Epic Universe Expansion Speculation

[UniversalRBLX]

I would like to see the Epic expansion pad split between a Celestial Park original story coaster/dark ride, and then whatever (Insert IP) portal they want.


Something like the above. Space Fantasy, with a more Celestial Park spin would be a fantastic addition.

 

[Wicked Salad]

I would like to see the Epic expansion pad split between a Celestial Park original story coaster/dark ride, and then whatever (Insert IP) portal they want.

View attachment 28550
Something like the above. Space Fantasy, with a more Celestial Park spin would be a fantastic addition.

If they split it, this makes the most sense. I do think that's a really long walkway, but it would definitely help if you have a Celestial Park attraction and snack stand with shade, lol. Also, the walkway would allow for a slow incline that could give you a really cool vantage point from exiting the portal for a new world.

 

[Mike S]

I would like to see the Epic expansion pad split between a Celestial Park original story coaster/dark ride, and then whatever (Insert IP) portal they want.

View attachment 28550
Something like the above. Space Fantasy, with a more Celestial Park spin would be a fantastic addition.

If we’re doing Space Fantasy the answer is Super Mario Galaxy.

 

[fryoj]

I still have my fingers crossed for the practical effects Oppenheimer show other people have floated around.

 

[rabbitsmoon]

I feel like the timeline for the big parcel is so far out that any discussion we have now about which IP is worthy will be totally irrelevant by the time Comcast makes a decision.

I'm encouraged by how quickly they're moving on the 2nd Potter ride, but there are a lot of other holes I could see them trying to fill before they dive in on the big plot, especially without an obvious mega-IP that's crying out to be added.

 

[Jake S]

they learned with Potter that they can create much better experiences if they don't just think of a park as a place to plop attractions that people pinball around from one ride to the next.

i’m not saying they don’t believe this but uh, I certainly don’t!

 

[Frogki]

i’m not saying they don’t believe this but uh, I certainly don’t!

And that's a valid opinion - I'm just going based off of what they have put out there on the record, as well as the thesis of their latest park.

I absolutely believe that that conceptual philosophy can and will evolve over time (just look at how Studios has changed), but as of the last dozen or so attractions they've built, hyper immersion has been king. And hyper immersion doesn't mean jump from ride to ride to ride. It means a place you actually want to spend time in as a human being.

I also think this is one of the biggest issues with Epic and it's apparent lack of attraction capacity. That is to say - I don't believe the vast majority of guests are viewing this park from a perspective wherein the goal is not to jump around in an effort to maximize ride time. Universal will need to work to make Epic work for guests as a park experience in a way that it currently is struggling with. I think the park can and should work to fill out attractions while continuing to make lands a place guests want to be in after they get off the anchoring attraction.

I am one of those guests who enjoys meandering through a space. I don't always ride every ride when I visit, even as a non-local. I was roped into that when I first experienced the parks when I was a kid, with my relatives treating the day like a military operation wherein they acted as drill sergeant marching us through the day in an attempt to max out value by getting every single ride without any thought given to the places we were in or the stories those spaces were attempting to tell. While I had wonderful times then and the experience influenced my love of theme parks, that approach is not one I enjoy when engaging with these spaces. Of course, these are just my personal thoughts.

Some of my best memories from the parks involve intangible experiences that have nothing to do with the traditional attractions. And I believe Epic was built to offer more of those kinds of moments to guests. Whether it works well as a design approach is something only time will tell.

 

[Mad Dog]

And that's a valid opinion - I'm just going based off of what they have put out there on the record, as well as the thesis of their latest park.

I absolutely believe that that conceptual philosophy can and will evolve over time (just look at how Studios has changed), but as of the last dozen or so attractions they've built, hyper immersion has been king. And hyper immersion doesn't mean jump from ride to ride to ride. It means a place you actually want to spend time in as a human being.

I also think this is one of the biggest issues with Epic and it's apparent lack of attraction capacity. That is to say - I don't believe the vast majority of guests are viewing this park from a perspective wherein the goal is not to jump around in an effort to maximize ride time. Universal will need to work to make Epic work for guests as a park experience in a way that it currently is struggling with. I think the park can and should work to fill out attractions while continuing to make lands a place guests want to be in after they get off the anchoring attraction.

I am one of those guests who enjoys meandering through a space. I don't always ride every ride when I visit, even as a non-local. I was roped into that when I first experienced the parks when I was a kid, with my relatives treating the day like a military operation wherein they acted as drill sergeant marching us through the day in an attempt to max out value by getting every single ride without any thought given to the places we were in or the stories those spaces were attempting to tell. While I had wonderful times then and the experience influenced my love of theme parks, that approach is not one I enjoy when engaging with these spaces. Of course, these are just my personal thoughts.

Some of my best memories from the parks involve intangible experiences that have nothing to do with the traditional attractions. And I believe Epic was built to offer more of those kinds of moments to guests. Whether it works well as a design approach is something only time will tell.

Me too. We like to meander in an area, relax and enjoy. One reason we take long vacations to theme park resorts. Yeah, I think you're
on to something about Epic, especially when the attractions are up and down so often during a visit. Very rarely, at Disney or Universal,
do we commando rides. Ambiance and leisure are valuables.

 

[SkiBum]

Me too. We like to meander in an area, relax and enjoy. One reason we take long vacations to theme park resorts. Yeah, I think you're
on to something about Epic, especially when the attractions are up and down so often during a visit. Very rarely, at Disney or Universal,
do we commando rides. Ambiance and leisure are valuables.

Personally, I feel like a theme park has to do both. A lot of people do look to pack as many rides into one day as possible. If they are going to spend the amount on absurd ticket prices, they want to ride and ride and ride. The ambiance seekers are those who do repeat trips (either annual pass or annual trips). I have spent time at IoA just relaxing and enjoying the sights and sounds. Part of that is getting older and having trouble with motion sickness if I go ride to ride. However, the first time I went in 1999, I wanted to ride everything as many times as possible with the occasional appreciation of the theming.

 

[Mad Dog]

Personally, I feel like a theme park has to do both. A lot of people do look to pack as many rides into one day as possible. If they are going to spend the amount on absurd ticket prices, they want to ride and ride and ride. The ambiance seekers are those who do repeat trips (either annual pass or annual trips). I have spent time at IoA just relaxing and enjoying the sights and sounds. Part of that is getting older and having trouble with motion sickness if I go ride to ride. However, the first time I went in 1999, I wanted to ride everything as many times as possible with the occasional appreciation of the theming.

Yes. There are different customer bases for sure. Unfortunately, Epic doesn't have enough adult rides for the ride commandoes either.
My opinion is that Epic will be a good park for 'local AP's' once that becomes part of an AP package in a year, two or three. Great for
after work and Saturdays, like IOA & USF are.

 

[AB2020]

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.

Well there are differences between these though. The example of Harry Potter:

1. People who grew up with Harry Potter now have money, so they can be targeted as an audience
2. People who grew up with Harry Potter now might have kids that love theme parks (again, more money)

BTTF and Jaws are significantly older, and to people that are younger than 50 these films were "old" when they first watched it. I am not saying there are no fans of the franchise but most people in the theme parks have no strong attachment to these movies in the same way that Harry Potter fans have.

There is also a second part which is that there is new content released around Harry Potter (TV show, musical, video game) while Jaws (and to a certain degree BTTF besides the musical) don't really have any new media released for decades at this point.

Now what about Monsters, those are old too: Well yes, but a lot of the monsters are very commonly known across different franchises. Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, Phantom of the Opera and werewolves and mummies are all part of various other movies. They are not "just" in their original movies. Even if you haven't seen the original movies, you know those characters most likely.

 

[Mad Dog]

Well there are differences between these though. The example of Harry Potter:

1. People who grew up with Harry Potter now have money, so they can be targeted as an audience
2. People who grew up with Harry Potter now might have kids that love theme parks (again, more money)

BTTF and Jaws are significantly older, and to people that are younger than 50 these films were "old" when they first watched it. I am not saying there are no fans of the franchise but most people in the theme parks have no strong attachment to these movies in the same way that Harry Potter fans have.

There is also a second part which is that there is new content released around Harry Potter (TV show, musical, video game) while Jaws (and to a certain degree BTTF besides the musical) don't really have any new media released for decades at this point.

Now what about Monsters, those are old too: Well yes, but a lot of the monsters are very commonly known across different franchises. Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, Phantom of the Opera and werewolves and mummies are all part of various other movies. They are not "just" in their original movies. Even if you haven't seen the original movies, you know those characters most likely.

Plus, with Monsters, it's the sheer volume of movies over many many years. .........But I can still see interest, almost cult like, for BTTF
and Ghostbusters. Never under estimate the power of cult interest.

 

[rabbitsmoon]

Now what about Monsters, those are old too: Well yes, but a lot of the monsters are very commonly known across different franchises. Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, Phantom of the Opera and werewolves and mummies are all part of various other movies. They are not "just" in their original movies. Even if you haven't seen the original movies, you know those characters most likely.

This is a great point. The monsters fit within general storytelling archetypes we all know. There's corporate IP involved, but it's not that far removed from what Disney was doing with Pirates and Mansion back in the 60s. Darkmoor's general enough to let the audience bring a whole raft of their own associations into the experience.

I think a Jaws attraction would work in a similar way, but BTTF has always seemed too tied to certain performers and their specific era to tap into the same type of cultural vein.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

Well there are differences between these though. The example of Harry Potter:

1. People who grew up with Harry Potter now have money, so they can be targeted as an audience
2. People who grew up with Harry Potter now might have kids that love theme parks (again, more money)

You could take these exact two points and swap them out with pretty much any franchise that was big in its prime and the point would remain. I’m not really seeing the difference.

There is also a second part which is that there is new content released around Harry Potter (TV show, musical, video game) while Jaws (and to a certain degree BTTF besides the musical) don't really have any new media released for decades at this point.

Ghostbusters is still churning out movies too, though. Back to the Future just got a musical and presence at Hollywood’s fan event—not saying those are the same level of investment as a major theme park ride but it indicates level of interest for sure. While Jaws in particular is pretty “dead” in terms of new content, shark attack movies are still getting churned out, and Jaws is really just a means to an end to hit that area of interest.

I don’t think these IPs are the be-all, end-all, but I also don’t think writing them off as nothing but nostalgia porn is really correct, either. What drives interest, translates well to attractions, turns into dollars, etc. is a lot more nuanced.

 

[tommyhawkins]

I feel like the timeline for the big parcel is so far out that any discussion we have now about which IP is worthy will be totally irrelevant by the time Comcast makes a decision.

I'm encouraged by how quickly they're moving on the 2nd Potter ride, but there are a lot of other holes I could see them trying to fill before they dive in on the big plot, especially without an obvious mega-IP that's crying out to be added.

If an obvious Mega-IP came along that was worthy of spending the third of the cost of a whole new park did come along - I don't believe any franchise fits that bill by ANY IP holder - it makes absolutely no financial sense at all to have a huge capital expenditure in one location. ROI would increase by spreading that IP across three parks. Even if Epic had opened in ~2009, it makes little sense to build all of Potter offerings in the one plot - their objective is to get more people visiting & staying for longer, not to thematically centre the same IP in one location - so i believe they would still do it the same way all over again to leverage attendance to across all their parks not just one.

If we escape the mindset that they are holding out for a singular IP to go into a giant 21 acre $2.2B land and it is not getting built whilst also considering it is more than likely Zelda goes in next door to Monsters in the next 2-5 years, then realistically one of those two remaining pads could literally come at any moment.

The reason i asked what IP would everyone choose from the WB library is if they do get a deal they might have to build sooner rather than later (contractually speaking) - and perhaps WB like the idea of their IP going next door to Potter

 

[Alicia]

If you go on stardust you can see, but there’s a ton of markers in the field now

 

[DOOMBOT]

And that's a valid opinion - I'm just going based off of what they have put out there on the record, as well as the thesis of their latest park.

I absolutely believe that that conceptual philosophy can and will evolve over time (just look at how Studios has changed), but as of the last dozen or so attractions they've built, hyper immersion has been king. And hyper immersion doesn't mean jump from ride to ride to ride. It means a place you actually want to spend time in as a human being.

I also think this is one of the biggest issues with Epic and it's apparent lack of attraction capacity. That is to say - I don't believe the vast majority of guests are viewing this park from a perspective wherein the goal is not to jump around in an effort to maximize ride time. Universal will need to work to make Epic work for guests as a park experience in a way that it currently is struggling with. I think the park can and should work to fill out attractions while continuing to make lands a place guests want to be in after they get off the anchoring attraction.

I am one of those guests who enjoys meandering through a space. I don't always ride every ride when I visit, even as a non-local. I was roped into that when I first experienced the parks when I was a kid, with my relatives treating the day like a military operation wherein they acted as drill sergeant marching us through the day in an attempt to max out value by getting every single ride without any thought given to the places we were in or the stories those spaces were attempting to tell. While I had wonderful times then and the experience influenced my love of theme parks, that approach is not one I enjoy when engaging with these spaces. Of course, these are just my personal thoughts.

Some of my best memories from the parks involve intangible experiences that have nothing to do with the traditional attractions. And I believe Epic was built to offer more of those kinds of moments to guests. Whether it works well as a design approach is something only time will tell.

Depending on the day, I will be either the laser-focused attractions-type guest, or the ambience-focused easygoing-type guest. I 100% understand the impulse for both.

My issue with Epic is that it isn't built to serve either demographic. Every area in Epic Universe is streamlined to a fault. There are basically no off-the-beaten-path locations, or spots to chill out off to the side. Even areas which are difficult to navigate to directly are constantly buzzing and full of people. Potter is a big "Y"-shape with no Knockturn Alley. Nintendo is ridiculously cramped. There's a nice short quiet path outside Atlantic, and even that is full of people more often than you'd think.

Epic trimmed off all of the quiet interior areas that Islands' ambience is built from, and as such, Epic's ambience is painfully difficult to actually appreciate, at least for myself. I want to explore and take in the world! But so often, there's nothing more to find and nowhere else to go.

 

[AB2020]

You could take these exact two points and swap them out with pretty much any franchise that was big in its prime and the point would remain. I’m not really seeing the difference.

The difference is timing. If you were 10 when the first Harry Potter movie came out you would be 34 years old. At 34, you fall pretty much exactly into the two categories that I have outlined.

If you were 10 when the first BTTF movie came out, you would be 50. At 50 you might still go to the parks yourself, but your kids are likely in college already and it won't be a family vacation. Therefore I give you criteria 1 but not 2.

If you were 10 when the first Jaws movie came out, you would be 60 and the number of 60 year olds going to theme parks without their family is relatively small. That's not a dig at 60 year olds, that's just a fact.

I am not trying to be difficult here, but when Universal thinks what they should build they will likely not think about people in their 50s and 60s who feel nostalgic about the movies of their youth, but rather the people who are under 40. And for those, it's Harry Potter, Nintendo, Jurassic Park, Pokemon, F&F, Hulk, etc.

 

[Mad Dog]

Depending on the day, I will be either the laser-focused attractions-type guest, or the ambience-focused easygoing-type guest. I 100% understand the impulse for both.

My issue with Epic is that it isn't built to serve either demographic. Every area in Epic Universe is streamlined to a fault. There are basically no off-the-beaten-path locations, or spots to chill out off to the side. Even areas which are difficult to navigate to directly are constantly buzzing and full of people. Potter is a big "Y"-shape with no Knockturn Alley. Nintendo is ridiculously cramped. There's a nice short quiet path outside Atlantic, and even that is full of people more often than you'd think.

Epic trimmed off all of the quiet interior areas that Islands' ambience is built from, and as such, Epic's ambience is painfully difficult to actually appreciate, at least for myself. I want to explore and take in the world! But so often, there's nothing more to find and nowhere else to go.

I think both Epic and IOA are beautiful and immersive, but in much different ways. Myself, I prefer IOA's ambiance and feel it has a total
park immersion feel, while it seems Epic is immersive, but not in an overall way like IOA is.

 

[tommyhawkins]

If you go on stardust you can see, but there’s a ton of markers in the field now

maybe ricos ranch aint big enough