Universal's Epic Universe Wish List & Speculation

[shiekra38]

Honestly I'm kind of gunning on a Ryme City like land--more inspired by the real world like aesthetics, but clearly in a Pokemon world.

So maybe like the NY section of Studios but with a ton of neon signs and Pokemon walking around?

I could see it working

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

With how much space they were/are giving HTTYD, anything less for pokemon would be a crime against the property.


There are plenty of guest who didn't enjoy potter, but enjoyed the theme park lands. Same with Star Wars, same with anything, really. Arguably though, there would be more to do in a poke-land than in Galaxy's edge or SNW or Potter.

You also just might not be qualified to make that comment based on how well you know the property or not. I grew up with pokemon, I was a kid in the 90's. Everyone had at least a few pokemon cards, we traded our pizza lunches for mewtwo's, our snacks for holo's and first editions, everyone fortunate enough to have a gameboy battled during lunches with the link cable. After it fell out of vogue or kids grew out of it, the nerds and the geeks kept it going all the way through high school and still play the game. I have friends much older than I WAYYYY into pokemon go. Friends with kids have their kids playing pokemon. That being said, I can't remember the last time I paid it any real attention (actually I played pokemon go a bit... That was pretty huge). I played a few of the games on an emulator as a teen, never owned nintendo games really until my younger brother got the wii. I'm not a pokemon or nintendo stan, nowhere near it.

I see what UC pulled off with SNW. Pokemon could easily have features just like that land, and they could build more of it without it being too much. Pokemon is a whole universe with a lot of depth and different areas. You could have a show where you buy your "power up band like device" and get your starter pokemon, just like in the games. Imagine, Cell phone pokedex cases that pair with an app, or even "real" pokedexes. The lines would be nothing like you've ever seen before, even for Olivanders. You could board a Lapras and go from one land to the next, just like with potter. You could have a mine cart ride into caves, intermixed with a dungeon where you catch cave pokemon/fossil pokemon. You can have multiple gyms based on pokemon type, you can have guest battle arenas, you can have shows meet and greets, different areas to catch all of the original 151 built into a device like those "power up bands". Each pokemon can have an animated figure you "catch" like the boss battles in SNW. You could have a bike transportation ride between different areas. To create an activity that is relatively low cost to maintain, that you can only do in one place that takes DAYS to "complete" or is never ending?, It would make money like nothing that came before it.

And then, if they would be willing to take the risk, none of the pokemon lands in any of the parks are the same. Each universal park gets different regions, different pokemon, so you can have an activity that takes place in the real world, that completely resembles the fiction. They could create their own pokemon league with their own game represented in the parks. Their own world pokemon championship. They could incentivize both casual and hardcore fans to go to each of their parks, playing the "real game", They could own their own e-sports league based off their version of the pokemon game, that would be able to be represented with some of the most advanced technology in the world ,because they would be building it to support their parks, and it would serve a dual purpose.



Or they could build a land with a couple of rides that does not innovate the themed entertainment medium, that just checks off the boxes enough to cash in on the property because that's what they've always done.



In my opinion, Anything less than anything remotely resembling the above would be an absolute mistake, because people would pay to live in that land, probably moreso than they would to live on a certain starcruiser... People would pay to go there and be immersed, and anything approaching the scale I am envisioning should easily do gangbusters and dance around anything Disney attempted with galaxies edge, what they did with potter, and would be the next step to raise the bar in themed entertainment design beyond SNW. Pokemon as far as I'm concerned is the cutesy anime version of Star Wars. It has a steady, ever-green fanbase and is an ever green property, and an ever green concept, more so than even potter.


Universal should take the same approach they are doing with potter, but mix in the design philosophy and the lessons they are learning from SNW into a Pokemon world. I don't understand the argument that building a place to go and "actually" be a pokemon trainer would be too much. It's truly the only thing I can think of where they wouldn't be able to build expansions fast enough, and this is coming from someone who is absolutely not invested in pokemon at all beyond fond childhood memories.


I'd love to develop a concept and take my pitch to someone.

Uh yeah, I was also borne in the 90s and did the Pokemon thing casually. Watched the show, played Emerald. Never really got into the card thing but my friends and I would always play it during swim meets. In middle school, my friend also showed me how to get a game boy emulator on my phone. The thing is I hit the exact right generation that was into Pokemon as kids, maybe fell out of it, then got back in with Pokemon Go. To me, it was just another game I played, and for many of my friends it was the same. I think you're assuming that a majority of people in our generation had this intimate experience with Pokemon when that's not necessarily true.

But hey, even if that's not true, we might as well build multiple Pokemon lands since people enjoy rides regardless of property right? But at that point, why wouldn't you just build lands based on multiple properties to both A. not overly put off people not interested in Pokemon and B. offer a bevy of IP properties that will attract multiple fan groups versus just the one.

I'm sure whatever Universal does will be amazing, but they aren't going to put Pokemon in each park. Star Wars still takes up too much space in Disneyland, How to Train Your Dragon land looks sick, good night.

 

[youhow2]

Uh yeah, I was also borne in the 90s and did the Pokemon thing casually. Watched the show, played Emerald. Never really got into the card thing but my friends and I would always play it during swim meets. In middle school, my friend also showed me how to get a game boy emulator on my phone. The thing is I hit the exact right generation that was into Pokemon as kids, maybe fell out of it, then got back in with Pokemon Go. To me, it was just another game I played, and for many of my friends it was the same. I think you're assuming that a majority of people in our generation had this intimate experience with Pokemon when that's not necessarily true.

But hey, even if that's not true, we might as well build multiple Pokemon lands since people enjoy rides regardless of property right? But at that point, why wouldn't you just build lands based on multiple properties to both A. not overly put off people not interested in Pokemon and B. offer a bevy of IP properties that will attract multiple fan groups versus just the one.

I'm sure whatever Universal does will be amazing, but they aren't going to put Pokemon in each park. Star Wars still takes up too much space in Disneyland, How to Train Your Dragon land looks sick, good night.

Look, I'm only arguing that they can absolutely pull more out of pokemon. It has a strong cult following and it is followable by your average guest. Cute imaginary animal like monsters that you can train to fight, or breed or train for show, or just collect and they are your pets. It hits every demo in multiple ways. It is engageable and interactable with in a multitude of ways. I don't know your age or background, I just chose to be more unassuming and tell my story and share a vision, but I'm glad I know you're of the same range as I for any future post.


I'm also not only following my anecdotal experience, I'm following the data that's available in terms of game sales, it's presence online etc. According to the Washington post and wikipedia, Pokemon is actually the highest grossing entertainment franchise of all time. It would make sense to go all in, more so then nintendo or potter or star wars, Yes, it's made more money in a shorter time frame than Star Wars, It's made more money than "mickey and friends" in almost 100 years, It's made more money than Mario, which has it's own land and E ticket and D ticket, with interactive elements, etc... In fact, It's made about 3 times as much as Mario. If people are loosing their "stuff" over SNW, how would they react to a GIANT, ambitious "world of pokemon".

If you can build a magic kingdom with mickey and friends, and have it be the most visited park of all time, you need to treat the only other property to supersede it, that did it faster with more space and respect than mickey, or Mario. Just by numbers, Pokemon should be 3 times the scope of mario. It has the lore and universe to support it, and it makes the numbers to support it as well.

Pokemon is NOTHING like any other property on this planet.


If Universal has it, They need to aim higher than Star wars, Potter or Nintendo/Mario, and that's based on hard (publicly available) numbers. Something like my previous suggestion should not be out of the question, regardless of your opinion of the franchise. It literally beats every IP in revenue in a shorter time frame than every other IP on earth. That's Mickey, Star Wars, Mario, Hello Kitty, Winnie the pooh, Disney Princesses, The MCU, Lord of the Rings, James Bond, Star Trek, Potter, Transformers, Batman, Superman, Cars, Yu-gi-oh, Dragon Ball, Power Rangers, Barbie, Batman, Spiderman, Spongebob, Looney Toons, League of Legends, Call of Duty, Minecraft, etc.

And to further put this into perspective,

Other than Winnie the pooh, Mickey Mouse and friends, Star Wars and Hello Kitty, you can combine any two of the previously mentioned franchises, and nothing would touch how much money pokemon has made since 1996.

It would take 3 "Mario level" ips to supercede the amount of money it has made in 24 years, and Mario has had more time.


It needs something massive. It deserves something massive, and to underdeliver would be a grave mistake, and only result in money lost.


I'm not going to disclose how I broke down this number, but you could arguably justify single $2.5bn expansion or land (in the right location) based on Pokemon alone and sleep comfortably at night, though a whole park would still not be out of the question if you wanted to do further estimation based on the guest who consume their games, public appeal and draw against a few demos, etc.


Pokemon is the Theme Park trump card that leveraged properly will potentially have a stronger draw than absolutely anything anyone has built before. The pokemon company would be silly to partner with anyone but Universal.


If Star Wars, gets a land, If mario gets a land and were judging to scale by monies earned, Pokemon should be the biggest, period, and it should at the very least get 3 times the land and thought as Mario. How to train your Dragon isn't even in the same Ballpark, yet alone in the same league.

 

[Legacy]

Look, I'm only arguing that they can absolutely pull more out of pokemon. It has a strong cult following and it is followable by your average guest. Cute imaginary animal like monsters that you can train to fight, or breed or train for show, or just collect and they are your pets. It hits every demo in multiple ways. It is engageable and interactable with in a multitude of ways. I don't know your age or background, I just chose to be more unassuming and tell my story and share a vision, but I'm glad I know you're of the same range as I for any future post.


I'm also not only following my anecdotal experience, I'm following the data that's available in terms of game sales, it's presence online etc. According to the Washington post and wikipedia, Pokemon is actually the highest grossing entertainment franchise of all time. It would make sense to go all in, more so then nintendo or potter or star wars, Yes, it's made more money in a shorter time frame than Star Wars, It's made more money than "mickey and friends" in almost 100 years, It's made more money than Mario, which has it's own land and E ticket and D ticket, with interactive elements, etc... In fact, It's made about 3 times as much as Mario. If people are loosing their "stuff" over SNW, how would they react to a GIANT, ambitious "world of pokemon".

If you can build a magic kingdom with mickey and friends, and have it be the most visited park of all time, you need to treat the only other property to supersede it, that did it faster with more space and respect than mickey, or Mario. Just by numbers, Pokemon should be 3 times the scope of mario. It has the lore and universe to support it, and it makes the numbers to support it as well.

Pokemon is NOTHING like any other property on this planet.


If Universal has it, They need to aim higher than Star wars, Potter or Nintendo/Mario, and that's based on hard (publicly available) numbers. Something like my previous suggestion should not be out of the question, regardless of your opinion of the franchise. It literally beats every IP in revenue in a shorter time frame than every other IP on earth. That's Mickey, Star Wars, Mario, Hello Kitty, Winnie the pooh, Disney Princesses, The MCU, Lord of the Rings, James Bond, Star Trek, Potter, Transformers, Batman, Superman, Cars, Yu-gi-oh, Dragon Ball, Power Rangers, Barbie, Batman, Spiderman, Spongebob, Looney Toons, League of Legends, Call of Duty, Minecraft, etc.

And to further put this into perspective,

Other than Winnie the pooh, Mickey Mouse and friends, Star Wars and Hello Kitty, you can combine any two of the previously mentioned franchises, and nothing would touch how much money pokemon has made since 1996.

It would take 3 "Mario level" ips to supercede the amount of money it has made in 24 years, and Mario has had more time.


It needs something massive. It deserves something massive, and to underdeliver would be a grave mistake, and only result in money lost.


I'm not going to disclose how I broke down this number, but you could arguably justify single $2.5bn expansion or land (in the right location) based on Pokemon alone and sleep comfortably at night, though a whole park would still not be out of the question if you wanted to do further estimation based on the guest who consume their games, public appeal and draw against a few demos, etc.


