise an upcharge for the third park. Maybe a $100 jump from the current prices?

 

[zg44]

Fair points being made on both sides, but this is also an overall timing issue:

There's 3 major pieces to any new theme park in Orlando at this point in time:

1) Do you have an attendance draw that's relevant and can serve as a flagship to attract millions of visitors when there's already 6 other major parks as well as SeaWorld/Legoland in the area?

2) Do you have the land?

3) Do you have the money?


All 3 of those things came together at the right time: Universal got the Nintendo rights just as Nintendo is experiencing all sorts of dramatic new highs as the Switch launched with huge sales numbers for the biggest brands (Mario/Mario Kart/Zelda/etc.) and Pokemon proved its staying power with Pokemon Go and other new handheld games. The land became available due to the Stan Thomas foreclosure, and then Comcast needs to invest now due to the timing of the tax cuts which makes it much "cheaper" to invest multiple billions into a theme park right now.


When the land became available, one of the first things that became clear was that it would be a nearly irreparable mistake to put the main Nintendo plot in USF because then there's no clear flagship for the south resort in the way that the Harry Potter buildout is the current focal point of USF-IoA.


Everything depends on how the rollout of the south resort goes. If the 3rd dry park hits and exceeds target numbers very quickly, then that would be good for USF and IoA and their updates as well as begin discussion of building further on the south resort. That's why the focus has to be on the 3rd dry park and making sure that it gets everything it needs (Nintendo, DreamWorks, etc.) to make a huge splash on day 1 and into the future. If that's at the short-term expense of USF/IoA (in terms of IPs and manpower on the design/build teams), then that's okay for now.

 

[Mike S]

Fair points being made on both sides, but this is also an overall timing issue:

There's 3 major pieces to any new theme park in Orlando at this point in time:

1) Do you have an attendance draw that's relevant and can serve as a flagship to attract millions of visitors when there's already 6 other major parks as well as SeaWorld/Legoland in the area?

2) Do you have the land?

3) Do you have the money?


All 3 of those things came together at the right time: Universal got the Nintendo rights just as Nintendo is experiencing all sorts of dramatic new highs as the Switch launched with huge sales numbers for the biggest brands (Mario/Mario Kart/Zelda/etc.) and Pokemon proved its staying power with Pokemon Go and other new handheld games. The land became available due to the Stan Thomas foreclosure, and then Comcast needs to invest now due to the timing of the tax cuts which makes it much "cheaper" to invest multiple billions into a theme park right now.


When the land became available, one of the first things that became clear was that it would be a nearly irreparable mistake to put the main Nintendo plot in USF because then there's no clear flagship for the south resort in the way that the Harry Potter buildout is the current focal point of USF-IoA.


Everything depends on how the rollout of the south resort goes. If the 3rd dry park hits and exceeds target numbers very quickly, then that would be good for USF and IoA and their updates as well as begin discussion of building further on the south resort. That's why the focus has to be on the 3rd dry park and making sure that it gets everything it needs (Nintendo, DreamWorks, etc.) to make a huge splash on day 1 and into the future. If that's at the short-term expense of USF/IoA (in terms of IPs and manpower on the design/build teams), then that's okay for now.

I laugh a little when people suggest that putting Mario in USF leaves no big anchor for the third park. Why is Pokémon so undervalued to people making this argument? I get what’s happening is happening but let’s not pretend they didn’t have another absolutely monstrous ace in the hole for the third park if Mario was still going to USF.

Also, Universal got the rights to Nintendo 2 years before the Switch in the midst of the Wii U disaster. The Switch’s success certainly helps things, especially for Zelda, but the Nintendo brand was always going to be a huge get for any theme park operator.

 

[shiekra38]

What's a Nintendo Switch and what does it have to do with the Mario IP?

 

[RevFreako]

What's a Nintendo Switch and what does it have to do with the Mario IP?

The Switch is the newest Nintendo console, and it is a monster success following the disaster that was the Wii U