Eh, I'd rather they just keep that space for something bigger and better...like, i dunno....Hagrid's?
But if that's not possible, just leave it be. I'm not eager for this park to get another simulator.
The Wizarding World of Harry Potter - Hollywood
- Thread starter William
- 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.
But if that's not possible, just leave it be. I'm not eager for this park to get another simulator.
- Aug 7, 2018
- 7,095
- 9,069
Simpsons, both here and at UOR, will likely be gone by the end of the decade, so I’d technically remove that from the equation especially for Hollywood’s potential timeline.
- Nov 3, 2015
- 2,198
- 3,693
That space was designed for a simulator attraction, though. Can’t really do much else there, especially at USH.
- Aug 7, 2018
- 7,095
- 9,069
Possibly room for a theatre show, if they use some of the courtyard for spacing?
- Nov 3, 2015
- 2,198
- 3,693
“USH needs more RIDES and has too many simulators”…”How about we replace one with a theater show?!” :grin:
You know they could just bulldoze The Simpsons Ride, right? I see no reason why the building for it will stay after the fact.
I'd also think PotterVR has more than enough to justify itself being different than that of DMMM, DreamWorks Theater and TSR.
I'd also think PotterVR has more than enough to justify itself being different than that of DMMM, DreamWorks Theater and TSR.
As long as they're able to keep the giant donuts, they can do what they please with the area. That's the only food item that I actually care about in Springfield anyway.
When Springfield gets reskinned, I don't see it getting reworked into another IP land as it will likely involve having to tear everything down and start over. I'm sure they want to get at least two decades of life out of those structures they just built. Not to mention that is a major crowd choke point and creating an even bigger one for two years of construction is not what they want. Like I mentioned in the Springfield thread, I imagine it will probably be a quick-and-dirty overlay into a generic NY street section. That way they can have more flexibility as to what standalone rides can come and they can probably still have a show venue. WW is going to be on the chopping block eventually as that's a large plot of land right there to work with. They'll need at least one show venue to work with. Obviously whatever replaces Springfield will have to do deal with the Simpsons Ride, which brings me to my next point:
I think the worst case scenario is that it will get reskinned into Fallon as a placeholder until they can tear the whole thing down for a new ride. Considering they can probably build over the Tram road, there's a bit more space to work with than you think.
They can build whatever and wherever as we’ve seen with Forbidden Journey. Half of the ride’s show-building is built off the edge of a mountain as seen from the studio tour queue/exit. No more simulators or theatre shows at this park please!
Will the ride have good re-ride value though which is a big problem at this park? Most can agree whenever they visit the park, Simpsons, Dreamworks, animal actors, and minion mayhem are easy skips and not worth going out of your way to experience. The PotterVR attraction may sound cool and add something else to do in the park, but is it really helping the park’s case of “there needs to be more to do?” That would be 4-5 attractions in the park that offer generally the same experience.
Last edited:
I've been under the belief that outside of the side facing Hogsmeade, the area where the kitchen is; that I highly doubt they'll keep much of anything intact ((this isn't a rumor, more so speculation)).
When Universal sees fit to do a large investment into the area, the most ideal solution has been to torn down as opposed to retheming a building to match it. Be it Castle Theater and Animal Actors, or The Simpsons Ride, there's more than enough space to build outwards and to do something larger than what is there. Castle Theater, Duff Gardens, Feature Presentation and Animal Actors alone can get a near 1.5 acre plot of land. The Simpsons Ride's plot can give nearly .8 acres with just the main queue and showbuilding (That's not even counting the entrance plaza and Kwik-E-Mart.
When Pets is nearly half an acre, one must really consider that size does not automatically mean it has to be a theater or a simulator. Hell, even my PotterVR mockup was .7 acres for the showbuilding. There is methods to grow USH, and to grow Hogsmeade especially; to become something more. And it doesn't have to be with just one solution.
If anything has convinced me of UC Hollywood being creative, it's by how small their additions actually are in size. And it's why I'm actually fine with PotterVR. Because I'd rather see that, than see a large scale addition based on Potter, at USH again. Give the time for Pokemon or Zelda.