Pokemon is the Theme Park trump card that leveraged properly will potentially have a stronger draw than absolutely anything anyone has built before. The pokemon company would be silly to partner with anyone but Universal.


If Star Wars, gets a land, If mario gets a land and were judging to scale by monies earned, Pokemon should be the biggest, period, and it should at the very least get 3 times the land and thought as Mario. How to train your Dragon isn't even in the same Ballpark, yet alone in the same league.

It’s a fair argument, but it isn’t what Universal is going to do. Because that isn’t how you design theme parks. You design what makes a good experience, based on the chosen theme, taking into account the available space and the total theme park experience.

Sure. They could do a Pokémon boat ride, interactive safari ride, scoop dark ride against Team Rocket, interactive walk-through, battle show, carousel, spinner, kiddie coaster, ferris wheel, and large coaster themed to a legendary. They could do that exact same thing for different regions and make a whole park out of it. But, one, that would be half your park and, two, there isn’t enough natural variation between a safari and a boat ride as a ride experience in that world. Even if you make one of them interactive, it’s still a slow moving ride looking a Pokémon. And it still needs conflict, which means it needs Team Rocket. So a separate Team Rocket attraction could be redundant.

That means, from a reasonable design perspective, the three “headline” attractions should really only be one. And that’s just considering one of the possible attractions.

 

[Nick]

It’s a fair argument, but it isn’t what Universal is going to do. Because that isn’t how you design theme parks. You design what makes a good experience, based on the chosen theme, taking into account the available space and the total theme park experience.

Sure. They could do a Pokémon boat ride, interactive safari ride, scoop dark ride against Team Rocket, interactive walk-through, battle show, carousel, spinner, kiddie coaster, ferris wheel, and large coaster themed to a legendary. They could do that exact same thing for different regions and make a whole park out of it. But, one, that would be half your park and, two, there isn’t enough natural variation between a safari and a boat ride as a ride experience in that world. Even if you make one of them interactive, it’s still a slow moving ride looking a Pokémon. And it still needs conflict, which means it needs Team Rocket. So a separate Team Rocket attraction could be redundant.

That means, from a reasonable design perspective, the three “headline” attractions should really only be one. And that’s just considering one of the possible attractions.

Yeah, tbh, I think Zelda has a WAY more likely chance of a land being based off of it than Pokemon simply since there are established worlds within that franchise and creating ride experiences based on Zelda is easier as well, imo.

 

[Scott W.]

There's also the opposite effect. There's going to be a lot of people who will look at all Nintendo properties as kiddie areas. If a park is all Nintendo, those people will just skip that park completely.

Kids areas used to be exclusively kids rides, I can't think of any real E ticket attractions until Radiator Springs Racers opened.

The best analogy I can think of for modern kids areas is how Pixar and Shrek redefined animation by making movies for both kids and adults.

Plus, Nintendo has been so ingrained in culture for so long that it attracts everybody. You can have a 50 year old who played Mario as a kid. You can have 70 year olds who had to beat Mario levels for their kid and brings back happy bonding moments for a family.

Nintendo coming to the parks is the most perfect IP for a theme park addition since Potter and I can easily see it being a bigger success.

 

[fryoj]

Kids areas used to be exclusively kids rides, I can't think of any real E ticket attractions until Radiator Springs Racers opened.

The best analogy I can think of for modern kids areas is how Pixar and Shrek redefined animation by making movies for both kids and adults.

Plus, Nintendo has been so ingrained in culture for so long that it attracts everybody. You can have a 50 year old who played Mario as a kid. You can have 70 year olds who had to beat Mario levels for their kid and brings back happy bonding moments for a family.

Nintendo coming to the parks is the most perfect IP for a theme park addition since Potter and I can easily see it being a bigger success.

I'm not saying Nintendo won't be a hit. I think Mario is a top IP and should be huge. But filling out a whole park with just Nintendo would not be a good business move.

 

[youhow2]

It’s a fair argument, but it isn’t what Universal is going to do. Because that isn’t how you design theme parks. You design what makes a good experience, based on the chosen theme, taking into account the available space and the total theme park experience.

