Future of Toon Lagoon

[TheAlaskanBullworm]

At this point I can’t remember, when was the last somewhat reliable rumor/source for SpongeBob taking over toon lagoon at some point? It seems an obvious replacement on paper but are there any details out there like the original contract status for simpsons?

 

[Mad Dog]

At this point I can’t remember, when was the last somewhat reliable rumor/source for SpongeBob taking over toon lagoon at some point? It seems an obvious replacement on paper but are there any details out there like the original contract status for simpsons?

There's never been a reliable rumor. Dudley Ripsaw and Popeye are still there. Just lots of fantasy dreaming.

 

[UniversalRBLX]

At this point I can’t remember, when was the last somewhat reliable rumor/source for SpongeBob taking over toon lagoon at some point? It seems an obvious replacement on paper but are there any details out there like the original contract status for simpsons?

There's never been anything solid, just pure fan speculation & blue sky dreaming.

I think it's quite clear that modern park goers don't understand Toon Lagoon as the IPs are outdated/irrelevant and the attractions are water rides that soak guests. Easy for most guests to skip.

 

[TheUniC6]

The perfect Bikini Bottom background loop exists - the Battle for Bikini Bottom soundtrack!

I have fond memories of BFBB. The soundtrack that would work here would be the one used when you were in the main BB hub.

 

[RFRees]

I appreciate the dedication SpongeBob fans have. But, I don't see how the IP would warrant a large land expansion at Universal.

1) It's third party. If we look at recent third party partnerships, we see Nintendo, Pokemon, and Potter. Can anyone point to any objective measures which demonstrates the SpongeBob IP comes anywhere close to one of these other third party IPs?

2) The IP is not as relevant as it was. SpongeBob's last movie (2025) was profitable only due to its relatively low budget; it didn't even get close to breaking $100 million domestic ($69 million). This makes it the worst performing SpongeBob theatrical release by far, and that's before adjusting for inflation. SpongeBob's entire theatrical run made only $5 million more than FNAF 2's opening weekend (~$65 million), or just $1 million more than Wicked For Good's opening day+previews ($68 million), and those two movies weren't even the best performing movies of the year (#20 and #6, SpongeBob is way down the list).

3) What demographics does SpongeBob 'add' that Universal doesn't already have covered? I could easily see an argument made for low performing third party IP if say, it brought in a specific country's population, or it appealed to Gen Z girls, or something Universal doesn't already have. But isn't SpongeBob's core audience (American male Gen z/millennials) already covered with IPs like Transformers, DreamWorks, Marvel, SNW / Pokemon, etc?

I'm certainly open to being wrong about this.

 

[DOOMBOT]

It certainly doesn't seem like a priority IP for the Orlando teams at this moment in time.

I do believe that had the industry been in the right place when Spongebob was at its' peak of popularity in the 2000s to mid 2010s, a Bikini Bottom land would have been a definite game changer expansion. A perfectly natural evolution from the prominent but scattered way the Nicktoons were represented at UOR prior to that point, an IP with an undeniably iconic visual and sonic identity, popular characters that families would wait in line to meet, and a merchandising / F&B powerhouse that would've returned the investment essentially immediately. I consider it one of those great big missed-opportunity theme park lands like Middle Earth and (until very recently) Pokemon.

For a TV show, and especially a kids show, Spongebob has remained remarkably relevant and influential. Even incredibly successful and at-their-time popular kids media like The Wiggles, Ben 10, Blues Clues, High School Musical haven't really kept up the pace as the decades wear on, but Spongebob is still here with us, to the extent that UDX is currently making an entire land based on the show for their smaller-scale Kids park. I think that last point is certainly worth discussion, if nothing else. Clearly, someone somewhere at UDX sees some amount of remaining life left in the IP.

Spongebob might currently be closer to where the Simpsons was when it got its' UOR land - a decent bit past its' prime, but with enough gas in the tank for a while longer.

 

[Mad Dog]

Even now, the very attractive and well themed USF SpongeBob store has very little merchandise selection. I believe
we're overthinking the impact of this IP in 2026 & beyond.

 

[UniversalRBLX]

I appreciate the dedication SpongeBob fans have. But, I don't see how the IP would warrant a large land expansion at Universal.

1) It's third party. If we look at recent third party partnerships, we see Nintendo, Pokemon, and Potter. Can anyone point to any objective measures which demonstrates the SpongeBob IP comes anywhere close to one of these other third party IPs?

2) The IP is not as relevant as it was. SpongeBob's last movie (2025) was profitable only due to its relatively low budget; it didn't even get close to breaking $100 million domestic ($69 million). This makes it the worst performing SpongeBob theatrical release by far, and that's before adjusting for inflation. SpongeBob's entire theatrical run made only $5 million more than FNAF 2's opening weekend (~$65 million), or just $1 million more than Wicked For Good's opening day+previews ($68 million), and those two movies weren't even the best performing movies of the year (#20 and #6, SpongeBob is way down the list).

3) What demographics does SpongeBob 'add' that Universal doesn't already have covered? I could easily see an argument made for low performing third party IP if say, it brought in a specific country's population, or it appealed to Gen Z girls, or something Universal doesn't already have. But isn't SpongeBob's core audience (American male Gen z/millennials) already covered with IPs like Transformers, DreamWorks, Marvel, SNW / Pokemon, etc?

I'm certainly open to being wrong about this.

1 & 2) The IP (according to Wikipedia) has generated $16.6B since its inception (SpongeBob movies have never done well). That puts it above IPs like Toy Story and Minions. Box Office is not the sole indicator of why a theme park should prioritize an IP. Huge merchandise potential here (along with F&B).

3) Universal, especially IOA, could do better with children-focused experiences. I think the IP (or really any other IP) could help balance things out in the park.

Even now, the very attractive and well themed USF SpongeBob store has very little merchandise selection. I believe
we're overthinking the impact of this IP in 2026 & beyond.

I could be wrong, but the fact that Universal went out of their way to get the rights for Universal Kids, shows me that they have some data to support that the IP is relevant and profitable. I'm not saying we should expect a SpongeBob portal at Epic Universe, but the IP certainly has the capability to support a theme park land.



Let's think long-term across Universal's 3 (and maybe one day 4) dry parks... we'd likely want USF to receive the bulk of investment, Epic needs substantial capacity improvements leaving IOA (post Pokemon) in an "ok" state. A retheme of the existing Toon Lagoon infrastructure (whether SpongeBob or another IP) just makes sense to me. Outside of SpongeBob, what other IP "best" works here? I would have said DreamWorks years ago (Kung Fu Panda rapids, Madagascar ripsaw retheme, etc.)

 

[ChrisFL]

I wonder what the cultural relevance of Dr. Seuss is these days (not implying they should replace it at all, just wondering)

 

[TheCodeMan95]

I have fond memories of BFBB. The soundtrack that would work here would be the one used when you were in the main BB hub.

This and the Jellyfish Fields themes are what I picture!

Like @DOOMBOT mentioned - they are about to open a Spongebob land in their kids' park. And I am fully convinced that they will use that land as a measuring stick for possible future usage of the IP in the large parks.

Wasn't the Kung Fu Panda Land in Beijing VERY close to being a Spongebob land?

 

[SkiBum]

I wonder what the cultural relevance of Dr. Seuss is these days (not implying they should replace it at all, just wondering)

I would think that is a hard one to answer. I believe that people know Dr. Suess and it remains a popular children's book. Toon Lagoon probably suffers more from a lack of relevancy. How many people under the age of 45 know who Hagar the Horrible, Betty Boop, Dudley Do Right, and others are? The comic strip in the newspaper has become an anachronism. I think that people ride Popeye and Dudley because those the only rides in that area and not because of popularity. My only concern with Sponge Bob is that I don't like the cartoon. I don't find it enjoyable. I'm also not the age demographic being targeted.

