- Jun 10, 2014
- 875
- 620
i imagine a lot from what i heard those apartments cost 1800 a month.More than what they sold it for...
i imagine a lot from what i heard those apartments cost 1800 a month.More than what they sold it for...
I think it depends how FB2 does in theaters. If it does poorly (I personally don’t think it’ll do well), Universal might read that as Potter mania wearing off.
In that situation, they should read it as Fantastic Beasts not capturing the same magic as Potter because people loved and related to HP’s characters and not just the Wizarding World. But, what do I know?
Plus all they really need are their own numbers to see people still care about Harry Potter.FB3 has already been greenlit and the second is tracking to open better than the first so I'm not sure Universal/WB would be focused too much on that.
Actually Fear Factor is currently airing new episodes. Not that that makes FFL any better, but it is somewhat relevant.I love how people think adding a show based on a dud of a movie from 1995 would be an improvement over a show based on a TV series from the 2000's. Neither one has any relevance or would add turnstile clicks or sell merch. I know people love the Water World show, but there has to be something (ANYTHING) better to add than that.
That must be why Beijing isn't bothering with Waterworld.I love how people think adding a show based on a dud of a movie from 1995 would be an improvement over a show based on a TV series from the 2000's. Neither one has any relevance or would add turnstile clicks or sell merch. I know people love the Water World show, but there has to be something (ANYTHING) better to add than that.
I love how people think adding a show based on a dud of a movie from 1995 would be an improvement over a show based on a TV series from the 2000's. Neither one has any relevance or would add turnstile clicks or sell merch. I know people love the Water World show, but there has to be something (ANYTHING) better to add than that.
The movie also did better in overseas markets.That must be why Beijing isn't bothering with Waterworld.
What?
They're getting it?
And Tokyo and Singapore got when they were built in 2001 and 2010?
Hmmm...
Yes. I'd rather have a good attraction based off a bad movie, than a bad attraction based off a successful movie series. Quality wins out.There is a reason to why Waterworld is the most popular attraction Universal has done, and it's not because of IP Relevancy.
FFL won't be replaced by Waterworld, but let's not shrug off Waterworld just because it's based off of a rather bad B-Movie from the 1990's.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we finally get the show in Site B.There is a reason to why Waterworld is the most popular attraction Universal has done, and it's not because of IP Relevancy.
FFL won't be replaced by Waterworld, but let's not shrug off Waterworld just because it's based off of a rather bad B-Movie from the 1990's.
Saw what you did there...Yes. I'd rather have a good attraction based off a bad movie, than a bad attraction based off a successful movie series. Quality wins out.
I would. It would be out of place in the likely "uber-immersive" design they'll likely go for.I wouldn’t be surprised if we finally get the show in Site B.
This isn’t immersive?I would. It would be out of place in the likely "uber-immersive" design they'll likely go for.
This isn’t immersive?
Is the show something like Indiana Jones where it’s presented like a movie shoot or something? Because that could be changed.
So what’s the problem of having it in the new park then?Nope it actually has a story line. A retelling of the film.
So what’s the problem of having it in the new park then?
So what’s the problem of having it in the new park then?
I'm expecting the new park is going for a more "specific" selection of attractions. I don't see scattered attractions based on IPs that don't tie pretty immediately to a World.I have no problem with it. It's such a fun show. I guess because Waterworld was a film that flopped so hard and the fact that the attraction would be over 20 years old is the issue.
Unless they would put it in IoA it seems Site B is the only option as from what people are saying there’s no desire to put it in USF.I'm expecting the new park is going for a more "specific" selection of attractions. I don't see scattered attractions based on IPs that don't tie pretty immediately to a World.
It isn't that the IP is old - it's that can't see the IP fitting into the park. Whereas it belongs in a Studios park.