Universal's Epic Universe Wish List & Speculation

[Grabnar]

Just looking at properties coming out in the next few years from WB due to the close relationship between the studios, you've got the new Monsterverse films (Godzilla v Kong, Kong: Skull Island, etc), Mad Max, Sherlock Holmes, Tomb Raider, Dune, and Ready Player One/Two, all of which would lend themselves well to rides/shows.

From Universal you have the criminally underutilized property of Fast & Furious, and Pacific Rim (as a co-production with WB).

There's definitely material out there.

Edit: Just saw Coot's post, The Last Airbender as the next water park would be a solid 10/10 from me. Theme each section to one of the nations *chef's kiss*

 

[jseal777]

Just looking at properties coming out in the next few years from WB due to the close relationship between the studios, you've got the new Monsterverse films (Godzilla v Kong, Kong: Skull Island, etc), Mad Max, Sherlock Holmes, Tomb Raider, Dune, and Ready Player One/Two, all of which would lend themselves well to rides/shows.

From Universal you have the criminally underutilized property of Fast & Furious, and Pacific Rim (as a co-production with WB).

There's definitely material out there.

Edit: Just saw Coot's post, The Last Airbender as the next water park would be a solid 10/10 from me. Theme each section to one of the nations *chef's kiss*

I would have loved to have an original/IP hybrid futureworld sci fi land type thing with RPO, GODZILLA, Pacific Rim nonsense. make it look all cyberpunk or whatever idk but you know it would be all over instagram and wouldhave great rides.

 

[Grabnar]

If you can find pictures of the inside of the Alita: Battle Angel experience online it would make great inspo for a themed land.

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

If you can find pictures of the inside of the Alita: Battle Angel experience online it would make great inspo for a themed land.

Just do a catch-all cyberpunk land, pretty sure it's versatile enough for many I.Ps.

 

[Cup_Of_Coffee]

3 full parks (they aren’t far from that right now whether you like the attractions or not, including EU) is a very ideal number. I can likely only take a week off and want to experience this stuff, I can’t do that at WDW and it makes me feel rushed. It’s all great still so it’s not a bad experience per say but it could be better. 3 dry parks is best, do a 2nd water park but make it IP based somehow and just build hotels. They have plenty of land for parks and have consistently torn things down to rebuild.

 

[biggerboat16]

To be honest, I wish the classic monsters land was more of a generic classic universal land. The monsters could still fit into it, but it would be great to have a land to finally bring back Jaws, BTTF, and many other old school universal properties dropped from the parks

 

[Magic-Man]

To be honest, I wish the classic monsters land was more of a generic classic universal land. The monsters could still fit into it, but it would be great to have a land to finally bring back Jaws, BTTF, and many other old school universal properties dropped from the parks

No thank you. Those are gone for a reason.

 

[Grabnar]

To be honest, I wish the classic monsters land was more of a generic classic universal land. The monsters could still fit into it, but it would be great to have a land to finally bring back Jaws, BTTF, and many other old school universal properties dropped from the parks

Just build Ready Player One and use it to shoehorn in any property you want.

 

[biggerboat16]

No thank you. Those are gone for a reason.

I think revamped versions could be very popular. There definitely is a retro market which is larger than many people think. Think about how hyped people are about the new retro store in city walk

 

[Magic-Man]

I think revamped versions could be very popular. There definitely is a retro market which is larger than many people think. Think about how hyped people are about the new retro store in city walk

I'd rather have new rides based on new IP's or original ideas. Not old rides based on old IP's.

 

[jseal777]

I'd rather have new rides based on new IP's or original ideas. Not old rides based on old IP's.

Why not both

 

[kingcooger]

I think revamped versions could be very popular. There definitely is a retro market which is larger than many people think. Think about how hyped people are about the new retro store in city walk

I agree with this sentiment, sort of

I do hope there ends up being a Creature from the Black Lagoon boat ride for monsters using the latest tech advancements. Same horror boat ride concept, new skin and technology

 

[Magic-Man]

Why not both

Because one is better. It provides more unique experiences.

 

[biggerboat16]

Because one is better. It provides more unique experiences.

There’s a happy medium. Having unique experiences should never beat out appealing to the masses. You should do what’s necessary to give your customers what they want, and then make something unique with those parameters. If the guests want Jaws to come back, make it unique by giving them a new and upgraded version that beats all other water-based attractions. A company can’t put its personal agendas ahead of simply giving customers what they want

 

[belloq87]

I will never understand the mindset that because something is old, it has no value as a potential theme park attraction.

BTTF, JAWS, the Hitchcock catalogue, and the Classic Monsters are not just great movies, they're important to the legacy of Universal Studios as an entertainment entity. And they remain very heavily-licensed merchandise properties across many categories (outside the parks) for a reason.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

I will never understand the mindset that because something is old, it has no value as a potential theme park attraction.

BTTF, JAWS, the Hitchcock catalogue, and the Classic Monsters are not just great movies, they're important to the legacy of Universal Studios as an entertainment entity. And they remain very heavily-licensed merchandise properties across many categories (outside the parks) for a reason.

You're right... but also Universal is obsessed with guest satisfaction surveys and what people consider "outdated" or "old". Not just for IPs but also for ride design/attraction design. Sometimes an attraction has bad luck being attached to an old/outdated design.

 

[belloq87]

You're right... but also Universal is obsessed with guest satisfaction surveys and what people consider "outdated" or "old". Not just for IPs but also for ride design/attraction design. Sometimes an attraction has bad luck being attached to an old/outdated design.

Yeah, I'm fairly certain I understand their rationale. I just don't agree with it!

You should be able to have a balance of currently-"hot" IPs and beloved classics.

 

[biggerboat16]

You're right... but also Universal is obsessed with guest satisfaction surveys and what people consider "outdated" or "old". Not just for IPs but also for ride design/attraction design. Sometimes an attraction has bad luck being attached to an old/outdated design.

It seems that the general mindset’s been flipped. A couple years ago people wanted everything new, shiny, and high tech. It seems like now people want the nostalgia and character of old attractions. Universal seems to know this, as their new attractions are dropping screens as fast as they can. Look at Hagrid and Velocicoaster... Even the IP behind Hagrid isn’t the newest and freshest. If they wanted flashy and fresh they would’ve gone with Fantastic Beasts or something, yet they decided to go with an older, staple character from the franchise. People want quality and longevity, not always what’s the newest and freshest. If you look at any post on UO’s Instagram that even slightly mentions the Bruce photo-op, you’ll get at least 100 comments begging for the ride to come back. It seems like the guests want ‘old,’ because older IPs have to prove themselves more to get an attraction instead of getting one because they’re ‘new.’ This often means that older IPs get higher quality attractions, and if the people want nostalgia and ‘legacy’ projects, then that’s what Uni should focus on. There’s a fine line to tread between both camps in order to please everyone

 

[Parkscope Joe]

Yeah, I'm fairly certain I understand their rationale. I just don't agree with it!

You should be able to have a balance of currently-"hot" IPs and beloved classics.

It seems that the general mindset’s been flipped. A couple years ago people wanted everything new, shiny, and high tech. It seems like now people want the nostalgia and character of old attractions. Universal seems to know this, as their new attractions are dropping screens as fast as they can. Look at Hagrid and Velocicoaster... Even the IP behind Hagrid isn’t the newest and freshest. If they wanted flashy and fresh they would’ve gone with Fantastic Beasts or something, yet they decided to go with an older, staple character from the franchise. People want quality and longevity, not always what’s the newest and freshest. If you look at any post on UO’s Instagram that even slightly mentions the Bruce photo-op, you’ll get at least 100 comments begging for the ride to come back. It seems like the guests want ‘old,’ because older IPs have to prove themselves more to get an attraction instead of getting one because they’re ‘new.’ This often means that older IPs get higher quality attractions, and if the people want nostalgia and ‘legacy’ projects, then that’s what Uni should focus on. There’s a fine line to tread between both camps in order to please everyone

This comes back to my attraction design comment. Sure Hitchcock is classic, timeless, and maintains its popularity BUT the design (a multi-part show about special effects with no ride) is an old attraction concept that was on the way out in the early 2000s.

Also there's the horseshoe theory, where something becomes so out of popularity it wraps back around into being in the public consciousness again, see Kong.

 

[RFRees]

1) The demand for tourism has been and will continue to skyrocket. We've seen the theme park attendance numbers and the profits climbing year after year. The world is entering the 'middle class', and international/domestic travel is easier than ever. Consumers are demanding more "immersive experiences" as well as thrills but packaged in a safe way. Theme parks have a very bright future, which means we'll almost certainly see them continue to expand rapidly in central Florida.

2) Regarding IPs...
There's plenty of IPs to use and it's growing. Media has been trending to two important ways. First, there's a ton of new movies and series, despite covid slowing things down. Just count the number of books, TV series, and movies today (as well as the industry profits) compared to decades ago. Comcast specifically has a mountain of untapped IPs which have been mentioned already.

Second, for many reasons, the general population is more open to IPs which are perfect for immersive theme parks, including fantasy (eg Harry Potter), video games (eg Nintendo), and super heroes (see Marvel). An IP which could have been relegated to a "Kidzone" twenty years ago might now be a major cash cow. We can talk about why that is, but the fact is, adults are much geekier than they once were, which is perfect for theme park immersion.

With the above...
I fully believe Universal has a long term goal of adding a fourth dry park in Orlando. They have the land, the budget, the infrastructure, and the demand will almost certainly be there. Whether this park will come in 2035 or later is the question.

The neglect Disney showed to their parks is not justification for why Universal shouldn't or wouldn't add an additional park. There's a bunch of reasons why it happened to Disney, but "having too many parks" was not really the reason.

The biggest reason why we'd discuss the idea Comcast has a 10+ year plan for site B is to watch and understand how they use the land within the next 5 years. Will all the parcels be occupied by hotels, or will they leave space for a garage and second water park? Will they create a true entertainment district as part of phase 1, or is more of a CityWalk 2.0 coming in a later phase? These are important questions which relate to later phases but impact what we see in the next five years.

Edit
To clarify a bit... I'm certainly not saying it's a guarantee they build dry park 4. But I'm most curious if they're leaving room for it, which it looks like they are.

They're likely to see how much Epic Universe and their current parks pay off. If we see a repeat of what we saw from Disney's international parks and California Adventure, then they'll get cold feet... But if Epic Universe is an epic success, I wouldn't doubt if we start hearing some rumors by 2026-3030.