- Feb 15, 2012
- 17,521
- 48,475
So turns out Universal can't use Fantastic Beasts even if they wanted to without signing a new agreement with WB.
Explain.
So turns out Universal can't use Fantastic Beasts even if they wanted to without signing a new agreement with WB.
Explain.
Per the theme park agreement between Universal and WB, just for the 7 books and films that go along with those books does Universal have the rights to. They can have Newt in the park as he is mentioned in the books but Magical New York can not be presented as its not in any of the 7 books or films.
Theme Park License between Warner Bros. Consumer Products, Inc.
Per the theme park agreement between Universal and WB, just for the 7 books and films that go along with those books does Universal have the rights to. They can have Newt in the park as he is mentioned in the books but Magical New York can not be presented as its not in any of the 7 books or films.
Theme Park License between Warner Bros. Consumer Products, Inc.
Nintendo is perfect for a huge footprint in a third park.
Nintendoland, as it sits now, is too perfect to slot out of USF. USF needs this more than the 3rd park does, IMO.
Plus, there's no reason more Nintendo can't go into Park 3.
Agreed. USF needs this. The third park will have other Nintendo IPs, DreamWorks stuff, and other things. I don't see them waiting to put Nintendo in the 3rd gate. I totally get why people want this and I hope that ET stays. But USF needs this type of property.
Since it seems to the two main rides for Nintendo-land are Mario Kart and Donkey Kong, I expect Hyrule in the third park.Nintendoland, as it sits now, is too perfect to slot out of USF. USF needs this more than the 3rd park does, IMO.
Plus, there's no reason more Nintendo can't go into Park 3.
But this is just a very small speed bump. If Universal wanted to use the IP, they could. WB would happily sign a contract that includes these films. All parties involved have a very good relationship.
Per the theme park agreement between Universal and WB, just for the 7 books and films that go along with those books does Universal have the rights to. They can have Newt in the park as he is mentioned in the books but Magical New York can not be presented as its not in any of the 7 books or films.
Theme Park License between Warner Bros. Consumer Products, Inc.
I would like fort another ride using the Kuka-arm, would be great with an IP like Pacific Rim, especially if you could enclose the RV so that it really feels like you are in a mecha.
My complaint isn't against Nintendo in USF, just that even if you get ET out, which I disagree with, it's still not a lot of land for what it could be.Yea, it's kind of funny to me how many people want to move Nintendo out of USF when it addresses so many of their complaints about the park. This land will add 3-4 legit family attractions to the park.
Yea, it's kind of funny to me how many people want to move Nintendo out of USF when it addresses so many of their complaints about the park. This land will add 3-4 legit family attractions to the park.
My complaint isn't against Nintendo in USF, just that even if you get ET out, which I disagree with, it's still not a lot of land for what it could be.
I wouldn't turn it down. Yes, I'd love more family dark rides. I think it would be better to have a park built around the IP in some dream scenario. Again, I'm NOT against it, I'm sure it will be cool.
I don't think it belongs in the park but I can see how it can fix the issues.
Ideally, I'd like to see Universal Studios change over time to be real locations with whatever franchises is in that area (Beverly Hills, London, San Fransisco, New York) and IOA to be fantasy locations with whatever IPS fit in that location, which is kind of the way it's heading.
You could expand this to the 3rd park by having cartoon locations and hopefully give each park their own identity but you would severely limit what can go into the 3rd park.
I take that to mean "no carnival rides," correct?Yea, it's kind of funny to me how many people want to move Nintendo out of USF when it addresses so many of their complaints about the park. This land will add 3-4 legit family attractions to the park.
I take that to mean "no carnival rides," correct?
Shoot for all these properties id pay a handsome amount to own WB...(Cartoon Network, Hanna Barbera, Adult Swim, Fantastic Beasts, and all the other franchises)
My complaint isn't against Nintendo in USF, just that even if you get ET out, which I disagree with, it's still not a lot of land for what it could be.
I don't think you're completely wrong, but the parks are beyond this possibility. What do you do with Springfield in this situation? Or Jurassic Park? Or Toon Lagoon?