Universal's New Park/Site B Blue Sky Thread

[Collin Salvo]

After reading this forum I noticed Oz was brought up. Disney doesn't own anything Oz besides their crappy "Oz the Great and Powerful" and "Return to Oz" both of which are based on the novels. Yes, Oz the Great and Powerful has the classic movie elements like the green witch that's not really protected by copyright anyone can have a green witch. But the ruby slippers and the music is. Warner Bros owns The Wizard of Oz and I can see them letting Universal do something with it for a park. Harry Potter and Scooby-Doo are both Warner Bros so it wouldn't surprise me. I think the Oz franchise has a wide appeal if they tie in Wicked. Wicked could have a full or short show like Japan, they still have the sets for it. It's been rumoured for a while that Wicked may have a presence in Citywalk. The movie elements will attract adults while the musical will bring in teens, like Harry Potter. It would definitely have to be a big area of the park to include everything such as Kansas, Munchkinland, Emerald City, and the Witches Castle. The key for making Oz work is the 1939 movie, without that, no one will want to go there. They want to feel as if they stepped into the movie. Also, the character meet and greets would work well. You could walk down the yellow brick road and meet the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion, and maybe the Wicked Witch. You would have a tornado ride like forbidden journey, a dark ride in Munchkinland like It's a small world, a Journey through Oz ride, like Fallon or Simpsons, a flying monkey coaster, and a river rapids ride around the Witches castle. Kansas could have carnival area and maybe even a main street type feel. There are so many possibilities. I think if they got Harry Potter they can get Wizard of Oz. Wizard of Oz could really hurt Disney because it would be like the Magic Kingdom but immersive. Ok, I'm done dreaming.

 

[AlexanderMBush]

After reading this forum I noticed Oz was brought up. Disney doesn't own anything Oz besides their crappy "Oz the Great and Powerful" and "Return to Oz" both of which are based on the novels. Yes, Oz the Great and Powerful has the classic movie elements like the green witch that's not really protected by copyright anyone can have a green witch. But the ruby slippers and the music is. Warner Bros owns The Wizard of Oz and I can see them letting Universal do something with it for a park. Harry Potter and Scooby-Doo are both Warner Bros so it wouldn't surprise me. I think the Oz franchise has a wide appeal if they tie in Wicked. Wicked could have a full or short show like Japan, they still have the sets for it. It's been rumoured for a while that Wicked may have a presence in Citywalk. The movie elements will attract adults while the musical will bring in teens, like Harry Potter. It would definitely have to be a big area of the park to include everything such as Kansas, Munchkinland, Emerald City, and the Witches Castle. The key for making Oz work is the 1939 movie, without that, no one will want to go there. They want to feel as if they stepped into the movie. Also, the character meet and greets would work well. You could walk down the yellow brick road and meet the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion, and maybe the Wicked Witch. You would have a tornado ride like forbidden journey, a dark ride in Munchkinland like It's a small world, a Journey through Oz ride, like Fallon or Simpsons, a flying monkey coaster, and a river rapids ride around the Witches castle. Kansas could have carnival area and maybe even a main street type feel. There are so many possibilities. I think if they got Harry Potter they can get Wizard of Oz. Wizard of Oz could really hurt Disney because it would be like the Magic Kingdom but immersive. Ok, I'm done dreaming.

To me, I find Oz on the scale of a Pandora's Box of lands as how Lord of the Rings is.

You will not see people happy either way, and that it'd be hard to see them do it without thinking of the MGM classic (which, odds are it wouldn't be that way).

 

[quinnmac000]

To me, I find Oz on the scale of a Pandora's Box of lands as how Lord of the Rings is.

You will not see people happy either way, and that it'd be hard to see them do it without thinking of the MGM classic (which, odds are it wouldn't be that way).

Agreed with the people not being happy with it either way.

 

[zg44]

How much IP would Universal want to move towards a new park (and away from current UOR) in the future? Because to me, that's really the question when it comes to all this stuff about Nintendo or Jurassic Park or whatnot.

If you're Universal and you know you'll probably have a 3rd park up and running around 2025-2030; then at what point do you start considering how/when to shift IP towards it?

 

[AlexanderMBush]

How much IP would Universal want to move towards a new park (and away from current UOR) in the future? Because to me, that's really the question when it comes to all this stuff about Nintendo or Jurassic Park or whatnot.

If you're Universal and you know you'll probably have a 3rd park up and running around 2025-2030; then at what point do you start considering how/when to shift IP towards it?

It seems like it'd be potentially earlier than 2025 at this point.

If I was to guess, Nintendo; Fantastic Beasts; and DreamWorks Animation are givens, but there are also Intellectual Properties from Lakia, Illumination, and Amblin that I could see make a comeback for the park.

I think it's very plausible that Jurassic World will be implemented into the park, but that will have to ask on the logistics of it; if IOA will still have theirs.

I do think that they will tackle original content once again, just how will be an interesting question.

 

[angusrocks2001]

It seems like it'd be potentially earlier than 2025 at this point.

