If not, why not? If so, what are they saving it for?
Why wasn't TF built here? Thematically it would work better there right?
Was TF built where it is to balance guest flow when HP2.0 opens up?
I thought I had previously read that HP2 is apx. 12 acres. If that's correct, the MIB adjacent area would be apx. 14-15 acres. Wow, a lot could be done with an area that size. A Lord of the Rings land could fit in there or something else on the stupendous level.
For comparison's sake......
And my poorly drawn outline of each area......
This is so funny because i was just asking myself this question and then i find out somebody started a thread for it lol I feel like if they just put a ride i would like to see a Star Trek attraction. With the success of the first movie and the new movie coming out this summer i think it could be an appropriate time to make this attraction. Im trying to decide what kind of ride would it be though?..and if there was enough room in the back for another land i wouldn't mind seeing LOTR or even just another land with different rides, that could also be a smart thing to do with different attraction possibilities. Maybe Fast and the Furious?..King Kong?..Star Trek also like i said before. Or maybe just go all out and do LOTR which could turn out to be more than another game changer for Universal.
that was my first thought but LOTR fits better in IOA..i would love to hear thoughts from Skip and Reel on what would fit better there
SciFi city is perfect. Personally I want more Battlestar Galactica over Star Trek. Especially with the new Bryan Singer movie coming out down the line. Its the perfect chance to reignite fans and make new ones.
Is Star Trek owned by Universal? Not that it matters (Harry Potter is owned by WB), but it would make it a lot more likely/plausible.