The Future of Lost Continent

[Mike S]

I don't think Pokemon will have the theme park effect that Potter has had. Potter is like a once in a lifetime event, theme
park wise. But Pokemon will undoubtedly pack them in. So that backside of IOA will be crowded continuously.

@MikeS; First rumors were Pokemon in USF, so the switch to IOA is interesting. Perhaps it's partly a timing move if Universal
needs (by contract or a business decision) to get it up quickly. LC is empty already so it's in a different spot than Springfield
which has at least two years of contract left, and maybe a couple extra years if it gets extended. With the F&F coaster and a soon
to be redone Supercharged building, the timing for a Pokemon build just might not have fit. USF still gets along fine as the Epcot
like Event park, so its situation isn't really as dire as posters here paint it.

I was saying that not only Springfield but Supercharged/San Fran could’ve easily been demolished for Pokémon as well now that we have that confirmation.

As someone who doesn’t care for events USF is easily at the bottom of UOR by a far margin.

 

[Mad Dog]

I was saying that not only Springfield but Supercharged/San Fran could’ve easily been demolished for Pokémon as well now that we have that confirmation.

As someone who doesn’t care for events USF is easily at the bottom of UOR by a far margin.

Yes ,if you only count rides, but the GP eats up the events. HHN, Holidays, Mardi Gras bring a lot of tourists and locals to the resort plus the hotels.

 

[Tobias]

While I do agree USF needs new stuff, I feel the discussion that Pokémon should go in San Fran feels incredibly moot at this point. There's been plenty of rumblings from insiders that they've got the replacement in mind for Supercharged. Not to mention, San Fran feels like the smallest location out of the two, and I'd rather an IP such as Pokémon go into the bigger one.

 

[Mike S]

While I do agree USF needs new stuff, I feel the discussion that Pokémon should go in San Fran feels incredibly moot at this point. There's been plenty of rumblings from insiders that they've got the replacement in mind for Supercharged. Not to mention, San Fran feels like the smallest location out of the two, and I'd rather an IP such as Pokémon go into the bigger one.

Where ever “New York” ends up to London seems pretty huge to me. How big is it in actual numbers? Is Transformers part of New York?

 

[Evan]

I know Pokémon is huge, and a $$$ juggernaut. But I still question if the franchise translates well to a theme park setting.

Is it going to rely on crazy interactivity that many guests may not want? Will there be passive experiences that don’t require much buy in?

Only time will tell.

 

[rhino4evr]

I have a 16 year old that collects Pokémon cards and isn’t even into gaming. It’s not a gamer only IP

 

[Frogki]

I want to clarify my post to say that I truly believe Pokemon can and hopefully will make a fantastic themed land if given the proper treatment. I believe that both as a fairly casual fan of the franchise and as a passionate fan of the parks themselves.
But I'm realistic about the limitations of the franchise and what this might look like from the average guest perspective.

There's so many really golden opportunities within that world to make something worthwhile. I believe Parklore had a really great exploration of what a Pokemon land could be. I think the idea that interactivity is gimmicky is disproven by Nintendo and Potter's respective existing interactive stations which tend to form decent lines. There's expectations for merchandise these days, and I've said it before but I'll say it again, a particularly ingenious form of this for Pokemon would be interactive shoulder pets in the vein of the Hedwig animatronic shoulder plush or the Nifflers.

As far as attractions and environments go, there is a lot of potential for Creative to be given some wild leeway if they get the freedom to build their own region from scratch. Considering each of the videogames always focuses on a new region, it would give both Nintendo and Universal a really fun way of marketing a land. Not sure if this is a direction either party would ever actually want to go in but given the vastness of the series, it may be one of the only ways to appease certain fans with regards to which exact Pokemon are featured in the land.

 

[SkiBum]

I just feel that this love might be overstated beyond “oh, they’re cute!” I have a really hard time seeing the Gen X parents from Wisconsin or Long Island saying “man, I have GOT to see Pikachu!”

