Search results

Really short answer: no. Short answer: very, very, very, very slim chance. There's a good chance there will be a new Batman franchise anyway in a few years after the now troubled JL movie. Others can explain in more detail other reasons one the theme park side of things (and the movie side of...

It be have to be much, much worse than to prequels to completely ruin all respect for SW. Even if there is no respect for SW in whatever state it may be in at any particular time, it is hard to erase the fact that the original film changed the landscape of films forever. That being said this new...

http://collider.com/star-wars-episode-7-directors/207392/ Just one website's opinion. I think Yates would be an interesting choice.

That would be great but Episode VII is to be release 2015 the same year as Avengers 2 also directed by Whedon. It is not impossible for him to direct both but it would be very difficult and hence unlikely given how big the production size of both of these film would be. As a producer, I could...

Good point. They did Oscar Nominated movies from 2010 in last years (e.g. Black Swan, True Grit). Could the Avatar thing be because they weren't allowed then? Or am I misguided on parody laws or rules or whatever? And is the thinking two much into a show from two years ago?

The film came out in December 09, so not as many people would have known about it two months previous, not to mention they write the show, during the whole year. And by the time October 2010 rolled around Avatar would have been moderately too dated to parody. Or at least, I assume that is why...

On stilts I assume. :lol:

If I remember correctly Swamp Thing always cycles twice, regardless of line, because of the short track length.

Yeah I know it is not independent I guess that was poor attempt at being funny. Didn't realize it made me sound incorrect, my bad.

But Universal owns Universal and Despicable me is Universal, not Dreamworks.

Even if Nintendo had more fans, there are more fanatics when if comes to Harry Potter. When a family goes to WWoHP most people knows pretty much a significant amount about the franchise regardless of age. If I were to go to a Nintendo park area with my family they would know Mario and Pikachu...

Some of these might have been mentioned but cracked has a decent list of "baffling" them parks: http://www.cracked.com/article_15955_the-9-most-baffling-theme-parks-from-around-world.html

Wikipedia! :lol:

I agree that it wouldn't have the same percentage increase money wise as say WWoHP or the aforementioned Star Wars Land at DHS would but it would propably do comparatively better than Beastly Kingdom or Australia because of the brand name.

I think doing Beastly Kingdom and an Australia section would be better than an Avatar section. Avatar would make them boatloads more money, but an Australia section would be more true to the park, and the continent has dozens of unique animal species to choose from. Beastly Kingdom would just...

For theme parks its about finding a balance between staying true to principle (i.e. theme) and things that will bring them financial gain. HP is a goldmine, so it is understandable that they will tilt that way in this scenario.

Moving elements won't make or break the attraction for me, but it might determine how much I linger in CityWalk to do it as opposed to walk on by.

To play devil's advocate here (I like that HP is coming to studios), HP in IOA is already a draw, it brings people to UO in general. The question is then should Studios stick mainly to Universal property, to stay true to their name, or should they have what will bring in more people. Because...

Isn't it really hard to get the rights to Bond, so hard Disney couldn't get it in DHS and had to use Indiana Jones instead? Do you think Universal would be able to get it?

^I see, sorry about misunderstanding. I feel stupid now. :bonk: