Epic Universe Expansion Speculation

[mccgavin]

The under 10 crowd clothing doesn't really have spongebob. Honestly I don't know any parents who let their under 10 year old watch Spongebob. I know I don't.

While SpongeBob definitely has a multi-generational appeal due to nostalgia, it is absolutely a show marketed towards younger children, especially now. It may have had a reputation for some more adult themes at one time, but it's largely been sanitized to be more family friendly since 2005. Outside of the initial 3 seasons, I'd argue there's nothing the franchise has put out that would be marketed to anyone over the age of 10 outside of merchandise. This may be anecdotal, but SpongeBob remains one of the more common licenses I see on materials marketed for kids, along with Disney and DreamWorks.

Mix in they have to pay for one property and not the other, it makes sense the direction they went.

Not arguing with that, but the fact that it will seemingly be included in Universal's Frisco park shows that the IP still has value to them.

 

[DodgsonHere]

The switch up from some people on Epic Universe in the last page or so of this thread is absolutely unbelievable

 

[jarmor]

Not really. Don't get me wrong, I'm excited for Epic, but I wish that Nintendo/Potter went into USF and that Isle of Berk went into IOA. Monsters is really the only land that wouldn't have happened at either of the other parks. Epic Universe is exciting but (hot take incoming) kinda unnecessary.

So, you'd rather just keep replacing attractions vs building a new park with said replacements?

 

[Magic-Man]

So, you'd rather just keep replacing attractions vs building a new park with said replacements?

If the attractions they are replacing are bad or already defunct, yes.

 

[Brian G.]

If the attractions they are replacing are bad or already defunct, yes.

And what would anchor the new park?

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

If the attractions they are replacing are bad or already defunct, yes.

Alternatively, you get the new attractions in the new park and you get replacements for the bad and defunct ones, you just have to wait a little longer. Lost Continent's going either way.

EDIT: I assume they've decided FFL is better kept as a flex space for the time being.

 

[Magic-Man]

And what would anchor the new park?

Nothing, because I don't think a third park was necessary. I'm excited for it because of the attractions it has, but those could have easily gone into the existing parks.

And yes, I know I'm gonna get blasted for this because it's not the popular opinion.

 

[Brian G.]

Nothing, because I don't think a third park was necessary. I'm excited for it because of the attractions it has, but those could have easily gone into the existing parks.

And yes, I know I'm gonna get blasted for this because it's not the popular opinion.

It’s a bad opinion lol

 

[themeparkpalooza]

Darkmoor
Creature from the Black Lagoon indoor boat ride

Super Nintendo/Celestial Flex
Super Mario Galaxy attraction

Super Nintendo World
Luigi's Mansion D-ticket
Kirby and Animal Crossing mini-land (Kirby flat ride and play area, Animal Crossing dark ride, shops, M&Gs, KK Slider streetmosphere show)

Potter
Fantastic Beasts-focused ride

Berk
FoP style ride or another unique 'flying' flat ride

Large expansion pad
Catch all whimsical fantasy land (Wicked, Wonka, etc.), LOTR, or a full Shrek land could all be fun - a catch all futuristic sci-fi area as well

 

[Suchomimus]

Super Nintendo/Celestial Flex
Super Mario Galaxy attraction

What is Celestial Flex?

 

[Magic-Man]

It’s a bad opinion lol

Yeah, a harmless opinion is bad just because it isn't popular. Sure.

 

[Jake S]

Yeah, a harmless opinion is bad just because it isn't popular. Sure.

Calling an opinion bad is also pretty harmless.

 

[Magic-Man]

Calling an opinion bad is also pretty harmless.

I just think replying "bad opinion lol" is an annoying response that adds no constructive value to the discussion. Because who cares?

 

[Brian G.]

I just think replying "bad opinion lol" is an annoying response that adds no constructive value to the discussion. Because who cares?

I mean, I could provide a dissertation and it’s not going to change your mind.

Either way, not popular doesn’t automatically equate to bad. It’s just a bad opinion. From a growth standpoint, from an offering standpoint, from a local economy standpoint… etc etc.

 

[Magic-Man]

I mean, I could provide a dissertation and it’s not going to change your mind.

Either way, not popular doesn’t automatically equate to bad. It’s just a bad opinion. From a growth standpoint, from an offering standpoint, from a local economy standpoint… etc etc.

From the offering standpoint, wouldn't it make more sense to fill in and replace the multiple dead zones in the park? And from the local economy standpoint, Orlando grows more and more unaffordable every year and the parks are understaffed as it is. A new park will only make it worse. The only thing I get is the growth standpoint, but I'm kinda sick of everything being about growth instead of quality (Epic will be quality but the current parks have undeniable problems that should be taken care of first).

I think the land should have been a multi-purpose housing and retail development with some land being affordable housing for Universal employees (which to give them credit is actually happening but not soon enough).

 

[mccgavin]

From the offering standpoint, wouldn't it make more sense to fill in and replace the multiple dead zones in the park? And from the local economy standpoint, Orlando grows more and more unaffordable every year and the parks are understaffed as it is. A new park will only make it worse. The only thing I get is the growth standpoint, but I'm kinda sick of everything being about growth instead of quality (Epic will be quality but the current parks have undeniable problems that should be taken care of first).

I think the land should have been a multi-purpose housing and retail development with some land being affordable housing for Universal employees (which to give them credit is actually happening but not soon enough).

It definitely seems to be a goal of Universal to be a viable competitor with Disney in the Orlando tourism market, not just an addition to tourists' Disney vacation. It is difficult to acquire land that is suitable for theme park expansion, and Universal is very lucky to have gotten it in close proximity to their existing resort. They would be crazy to not build out their offerings and have a more complete resort. Despite having some underutilized areas, Islands of Adventure is in a strong position right now. It's mostly USF that needs some love in the coming years.

 

[Nico]

From the offering standpoint, wouldn't it make more sense to fill in and replace the multiple dead zones in the park? And from the local economy standpoint, Orlando grows more and more unaffordable every year and the parks are understaffed as it is. A new park will only make it worse. The only thing I get is the growth standpoint, but I'm kinda sick of everything being about growth instead of quality (Epic will be quality but the current parks have undeniable problems that should be taken care of first).

I think the land should have been a multi-purpose housing and retail development with some land being affordable housing for Universal employees (which to give them credit is actually happening but not soon enough).

I do agree with you in the general sense about a lot of this. I want the attractions added to Studios and IOA to be substantial and great. These last few additions at Studios have felt like placeholders/a bit unfinished at times. The lagoon show by far is my favorite new thing.

I think this whole conversation is more about pacing. I know (hope) big things are coming at the original parks. Im willing to wait. This way, I get to be excited about Epic AND the future.

Your opinion is totally logical, make those two parks the best they can be. Whereas, I just kinda want a new park first. I’m excited for the first new park in 25 years. I can wait for proper updates to Studios in the meantime.

 

[Brian G.]

I do agree with you in the general sense about a lot of this. I want the attractions added to Studios and IOA to be substantial and great. These last few additions at Studios have felt like placeholders/a bit unfinished at times. The lagoon show by far is my favorite new thing.

I think this whole conversation is more about pacing. I know (hope) big things are coming at the original parks. Im willing to wait. This way, I get to be excited about Epic AND the future.

Your opinion is totally logical, make those two parks the best they can be. Whereas, I just kinda want a new park first. I’m excited for the first new park in 25 years. I can wait for proper updates to Studios in the meantime.

This. The addition of Epic doesn't mean the other isn't happening. It's just not happening now.

And what's going into Epic, as it's presented now, wouldn't go into any of the current parks (outside of SNW). The size and scope wouldn't be the same simply because of the lack of size.

 

[belloq87]

I'm glad we're getting Epic Universe, but I think it's perfectly valid to prefer IOA and USF (especially USF...) were made as good and fleshed-out as they could possibly be before entertaining the idea of another gate. I'm sympathetic to that idea, as the board's resident "Nintendo should have still gone into KidZone" advocate.

There are some people out there who argue that Disney-MGM Studios and (especially) Animal Kingdom should not have been built when they were (if at all); I think that's a crazy position, and I would not want to lose either of those parks, but I understand the theoretical logic that their expense prevented some of the existing parks from reaching more full maturation.

 

[Brian G.]

I'm glad we're getting Epic Universe, but I think it's perfectly valid to prefer IOA and USF (especially USF...) were made as good and fleshed-out as they could possibly be before entertaining the idea of another gate. I'm sympathetic to that idea, as the board's resident "Nintendo should have still gone into KidZone" advocate.

There are some people out there who argue that Disney-MGM Studios and (especially) Animal Kingdom should not have been built when they were (if at all); I think that's a crazy position, and I would not want to lose either of those parks, but I understand the theoretical logic that their expense prevented some of the existing parks from reaching more full maturation.

I think it's also fair to remember we're speaking with the benefit of hindsight.

When Epic was greenlit and announced, COVID wasn't a concern or a thought (and the aftereffects), Florida hadn't experienced hurricanes that damaged attractions. Fox wasn't owned by Disney, and UO just finished investing heavily in USF. It's not like they created Fallon and F&F and expected the reaction it got.