Universal Orlando Resort Expansion (Part 1)

[UniversalRBLX]

I'm not a big Nintendo fan but I certainly do love the look/feel of the upcoming lands.

 

[Mr. EPCOT]

Agree to disagree. LOTR has a massive, decades long fan base. It may not be as big as Nintendo but it’s close. Neither is as big as SW/Potter

I'd agree about Star Wars and Harry Potter. The question in my mind is what reaction the average Joe would have to the idea of Lord of the Rings as a theme park attraction. When you initially hear the words "Harry Potter" and "theme park" together it's easy to immediately conjure mental images of rides where you fly along with the kids and zoom through Gringott's and such, or same thing with Star Wars and Star Trek where you can immediately envision zipping through space in battles with TIE Fighters and Klingons, but I just don't see that immediate instinct for Lord of the Rings adventures. I can certainly see more passive experiences like hanging out in a tavern with elves and dwarves and hobbits and such, but a ride would have to be incredibly clever, beyond anything we've seen so far, to avoid seeming totally incongruous in that world.

I also have questions about the appropriateness of translating Lord of the Rings to a theme park environment at all. To use the idea about a dwarf barrel river ride for an example, something like that seems ham-fisted and even disrespectful towards a literary masterpiece like Lord of the Rings. It's like trying to make a theme park ride out of the Great Gatsby or A Tale of Two Cities or something. It just seems wrong somehow. Just because it's a literary masterpiece that's also within the fantasy genre doesn't mean it should just automatically also be eligible for theme park shenanigans. From what I've read about who J.R.R. Tolkien was as a person, I don't think he'd really be thrilled with the idea of all of this.

This all isn't to say I have anything against Lord of the Rings at all, I really enjoyed the movies and everything, but the idea of theme parking it up just rubs me in a weird way.

It's not that simple because of the overlap in terms of Harry Potter and Nintendo in how they aim at young people and the fact that many attractions at most of the major parks already do. In an economic sense, there's more marginal value to adding Star Wars or Tolkien to a theme park because they bring in larger groups that may not necessarily already be in your audience or it increases the # of visits specific target groups make. Star Wars and Tolkien hit a broad group of people aged 18 through 55 that are probably rarer theme park vacationers than average (for a variety of specific reasons).

It's similar to how with Harry Potter, Universal has taken a giant chunk of the UK's foreign vacations market and is probably drawing its highest market share out of that market (probably as high as 40% compared to WDW, that's a massive % given the # of parks disparity between UOR and WDW). Even SeaWorld pointed out that the UK was around 15% of SeaWorld Orlando's attendance, but that group has almost entirely dried up by now (due to Harry Potter).

In terms of how specific IPs can drive attendance, only Harry Potter should be considered above Star Wars and Tolkien.

That is logical. Still don't know how well it could really come to life at a theme park, but maybe Universal will surprise me and actually do something that manages to be both engaging and respectful to the legacy of these stories.

 

[Mad Dog]

Given the current state of Hollywood with all the sexual allegations coming to light, you have to wonder if the people picking the lands and IPs are making extra sure that the stars of the show are absolutely squeaky clean.

Don't have to worry about that issue with Nintendo.

 

[zg44]

I'd agree about Star Wars and Harry Potter. The question in my mind is what reaction the average Joe would have to the idea of Lord of the Rings as a theme park attraction. When you initially hear the words "Harry Potter" and "theme park" together it's easy to immediately conjure mental images of rides where you fly along with the kids and zoom through Gringott's and such, or same thing with Star Wars and Star Trek where you can immediately envision zipping through space in battles with TIE Fighters and Klingons, but I just don't see that immediate instinct for Lord of the Rings adventures. I can certainly see more passive experiences like hanging out in a tavern with elves and dwarves and hobbits and such, but a ride would have to be incredibly clever, beyond anything we've seen so far, to avoid seeming totally incongruous in that world.

I also have questions about the appropriateness of translating Lord of the Rings to a theme park environment at all. To use the idea about a dwarf barrel river ride for an example, something like that seems ham-fisted and even disrespectful towards a literary masterpiece like Lord of the Rings. It's like trying to make a theme park ride out of the Great Gatsby or A Tale of Two Cities or something. It just seems wrong somehow. Just because it's a literary masterpiece that's also within the fantasy genre doesn't mean it should just automatically also be eligible for theme park shenanigans. From what I've read about who J.R.R. Tolkien was as a person, I don't think he'd really be thrilled with the idea of all of this.

This all isn't to say I have anything against Lord of the Rings at all, I really enjoyed the movies and everything, but the idea of theme parking it up just rubs me in a weird way.

That is logical. Still don't know how well it could really come to life at a theme park, but maybe Universal will surprise me and actually do something that manages to be both engaging and respectful to the legacy of these stories.

Yeah, there's two major and separate categories of importance for IPs; raw popularity measures and how they impact attendance.

i.e. Overall Nintendo's IPs are more broadly popular than Tolkien's as an example. But Nintendo's impact as an IP is much more focused on popularity among already regular theme park goers (post Harry Potter). There's nearly a complete overlap in terms of Nintendo's popularity and Harry Potter's for example, with both having the overwhelming bulk of their targeting among 8-35 year olds. Tolkien probably has more of a marginal impact among non-regular theme park goers, and those aged over 35, so in some sense, Tolkien may have a more important impact on drawing irregular goers into the system.

What I mean by all of this is that Nintendo provides reinforcement to the trajectory that Harry Potter created.

Either way it's splitting hairs, all these IPs can easily justify their value.

You do bring up a good point about LOTR, and I think that the immersive aspects as other people talk about with the next park being different from just a movie IP park but more like DisneySea are where Middle Earth and Zelda can shine if that's the direction they go.

 

[Mr. EPCOT]

You do bring up a good point about LOTR, and I think that the immersive aspects as other people talk about with the next park being different from just a movie IP park but more like DisneySea are where Middle Earth and Zelda can shine if that's the direction they go.

I do have a much better time imagining LOTR in a DisneySea-type setting more so than USF or IoA. As for an attraction, maybe they could get away with going the Poseidon's Fury route and you go on a special effects-laden quest revisiting key locations of the saga. Or something like that.

 

[JungleSkip]

I do have a much better time imagining LOTR in a DisneySea-type setting more so than USF or IoA. As for an attraction, maybe they could get away with going the Poseidon's Fury route and you go on a special effects-laden quest revisiting key locations of the saga. Or something like that.

I think any LOTR rides would have to be similar in style to the Avatar rides. More atmospheric than story based

 

[Mr. EPCOT]

I think any LOTR rides would have to be similar in style to the Avatar rides. More atmospheric than story based

Soarin' Over Sauron?

 

[fryoj]

I think visually, LOTR will be one of the more spectacular lands we ever see in a park. I'm still not real sure how Nintendo will look. I'm afraid it'll look like colorfully painted concrete. I think merch could go either way. LOTR is like Potter with more options for high end merch, but your plushes and t-shirt type things Nintendo has an advantage. I think the initial opening of LOTR will be bigger than Nintendo just because it seems like more of a hardcore fan base, where Nintendo will probably maintain crowds longer. Ride execution will be key of course. Theres enough ideas for both to do good rides. It's a wash really.


More on topic: Any idea when leaks from the Uni/Stan Thomas meeting should start coming out? Or is it just whenever they release the info to the public?

 

[WAJAS]

I think any LOTR rides would have to be similar in style to the Avatar rides. More atmospheric than story based

I agree completely.

 

[Legacy]

TBH i have no idea what Hyrule is

This brings up a side note to my “needle mover” remark, that being the importance of what elements of an IP are used. We talk about Nintendo as a singular IP, when it’s not. Mushroom Kingdom and Pokemon are likely the biggest specific IPs in the zeitgeist, followed at a distance by Zelda. But to say Star Fox or Kirby could drive traffic the same as Mario is silly. Zelda won’t drive Mario or Pokemon level traffic either.