If I was to guess, Nintendo; Fantastic Beasts; and DreamWorks Animation are givens, but there are also Intellectual Properties from Lakia, Illumination, and Amblin that I could see make a comeback for the park.

I think it's very plausible that Jurassic World will be implemented into the park, but that will have to ask on the logistics of it; if IOA will still have theirs.

I do think that they will tackle original content once again, just how will be an interesting question.

Original content as in their own ideas, or Universal owned properties?

 

[AlexanderMBush]

Original content as in their own ideas, or Universal owned properties?

Their own.

 

[Blue]

I'd be okay with them getting rid of Jurassic Park completely and reimagining it in the third park, especially since they used the expansion space for Kong and got rid of the arch. River Adventure really isn't that important, especially with two other water rides nearby.

I have no clue what they could put in that space though. Maybe Pokemon.

 

[zg44]

It seems like it'd be potentially earlier than 2025 at this point.

If I was to guess, Nintendo; Fantastic Beasts; and DreamWorks Animation are givens, but there are also Intellectual Properties from Lakia, Illumination, and Amblin that I could see make a comeback for the park.

I think it's very plausible that Jurassic World will be implemented into the park, but that will have to ask on the logistics of it; if IOA will still have theirs.

I do think that they will tackle original content once again, just how will be an interesting question.

Yeah, I just think it'd be best if the 3rd park was a "Worlds" park where you had Super Nintendo World, Jurassic World etc. Maybe pull like 1-2 IPs from each of the current UOR parks and replace them a year or two before the new park opens.

 

[tielo]

We have 3 parks now: Studio, Book and Water.
So if the next park will have Nintendo, Fantastic Beasts, DreamWorks Animation en Illumination ip's in there (no jurassic park that would be silly) what would be the overarching theme?
They all have animals in them.
All of them have a lot of processor power involved to realise them.
All of them are family orientated.

 

[JungleSkip]

We have 3 parks now: Studio, Book and Water.
So if the next park will have Nintendo, Fantastic Beasts, DreamWorks Animation en Illumination ip's in there (no jurassic park that would be silly) what would be the overarching theme?
They all have animals in them.
All of them have a lot of processor power involved to realise them.
All of them are family orientated.

FYI, the "literature" theme of IoA has always been more of a slant theme than an actual thing.

 

[tielo]

FYI, the "literature" theme of IoA has always been more of a slant theme than an actual thing.

And that is why they didn't call it Islands of Books, I get it, that is not the point.
I think Universal Studios and Island of Adventure each have their own thing going on and are very different. What will be the next?

 

[Blue]

Super Nintendo World going into USF kinda just ruins the studio theme (I guess you could say Nintendo is technically a video game studio, but it's still a reach).

The next park needs to be something like Magic Kingdom, a fairly basic overall theme where any IP could work.

 

[Andysol]

To me, I find Oz on the scale of a Pandora's Box of lands as how Lord of the Rings is.

You will not see people happy either way, and that it'd be hard to see them do it without thinking of the MGM classic (which, odds are it wouldn't be that way).

Agreed with the people not being happy with it either way.

Just curious- why would Wizard of Oz be any different in response than beloved franchises such as Star Wars or Harry Potter? As long as its themed well and immersive?

 

[AlexanderMBush]

Just curious- why would Wizard of Oz be any different in response than beloved franchises such as Star Wars or Harry Potter? As long as its themed well and immersive?

It's more of how iconic Oz is, compared to Potter.

Oz is one of the most iconic pieces of literature that has been cherished for well over a hundred years; with countless adaptations of the original source material, including the likes of the original MGM film from 1939 to now.

Oz is an IP that has far too many iterations that people know and love. That, is why.

 

[JungleSkip]

It's more of how iconic Oz is, compared to Potter.

Oz is one of the most iconic pieces of literature that has been cherished for well over a hundred years; with countless adaptations of the original source material, including the likes of the original MGM film from 1939 to now.

Oz is an IP that has far too many iterations that people know and love. That, is why.

The only way you can get away with building Oz is by throwing a ton of money into getting the classic movie aesthetic.

 

[quinnmac000]

Just curious- why would Wizard of Oz be any different in response than beloved franchises such as Star Wars or Harry Potter? As long as its themed well and immersive?

Star Wars and Potter have one main image and style compared to OZ. You have Wicked version of OZ, NBC version of OZ, The Movie OZ, The Black Wiz of OZ, Disney's Wizard of OZ. There are just way too many versions.

 

[k_peek_2000]

Star Wars and Potter have one main image and style compared to OZ. You have Wicked version of OZ, NBC version of OZ, The Movie OZ, The Black Wiz of OZ, Disney's Wizard of OZ. There are just way too many versions.

If you say Wizard of Oz, 90% of the people will think of the Judy Garland classic.

 

[fryoj]

If you say Wizard of Oz, 90% of the people will think of the Judy Garland classic.

Think you are off by about 9.9%

 

[wizwit]

The real Wizard of Oz: