Next Attraction To Go?

[shiekra38]

That should give it a bit of a bump, but probably not enough to make Uni execs too happy.

Hollywood should keep Terminator, but they need a new RIDE in the area to draw people over there.

Not worth it..The new Terminator movie will do well as there are some fans still around, but compared to Star Trek it just isn't worth it to keep the attraction around...plus..the sound system in there is absolutely horrible, blown speakers, almost no low end, and the whole thing just sounds old...and don't get me started on the projection

 

[DK745]

I'm sure with the upcomming terminator movie (Terminator Genisys) arriving August 2015 will push the sales and popularity nicely.

Doesn't most of the Terminator merchandise say Terminator 2 on it though? I doubt it'd help sales that much if at all.

 

[Cole]

terminator isn't hurting anybody nor disappointing crowds, it has a good life ahead along with shrek

 

[shiekra38]

terminator isn't hurting anybody nor disappointing crowds, it has a good life ahead along with shrek

I guarantee first time guests are not blown away when they experience it...when an attraction exists in the same park as Transformers, Gringotts and Mummy there has to be disappointment happening...Plus Terminator dosen't really fit in with Universal's new model...I think Shrek will be around longer

 

[Mad Dog]

We've talked about this issue before, but a tourists' view of an attraction is often different than an instate passholder. As a tourist who makes it to Universal twice a year, I enjoy both Terminator & Shrek. Yes, Shrek's building could use a redo but I get a kick out of the pre show and show, both of which I feel is entertaining. As far as merchandise sales, there's only so many great IP merch movers. They can't or won't all be as strong as HP , Simpsons and the like. A good theme park for tourists is a combination of a lot of different types and levels of attractions. They can't all be superstar status E tickets. I think Universal is doing a pretty good job on expansions. They need to pace them and the real obvious areas to change are Fear Factor and the back part of Kidzone needs updated or altered. Even a tourist family probably doesn't have much love for FF.

 

[Cole]

There has never been a time in my many years of seeing this show where it hasn't ended with a gigantic applause. I mean of course it isn't as advanced as the other rides there but then again does it need to be? Effects don't make a show, It's the story and treatment of it and that's why terminator still wows people today like it did when it first opened. It's a show stopper and if terminator really needs to get replaced over kidzone, FF, twister and everything else than there is a giant problem with PR

 

[johde]

As a casual tourist, I'd tend to agree with Mad Dog. Shrek and Terminator are both solid attractions. That being said, at this point, other than a couple of times a year, Shrek probably doesn't need two theaters. If Universal wanted to take half that building and put something else in the second theater (or depending on the IP put it in the main theater space up front and keep Shrek in the back).
Looking at the area you have in Hollywood, you can't do anything real big without gutting that whole section of the park Amity style. Right behind T2 you have some backstage building and then ET. Getting rid of the backstage building you've got maybe room for a Transformer's sized attraction.

 

[martymcflyy85]

I agree as I am one of those "tourist" who doesn't get to go often, and still loves Terminator. It tells a great story and the combination of effects and actors make it an outstanding show. But I've done Shrek once, and that was enough. It was the only time I ever did a new attraction at Universal and thought to myself "That was it?"

 

[OrlandoGuy]

I agree as I am one of those "tourist" who doesn't get to go often, and still loves Terminator. It tells a great story and the combination of effects and actors make it an outstanding show. But I've done Shrek once, and that was enough. It was the only time I ever did a new attraction at Universal and thought to myself "That was it?"

Unfortunately, Universal's measure of an attraction's success isn't the way it tells a story or how it integrates effects...it's how much merchandise can be sold based on the attraction's IP. For that reason alone, I think Shrek will be around for much longer than T2.

 

[Cole]

Oh no doubt shrek is here to stay, they still advertise and merchandise the crap out of it and it's a decade old. In my opinion it's not as bad as everybody says it is, has cool lighting effects and its overall a cute little experience. It's just in a miserable position of everything in the park kicking it's ass. Whatever though it'll stay here for atleast another decade and for good reason

 

[KRAKENvsMANTA]

Glad to see Shrek and T-2 getting some love and support. I enjoy both of those attractions and feel both are underrated. Just because they're older doesn't mean they need to be replaced. There's a handful of other areas that definitely need more attention; Fear Factor, KidsZone, San Francisco(Disaster and Beetlejuice), and MIB/Simpsons plot. IMO, leave Twister, Shrek, and T-2 alone until those areas are updated/re-purposed.