With Tolkien, Mordor and the Shire will attract more people than Laketown.

That’s an important element to this. An area themed to Fantastic Beast won’t push a needle the way anything from the core HP series will just because it’s Harry Potter.

We can talk about Nintendo driving people to P4rk, but it’s not “Nintendo’s” responsibility; it’ll be Link’s.

 

[JungleSkip]

This brings up a side note to my “needle mover” remark, that being the importance of what elements of an IP are used. We talk about Nintendo as a singular IP, when it’s not. Mushroom Kingdom and Pokemon are likely the biggest specific IPs in the zeitgeist, followed at a distance by Zelda. But to say Star Fox or Kirby could drive traffic the same as Mario is silly. Zelda won’t drive Mario or Pokemon level traffic either.

With Tolkien, Mordor and the Shire will attract more people than Laketown.

That’s an important element to this. An area themed to Fantastic Beast won’t push a needle the way anything from the core HP series will just because it’s Harry Potter.

We can talk about Nintendo driving people to P4rk, but it’s not “Nintendo’s” responsibility; it’ll be Link’s.

Zelda definitely won't draw the same as Mario or Pokémon, but as one of a few anchors (LOTR, Star Trek, etc) I think it'd work. Definitely couldn't be the centerpiece

 

[twebber55]

which brings me to the next point
i may not know the IPs except for Mario but the look and feel of those lands really adapt well to a theme park

 

[Disneyhead]

And let's not forget they need to utilize Wicked somewhere. Either a Broadway Theater in CityWalk 2.0 or Oz in the park.

Just sayin'.

 

[Mad Dog]

Something I haven't seen for a while is discussion concerning game players and their relation to theme parks. This is not something I'm familiar with, since I've rarely played a video game since the old Atari systems ....But, I recall some posters, way back when Nintendo was first talked about & prior to the official announcement, saying that the hard core "gamers" demographic, on the whole, are not big theme park attendees, and that it would take something like a Nintendo IP to get them to attend theme parks. Anyone have any info on that theory? If the theory is accurate, then SNL would actually be attracting a whole new group of people to the Universal parks, that wouldn't normally be attending a theme park.

 

[zg44]

This brings up a side note to my “needle mover” remark, that being the importance of what elements of an IP are used. We talk about Nintendo as a singular IP, when it’s not. Mushroom Kingdom and Pokemon are likely the biggest specific IPs in the zeitgeist, followed at a distance by Zelda. But to say Star Fox or Kirby could drive traffic the same as Mario is silly. Zelda won’t drive Mario or Pokemon level traffic either.

With Tolkien, Mordor and the Shire will attract more people than Laketown.

That’s an important element to this. An area themed to Fantastic Beast won’t push a needle the way anything from the core HP series will just because it’s Harry Potter.

We can talk about Nintendo driving people to P4rk, but it’s not “Nintendo’s” responsibility; it’ll be Link’s.

Zelda definitely won't draw the same as Mario or Pokémon, but as one of a few anchors (LOTR, Star Trek, etc) I think it'd work. Definitely couldn't be the centerpiece

Looking at the possible IPs though, if the next park can properly integrate them into an overall experience then you don't necessarily need a specific centerpiece.

What I mean by this is: if you build a theme park that lets you feel as if you've stepped into the distant past or future and into a world where Mordor, Hyrule, Old New York, Croods, HTTYD, Star Trek (just using these IPs as examples) are properly integrated and flow, then the park doesn't need a specific single anchor like WWoHP or SNW to carry it.

Hyrule for example naturally can be built alongside Middle Earth. There's a synergy there that can create an overall atmosphere where the park can sell itself without relying as heavily on the specific attractions. And you can add some original non-IP in there too.

@fryoj
As far as lawsuit goes, Universal would announce the settlement as a material event. We'll see if the parties are still going at each other or whether settlement talks are working.

