- Nov 7, 2016
- 21
- 8
Icons need to be able to survive generations. I feel they need to be original concepts. IPs are nice but they can easily die. No park uses an IP as an icon. yeah yeah use Mickey Mouse, but he's the mascot, not the icon.
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
If the Shrek castle is the park's icon, a meme will literally be the centerpiece.
Incredible.
Incredible.
- Nov 7, 2016
- 21
- 8
In thinking about an icon, what makes for a great icon? I feel it needs to be a landmark, like an object that marks it's territory. Think about all other theme parks. If we could possibly suggest an anchor land, what icon could really be used that won't be trite. I think we can give the castles a rest as all we are going to do is catch hear on being a MK wannabe.
That's uhhhh not really true at all. Disneyland made Sleeping Beauty Castle the icon before the movie even came out. It ended up working for them, but yea.
Cinderella called, she has a castle of her own as the icon of Magic Kingdom. And in a way, so will Mickey for DHS once Runaway Railway opens (as it will be the first thing they see once they enter the park).
Would Shrek be a good choice of an IP to be the icon? No, and that I would rather want to see something else take the place. That said, I would be open minded to it, as I do like the architecture of the Singapore land, regardless of it's attractions in it.
I think they will go for a similar layout to IOA. It will have it's own icon with the lands surrounding a hub or lagoon. Like @ChuggLyfe has said above, no IP should ever be an icon.
I honestly can't see LOTR going any where but Universal. J.R.R. hated Disney with a passion and Warners has the great track record with Universal and Potter. The only other big theme park companies are: Merlin, Six Flags or SeaWorld and I don't think they have the ambition, resources or track record to do the IP justice.
The only way I can see it going else where is if Merlin buy SeaWorld and spend an obscene amount of money to try and compete with Disney and Universal but it's a huge risk.
- Jul 14, 2015
- 1,592
- 2,573
This is gonna be my last post about it to prevent being repetitive, but I really wanted to go in-depth on the reasons why I strongly dislike the "Shrek as the front and center land of the park" idea and think it would flat-out be harmful to the park.
1) When I'm walking around places like Middle-Earth and Hyrule, do I really want to see Far Far Away Castle of all things in the distance? It doesn't match the tone of those areas in the slightest.
2) The opening area of the park is supposed to get you immersed into the atmosphere of it. Port of Entry does this amazingly with a beautifully themed exotic land. Shrek would be an irreverent, silly land that builds up to places like Middle-Earth, Hyrule, and JW. Once again, that don't match the tone at all.
3) Shrek is not going to continue forever. It doesn't even remotely have the staying power. Even if Shrek 5 does alright, I highly doubt it's going to reach the box office highs the previous films did and it's likely to die again eventually. Do you really want to make the centerpiece of your park a film that will lose all pop cultural relevance eventually? And don't throw Cinderella Castle my way, that castle is practically the icon of Disney itself. Far Far Away Castle represents nothing except for an oversatured and mostly dead franchise.
4) People like Disney. Part of what made Shrek appealing at the time was that it was making fun of Disney at a time when Disney was not making that good of movies. But today, Disney is doing great, people are eating up their products, and people almost always go to MK while in Orlando. Does Universal really want the first thing people see when immersed into their new park something that's basically just "Isn't this thing you like dumb?!" I'm okay with taking the occasional potshot at Disney in an attraction but I think not only basing an entire land around that idea, but the OPENING AREA OF THE PARK would just be a terrible way to display your park.
To reiterate: I DO like Shrek and think he deserves some proper representation in the new park. Ribbing on Disney's tried formulas isn't inherently bad. But making it the central area of the park would be absolutely disastrous, IMO.
1) When I'm walking around places like Middle-Earth and Hyrule, do I really want to see Far Far Away Castle of all things in the distance? It doesn't match the tone of those areas in the slightest.
2) The opening area of the park is supposed to get you immersed into the atmosphere of it. Port of Entry does this amazingly with a beautifully themed exotic land. Shrek would be an irreverent, silly land that builds up to places like Middle-Earth, Hyrule, and JW. Once again, that don't match the tone at all.
3) Shrek is not going to continue forever. It doesn't even remotely have the staying power. Even if Shrek 5 does alright, I highly doubt it's going to reach the box office highs the previous films did and it's likely to die again eventually. Do you really want to make the centerpiece of your park a film that will lose all pop cultural relevance eventually? And don't throw Cinderella Castle my way, that castle is practically the icon of Disney itself. Far Far Away Castle represents nothing except for an oversatured and mostly dead franchise.
4) People like Disney. Part of what made Shrek appealing at the time was that it was making fun of Disney at a time when Disney was not making that good of movies. But today, Disney is doing great, people are eating up their products, and people almost always go to MK while in Orlando. Does Universal really want the first thing people see when immersed into their new park something that's basically just "Isn't this thing you like dumb?!" I'm okay with taking the occasional potshot at Disney in an attraction but I think not only basing an entire land around that idea, but the OPENING AREA OF THE PARK would just be a terrible way to display your park.
To reiterate: I DO like Shrek and think he deserves some proper representation in the new park. Ribbing on Disney's tried formulas isn't inherently bad. But making it the central area of the park would be absolutely disastrous, IMO.
- Nov 7, 2016
- 21
- 8
Point taken. I was merely looking at the castles being the icons. We know MK and DLP have specific names for them.
Point also taken, but still just looking at the castle being the icon.
Both castles bend the lines for the point I was making. Both were built using the IP as a reference (one more of a gamble) but the icon became it's own entity. For DHS, the icon is still the Chinese Theater but we know it just houses a Mickey ride.
For example, if Shrek's castle was built, I would hope they used in as INSPIRATION. We know that it was Shrek's castle but at least it won't be a replica of it. For years to come, it would just be a pretty castle.
Last edited:
One other point: right now Universal's advantage is that it has massive real estate up for grabs in front row property (Beijing park and next Orlando park).
If you want a giant attraction for any IP in those parks, now's the time to cut a deal.
- Jul 14, 2015
- 1,592
- 2,573
Personally, unless it's a huge Princess Peach's castle (which I only want because I'm a huge Nintendo fan, so I'm biased), I don't want a castle as the icon at all. All of the world class theme parks in Orlando have different types of icons... a castle, a sphere, a theater, a tree, an arch, and a lighthouse. I feel like Uni should continue that trend and give us some completely different type of icon for the new park; rather it be a mountain, a clock tower, or something else completely different. Having it be a castle would serve no other purpose than opening up comparisons to Disney.
- Nov 7, 2016
- 21
- 8
I agree. I'm still ram shaking my brain to figure out what makes for a great icon. It's especially hard since we don't have anything but wishes of what they would put in the park along with the overall park story line.
I know they just did a Volcano...but that's my choice. Not only is it an awesome looking icon, it can be designed into the backgrounds of potential lands like LOTR or Zelda to represent Mount Doom/Death Mountain.
- Jul 14, 2015
- 1,592
- 2,573
I'd go for a mountain. If the park's main IPs end up being say, Shrek, Middle-Earth, Fantastic Beasts, Zelda, Pokemon, and Jurassic World, than a mountain would literally fit as backdrops for all of those. Something like a "Fantasy Mountain" could tie together these lands very nicely.
The chocolate factory is a great example of creating an over-the-top icon. So we know that UC has it in them to create icons. Anything that they can come up with that is the justifiable hub of many lands and places will suffice. It is my opinion that they will come up with something original, something that has its own backstory.
I feel positive that they have boxes of ideas that I’ve been considered and tossed in the bin at this point.
I feel positive that they have boxes of ideas that I’ve been considered and tossed in the bin at this point.
- Jul 14, 2015
- 1,592
- 2,573
While maybe a mountain doesn’t do it for me as I think it’s confusing for the consumer as Disney has so many (Big thunder, Space, Splash, Everest) and I think a castle would be confusing too.
The idea of using the landscape as an icon is an interesting and unique choice. I’ve said it before but Orlando is so flat that any kind of elevation changes could be huge for the theme park game here.
- Jul 14, 2015
- 1,592
- 2,573
You're not wrong, as mountains are still fairly commonplace in Florida theme parks. But I do think some sort of "natural" landscape would be the way to go for this new park. Almost all of the IPs (currently) on the table have some sort of essence of discovery, adventure, and fantasy, so having some sort of mountain, cliff, hill, or whatever else they can think of would be a perfect way to mix in with that.
Heck, the only currently rumored thing that doesn't fit with anything else is Trek. And imo, Trek is an IP that's fine staying in the original resort in a Sci-Fi City replacement for either World Expo or Toon Lagoon.
World Expo will be a single ride in like 2 months.
But I'd put Trek in a Sci-Fi City in park 3. No reason said Sci-Fi City can't have a mountain range near it.
- Jul 14, 2015
- 1,592
- 2,573
Yeah, it's fine either way. I'm just saying Trek isn't an IP in which location doesn't particular matter, IMO.World Expo will be a single ride in like 2 months.
But I'd put Trek in a Sci-Fi City in park 3. No reason said Sci-Fi City can't have a mountain range near it.
- Status
