(Rumor) New Potter Attraction to Replace Fear Factor Live?

[deathcab4cutie]

More than what they sold it for...

i imagine a lot from what i heard those apartments cost 1800 a month.

 

[quinnmac000]

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?

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.

 

[Mike S]

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.

Plus all they really need are their own numbers to see people still care about Harry Potter.

 

[GAcoaster]

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.

 

[s8film40]

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.

Actually Fear Factor is currently airing new episodes. Not that that makes FFL any better, but it is somewhat relevant.

 

[Legacy]

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.

What?


They're getting it?


And Tokyo and Singapore got when they were built in 2001 and 2010?

Hmmm...

 

[Jwhee]

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.

Adding the #1 GSAT rated Universal attraction in the world to Universal Orlando sounds like a terrible terrible idea...

 

[GAcoaster]

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...

The movie also did better in overseas markets.

I never said the show wasn't popular in Hollywood, it's just a hard sell as "hey come see our new attraction we spent millions of dollars to add to our park based on a crappy movie from 20+ years ago".

They could easily just create the same basic show with a new theme and make it marketable.

Doesn't matter anyway because FFL is not being replaced by Waterworld.

 

[Viator]

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.

 

[Mad Dog]

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.

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.

 

[Mike S]

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.

 

[JoeCamel]

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.

Saw what you did there...

 

[Legacy]

I wouldn’t be surprised if we finally get the show in Site B.

I would. It would be out of place in the likely "uber-immersive" design they'll likely go for.

 

[Mike S]

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.

 

[quinnmac000]

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.

Nope it actually has a story line. A retelling of the film.

 

[Mike S]

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?

 

[quinnmac000]

So what’s the problem of having it in the new park then?

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.

 

[Legacy]

So what’s the problem of having it in the new park then?

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.

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.

 

[Mike S]

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.

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.

 

[tielo]

Remember this are different times. Original theme park ip's are not often seen.
Also Universal is now managed by another company than the one that green lighted Waterworld.
Does that Leeds to better rides, not always (F&F) but to be fair Comcast is still very new at this game so lets give 'm some slack.

In the end the General Public is triggered by ip's, it's like google, if you like this then you probably like that because it's more of the same. It's terrible, it doesn't allow for personal growth, to get exposed to new things. But in the end a company is putting down somewhere between 100 million and a billion to build a ride or land and they want their money back. A new ip that has legs will be a much safer bet then an obscure movie that makes a good ride.
The same thing doesn't work the other way around. I bad ride for a great ip doesn't work either but if it's a great ip and a great ride you have gold, a whole potter of gold.