Universal Great Britain - Speculation & Rumors

[yepthatguy]

I have no experience in park design or building parks, but I’m curious how flexible things will be on a plot of land like this as the build progresses.

For example, someone mentioned that the IP would have to be planned now or quite in advance, however I’d have thought that groundwork’s can take some time, so is it possible to designate areas to use for X, Y, and Z rides or lands? Or would it all have to be pre planned to the centimetre?

All of the great movies that have spawned rides and lands at Universal were created / released at some point, so is it possible a non Disney IP becomes massively popular in the near future just in time for it to be considered and integrated into this potential park?

I’m not sure we can argue over what might be there in terms of IP, if we don’t know what the public will be crazed about in 6 or 7 years time to spend their money on.

But at the same time, how do Universal decide now if they have to? What’s the logical criteria?

I don’t know how it all works?

 

[BBPH]

I have no experience in park design or building parks, but I’m curious how flexible things will be on a plot of land like this as the build progresses.

For example, someone mentioned that the IP would have to be planned now or quite in advance, however I’d have thought that groundwork’s can take some time, so is it possible to designate areas to use for X, Y, and Z rides or lands? Or would it all have to be pre planned to the centimetre?

All of the great movies that have spawned rides and lands at Universal were created / released at some point, so is it possible a non Disney IP becomes massively popular in the near future just in time for it to be considered and integrated into this potential park?

I’m not sure we can argue over what might be there in terms of IP, if we don’t know what the public will be crazed about in 6 or 7 years time to spend their money on.

But at the same time, how do Universal decide now if they have to? What’s the logical criteria?

I don’t know how it all works?

Different companies do things their own way. Merlin and Six Flags for example will usually start with the ride system and then add an IP.

Universal seems to do it a bit differently. They likely start off the process with the IP and then look at ride systems, whether it's something existing or a completely new creation like Donkey Kong.

Not saying it's always like this for every ride, but it's a common approach, especially for the main attraction in each land which then leads everything else.

 

[Chessy]

As others have said it's difficult to determine what kind of IP's could be in the park.

From what I understand when park operators such as Universal or Disney plan a new park/resort in a new part of the world. They observe and try to understand the market they are dealing with, to ensure they get the correct IP's and the park to reflect some locality. As well as being appealing to an international audience still.

 

[yepthatguy]

Different companies do things their own way. Merlin and Six Flags for example will usually start with the ride system and then add an IP.

Universal seems to do it a bit differently. They likely start off the process with the IP, whether it's something existing or a completely new creation like Donkey Kong.

Not saying it's always like this for every ride, but it's a common approach, especially for the main attraction in each land which then leads everything else.

That’s interesting. I wonder if Universal might adopt the Merlin / Six Flags approach with this project to keep their investment current at the point of starting.

I asked my nephew who is 10 recently, that if they built a UK Universal Park, what rides should there be?

He said “Squishmallow” and described it to me in great detail. I was both alarmed and intrigued.

 

[Alicia]

He said “Squishmallow” and described it to me in great detail. I was both alarmed and intrigued.

Billion dollar idea right there.

 

[tommyhawkins]

That's not how corporations work or think speaking from my experience.
This would be seen as a new revenue stream and would factor in calculations of any reduction in revenue at the tour from canablization. Generally these type of things lead to an increase in overall revenue generation which is all the been counters care about.

As I said, I was joking, and agree with you that the tour proximity IS a factor, but contracts or WB approval is very unlikely to be a reason not to put Potter in the park. The more likely reasons IMO are A) - wanting to use more Uni owned IPs and B) not having anything suitable to add due to not wanting to clone anything in Orlando.

The thing I just find hard to get my head around is them not wanting the massive F&B sales that come with Potter and Nintendo (which also seems absent from the concept art). Thats a huge amount of cash to leave on the table.


Welcome

I wouldn't be so sure, which is why I said what I said.

 

[UniversalRBLX]

Apart from the fact it's the equivalent distance from Bedford of having a Potter Studio tour in Paris, France . Not 45 mins down the M1 motorway. So the reason would be why would WB be cannibalising business from something they get 100% of the profits from? They're not gonna be interested in licensing

And to answer @GAcoaster point. Hogsmeade wouldn't be built because they have it in Orlando. So what exactly gets built that's worth paying the fees and has as much draw as the Orlando locations?

That's not how corporations work or think speaking from my experience.
This would be seen as a new revenue stream and would factor in calculations of any reduction in revenue at the tour from canablization. Generally these type of things lead to an increase in overall revenue generation which is all the been counters care about.

As I said, I was joking, and agree with you that the tour proximity IS a factor, but contracts or WB approval is very unlikely to be a reason not to put Potter in the park. The more likely reasons IMO are A) - wanting to use more Uni owned IPs and B) not having anything suitable to add due to not wanting to clone anything in Orlando.

The thing I just find hard to get my head around is them not wanting the massive F&B sales that come with Potter and Nintendo (which also seems absent from the concept art). Thats a huge amount of cash to leave on the table.

Universal would obviously love Potter if the finances work out for them... which at $8.49 for a cup of Butterbeer... I'm leaning toward the answer being yes. Yes, there are fees involved with licensing... but that's a cost they're willing to pay if it meant a ridiculous amount of revenue.

WB would benefit from something Potter-related at UGB, and could easily request Universal to offer "park & studio tour" packages for ultimate Potter fans. I'm sure WB has information on who and why they're visiting the studio tour and whether it's in their interest to allow Potter in the park.

 

[tommyhawkins]

Universal would obviously love Potter if the finances work out for them... which at $8.49 for a cup of Butterbeer... I'm leaning toward the answer being yes. Yes, there are fees involved with licensing... but that's a cost they're willing to pay if it meant a ridiculous amount of revenue.