When Universal sees fit to do a large investment into the area, the most ideal solution has been to torn down as opposed to retheming a building to match it. Be it Castle Theater and Animal Actors, or The Simpsons Ride, there's more than enough space to build outwards and to do something larger than what is there. Castle Theater, Duff Gardens, Feature Presentation and Animal Actors alone can get a near 1.5 acre plot of land. The Simpsons Ride's plot can give nearly .8 acres with just the main queue and showbuilding (That's not even counting the entrance plaza and Kwik-E-Mart.
When Pets is nearly half an acre, one must really consider that size does not automatically mean it has to be a theater or a simulator. Hell, even my PotterVR mockup was .7 acres for the showbuilding. There is methods to grow USH, and to grow Hogsmeade especially; to become something more. And it doesn't have to be with just one solution.
If anything has convinced me of UC Hollywood being creative, it's by how small their additions actually are in size. And it's why I'm actually fine with PotterVR. Because I'd rather see that, than see a large scale addition based on Potter, at USH again. Give the time for Pokemon or Zelda.
Is Disney really pressuring the parks to take down The Simpsons stuff? The notion early on was basically like the Marvel situation at IOA -- "you can't build anything new with this IP but we're not coming for your necks on it, either." I agree the whole area will change one day, but I think you'd see Universal pony up some sort licensing fee or give Disney a revenue slice well before they'd do a temporary switch to a New York/Jimmy Fallon thing. When you consider labor costs, supply issues, not to mention park disruption, etc., they're gonna do it all in one fell swoop and they won't even do that until Disney gives them a full-on ultimatum, which (AFAIK), hasn't happened yet.
I think Simpsons will be a part of both parks for a while.
I think Simpsons will be a part of both parks for a while.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure the main difference between the Marvel and Simpsons contract is that Marvel’s contract is in perpetuity whereas for Simpsons it’s speculated to be through 2028.
- Feb 15, 2012
- 17,123
- 47,006
I mean what's the benefit of Disney having Universal close down the land? Do you think they'd add The Simpsons to their parks? Wouldn't it be just easier to rake in the money/attention and move on?
- May 26, 2010
- 5,813
- 16,166
I think it all comes down to if they think they can make more money leveraging their take on the IP in their parks and if they have the designs/resources to execute. Otherwise, yeah, I think they let Universal continue to use the brand until those two things are true.
A renegotiating of the contract to allow Disney to use the characters in the parks and do merch/F&B would be likely if they did allow Uni to keep using the Simpsons. Of course, 6 years from now, Uni may be ready to move on from the Simpsons anyway.
Yes, your point has a lot of business merit. In 6 years (2028) it's quite likely that the Simpson's IP may be much less relevant than it is today. It may be an IP that Disney has little business interest into building lands around. So why not just continue to pull in profit from Universal without having to make any substantial theme park investments. I think many are thinking it's a slam dunk that Disney will not negotiate another extension with Universal, but that may well not be the case. Rumors of Universal Springfield death just may end up being greatly exaggerated. I'm sure Disney makes a lot of easy profit from the many Universal Springfield lands. After all, business is business....and the various media companies do cooperate on a number of different levels when it's in their mutual business interests.
I'd have to think Disney sees the potential that The Simpsons has for profitability. It is the biggest of the evergreen properties they got out of 21CP/21A/21TV. I can see them being more gung ho on getting it properly into the fold for better control and management. I would not be shocked that Springfield USA is generating a profit, but why not have a more direct and steady control of that profit?
I'm on the camp of it leaving because of that reason more than anything else, but this is probably a better discussion for a better thread.
I'm on the camp of it leaving because of that reason more than anything else, but this is probably a better discussion for a better thread.
- May 25, 2019
- 2
- 2
It's actually in focus, it's a whole other issue as to why the content looks like that. Trust me, it frustrates me as well.
- Dec 7, 2021
- 928
- 2,236
btw the dragon is back to breathing fire again! seems it's all operational.
and also yeah, the intro spell effect is just terrible, no idea why they haven't changed it yet
and also yeah, the intro spell effect is just terrible, no idea why they haven't changed it yet
- May 25, 2019
- 2
- 2
Once again, it's more complex and can hopefully be fixed this year.
