Shrek 4D - Hollywood

[William]

Hmm.. didn't even think about that. While I hope they're turned into 2 separate attractions, I think it could be a possibility.

 

[Red Carpet]

Sponsorships can be bought out or negotiated if Universal really wanted to push things forward. I wouldn't put weight on either one.

The sponsorship with Shrek they could possible get out of. The Water World contract with the performers on the other hand would be hard to get out of. I highly doubt they would want to renew the Water World contract. I think they waiting for the day for it to be over. I think they might have planned the Shrek sponsorship deal to coincide with the Water World contract.

As for your second point, I'm not sure why Universal would knock down two attractions just before Wizarding World opens. I would think that any decision associated with future themed lands would be acted upon now. They're already taking proactive steps right now in closing Studio Souvenirs and the surrounding Amity area, so any hints towards WaterWorld or Shrek going away would already be seen.

You should look at things the other way around. With a park with such a small attraction count. You wouldn't want knock down two attractions until about the time Harry Potter opens to fill that attraction void.

Besides, WaterWorld ain't going anywhere. Not with the recent upgrades they've enacted.

Water World will go away. The Evolution Plan says so. Not only does it say that a new attraction goes there. It says it is a new attraction with food and retail. That sounds like a land. As for the new sound system, it will get a good two years of use.

 

[Jon Fu]

You should look at things the other way around. With a park with such a small attraction count. You wouldn't want knock down two attractions until about the time Harry Potter opens to fill that attraction void.

My opinion is this: wouldn't the park want to present its best face by the time Wizarding World opens? To me, this is Universal's way of reintroducing themselves to the public. I'd want to have as much open as possible by that point in time.

Water World will go away. The Evolution Plan says so. Not only does it say that a new attraction goes there. It says it is a new attraction with food and retail. That sounds like a land. As for the new sound system, it will get a good two years of use.

The Evolution Plan is a guideline that spans 20-25 years. Is WaterWorld slated for revision? Definitely. But my point was that it wasn't going to happen within your 2015 time frame. Guest feedback is very positive for the show. Why would they get rid of that when they're trying to prepare for larger crowds?

 

[Red Carpet]

If Universal sticks with the new attraction every year plan, then the park will be in constant construction mode. Before the newest thing comes out work needs to be started on the next thing. By the time Potter opens they would have needed to already start work on what ever comes after Potter.

 

[Allen The Actor]

That's why I feel that for a while, the only other new attractions until after Potter will only be on The Studio Tour. I can't see them change SES into anything new until much after Potter.

 

[Jon Fu]

If Universal sticks with the new attraction every year plan, then the park will be in constant construction mode. Before the newest thing comes out work needs to be started on the next thing. By the time Potter opens they would have needed to already start work on what ever comes after Potter.

True, but Shrek and WaterWorld are major attractions - with WaterWorld located near the entrance of the park. I could be wrong, but I really don't see either attraction being touched for the time being.

 

[Red Carpet]

Let's pretend you are a business man. Would you rather have an attraction based on an unpopular movie that cost a ton of money to operate, or an attraction that is cheaper to operate based on a popular franchise that could bring in a lot of money from merchandise sales?

 

[Allen The Actor]

^ forget about the movie...

While you are correct that merchandise sales are important, as is picking a good franchise, Universal shouldn't completely cheap out and focus on "what's cheaper to operate", especially when it's on such a revitalizing streak. Besides, Waterworld (the show) is extremely popular and guests love it...so forget about the movie. Even though it has no merchandise sales, I think guest satisfaction is also important.

 

[Miss Betty Juice]

Balance. It's all about balance. You want something based on popular movies? What was the last good marketable Universal owned movie? Despicable Me. They're making a ride on that. Yes, that's a good film to make a ride from, and a good example of the idea there of cheap and popular.

However, waterworld has always been an oddity. The movie sucked. But the show is wonderful and has held up well over time. With the recent investment in the sound and the replacement of key elements, I don't think the show is going to be replaced in 2015. It will end eventually, but I don't think it's as near death as people think.