 

[Milla4Prez66]

Oh no doubt shrek is here to stay, they still advertise and merchandise the crap out of it and it's a decade old. In my opinion it's not as bad as everybody says it is, has cool lighting effects and its overall a cute little experience. It's just in a miserable position of everything in the park kicking it's ass. Whatever though it'll stay here for atleast another decade and for good reason

It's a 4-D theater show. One of those can be found in even the cheapest and lamest theme parks around the world. Not to mention the movie used for the attraction can be found on Netflix and they were even giving it out in cereal boxes at one point.

I agree it's here to stay because:
1.Shrek merchandise can still sell, and Universal still uses Shrek in marketing and advertising
2.It can eat some people and help alleviate crowds during peak seasons
3.There isn't much Universal can do with that space, except put in another 4-D film. Which is pointless

So while it WILL stay, it is still a lame attraction and really anyone who isn't a tourist will probably skip it.

 

[natespf]

Well they can not all be break away hits with merchandise sales. In between the cash cows they still need people eaters where customer satisfaction is still important. Though T2:3D would be 20y/o in a couple years, it was built later and closed earlier at USH (~13y/o). It was a phenomenal attraction for it's time, that pushed the limits of what is to be expected from a themepark. But who knows what is going to happen after the current projects and the issues that have been talked about (looking at you Fear Factor :mean. When the time comes it will be down to the right project for the right place.

 

[princeinc]

I actually enjoy terminator and the show of shrek. I was just the average tourist just a few months ago and said the same thing about how bad it looks. i was only asking about the lifespan of shrek because i was wondering was the lack of effort to keep elements updated had anything to do with them not wanting to invest the money because something was on its way out the door.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

I actually enjoy terminator and the show of shrek. I was just the average tourist just a few months ago and said the same thing about how bad it looks. i was only asking about the lifespan of shrek because i was wondering was the lack of effort to keep elements updated had anything to do with them not wanting to invest the money because something was on its way out the door.

They won't invest in it because it already does its job well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, right? Disney gets a lot of flack for this "good enough" philosophy but the fact is that every major company utilizes it. The only improvements Universal has made in the past few years have come with a guaranteed huge ROI. And I don't blame them for it. When an attraction's purpose is to get people off the streets and give a family-friendly IP with big merchandising potential representation in the park, why bother putting in more bells and whistles when it's doing its job as is?

 

[shiekra38]

They won't invest in it because it already does its job well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, right? Disney gets a lot of flack for this "good enough" philosophy but the fact is that every major company utilizes it. The only improvements Universal has made in the past few years have come with a guaranteed huge ROI. And I don't blame them for it. When an attraction's purpose is to get people off the streets and give a family-friendly IP with big merchandising potential representation in the park, why bother putting in more bells and whistles when it's doing its job as is?

Well they do need to upgrade the projection at least in both attractions as if the 3-D is not working half of the attraction is not working, that's a problem...

 

[Clive]

A few thoughts:

1) Remember when Universal cheaped out during the initial construction of Shrek 4D, basically just retrofitting the Hitchcock preshow room and 3D theater? The Psycho theater and post show exhibits mostly still stood behind closed doors, mothballed. Only after the attraction garnered massive wait times given its popularity, proximity to the entrance of the park, and relatively low capacity with only a single theater did they bother tearing out the rest of Hitchcock and building an identical back theater. They even removed Universal Express while the theater was under construction to help alleviate wait times! All for what's, in my opinion, the absolute weakest major attraction in the resort.

2) I doubt they'll do this, but Hollywood just upgraded their Shrek 4D preshow with a Donkey puppet (animatronic)? that does the safety spiel before the pigs begin talking. It'd be a neat addition in Florida, but perhaps a little redundant when Donkey has his own popular meet and greet across the street.

3) People who think this building is small are deluding themselves - it's quite a sizable space, and with two large theaters they could fit in something pretty sizable if they wanted to. They won't, but there's nothing saying this space can only hold a 3D theater (or two).

4) People keep bringing up the whole advertising thing with Shrek - while yes, he remains a popular and relevant brand (especially with foreign audiences, from what I can surmise), you have to also remember that Universal maintains a proportional advertising agreement with Dreamworks, not unlike the agreement Uni has with Marvel. In short, a certain percentage of Universal's advertising *must* include Shrek and pals - I believe there may also be an agreement to have X% of merchandising space devoted to Shrek in the larger stores, too. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

5) Terminator 2:3D still impresses the hell out of tourists. I recall bringing a friend's family a few years back who had never been to Universal, and the mother (who LOVES coasters and thrill rides and enjoyed pretty much the entirety of the parks) felt it was the strongest attraction from beginning to end and made a point to see it again later in the trip. We may be used to the whole motorcycle in-and-out of the screen schtick, but average joe tourist has never seen it, and it's still remarkably impressive decades after its debut.

6) That said, I totally could see the argument that it's garnering minimal merchandise sales: Terminator just isn't a very relevant brand anymore, and I don't see the new Genesis film revitalizing it much. I think the attraction's days are numbered, though that space is on the smaller side... not sure what they'd slot in. I'd really prefer they shore up other weaker areas of the park (Shrek, Fear Factor, Twister, KidZone), but that probably won't happen.

7) Twister should've been gone yesterday. It's a nifty effects showcase but overall the attraction doesn't do anything that Disaster doesn't really do better and the film, and its stars are laughably irrelevant to anyone who isn't in on the Bill Paxton jokes. The show also just hasn't been as good since they've gradually toned it down and let effects fall into disrepair. On top of that, I suspect its merchandise sales are awful, cow or no cow. I welcome a replacement.

8) Though I believe Disaster is mechanically in dire straits (remember that abrupt, unannounced three month refurbishment a couple years ago?), it would be a real shame to use it. That's a huge tourist people pleaser and a really entertaining, well-written attraction through and through. The effects tunnel also still impresses me, even after 25 years of exhibition. It'd be a shame to lose it with so many weaker attractions still standing. That said, if they are forced to close it due to irreparable mechanical failure, Creative will need to scramble to put together a replacement - that area's prime real estate.

9) I'm very pleased that ET Adventure seems to be safe for the foreseeable future, as it should be. I just hope that while they were fixing up the names database system they noticed how musty the actual ride experience has gotten and have budgeted a cleanup/upgrade or two.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

4) People keep bringing up the whole advertising thing with Shrek - while yes, he remains a popular and relevant brand (especially with foreign audiences, from what I can surmise), you have to also remember that Universal maintains a proportional advertising agreement with Dreamworks, not unlike the agreement Uni has with Marvel. In short, a certain percentage of Universal's advertising *must* include Shrek and pals - I believe there may also be an agreement to have X% of merchandising space devoted to Shrek in the larger stores, too. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong

I dont know the deal between Dreamworks and Universal because it seems to be kind of tricky and fickle. But, if their deal does indeed require certain stipulations about how Shrek can be used (it's advertising percentage, merch percentage, etc.), it's working. It doesn't matter if Universal's reliance on Shrek as a marketing tool is voluntary or not, what matters is that it's effective. The Shrek store does good numbers for what it is. Shrek sells well in the company store. And to add to this, the ride itself does good numbers. The combined capacity of both theaters is 600 people for a roughly 15-minute show an yet can still draw a wait of up to 30 minutes at peak times. Not only is it remarkable that a 3-D show with par-for-the-course capacity draws extraordinarily long wait times, it speaks a lot to the power of the IP that people knowingly wait 30 minutes for the show.

Basically what I'm saying is that the reasoning behind Shrek's prevalence in marketing and merchandise sales is irrelevant so long as it's successful. Whatever Dreamworks is telling Universal to do or not do, it's benefiting Universal.

 

[Clive]

I dont know the deal between Dreamworks and Universal because it seems to be kind of tricky and fickle. But, if their deal does indeed require certain stipulations about how Shrek can be used (it's advertising percentage, merch percentage, etc.), it's working. It doesn't matter if Universal's reliance on Shrek as a marketing tool is voluntary or not, what matters is that it's effective. The Shrek store does good numbers for what it is. Shrek sells well in the company store. And to add to this, the ride itself does good numbers. The combined capacity of both theaters is 600 people for a roughly 15-minute show an yet can still draw a wait of up to 30 minutes at peak times. Not only is it remarkable that a 3-D show with par-for-the-course capacity draws extraordinarily long wait times, it speaks a lot to the power of the IP that people knowingly wait 30 minutes for the show.

Basically what I'm saying is that the reasoning behind Shrek's prevalence in marketing and merchandise sales is irrelevant so long as it's successful. Whatever Dreamworks is telling Universal to do or not do, it's benefiting Universal.

I'm not disagreeing at all - despite the attraction's low quality, it still draws a crowd, and I'll bet the merchandise sells fairly well. I just think some posters here didn't realize that Universal is more or less mandated to advertise Shrek - to both parties' benefit, for now, it would seem.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

ET and T2 are safe, I feel comfortable saying.