Epic Universe Expansion Speculation

[AustinT]

I suggested an Inception show for a theme park that has a Bourne show.

Bourne was an IP they already owned at the time and it was needed to fit into an existing space. A 'bad guys chase good guy with guns and cars' show is a much easier sell to audiences, especially ones that don't speak the language, than Inception. That movie has a complex story that's hard to get across in a several hours long film, let alone in a quick pre-show before a theme park attraction.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

I don't think either of those would make sense as a theme park land, even if they perform very well. Some franchises have good theme park potential from the start, but sometimes a movie is just a movie.

Not everything has the juice, sometimes a nice tram stop is all it needs. *looks at war of the worlds set*

 

[rageofthegods]

Bourne was an IP they already owned at the time and it was needed to fit into an existing space. A 'bad guys chase good guy with guns and cars' show is a much easier sell to audiences, especially ones that don't speak the language, than Inception. That movie has a complex story that's hard to get across in a several hours long film, let alone in a quick pre-show before a theme park attraction.

The movie made 800m in 2010, I think audiences got the movie just fine. The story of Inception is complex but so is the story of most Bourne films, the actual premise of "there's a fight in your dreams" was clearly simple enough for most people to grasp.

 

[AustinT]

The story of Inception is complex but so is the story of most Bourne films, the actual premise of "there's a fight in your dreams" was clearly simple enough for most people to grasp.

I still say there's almost a 0% chance. Movie is nearly two decades old with no hint of sequels, not Comcast-owned, and the premise for a stunt show doesn't need that extra layer of complexity. Certainly not up to par with attractions or rumored additions in Epic.

 

[rageofthegods]

Inception being a third party IP is a more compelling reason for why it won't come, but this conversation started by asking what IP would make sense creatively, which is what I was responding to when I suggested Inception for a show. Butting in and calling other people out of touch or trolls for suggesting IPs you did not find compelling was frankly uncalled for.

 

[HandsomePete]

There is no correlation between box office performance, movie review scores, etc. and ride satisfaction scores or land quality. Pretty much the only “synergy” in a movie + theme park context is merch but between the fixed wallet concept and the fact that you can buy IP-infused stuff everywhere it’s not as substantial as one would think.

The two drivers that all iconic lands have are 1) a strong sense of place and 2) great, immediately recognizable BGM:

• Things that have both of these: Hogsmeade, Diagon Alley, Main Street USA, Frontierland, Nintendo World.
• Things that don’t have either of these: Galaxy’s Edge, Minions Land (being harsh here but for me at least)
• Things that have one of these that’s so good that it gets away with it: Port of Entry, Cars Land, Pandora.

This is likely what’s driving people’s issues with Pokémon. The gap between percentage of people who know what it is (card game, anime, Pikachu, the pink one, fling balls at things in a phone app) and the percentage of people who know any of its places (I have no idea) or music (I also have no idea) is massive.

Conversely, and I say this as someone who has never seen it in play/movie/book form, Wicked has both of those. Emerald City, Munchkinland, Yellow Brick Road, probably some things I don’t know of because I haven’t seen any of it. Songs and instrumental scores, check. It’s the most no brainer full scale land to build.

 

[Lightningbolt]

DC is not going to Orlando without something drastically changing in the media landscape.

Then what would have to change? I still don’t see why they cant. Where does anything say that they couldn’t have both marvel and dc just in different areas/parks?

 

[Blue]

I don't think either of those would make sense as a theme park land, even if they perform very well. Some franchises have good theme park potential from the start, but sometimes a movie is just a movie.

I generally agree but they haven't even been released yet. We don't really know much about either to discard them. I just listed them as "potential" additions because the other comment mentioned using in-house IP for expansion, and Universal is (currently) lacking in that.

Man, some of you guys are dropping some of the wildest and most unlikely IPs to ever get attractions. Odyssey, Disclosure Day, Inception, Tenet, The Prisoner. Trolling or just totally out of touch? Future attractions and/or lands will need to have proven success, wide appeal, merch potential, great ride concepts, be family friendly, visually interesting setting, etc. Nintendo, Potter, Pokemon, Jurassic, Wicked, Simpsons, HTTYD. Nothing recently mentioned recently fits with these.

Again, the movies are not even out yet. Would you say ET doesn't work as an attraction from a 2-minute teaser?

Maybe they won't work in Epic Universe or for a full land, but to call someone a troll for suggesting that a movie made by the people behind Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, and Spider-Man might work in a theme park is ridiculous.

The fact that people have been asking for the return of Jaws, BttF, & Ghostbusters (non-Universal IP) shows that Universal is lacking in the in-house IP department currently. It doesn't seem like a stretch to assume that the first Spielberg/Universal blockbuster in nearly 30 years could potentially be useful in a theme park, considering their history...

