Wizarding World - Diagon Alley Discussion (Opens 2014)

[JungleSkip]

This is a flawed argument to begin with. Universal has and always will rely on 3rd party properties. Disney does too.

What do Star Tours, Tower of Terror, and Rocking Roller Coaster all have in common?

And Indiana Jones, the vast majority of GMR, The Muppets when they first opened MGM, etc.

 

[Scarletwebslingr]

Hannah-Barbara = Neutron = Not Uni. Now will be Uni with Despicable Me +1
Nick = Not Uni = Blue Man Group
Hitchcock = Kinda Uni (Universal didn't make Psycho, but handled re-releases) Now Shrek, which is Uni +1
Ghostbusters = not Uni. Now Twister which internationally was a Uni movie +1
Lucy = Not Uni
Kong = Uni = Mummy
Terminator 2 = not Uni
Jaws = Uni. becoming Potter, not Uni -1
MIB = Not Uni
ET = Uni
Curious George = Uni
Earthquake = Uni = Disaster (original attraction)
Beetlejuice = not Uni
Fear Factor = NBC = Uni
BTTF = Uni. Now Simpsons -1
Loss of Soundstage 44 -1

So in all honesty, we're even on attraction that're "Universal" from opening. The park has ALWAYS had attractions that have nothing to do with Universal and their movies. I think people make way too big of a deal over this.

Your tally's show More Universal than non-Universal not including the things left out like Horror Make up-Uni, Woody Woodpecker-Uni, Fievel -Uni. I'm glad at least ditching Nick for Despicable Me is a step on the right track. In comparison, IOA has...well, Jurassic Park.

Shrek isn't Universal. It's Dreamworks, which is part of Paramount.

But Universal has always been 'Ride the Movies,' not 'Ride the Movies Released by Universal Pictures'

Correction--Used to be what Universal had been about. The Simpsons, Fear Factor, RRR... I think "ride the movies" has been safely escorted off the premises of Universal Studios, unfortunately.

 

[JungleSkip]

Your tally's show More Universal than non-Universal not including the things left out like Horror Make up-Uni, Woody Woodpecker-Uni, Fievel -Uni.

Exactly. So I don't get what the problem is.

Correction--Used to be what Universal had been about. The Simpsons, Fear Factor, RRR... I think "ride the movies" has been safely escorted off the premises of Universal Studios, unfortunately.

Simpsons can easily be considered "the movies". And for the vast majority of the park you're still riding movies. I fail to see a point you're trying to make.

 

[Scarletwebslingr]

Exactly. So I don't get what the problem is.



Simpsons can easily be considered "the movies". And for the vast majority of the park you're still riding movies. I fail to see a point you're trying to make.

That Universal has abandoned its own classics for outside companies and that is where most of the hate towards this expansion is stemming from. Not hatred for Potter itself but to the idea that Jaws, a Universal staple, has now been compromised for it. This news following the replacement of Back to the Future for The Simpsons shows a chance for a trend some might find distasteful. I wouldn't be surprised to see E.T. replaced by Alvin the Chipmunks. It's all about popularity and money, right?

And The Simpsons has one movie whose premise is not at all reflected in the film. The ride is about the show more than anything else.

 

[Jack Heimdall]

It's all about popularity and money, right?

For theme parks its about finding a balance between staying true to principle (i.e. theme) and things that will bring them financial gain. HP is a goldmine, so it is understandable that they will tilt that way in this scenario.

 

[TheDecemberists]

Your tally's show More Universal than non-Universal not including the things left out like Horror Make up-Uni, Woody Woodpecker-Uni, Fievel -Uni. I'm glad at least ditching Nick for Despicable Me is a step on the right track. In comparison, IOA has...well, Jurassic Park.

Yeah but IOA isn't Universal Studios #2. It's about bringing stories to life, and, if one of those stories happened to become one of the few popular Universal films acceptable for a theme park attraction . . . Wait, I'm confused. I don't even know where I was planning on going with this. IOA should be exempt from this Universal films tally. There.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

That Universal has abandoned its own classics for outside companies and that is where most of the hate towards this expansion is stemming from. Not hatred for Potter itself but to the idea that Jaws, a Universal staple, has now been compromised for it.