Paramount put Nickelodean, including Sponge Bob, in the kids area at Kings Island. It was no more popular than before. It isn't a good reference because it just meant that they threw some light theming at the area but I never saw a big draw. Toon Lagoon may need a reimagining but it also needs a nice dark ride to add something different to that area.

 

[Mad Dog]

I'd guess Toon Lagoon is way down the list of major IP changes for Universal. There's sooo many additions/expansions
that need to be made at Epic, USF and IOA in the next decade. And, guests mostly ride those two water rides because
they're 'excellent' water rides. IP is secondary.....On merchandise. Universal has used Toon Lagoon to feature their non comic
IP merchandise, on a large scale, in the past. Today it's nearly an entire Hello Kitty store. In the past it was SLOP and others.
There's really not all that much comics merch on the shelves. It's other IP's. Probably the most prominent in the past
was Betty Boop, and that's been relegated to a minor role now, even though it's pretty interesting, and saleable, merch.

 

[RFRees]

1 & 2) The IP (according to Wikipedia) has generated $16.6B since its inception (SpongeBob movies have never done well). That puts it above IPs like Toy Story and Minions.

Both of those IPs are first party. First party are more than just free, they're synergy (free advertisement). Please compare to third party. Perhaps Transformers or MIB or Seuss?

Box Office is not the sole indicator of why a theme park should prioritize an IP. Huge merchandise potential here (along with F&B).

Box office is a slice of how a general public feels about an IP. It's certainly not the *only* indicator, but it can be seen as at least one sign of how healthy an IP is. The fact that the movie did that poorly, compared to itself in 2015 (not even half its box office) and compared to other movies in 2025, is not a great sign.

3) Universal, especially IOA, could do better with children-focused experiences. I think the IP (or really any other IP) could help balance things out in the park.

Seuss and Pokemon aren't enough?

I could be wrong, but the fact that Universal went out of their way to get the rights for Universal Kids, shows me that they have some data to support that the IP is relevant and profitable. I'm not saying we should expect a SpongeBob portal at Epic Universe, but the IP certainly has the capability to support a theme park land.

I think a ride would suffice. I'm thinking on the level of Transformers or MIB. Any major third party lands (the size of Toon Lagoon) should be on the level of Harry Potter, Pokemon, Nintendo, or LOTR.

Let's think long-term across Universal's 3 (and maybe one day 4) dry parks... we'd likely want USF to receive the bulk of investment, Epic needs substantial capacity improvements leaving IOA (post Pokemon) in an "ok" state. A retheme of the existing Toon Lagoon infrastructure (whether SpongeBob or another IP) just makes sense to me. Outside of SpongeBob, what other IP "best" works here? I would have said DreamWorks years ago (Kung Fu Panda rapids, Madagascar ripsaw retheme, etc.)

Wicked or LOTR or Nintendo/Zelda or Pokemon.

If we're thinking all four of those go elsewhere, then leave it alone until we get an IP that's worthy.

Edit:
Question, can anyone tell me the current streaming / TV numbers? I saw an article stating that Paramount+ has effectively killed the franchise by making it exclusive, which doesn't sound good at all (another 'unhealthy' indicator for the IP). The erratic and confrontational behavior of SpongeBob's parent company Paramount is also not good (see Paramount v Netflix regarding WB).

 

[Parkscope Joe]

First party are more than just free, they're synergy (free advertisement).

I don't expect you to have the answer so throwing this out there: Do parks that are owned by an IP holder have free access to other department's IPs? Does Disney have to pay some sort of fee for the use of movies properites to the studio, for example? Is it actually "free" to the parks?

 

[RFRees]

I don't expect you to have the answer so throwing this out there: Do parks that are owned by an IP holder have free access to other department's IPs? Does Disney have to pay some sort of fee for the use of movies properites to the studio, for example? Is it actually "free" to the parks?

That's a really good point and I probably should have thrown an asterisk on there. (I had originally put "free" in quotations to mark that it's essentially what we could consider free. But, it looked like I was quoting the text from which I was replying, so I removed those air quotes.)