Sure. They could do a Pokémon boat ride, interactive safari ride, scoop dark ride against Team Rocket, interactive walk-through, battle show, carousel, spinner, kiddie coaster, ferris wheel, and large coaster themed to a legendary. They could do that exact same thing for different regions and make a whole park out of it. But, one, that would be half your park and, two, there isn’t enough natural variation between a safari and a boat ride as a ride experience in that world. Even if you make one of them interactive, it’s still a slow moving ride looking a Pokémon. And it still needs conflict, which means it needs Team Rocket. So a separate Team Rocket attraction could be redundant.

That means, from a reasonable design perspective, the three “headline” attractions should really only be one. And that’s just considering one of the possible attractions.

What's been done and what should be done are two completely different concepts. I'm arguing that the numbers of the property justify challenging "how you design theme parks". I'm arguing that quite possibly, Pokemon could help them break the mold again and redesign what a theme park experience is by taking immersion to the next level. I'm saying don't quite overthink it, Just build pokemon, The blueprint is already there.


I'm thinking of, What's the next Wizarding World? What's comes after SNW?


If we were to be having this argument in the late 90's you'd laugh if I suggested anything like wizarding world (or SNW for that matter) be built. But alas, here we are with wizarding world with interactive wands, Mario with collectable stickers and boss battles, etc. I think pokemon is a concept that can go much further than anything we've seen before. Again, were talking about the most popular property on the planet, with it's own full and whole immersive world/universe. If you're gonna gamble on anything, bet on the best. That's pokemon. Universal apparently hasthe connection to it they need. A boat ride or safari and one small land would be an absolute waste.


I respect both your and nick's opinions, but hard disagree based on numbers and other data.


If Universal has one thing that can give them an edge over the mouse, It's Pokemon, and they should treat it as such.

 

[Scott W.]

I'm not saying Nintendo won't be a hit. I think Mario is a top IP and should be huge. But filling out a whole park with just Nintendo would not be a good business move.

I apologise, I misread what you were saying. Spot on, building a full park around a single IP is always going to exclude potential customers.

 

[Allomancer]

I apologise, I misread what you were saying. Spot on, building a full park around a single IP is always going to exclude potential customers.

Do you mean that my fever dreams of a full Splatoon theme park with paint guns aren't going to pan out? Drat. (/s)
But aye, as much as I'd love full parks built around my favorite IPs, it just doesn't make sense in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Scott W.]

Do you mean that my fever dreams of a full Splatoon theme park with paint guns aren't going to pan out? Drat. (/s)
But aye, as much as I'd love full parks built around my favorite IPs, it just doesn't make sense in the grand scheme of things.

You Scottish?

 

[Allomancer]

You Scottish?

Haha, absolutely not, Florida born and raised. I did date a Scottish girl for a few years, so perhaps some of it rubbed off on me. :whistle:

 

[Legacy]

If we were to be having this argument in the late 90's you'd laugh if I suggested anything like wizarding world (or SNW for that matter) be built.

You mean a whole, thoroughly immersive land with multiple attractions based on a single IP?

*looks at Jurassic Park*

I don’t know. I don’t it would have been that outlandish an idea in the late 90s considering Universal was doing exactly that.

And we can talk about the popularity of Potter and Nintendo compared to Jurassic Park (though JP was one of, if not the biggest franchise of the 90s. And that’s themed an actual theme park!

They even decided to have JP anchor a new park. And yet... they gave it an E-ticket boat ride, a kiddie coaster, some interactive games, and a walk-through. It’s roughly 20% of the total experience.

SNW and Harry Potter, two of the biggest IPs on the planet, are anchoring a new park (like JP), and they’re still taking up less than half of the total attractions in the park. Because you have to have variety during the day. A whole park dedicated to a single IP does not have that variety. Either narratively or aesthetically, no single IP has the breadth necessary to support 12-20 highly themed attractions.

You could do a Pokémon themed Six Flags, but that isn’t what Universal does.