That was something that Potter was really uniquely positioned for. Even if you weren’t into the IP, you were at least intrigued at how that world manifested into the Wizarding World we have today. I don’t think Kanto is going to have that same draw.

I agree with you. As a Gen X, I never got the Pokemon appeal. I understand Mario as Nintendo was really huge in my late teens and 20's. Potter was big from a movie perspective plus the books. SyFY and other channels still run Harry Potter marathons that are probably popular. The Super Mario movie a few years ago was very enjoyable and I'm looking forward to Galaxy. I watched the Pikachu movie and it was enjoyable but did not resonate for me. To be fair, I was never big on the Pokemon game and did not get the appeal of people going around trying to capture characters with their phones.

I know Pokémon is huge, and a $$$ juggernaut. But I still question if the franchise translates well to a theme park setting.

Is it going to rely on crazy interactivity that many guests may not want? Will there be passive experiences that don’t require much buy in?

Only time will tell.

I agree with this as well. Potter at UNI features the interactivity but it isn't required to enjoy the lands. Maybe I'm lazy (okay, I am) but I like just going to the park and not needing to try and do stuff to get the enjoyment. It's partly why I don't like having to us the Disney app to monitor Lightning Lanes (which I usually don't do anyway).

 

[lowbudget]

In my opinion the big decision comes down to what version of Pokémon Universal picks. I grew up on Red/Blue/Yellow the rest I'm aware of but not emotionally connected to. Each generation has a different version which is their core experience. If you pick one and go all in, you hit a home run with that generation with a slight alienation of the other. Try to get a little of all of it, and everyone feels a little awkward. That's what Disney did with Galaxy's Edge, and we all know how that feels. I don't know what the right answer is, and I do not envy whoever has to make that decision.

Pokémon wont have the same impact as Potter. Potter hit at the height of cultural relevance, and approached the theme park experience in a completely new and industry changing manner. I think Pokémon can provide some unique experiences, but I don't think it will be an industry wide watershed moment.

 

[Mad Dog]

In my opinion the big decision comes down to what version of Pokémon Universal picks. I grew up on Red/Blue/Yellow the rest I'm aware of but not emotionally connected to. Each generation has a different version which is their core experience. If you pick one and go all in, you hit a home run with that generation with a slight alienation of the other. Try to get a little of all of it, and everyone feels a little awkward. That's what Disney did with Galaxy's Edge, and we all know how that feels. I don't know what the right answer is, and I do not envy whoever has to make that decision.

Pokémon wont have the same impact as Potter. Potter hit at the height of cultural relevance, and approached the theme park experience in a completely new and industry changing manner. I think Pokémon can provide some unique experiences, but I don't think it will be an industry wide watershed moment.

Yes, I think you nailed it.

 

[Frogki]

Agreed with all of the above, it certainly isn't an easy IP to adapt, there are a lot of ways it can go sideways...

 

[Mike S]

In my opinion the big decision comes down to what version of Pokémon Universal picks. I grew up on Red/Blue/Yellow the rest I'm aware of but not emotionally connected to. Each generation has a different version which is their core experience. If you pick one and go all in, you hit a home run with that generation with a slight alienation of the other. Try to get a little of all of it, and everyone feels a little awkward. That's what Disney did with Galaxy's Edge, and we all know how that feels. I don't know what the right answer is, and I do not envy whoever has to make that decision.

Pokémon wont have the same impact as Potter. Potter hit at the height of cultural relevance, and approached the theme park experience in a completely new and industry changing manner. I think Pokémon can provide some unique experiences, but I don't think it will be an industry wide watershed moment.

Good thing with Pokémon is that it’s not something really begging for a single location or town to be picked and built verbatim like with Harry Potter or Star Wars. All they need is to represent the most popular individual creatures and people will be happy.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

Wizarding World was also the first officially licensed Potter stuff around. People forget that the licensing for official items was rather tight in the first decade or so of the franchise. So when WWoHP opened it just wasn't a hugely anticipated land opening, it also had to soak up over a decade's worth of desire for merchandise, food, and drink. Pokemon is as big as Potter, but it won't make the same impact because the fandom's been satiated with content for over decades now. It'll be a hit, it'll be massive, but it won't close CityWalk.

