- Jun 7, 2016
- 1,183
- 2,225
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
Oh good, I was going to call Mark Woodbury and have him stop development of Super Nintendo World
- Apr 1, 2013
- 1,653
- 875
Nintendo is a merchandising company anyway, they've got stuff that sells regardless of how a console is doing. Mario makes more sense as an anchor IMHO, it's a more diverse IP and more of his stuff sells to people that don't even play his games.
As somebody who never played Nintendo. I think Mario is far bigger than Pokemon.
There might be numbers to suggest otherwise but that’s how I see it as a neutral.
If the plan is eventually 4 dry parks, then the most sensible path for me has always been to have Mario lead the 3rd park and Pokemon lead the 4th park. Then use SSB or another Nintendo IP and create a Nintendo version of the "Hogwarts Express" that connects 2 points of the park through the Nintendo areas and would only be used by park hoppers.
Zelda would go to IoA or USF in that scenario or might be paired with Pokemon...
I have no idea what Universal's leadership will decide to do with Pokemon (or whether Nintendo would agree to hold off on Pokemon that long), but that's always been the "optimal" path to a 4 dry park Universal if that is the planned future of the south resort. That way every park has at least one major anchor land that drives attendance.
Of course, we still have no real idea what the rest of that south land will be used for; whether the plan is just 1 dry park or 2 dry parks (and a water park in either scenario). I always go back to just looking at how smart the decision was to split Harry Potter between USF/IoA was and how it could pay off with Nintendo's IPs in the south resort if 2 dry parks are in the plans.
Mario is bigger but Pokémon is still huge in its own right. Definitely huge enough to bring in insane crowds from all over the world.
No way they wait that long on Pokémon. With the third park over the horizon sure Mario could be held off and open a bit after Hollywood but the fourth park is not anywhere as close to opening nor should it be. Pokémon, like Zelda, is going to USF/IoA. I also don’t see SSB or something like the Express happening.
- Sep 4, 2018
- 390
- 1,030
I think it should be noted that Nintendo only owns about 1/3rd of the Pokemon Company. So bringing Pokemon in is not as easy as what they're doing with Nintendo. Deals for a Pokemon "land" or whatnot would need to be separately negotiated and planned with more stakeholders than just Nintendo.
And simply put, Pokemon is a single property/IP whereas Nintendo is tons of IPs to anchor a full land. While they might start with heavy Mario theme, they have many more IPs to expand with.
Pokemon is just Pokemon.
And simply put, Pokemon is a single property/IP whereas Nintendo is tons of IPs to anchor a full land. While they might start with heavy Mario theme, they have many more IPs to expand with.
Pokemon is just Pokemon.
Read up.
The Pokémon Company - Wikipedia
One key part right here but I suggest reading more.
You have to go through Nintendo to get to Pokémon. They may not own all of it, but they own a significant chunk. The only reason it’s seperated the way it is was to better manage product licensing.
To quote you, read up.
Company History｜The Pokémon Company
In the core, yes, Nintendo has a majority..but it's joined with Game Freak and Creatures, which for the case of GF..has released games on non-Nintendo consoles (even though they are not as..releasing, in the amount of outer-Nintendo titles).
That said, to just..say things.
It should not, nor would it not, be a bad thing if Pokemon was the first IP for Super Nintendo World in the the terms of Orlando. Hell, it may even be a good possibility to..shall we say, set the direction of what they intend to do.
If Universal plans on making Nintendo and it's IP's Multi-Phased across the three parks, having Pokemon start off before Mario would be a big choice, that would bring still quite a bit of positive results. And especially if the fat plumber is the second-man for them; with having him head up Gate 4, it will be not as if they are putting in something that is..dated.
Last edited:
Yes, to manage the brand. Don’t see how that Game Freak bit is at all relevant since they can’t make Pokémon games for anyone else but Nintendo. Before you say Pokémon GO that’s likely because Nintendo themselves also started making games for smartphones and said it was fine.
To your second bit, really? Waiting for Mario to arrive in Gate 4? I think you’ve lost it.
For the second bit, I was going in with the context of what comes in first of Nintendo to UOR in general, not just Gate 4.
Perhaps I got confused in the mailing on that.
Perhaps I got confused in the mailing on that.
- Sep 4, 2018
- 390
- 1,030
Nintendo retaining Trademark rights to the name and characters does not necessarily give them carte blanche to do with them as they please. Such Trademark control was put in place to prevent the other entities from leaving with the brand to go elsewhere.
This is similar in nature to the deal Nintendo had with Rare when they were an exclusive second party developer for Nintendo. Nintendo retained trademark rights to any of the names/characters of games that were made by Rare to be published by Nintendo. When Rare left, Rare had to buy back the rights to some of their games and characters to publish elsewhere.