 

[Parkscope Joe]

The fact that people have been asking for the return of Jaws, BttF, & Ghostbusters (non-Universal IP) shows that Universal is lacking in the in-house IP department currently. It doesn't seem like a stretch to assume that the first Spielberg/Universal blockbuster in nearly 30 years could potentially be useful in a theme park, considering their history...

Universal could cancel all projects not using an IP Comcast doesn't own, and people would still complain about there not being Jaws, BTTF, and Ghostbusters because they are driven by nostalgia of the park AND they are deeply uncreative. That's it.

 

[mccgavin]

Universal could cancel all projects not using an IP Comcast doesn't own, and people would still complain about there not being Jaws, BTTF, and Ghostbusters because they are driven by nostalgia of the park AND they are deeply uncreative. That's it.

There are also those of us who have only started started visiting Universal in the last couple of years, and question why some of their most popular classic films are not represented in the parks in any major way. It's probably good for Universal to prioritize new experiences for the most part, but I would not discredit people who want to see older franchises to return.

 

[GAcoaster]

There are also those of us who have only started started visiting Universal in the last couple of years, and question why some of their most popular classic films are not represented in the parks in any major way. It's probably good for Universal to prioritize new experiences for the most part, but I would not discredit people who want to see older franchises to return.

Nostalgia is great, but it rarely drives turnstile clicks beyond a limited fandom. I think the fan nights they've done at USH will be the most likely scenario for the "return" of most properties. If one of those is some kind of runaway success, then maybe they consider something beyond a character appearance/merchandise event, but they're not spending millions on new attractions for things most people have no connection to.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

Nostalgia is great, but it rarely drives turnstile clicks beyond a limited fandom. I think the fan nights they've done at USH will be the most likely scenario for the "return" of most properties. If one of those is some kind of runaway success, then maybe they consider something beyond a character appearance/merchandise event, but they're not spending millions on new attractions for things most people have no connection to.

Where do you draw the line at what’s considered, “nostalgia,” though? The last Harry Potter movie came out what, 15 years ago? Yet Harry Potter gets a whole new land at Epic. The Classic Monsters haven’t been present in mainstream media for exponentially longer than that, yet they’re headlining a brand new park as well.

This is why I hate the new full-land-or-bust mentality for building theme park additions…eventually the well will run dry. We got a really cool show out of the Bourne franchise because it had low stakes—it wasn’t anchoring a billion dollar investment, it just slotted into an existing generic area. That’s how theme parks should be built.

I also hate that the mentality seems to be “recoup costs NOW” vs. allowing these investments to breathe. Splash Mountain became an IP unto itself and it had nothing to do with the source material—it was just a good ride. Same with Big Thunder, Tower of Terror, Space Mountain, Test Track, Everest, and plenty of other attractions that move just as much merch/drive just as much recognition as your run-of-the-mill movie franchise.

 

[DOOMBOT]

Universal could cancel all projects not using an IP Comcast doesn't own, and people would still complain about there not being Jaws, BTTF, and Ghostbusters because they are driven by nostalgia of the park AND they are deeply uncreative. That's it.

There is a vocal minority of our insular Universal hyper-fan sphere that is like that, but I'd argue that the amount of representation these franchises have gotten across the parks and marketing over the last few years speaks to a far wider and more mainstream appeal. Between billboards all around Central Florida, HHN houses, Fan Fest event offerings, Cinesational, Mega Movie Parade, even up to potential UK mini-land plans, I don't think it's just nostalgia.

If it was purely nostalgia, I feel like we'd see more requests for Beetlejuice, Psycho, Woody Woodpecker, etc. I think BTTF/Jaws/Ghostbusters are just uniquely popular.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

There is a vocal minority of our insular Universal hyper-fan sphere that is like that, but I'd argue that the amount of representation these franchises have gotten across the parks and marketing over the last few years speaks to a far wider and more mainstream appeal. Between billboards all around Central Florida, HHN houses, Fan Fest event offerings, Cinesational, Mega Movie Parade, even up to potential UK mini-land plans, I don't think its' just nostalgia.

If it was purely nostalgia, I feel like we'd see more requests for Beetlejuice, Psycho, Woody Woodpecker, etc. I think BTTF/Jaws/Ghostbusters are just uniquely popular.

Agree with this. I dont know that it’s specifically Jaws and Back to the Future and Ghostbusters…I think rides about a shark attack, fast flying car, and ghosts are just cool ideas to most people.

But that’s just the simple logic, which is no fun. Let’s back into a more convoluted conspiracy theory about the fans and get mad instead.

 

[tommyhawkins]

If Wicked isn't going to Epic, I wouldn't mind DC taking that large plot. However, I do think DC is one of the few IPs left you can split across parks like Potter. LOTR or Wicked should be all in one land.

nothing is getting a 21 acre plot all to itself

 

[Jake S]

we gotta stop doing the thing where anybody liking something more than 10 years old is automatically "nostalgia."