My 2 cents:

Ya so Potter isn't Universal and Jaws was, but you have to consider the fact that Universal Studios is the Pioneer of "Riding the Movies". They do it better than anyone in the entire world. I think it is beyond appropriate that they should be the ones taking on the task if of bringing to life the most popular film series of ALL TIME. They are the ones for the job. I don't see it as selling out if you are the best at what you do, and happen to profit from taking advantage of an opportunity that you worked hard to earn. I'm not even that big of a Potter fan...

 

[Scarletwebslingr]

My 2 cents:

Ya so Potter isn't Universal and Jaws was, but you have to consider the fact that Universal Studios is the Pioneer of "Riding the Movies". They do it better than anyone in the entire world. I think it is beyond appropriate that they should be the ones taking on the task if of bringing to life the most popular film series of ALL TIME. They are the ones for the job. I don't see it as selling out if you are the best at what you do, and happen to profit from taking advantage of an opportunity that you worked hard to earn. I'm not even that big of a Potter fan...

They did it. It was great. It should stay at IOA. And I wouldn't consider them "pioneers" of riding the movies either. Disney had been doing it decades before with their own films, later to include Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Pixar films. I love WWoHP, I just think Universal is selling their own brand short.

 

[Captain Tragedy]

I assume that an expansion was always on the table. They knew they would hit it big with Potter just with the merchandising alone. They see great potential to expand the brand and will take that opportunity, especially if it can get more people off Disney property. On a purely business decision it's genius. I can understand being disappointed on a nostalgic, emotional level. I would also love for them to come up with something original in their parks. Unfortunately original attractions don't sell that well, especially if they are poorly executed <cough> HRRR <cough> . The thing that sells is a brand that includes record breaking movies, books, video games, merchandise, and even food.

 

[Teebin]

I just think Universal is selling their own brand short.

If Universal is selling its brand short than it is only because its films are coming UP short. An attraction based on Despicable Me is pushing it a tad.

 

[Scarletwebslingr]

If Universal is selling its brand short than it is only because its films are coming UP short. An attraction based on Despicable Me is pushing it a tad.

I'd guess, due to it's box-office success, it'll spawn several sequels and possible spin offs like Kung-Fu Panda, Shrek, and Madagascar and seem justified in it's ride slot. I'm not the biggest fan of the film, but I do admire Universal for pitching their own property (more or less). Hopefully, should the ride prove successful, it will be taken note of and promote future Universal attractions at Universal

 

[UNIrd]

If Universal is selling its brand short than it is only because its films are coming UP short. An attraction based on Despicable Me is pushing it a tad.

Not really. It's one of the top 10 highest-grossing animated movies of all-time, ahead of both Cars and its sequel (which is getting it's own LAND later this year).

 

[Jymmymack]

I agree with Teebin about Despicable Me. I like the movie, but it really doesn't scream "ride!" to me. He's also right about the current stature of Universal (film) properties. We keep saying that Universal should use their own properties, regardless of what they are. Doesn't it say something when you walk down the new poster alley and see "The Nutty Professor", "Liar, Liar", and "Bruce Almighty" hanging there next to classic Universal films?

 

[Disneyhead]

Don't sell the Despicable Me attraction short. I am hearing some encouraging stuff about how it is turning out.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

They did it. It was great. It should stay at IOA. And I wouldn't consider them "pioneers" of riding the movies either. Disney had been doing it decades before with their own films, later to include Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Pixar films. I love WWoHP, I just think Universal is selling their own brand short.

First off, I didn't mean that they were the first park to have an attraction based on a movie. I meant that they were the first ones with the solitary goal/business model of putting guests in movies. Its their... "specialty" if you will. I tried to emphasize that by using quotes but after reading it I can see how it could be misleading.

OK next, you think Universal is "selling their own brand short". So do you think Disney is selling their brand short for picking up AVATAR? I just don't think a theme park has to ONLY use ideas and products from their own company to be great. I don't walk off a ride thinking "WOW that was amazing, too bad Universal didn't really produce the movie that attraction was based off of..." Plus, the average park guest doesn't even know, let alone care...

As far as Potter staying at IOA I will say this... I was one of the people who voted that there would NOT be an expansion to WWOHP. :doh: Mostly because of my personal feelings in that I simply didn't want to see it take over the parks. Then, once the expansion was announced and rumors started flowing of it replacing JAWS, I started protesting on how it should at least stay in IOA, and posted an epic rant somewhere (that I think upwards of 2 people read) about all of the reasons why I think it should stay OUT of the Studios, mandatory park hoppers being the main thesis.So believe me when I tell you I understand where you're coming from.

I guess over time I have become more optimistic, partly because lets face it, its happening whether us NERDS want it to happen or not. But mostly because I now fully realize how many doors this is going to open for Universal in the long run. It is going to give them the financial freedom they need to create one of a kind attractions for decades to come, whether Universal produced the movie or not.

Holy crap how long have I been typing?....what year is this?

 

[ChristopherSE]

What if - just hear me out for a second - Plopper invades the studios, but remains part of IOA? The WWoHP is part of the islands - and fits in well - but doesn't have any room to expand. You expand to USF and bada bing bada boom you have more land and that train ride that everyone wants. So you put a nice little wall (or show building, for that matter) along that one side and you got yourself a nice little expansion without fudging up ticketing and what-not. Just an idea.

OR, combine the two parks into one and have one price. The first one will get less back-lash and confuzzeled guests.

This has probably been brought up before, but I figured I'd spew it out anyway.

 

[Teebin]

Can you all imagine the UC meetings over the past 2-8 years? All of us have gone our merry way working at our jobs or at school etc etc. But there are a few UC people that have been wracking their brains on potter, potter, potter. Imagine the artwork and pitches, the ideas that have been put forth and shot down or jumped on only to be shot down later. Imagine the leap to pushing potter to the studios... and having a train transport. So, just imagine 8 years of meetings and drawing your heart out for one project.

 

[Scarletwebslingr]

First off, I didn't mean that they were the first park to have an attraction based on a movie. I meant that they were the first ones with the solitary goal/business model of putting guests in movies. Its their... "specialty" if you will. I tried to emphasize that by using quotes but after reading it I can see how it could be misleading.

OK next, you think Universal is "selling their own brand short". So do you think Disney is selling their brand short for picking up AVATAR? I just don't think a theme park has to ONLY use ideas and products from their own company to be great. I don't walk off a ride thinking "WOW that was amazing, too bad Universal didn't really produce the movie that attraction was based off of..." Plus, the average park guest doesn't even know, let alone care...

As far as Potter staying at IOA I will say this... I was one of the people who voted that there would NOT be an expansion to WWOHP. :doh: Mostly because of my personal feelings in that I simply didn't want to see it take over the parks. Then, once the expansion was announced and rumors started flowing of it replacing JAWS, I started protesting on how it should at least stay in IOA, and posted an epic rant somewhere (that I think upwards of 2 people read) about all of the reasons why I think it should stay OUT of the Studios, mandatory park hoppers being the main thesis.So believe me when I tell you I understand where you're coming from.

I guess over time I have become more optimistic, partly because lets face it, its happening whether us NERDS want it to happen or not. But mostly because I now fully realize how many doors this is going to open for Universal in the long run. It is going to give them the financial freedom they need to create one of a kind attractions for decades to come, whether Universal produced the movie or not.

Holy crap how long have I been typing?....what year is this?

I don't have a problem with a park like DAK adding Avatar. It would be the only non-Disney addition to the park and it isn't replacing anything significant. If DAK were to toss out Dinosaur or Kilimanjaro or keep adding lands/attractions non-Disney, then I would have a very very big problem. I'm sorry if I came off too strong. I get what you mean about "ride the movies. It just makes me sad for Universal that this is what they have to do for decent business.

 

[JungleSkip]

What if - just hear me out for a second - Plopper invades the studios, but remains part of IOA? The WWoHP is part of the islands - and fits in well - but doesn't have any room to expand. You expand to USF and bada bing bada boom you have more land and that train ride that everyone wants. So you put a nice little wall (or show building, for that matter) along that one side and you got yourself a nice little expansion without fudging up ticketing and what-not. Just an idea.

OR, combine the two parks into one and have one price. The first one will get less back-lash and confuzzeled guests.

I've seen it said before, and no offense, but I think making Amity part of IoA is an asinine idea.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Ya I'm sure the suits considered it for about 12 seconds... not practical. We will get two parks - one park hopper ticket. so basically everyone that just visited IOA for WWOHP the first time, will come crawling back and happily pay almost twice as much...