That all being said, of the 3 companies, Nintendo does own 10% stake in Creature, and an undisclosed amount in Game Freak, and the 3 of them own Pokemon Company in reportedly equal amounts.
So in the end, Nintendo with Trademark rights to the name and characters gives them control to allow *where* the names and characters are used, but they likely do not have full control in *how* they are fully used and probably need to do so in collaboration with Game Freak and Creatures. Otherwise we'd probably see a bunch more Pokemon games made solely by Nintendo themselves to further cash in on the brand. But we've never seen that happen.
But let's assume for arguments sake that Nintendo can solely decide how the IP is used when it comes to Theme Parks. Do you think they would go forward with Pokemon being the first "Nintendo" presence in the Orlando parks for which they only partly own? Or would they insist that the first presence in the parks be Mario, for which they fully own and is the flagship character of their own brand?
This is similar in nature to the deal Nintendo had with Rare when they were an exclusive second party developer for Nintendo. Nintendo retained trademark rights to any of the names/characters of games that were made by Rare to be published by Nintendo. When Rare left, Rare had to buy back the rights to some of their games and characters to publish elsewhere.
That all being said, of the 3 companies, Nintendo does own 10% stake in Creature, and an undisclosed amount in Game Freak, and the 3 of them own Pokemon Company in reportedly equal amounts.
So in the end, Nintendo with Trademark rights to the name and characters gives them control to allow *where* the names and characters are used, but they likely do not have full control in *how* they are fully used and probably need to do so in collaboration with Game Freak and Creatures. Otherwise we'd probably see a bunch more Pokemon games made solely by Nintendo themselves to further cash in on the brand. But we've never seen that happen.
But let's assume for arguments sake that Nintendo can solely decide how the IP is used when it comes to Theme Parks. Do you think they would go forward with Pokemon being the first "Nintendo" presence in the Orlando parks for which they only partly own? Or would they insist that the first presence in the parks be Mario, for which they fully own and is the flagship character of their own brand?
I don't think they'll wait either, but it makes the most sense to me from a long-term perspective to wait on Pokemon and potentially save a 10 acre spread of it for a 4th dry park if needed. If that isn't in the planning by 2025, then just build Pokemon into USF or IoA.
By the time the long into the future 4th dry park opens, if ever, new superstar IP's may well develop in the marketplace. Too long away to hold Pokemon back.
Pokemon maintained its popularity over 20 years, 5-10 years isn't going to change that.
That's not what I was referring too. No doubt it will remain popular. That's why it should be used ASAP. I don't think it's wise to hold it back that long just to have a superstar IP in the pocket. Other superstar IP's will certainly emerge in that time period. A 4th dry park is probably more like 10 to 15 years down the line, if ever. Heck, the third dry park is 4 to 5 years away.
- Sep 4, 2018
- 390
- 1,030
I don't think they'll wait that long to use it either, but per my previous post I don't think it's coming before Mario.
It'll either a) be included in the 3rd dry park alongside/within Super Nintendo World, or b) it'll go into/replace Kidzone at the same time as the 3rd dry park or shortly thereafter.
It'll either a) be included in the 3rd dry park alongside/within Super Nintendo World, or b) it'll go into/replace Kidzone at the same time as the 3rd dry park or shortly thereafter.
Fair point, I just happen to be skeptical that we'll see a new franchise build up to that kind of level (HP/Mario/Pokemon) any time soon.
It could happen, but these things take so long to develop that it's hard to know. Especially now when most media/gaming companies are currently going through a phase of just pumping out content on old franchises as opposed to developing new ones.
It's fine if Pokemon ends up in USF or IoA any time over the next 5-7 years, but if not, I'd just hold off on it until we know what the situation is on future expansion past the 3rd dry park.
Where did I argue for Pokémon being the first land? I think you need to reread my original post.
And yes, I do fully believe that when Universal got the rights to Nintendo’s characters they also got Pokémon. Will Game Freak and Creatures be involved in developement? Sure. But I highly doubt they can say no to the overall deal and, say, go to Disney instead for Pokémon. Universal’s got the rights. End of story. If they don’t and still made the deal then they’re incompetent idiots.
There you go.
I'd say Lord of the Rings, but that's a very different fanbase. Harry Potter calls to people of all ages; I feel like LOTR is more niche, especially today. DC could be fun, but what with the Marvel contract, that's obviously not happening. James Bond, but assuming we're getting a Bourne show, would probably border along similar.
Looking through the highest grossing franchises is kind of eye opening. Disney owns a LOT.
Also learned today that Shrek started off as a picture book. The more you know!
- Status