 

[youhow2]

You mean a whole, thoroughly immersive land with multiple attractions based on a single IP?

*looks at Jurassic Park*

I don’t know. I don’t it would have been that outlandish an idea in the late 90s considering Universal was doing exactly that.

And we can talk about the popularity of Potter and Nintendo compared to Jurassic Park (though JP was one of, if not the biggest franchise of the 90s. And that’s themed an actual theme park!

They even decided to have JP anchor a new park. And yet... they gave it an E-ticket boat ride, a kiddie coaster, some interactive games, and a walk-through. It’s roughly 20% of the total experience.

SNW and Harry Potter, two of the biggest IPs on the planet, are anchoring a new park (like JP), and they’re still taking up less than half of the total attractions in the park. Because you have to have variety during the day. A whole park dedicated to a single IP does not have that variety. Either narratively or aesthetically, no single IP has the breadth necessary to support 12-20 highly themed attractions.

You could do a Pokémon themed Six Flags, but that isn’t what Universal does.

But the difference between jp and pokemon is that the latter has an interactive component that was not really possible to emulate at scale until recently.

If they wanted to, they could make pokemon *real*. And that alone would be more powerful than anything that has ever been produced in themed entertainment.

 

[Nico]

What's been done and what should be done are two completely different concepts. I'm arguing that the numbers of the property justify challenging "how you design theme parks". I'm arguing that quite possibly, Pokemon could help them break the mold again and redesign what a theme park experience is by taking immersion to the next level. I'm saying don't quite overthink it, Just build pokemon, The blueprint is already there.


I'm thinking of, What's the next Wizarding World? What's comes after SNW?


If we were to be having this argument in the late 90's you'd laugh if I suggested anything like wizarding world (or SNW for that matter) be built. But alas, here we are with wizarding world with interactive wands, Mario with collectable stickers and boss battles, etc. I think pokemon is a concept that can go much further than anything we've seen before. Again, were talking about the most popular property on the planet, with it's own full and whole immersive world/universe. If you're gonna gamble on anything, bet on the best. That's pokemon. Universal apparently hasthe connection to it they need. A boat ride or safari and one small land would be an absolute waste.


I respect both your and nick's opinions, but hard disagree based on numbers and other data.


If Universal has one thing that can give them an edge over the mouse, It's Pokemon, and they should treat it as such.

Just so I can figure out how to read your posts:
1. Do you actually believe that Universal would make an entire theme park for one IP?
2. Or is this just wishful thinking for something you would like to see?

 

[Legacy]

But the difference between jp and pokemon is that the latter has an interactive component that was not really possible to emulate at scale until recently.

If they wanted to, they could make pokemon *real*. And that alone would be more powerful than anything that has ever been produced in themed entertainment.

They made dinosaurs “real.” And it got three attractions.

Further, while Diagon and SNW are filled with interactive elements, there is little evidence that interactivity is a primary driver of guests’ interest in a land. It’s a side dish to the main course E-ticket. To make interactivity the primary crux of an entire park basically establishes that park as a boutique, niche experience. The ride experiences are what matters. Variety in those experiences is the importance thing.

It’s something people where expressed concern about regarding the Star Wars hotel. A lot of people were excited by the concept, but once it was realized the place had almost nothing to do apart from playing its game, that excitement tempered. Because people want variety and choice.

Look at the different available narratives and experiences across IoA. Now imagine that but every “story” ride has the same story and all the characters have the same aesthetic style. It suddenly becomes extremely rote.

A theme park with one type of narrative ride experience (look at animals and Team Rocket shows up) and only two predominant interactive function (catching/battling), that lives entirely on the basis of staring at minimally articulated robots, does not have that variety. The vast majority of people would get bored in a couple of hours.

 

[Mad Dog]

They made dinosaurs “real.” And it got three attractions.

Further, while Diagon and SNW are filled with interactive elements, there is little evidence that interactivity is a primary driver of guests’ interest in a land. It’s a side dish to the main course E-ticket. To make interactivity the primary crux of an entire park basically establishes that park as a boutique, niche experience. The ride experiences are what matters. Variety in those experiences is the importance thing.

It’s something people where expressed concern about regarding the Star Wars hotel. A lot of people were excited by the concept, but once it was realized the place had almost nothing to do apart from playing its game, that excitement tempered. Because people want variety and choice.

Look at the different available narratives and experiences across IoA. Now imagine that but every “story” ride has the same story and all the characters have the same aesthetic style. It suddenly becomes extremely rote.

A theme park with one type of narrative ride experience (look at animals and Team Rocket shows up) and only two predominant interactive function (catching/battling), that lives entirely on the basis of staring at minimally articulated robots, does not have that variety. The vast majority of people would get bored in a couple of hours.

Completely agree with all of your posts on this subject. And, to add emphasis, interactivity is just a nice add on for most of the general public visiting theme parks. It's not a marque reason for 90% plus of the people going to a theme park.

 

[youhow2]

Just so I can figure out how to read your posts:
1. Do you actually believe that Universal would make an entire theme park for one IP?
2. Or is this just wishful thinking for something you would like to see?

I don't think they'd make an entire park based on one ip, no. If there was one to take that risk on, it'd be pokemon. But even then. No.

If anything I thought I conveyed that a fairly large expansion would be justifiable.

Im thinking of how they could represent pokemon and conceptualizing. That is all.


Im looking at the activities and the app in SNW. They could bring the universe to life based on current technology in a way we haven't seen or has been done yet.


I get that y'all are looking at what has been done. Im think to the future, and im looking at pokemon, the gamified, interactive nature of the property. They could emulate the whole experience of playing the games, living in that universe to life, in a way that would be more gratifying and a better revenue generator than Potter.

And what im talking about would be much better than a land with a ride or two that does not emulate the in game experience at all. The games are the blueprint.

 

[Legacy]

I don't think they'd make an entire park based on one ip, no. If there was one to take that risk on, it'd be pokemon. But even then. No.

If anything I thought I conveyed that a fairly large expansion would be justifiable.

Im thinking of how they could represent pokemon and conceptualizing. That is all.


Im looking at the activities and the app in SNW. They could bring the universe to life based on current technology in a way we haven't seen or has been done yet.


I get that y'all are looking at what has been done. Im think to the future, and im looking at pokemon, the gamified, interactive nature of the property. They could emulate the whole experience of playing the games, living in that universe to life, in a way that would be more gratifying and a better revenue generator than Potter.

And what im talking about would be much better than a land with a ride or two that does not emulate the in game experience at all. The games are the blueprint.

Fair. So, let’s look at the games.

Assuming guests fully understand the necessary, step-by-step, process of this:

Guest choose a starter Pokémon on the power band/app. The generation is selectable, or “power starters” can be purchased from a collection of fan favorites. You can also buy a plush version of your starter that links to your Power Ban

Interactive event 1 - Catch more Pokémon. It’s basically Pokémon Go, only with animatronic Pokémon. Repeat ad naseum.

Interactive event 2 - Trainer/Gym Battle. It’s basically Pokémon Go, only set-up like SNW’s boss fights, with a live performer. You could maybe have 1 or 2 in a land.

Interactive event 3 - Legendary Battle. It’s Pokémon Go only with a SNW boss fight. Almost a cross between interactive events 1 & 2.

If you notice, I keep referencing Pokémon Go. That’s because almost all the interaction in the Pokémon universe is indirect; the trainer rarely interacts with other Pokémon directly. It’s always through their own Pokémon. It’s not like SNW’s boss fights where guests can use the power band to personally fight Bowser Jr. Guests will swipe their power band or starter to begin the event, then stare at a menu to choose moves, then just an attack. The world of Pokémon is a passive world. I think, for the vast majority of guests, they’ll 2 of those events, say “that’s it?” and then wonder what the point of it all was.

 

[fryoj]

Ironically, the most logical ride system for a Pokemon ride, a dark ride with AR where you throw things to score points, they just used on MK. I'm not sure how they can differentiate it enough to not have a Spiderman/TF situation.