 

[Frogki]

Wizarding World was also the first officially licensed Potter stuff around. People forget that the licensing for official items was rather tight in the first decade or so of the franchise. So when WWoHP opened it just wasn't a hugely anticipated land opening, it also had to soak up over a decade's worth of desire for merchandise, food, and drink. Pokemon is as big as Potter, but it won't make the same impact because the fandom's been satiated with content for over decades now. It'll be a hit, it'll be massive, but it won't close CityWalk.

Absolutely, I was a mega Potter nerd at this time but I considered myself a Hufflepuff and before the Wizarding World, there was almost no merch for any group of fans beyond Gryffindor and Slytherin (and Slytherin was also still less represented).

 

[Evan]

I agree with this as well. Potter at UNI features the interactivity but it isn't required to enjoy the lands. Maybe I'm lazy (okay, I am) but I like just going to the park and not needing to try and do stuff to get the enjoyment. It's partly why I don't like having to us the Disney app to monitor Lightning Lanes (which I usually don't do anyway).

Exactly. You can fully enjoy the Harry Potter lands without purchasing a wand. The rides are great, amazing place making and atmosphere, good food, and fun shops to explore.

Nintendo World was a one and done for me (only been to Hollywood). I wasn’t going to purchase an over priced band as an international tourist with one park day. Mario Kart was fine, but did it once and was good. The food location was too much effort to get into, so skipped that… the land looks great, but hard to enjoy unless you pay to play.

Meanwhile we went up to Wizarding World and had an amazing meal, enjoyed the atmosphere, explored all the stores, and rode Forbidden Journey 4 times.

 

[DOOMBOT]

I think in order to actually recreate Potter's success, theme park companies will have to create something truly new and novel. Every major land created since the opening of Hogsmeade has followed its' template. The only exceptions I can think of being New Fantasyland and Isle of Berk. I don't expect Pokemon to reinvent the wheel here, so it inherently won't hit the same. After three Potter lands, Star Wars, Super Mario, all in the same format across 15 years, how could it?

As much as I like the idea of interactive Pokeball's / Pokedex / stuff like that, there is also an upper limit to how many upcharge items a guest should be expected to purchase. Two different $50+ wearables is already an ask, but going up to three will definitely cause frustration. Add on $25 Magicband+'s for the whole family, and there will be exponential decreases with each new one. It's not a repeatable cheat code to automatically subsidize your new land.

 

[Jake S]

It's not a repeatable cheat code to automatically subsidize your new land.

Boy, I can hear the Big Business Bois at corporate cackling from here.

 

[Mike S]

Boy, I can hear the Big Business Bois at corporate cackling from here.

Yeah. Not everyone will buy everything. Take me for example: I’ve never bought a wand but I bought a power up band. There’s probably others who were never interested until there’s a Pokédex or whatever they make for Pokémon.

This whole thing is VERY repeatable as the vast majority will only choose the one that speaks the most to them if it’s their first visit. Either that or the other thing they bought was years ago so they don’t care about buying the new interactive thing if they’re a repeat visitor.

 

[Brian G.]

FWIW - you do not need the Power-UP Band to play the mini-games. The only thing you can't do is the Bowser Jr. experience, though.

 

[DOOMBOT]

FWIW - you do not need the Power-UP Band to play the mini-games. The only thing you can't do is the Bowser Jr. experience, though.

You do need the Band for the majority of the Power-Up Band games. Guests who are unaware of how the land works enter SNW and are hit with 4 straight No's when trying to engage with attractions until they get to Mario Kart in the back of the land.

The only games that don't need a Band are the most hidden ones, tucked inside the Underground Levels.