There may come a time when the strength of waterworld will fail, but today is not that day.

And bonus points to whoever sees what I did there. =3

 

[Bonkers]

Is that from lord of the rings???

 

[Miss Betty Juice]

Is that from lord of the rings???

Bonus points for you! =D

 

[Jon Fu]

Let's pretend you are a business man. Would you rather have an attraction based on an unpopular movie that cost a ton of money to operate, or an attraction that is cheaper to operate based on a popular franchise that could bring in a lot of money from merchandise sales?

If I were a business man, I'd want to keep my flagship show continuously running. High capacity and high guest satisfaction ratings keep it from going on the chopping block. Continuing Universal's current trend, I also wouldn't want an attraction that hasn't already performed spectacularly well in an existing Universal park. So far, nothing fits that bill.

Operational costs are also marginal, considering how much of a return Universal has gotten so far. If the show required too much maintenance and operational costs relative to their return, they wouldn't have continued its run for so long - plus open copies in Singapore and Japan. It's a favorite, and I think management shares that sentiment. That, coupled with "what exactly can we replace it with that's already been a hit?" feeling leads me to believe that WaterWorld isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Plus, you even mentioned 2018 as a reasonable date of closure, so I'm not sure where the disagreement lies.

 

[Red Carpet]

Plus, you even mentioned 2018 as a reasonable date of closure, so I'm not sure where the disagreement lies.

2018 is the year I expect Water Worlds replacement to open. My guess is that the show will stay open through the 2015 Holiday season. It will close early 2016. Then I took into account how long it usually takes to build a major new attraction and figured it would be finished in 2018.

 

[Ryan]

2018 is the year I expect Water Worlds replacement to open. My guess is that the show will stay open through the 2015 Holiday season. It will close early 2016. Then I took into account how long it usually takes to build a major new attraction and figured it would be finished in 2018.

No way. Waterworld will stay open for at least the first season of Harry Potter. Like Jon said, when Potter opens they need the entire fleet available sucking in guests from left to right. The stadium has a gigantic capacity, if it were to go away the entire park may collapse under the pressure. Waterworld needs to be there.

2017-2020 is more reasonable for when we could possibly see it leaving.

 

[Red Carpet]

If Water World stays open will anything else close down? They must be planning something post Potter.

 

[Allen The Actor]

Post Potter is way too early for us to come to concrete conclusions, and probably for even Universal to think about. I think for a while, the only new additions besides Potter will be on the Studio Tour, where their construction and operation won't have an effect on the main park.

As Brover said, the park will need to have as many things open as possible when Potter opens. If they wanted another major attraction (besides Minion Mayhem) to be open by the time Potter opens, it would have to be something on the Studio Tour, or for it to replace something ASAP, like SES, which I don't see happening. The park can't afford to be a full construction zone.

But after Potter, the first thing I see being made into a new attraction would be SES or Shrek. But a good season or two after Potter opens and settles in.

 

[Ryan]

I've alluded to this before, but I think the upper lot is being relatively untouched immediately post-Potter.

 

[Red Carpet]

I guess Water World might stay a little while longer. But whenever Water World does go down I wouldn't be surprised if Shrek goes down with it to make a new land. It seems like Universal is trying to make a park of lands and get away from its "tossed salad" image.

 

[smoaT]

It would be awful to see WaterWorld go. it's an amazing show, a girl yesterday actually said that was her favorite "ride" (she was a 1st timer). Anyways with a release date set for Jurassic World 2015, do you think that there is a chance they want to give this ride a nice refurb to have the park shinning in 2015? It needs it so bad, this weekend the brontosaurus was taken down and is apparently being repared. The falling car is no longer working. Do you think they can take an extensive 4 month refurb in the srping before Potter opens?

 

[William]

Not to stray off topic too much, but to be brief, yes - I think Jurassic Park will need a refurb of some sort before Potter opens. Whether or not it'll be on a large scale, I don't know.