There are likely costs which are absorbed locally by the park using the first party IP (one division paying another). I'd imagine the parent company would mandate or highly encourage this exchange in funds. The net to parent company is likely zero, though if you count advertising (having your brand in a park), it's a net positive for the parent company.

I would also guess that the transfer of funds is likely in the direction that benefits the parent company in the best possible way regarding tax time. E.g., park company may pay movie company $1.00 if movie company can write a 'loss' for the year.

This is all just is speculation on my part.

 

[Frogki]

I don't expect you to have the answer so throwing this out there: Do parks that are owned by an IP holder have free access to other department's IPs? Does Disney have to pay some sort of fee for the use of movies properites to the studio, for example? Is it actually "free" to the parks?

I can speak directly to this, the answer is yes. It gets ridiculously nitty gritty - down to how props are made and approved within Live Entertainment for properties owned by the larger corporate umbrella. Essentially these companies have many hands, and entertainment law is deliriously complicated.

To simplify - almost certainly, yes, any IP you see within the parks has to go through licensing, fees, and approval. It was wild to me when I first learned this as well, but there it is. I can't speak too in depth on it, as I only learned about the process second hand, but it is a fascinating niche within this industry. One might think that because X-Park is owned by X-Company, if they want to use C-Property they have free reign, but that's just not the way it works.

 

[Brian G.]

I can speak directly to this, the answer is yes. It gets ridiculously nitty gritty - down to how props are made and approved within Live Entertainment for properties owned by the larger corporate umbrella. Essentially these companies have many hands, and entertainment law is deliriously complicated.

To simplify - almost certainly, yes, any IP you see within the parks has to go through licensing, fees, and approval. It was wild to me when I first learned this as well, but there it is. I can't speak too in depth on it, as I only learned about the process second hand, but it is a fascinating niche within this industry. One might think that because X-Park is owned by X-Company, if they want to use C-Property they have free rein, but that's just not the way it works.

Vouching for the post.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

I can speak directly to this, the answer is yes. It gets ridiculously nitty gritty - down to how props are made and approved within Live Entertainment for properties owned by the larger corporate umbrella. Essentially these companies have many hands, and entertainment law is deliriously complicated.

To simplify - almost certainly, yes, any IP you see within the parks has to go through licensing, fees, and approval. It was wild to me when I first learned this as well, but there it is. I can't speak too in depth on it, as I only learned about the process second hand, but it is a fascinating niche within this industry. One might think that because X-Park is owned by X-Company, if they want to use C-Property they have free reign, but that's just not the way it works.

Thanks! I figured there was probably some sort of internal legal thing about unfair competition, like how they had to remove the Hulk cobra roll from the set of Fallon due to "free advertising". While the money doesn't impact the the overall business like licensing out a 3rd party, it does for UDX when creating/operating.

 

[OhHaiInternet95]

I would think that is a hard one to answer. I believe that people know Dr. Suess and it remains a popular children's book. Toon Lagoon probably suffers more from a lack of relevancy. How many people under the age of 45 know who Hagar the Horrible, Betty Boop, Dudley Do Right, and others are? The comic strip in the newspaper has become an anachronism. I think that people ride Popeye and Dudley because those the only rides in that area and not because of popularity. My only concern with Sponge Bob is that I don't like the cartoon. I don't find it enjoyable. I'm also not the age demographic being targeted.

Paramount put Nickelodean, including Sponge Bob, in the kids area at Kings Island. It was no more popular than before. It isn't a good reference because it just meant that they threw some light theming at the area but I never saw a big draw. Toon Lagoon may need a reimagining but it also needs a nice dark ride to add something different to that area.

Agree with a lot of this but purely as water rides Dudley and Popeye are top of the class.

 

[Evan]

Vouching for the post.

Yep.

Just as an example when Disney theme parks need media produced for an attraction (I.e. Pixar needs to create animation for this ride, Disney Animation for this, Marvel needs to put actors on tape for this), the studios charge the theme parks a crap load of money for that work.

I believe this is often why they try to pair the Marvel stuff up with when they are already on set shooting for one of the films, to save costs.