WB would benefit from something Potter-related at UGB, and could easily request Universal to offer "park & studio tour" packages for ultimate Potter fans. I'm sure WB has information on who and why they're visiting the studio tour and whether it's in their interest to allow Potter in the park.

Except they don't love Potter or anything that's in Orlando for this park, that is their choice not mine. How is it February 2nd again on here

 

[UniversalRBLX]

Except they don't love Potter or anything that's in Orlando for this park, that is their choice not mine. How is it February 2nd again on here

Not trying to argue, I'm just mentioning that it's silly to suggest that Universal is 100% dead set on not having Potter in this park lol

 

[tommyhawkins]

Not trying to argue, I'm just mentioning that it's silly to suggest that Universal is 100% dead set on not having Potter in this park lol

This park is literally going to have 4 or 5 lands, Alicia has runoured at least 2 or 3 of them that might go into this park. I also hinted several times that WB might not be that keen on licensing this out in UK when they have a massive footprint in London already.


Is it really that difficult to dig into the wealth of Universal IP to discuss what other options they have that aren't at Orlando, instead of having the same conversation over and over? It would be depressing as hell Universal were so creatively bankrupt they have to build the same park over and over again instead of finding other stuff that 7m+ people might wanna go and visit

 

[UniversalRBLX]

This park is literally going to have 4 or 5 lands, Alicia has runoured at least 2 or 3 of them that might go into this park. I also hinted several times that WB might not be that keen on licensing this out in UK when they have a massive footprint in London already.


Is it really that difficult to dig into the wealth of Universal IP to discuss what other options they have that aren't at Orlando, instead of having the same conversation over and over? It would be depressing as hell Universal were so creatively bankrupt they have to build the same park over and over again instead of finding other stuff that 7m+ people might wanna go and visit

I'm not questioning your sources, I'm just commenting on why I personally don't believe, just yet, that Potter is 100% out of the cards.

I'm more than willing to discuss other possibilities for IPs at the park... but there's an obvious IP that time and time again will be brought up just because of how popular it is, specifically in this particular market.

Universal isn't creatively bankrupt, Epic Universe proves that, but I, and others, find it difficult to grasp the concept that in a business meeting somewhere at UDX/Comcast they're not tempted to shove Potter into this park during every conversation. Don't take things personally against your sources, but understand that it's going to be mentioned over and over again because it's such an obvious IP that saved Universal.

A Universal park can be 100% successful without Potter, but it's just odd to think they'll just completely rule it out from the start.

 

[Mad Dog]

If this park ends up opening close to 2030, we're about 6 years further away from Potter's peak. Maybe that, along with Warner interests, has something to do with a decision to go in a different direction.

 

[Alicia]

I wonder if Universal is by now a little weary of new Wizarding World content… after building a land based on a film that was not so well received and having to pay $500 million to license it. But that’s my own thoughts, not inside info or anything. Just wondering.

 

[Mad Dog]

I wonder if Universal is by now a little weary of new Wizarding World content… after building a land based on a film that was not so well received and having to pay $500 million to license it. But that’s my own thoughts, not inside info or anything. Just wondering.

Yeah, basically what I was thinking also. 2030 is twenty years removed from 2010 and thirty years removed from 2000,

 

[graspthesun]

There are other concerns as well - merchandise and food. What trademarks does the WB Studios Tour hold that Universal would need to license in addition to the actual IP rights? On top of the fees, you also have to consider additional approvals to make sure that the products offered by both venues are distinct and/or complementary.

 

[Nico]

I wonder if Universal is by now a little weary of new Wizarding World content… after building a land based on a film that was not so well received and having to pay $500 million to license it. But that’s my own thoughts, not inside info or anything. Just wondering.

Agreed. I can think of a few other reasons why Universal could be weary. The current reputations of the author and the head of WB come to mind.

If both parties have reasons why they aren’t interested, then it only makes sense to axe Potter.

 

[Altonsky]

If this park ends up opening close to 2030, we're about 6 years further away from Potter's peak. Maybe that, along with Warner interests, has something to do with a decision to go in a different direction.

Film peak, but depending on how the TV show does it could very likely be at the forefront of everyone’s minds again.

I think people love Harry Potter as in it being Hogwarts, set in the UK the whole cosy vibe.

Personally from my perspective as a major Harry Potter fan I’m not the slightest bit interested in fantastic beats, never once watched them. I’m not interested in the whole Paris or New York vibe either, it’s just not Harry Potter to me

But the films were awful because JK simply isn’t a screen writer.

I think there would certainly be questions asked why one of the biggest British IPs was missing from the park, that’s inevitable but that’s just my perspective.

But as far as other lands go I’d like something Jurassic Park/World related considering news has not long come out that they’re working on another film

 

[tommyhawkins]

There are other concerns as well - merchandise and food. What trademarks does the WB Studios Tour hold that Universal would need to license in addition to the actual IP rights? On top of the fees, you also have to consider additional approvals to make sure that the products offered by both venues are distinct and/or complementary.

As I've pointed out before they sell the same food stuffs and merch at the, Studio Tour, Kings Cross Station and Central London stores, at one point it still had the prices in $$, there would be no distinction

 

[Mike S]

Billion dollar idea right there.

From my experience in retail, in addition to Squishmallows, you’d have girls lined up outside the gates every day for “Stanley Cup Land”

Not the Hockey Championship Trophy.

 

[DanM]

I can understand both of the arguments as to why there will or won’t be a wizarding world at UGB. The thing is though, there’d be uproar if there wasn’t a wizarding world given the UK is its home market and probably where its most popular. It would seem perverse to not have any Harry Potter at UGB.