 

[Mike S]

This brings up a side note to my “needle mover” remark, that being the importance of what elements of an IP are used. We talk about Nintendo as a singular IP, when it’s not. Mushroom Kingdom and Pokemon are likely the biggest specific IPs in the zeitgeist, followed at a distance by Zelda. But to say Star Fox or Kirby could drive traffic the same as Mario is silly. Zelda won’t drive Mario or Pokemon level traffic either.

With Tolkien, Mordor and the Shire will attract more people than Laketown.

That’s an important element to this. An area themed to Fantastic Beast won’t push a needle the way anything from the core HP series will just because it’s Harry Potter.

We can talk about Nintendo driving people to P4rk, but it’s not “Nintendo’s” responsibility; it’ll be Link’s.

Which is why Link should be in IoA and Pokémon should be in “P4rk” (even though Universal only has two theme parks right now).

 

[GAcoaster]

And let's not forget they need to utilize Wicked somewhere. Either a Broadway Theater in CityWalk 2.0 or Oz in the park.

Just sayin'.

I think we'll definitely see a theater with the new park/Citywalk. I also think that we'll see TV production facilities for Today Show/Telemundo/Golf Channel/etc. broadcasts to originate from with a view of the park/windows into the studio for park guests.

This is all about creating more synergy.

 

[zg44]

Which is why Link should be in IoA and Pokémon should be in “P4rk” (even though Universal only has two theme parks right now).

I think the issue there is that most have said that Universal is aiming at a more immersive park for the next one; Pokemon may not go alongside the other IPs they're choosing for the next park. They'll have to stick with a set of IPs that works together and can seamlessly shift from one to another if they try to create a park that's unique.

The reality is, the rest of the Universal parks (with the notable exception of Volcano Bay) are basically a hodgepodge of IPs or themes. If they do try to build a park with an overarching theme, then you may end up facing the situation that Zelda goes better with Middle Earth than Pokemon.

Something I haven't seen for a while is discussion concerning game players and their relation to theme parks. This is not something I'm familiar with, since I've rarely played a video game since the old Atari systems ....But, I recall some posters, way back when Nintendo was first talked about & prior to the official announcement, saying that the hard core "gamers" demographic, on the whole, are not big theme park attendees, and that it would take something like a Nintendo IP to get them to attend theme parks. Anyone have any info on that theory? If the theory is accurate, then SNL would actually be attracting a whole new group of people to the Universal parks, that wouldn't normally be attending a theme park.

Nintendo really is separate from the more "hardcore" gaming companies (i.e. Valve/Steam, EA, Activision-Blizzard, TakeTwo, Capcom, Square); Nintendo's audience is probably already mostly counted among theme park goers, since it's more of the 8-35 crowd that got Nintendo consoles/games when they were young. It's really a unique gaming company in that respect that they aren't as focused on the FPS (first person shooter) or sports or arcade gaming crowd.

I mentioned above, but Nintendo really targets the same audience as Harry Potter; so I think it can provide more of a "doubling down" on the approach that worked with Harry Potter, and it can probably shift market share in that 8-35 crowd that grew up with Harry Potter/Nintendo and is choosing among Disney/Universal. That's really where I think Nintendo helps overall.

The problem with targeting the "hardcore" gamers is that they really focus on fighting games, FPS games, arcade games, etc. that you can stream on Twitch from the comfort of home or find at a local arcade; it's almost impossible for me to imagine that you're going to be able to grab those crowds (or that you would want to).

 

[Scott W.]

I think LOTR has the potential to be every bit a success as Potter is with what it could bring to parks experience wise. My concern is that Universal wouldn’t see the same kind of cash influx because of merchandising.

 

[quinnmac000]

Just for argument sake why don't we base popularity on web search. If you compare lord of the rings to a lot of other IPs, you will notice that Lord of the Rings is somewhat weak.

Of note, Pokemon by far is the most popular and most searched IP out there. Its power literally is unmatched by any other IP including Star Wars and Marvel combined.