Universal's Epic Universe Wish List & Speculation

[Nick]

I’d say it is relevant. It’s easy to point at IoA and Potter and say “it’s all licensed” (JP aside). But that’s ignoring that Universal didn’t have NBC, Dreamworks, or Illuminations in their stable. In the past ten years, however, Nintendo is the only new licensed attraction to get any sizable investment. Sanrio got a store. Everything else is either maximizing an older license (Potter/Simpsons) or “in house” (Transformers, Kong, Tonight Show, Despicable Me, SLoP, Jurassic Park, Bourne). Look at Beijing. Apart from Potter, everything is in Universal’s portfolio. That’s a drastic difference from 20 years ago.

Sorry to nit-pick, but Transformers is not “in-house” as it’s not a Universal IP. It’s Paramount/Hasbro.

 

[Cup_Of_Coffee]

I’d say it is relevant. It’s easy to point at IoA and Potter and say “it’s all licensed” (JP aside). But that’s ignoring that Universal didn’t have NBC, Dreamworks, or Illuminations in their stable. In the past ten years, however, Nintendo is the only new licensed attraction to get any sizable investment. Sanrio got a store. Everything else is either maximizing an older license (Potter/Simpsons) or “in house” (Transformers, Kong, Tonight Show, Despicable Me, SLoP, Jurassic Park, Bourne). Look at Beijing. Apart from Potter, everything is in Universal’s portfolio. That’s a drastic difference from 20 years ago.

Plus, out of the 4 lands, 1/2 are Universal owned, and the hub is obviously just their own creatively designed element, so, it’s mostly “theirs”.

Sans Minions and Jurassic, Universal needs to acquire other properties in order to compete really imo so this makes sense. I see nothing wrong with it and if anything as mentioned here, the trend is changing. Dreamworks Theatre in USH can be added as well to your list, as well as *ahem* Fast and Furious.

Nintendo and Potter have just been done on larger scales so it feels like it’s more properties that aren’t their own.

 

[Legacy]

Sorry to nit-pick, but Transformers is not “in-house” as it’s not a Universal IP. It’s Paramount/Hasbro.

I could have swore the films had a Universal title card. The general point still stands though (as it’s an older license acquired in the aughts as well).

 

[Alicia]

I could have swore the films had a Universal title card. The general point still stands though (as it’s an older license acquired in the aughts as well).

Spielberg executive produced it, so while not owned by Universal they do have that working relationship with him.

 

[fryoj]

I honestly forget where we stand with this. I remember the drop tower concept was rumored back when the EU concept art *ahem* dropped (because fireworks covered the prospective show building). Since then we have learned that it’s more based on the original series than FB. Is the tower completely out?

I don't think I ever saw any real rumors of an elevator ride, but more blue skying by posters unless I just missed it. But going back to the original series, a next gen drop tower ride based on the MoM elevators make more sense than any other concept I've heard.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

As a reminder, Pokemon is also a more complex property to license with several different parties to please.

 

[Scott W.]

I'd weep if the relegated the property to that.





Look,

I'm arguing numbers of different demos, expanding and reinventing business models for a theme park land, total revenue generated by different demos in different markets, and justifying an idea for a next gen expansion based on current tech and popularity of the property, the ability it would have to generate absurd revenue.

Everyone seems to be concerned with telling me why it wont work based on the opinion that too much pokemon would be super bad andit wouldn't be that popular based on ????. I'm backing a theory and concept with numbers.

As far as space goes, what I'm describing, with catching pokemon being a primary activity can probably be made to fit in a land the size of Potter + LC, Or JP + Toon Lagoon. Potter takes up a lot of space on it's own and has 5 rides, but whereas you'd be hard pressed to recreate potter "IRL", UC has demonstrated it may very well possible ( I think it is) to recreate the world of pokemon through SNW and Potter with a better avenue for in-park interactivity, and even having an additional out of park activity.


Pokemon and Potter came out around similar times, yet Pokemon has made more than 3 times Potter. Pokemon's video game sales alone is twice the size of any segment of Potter's franchise earnings.


To not attempt to address interactivity and gaming with Pokemon when they do it's land is leaving money on the table. Pokemon Merch Sales alone is twice the size of the entirety of Potter's whole value.



Most of you guys are actually arguing a ride or two would be fine for Pokemon... Come on, I'm not speaking without precedent, and I'm not new to Theme Parks.


They should be attempting to go ALL IN on Pokemon, and it should be even more ambitious than Potter.

I've always hated that graph as a justification for an IP to do anything in the parks.

Hello Kitty has done more than double the gross of Harry Potter but it only justifies a store in UOR.

Winnie the Pooh has grossed more than Mickey but nobody is going to the Magic Kingdom to see Winnie the Pooh, they're going to see Mickey.

 

[youhow2]

I've always hated that graph as a justification for an IP to do anything in the parks.

Hello Kitty has done more than double the gross of Harry Potter but it only justifies a store in UOR.

Winnie the Pooh has grossed more than Mickey but nobody is going to the Magic Kingdom to see Winnie the Pooh, they're going to see Mickey.

I mean, its like everyone is missing where I break down my justification by earnings segment.

The chart breaks down earnings by segment.

Hello kitty is basically 100% merch. People like the iconography but they arent invested in its media, like in more viable properties like Star wars, Potter, Mario.

Pokemon's interactive/media is stronger than most segments in other properties. Its merch sales are stronger, it has a cult following and people invested in its "universe" through its games and collectable nature, and it has a larger universe and lore to draw from than something like winnie the pooh, and the interactive concept is simple to grasp.

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

I honestly forget where we stand with this. I remember the drop tower concept was rumored back when the EU concept art *ahem* dropped (because fireworks covered the prospective show building). Since then we have learned that it’s more based on the original series than FB. Is the tower completely out?

I don't remember what the publically available rumors say, but I could have sworn the drop tower idea was kaboshed based on the FB permits.

So maybe I don't want to say it's not out of the running, especially with potential EU redesigns, but perhaps @Alicia can more accurately explain what the current publically available rumors are.

 

[fryoj]

I mean, its like everyone is missing where I break down my justification by earnings segment.

The chart breaks down earnings by segment.

Hello kitty is basically 100% merch. People like the iconography but they arent invested in its media, like in more viable properties like Star wars, Potter, Mario.

Pokemon's interactive/media is stronger than most segments in other properties. Its merch sales are stronger, it has a cult following and people invested in its "universe" through its games and collectable nature, and it has a larger universe and lore to draw from than something like winnie the pooh, and the interactive concept is simple to grasp.

You can't discount Hello Kitty's $80 billion in Merch while at the same time using Pokemon's $60 Billion. Take the Merch out and Pokemon falls sharply.

I also want to see that chart broken down by country. I suspect if you look at just US Pokemon numbers, it's more pedestrian.

 

[shiekra38]

You can't discount Hello Kitty's $80 billion in Merch while at the same time using Pokemon's $60 Billion. Take the Merch out and Pokemon falls sharply.

I also want to see that chart broken down by country. I suspect if you look at just US Pokemon numbers, it's more pedestrian.

They didn't even have the decency to include Digimon on that list

Digimon are the CHAMPIONS!

 

[Michael S]

Not to mention you want to appeal to as many people in the family as possible. Theme parks should offer something for everyone, especially major parks. Families spend the most money, bring the most people, and are willing to travel the farthest distances.

Well-rounded parks have the best longevity. Niche parks are risky.

I haven’t been following this conversation, but I will say, just because there’s enough material in an IP to make a whole park doesn’t mean it’s a good business decision.

Well said Alicia! I feel like this quote from Peter Alexander when he was asked to work on Walibi Smurf (Peter Alexander worked extensively on attractions at Universal Studios Hollywood and Florida), is perfect for this conversation, and really gets down to the business side of theme park design when related to intellectual property.

“
Unfortunately, the character's success on television had not translated into theme park attendance: only 700,000 guests had attended during the park's first year (1989) versus the projection of 1,800,000, and attendance had declined thereafter. By the time I got there, the park was virtually empty.





As I walked through the park with the General Manager I noticed something: everything was Smurf-themed. They even had a "Future Smurf" world, like Tomorrow Land, only filled with Futuristic Smurfs. When I first entered the park I kind of liked the Smurfs, but by the time I left, I was sick of them: they had too many Smurfs. "And if you don't like Smurfs," The General Manager said sadly, "You don't come to the park."





From that I learned a lesson: selecting a single theme for an entire park, resort, shopping complex or entertainment center can be risky. The best bet is to provide a variety of themes and thus appeal to the largest possible demographic”

Granted, the Smurf’s popularity, even at the time, is nowhere close to Pokémon itself, let alone Nintendo. But I think there is still a lot of truth in his statement. People want variety. Not every guest is the same. Building a park for fans of one property loses its appeal quickly. It sounds fun and exciting in theory, but the metrics don’t always work out.

 

[Legacy]

I mean, its like everyone is missing where I break down my justification by earnings segment.

The chart breaks down earnings by segment.

Hello kitty is basically 100% merch. People like the iconography but they arent invested in its media, like in more viable properties like Star wars, Potter, Mario.

Pokemon's interactive/media is stronger than most segments in other properties. Its merch sales are stronger, it has a cult following and people invested in its "universe" through its games and collectable nature, and it has a larger universe and lore to draw from than something like winnie the pooh, and the interactive concept is simple to grasp.

And what we’re saying is that these numbers don’t matter to how a theme park is designed. Theme parks are created to be as widely accessible as possible. It’s a wholly different medium from actual IPs, with different experiences and expectations. An interactive “Pokémon trainer life,” where grinding, catching, battling, and nurturing fake animals is not something the vast majority of people (park guests) will want to invest time or energy in. As such, Universal isn’t going to devote that many resources to it. They don’t need to. That’s especially true when they can just integrate Pokémon GO into the land and call it a day.

People go to theme parks predominantly to ride rides, see shows, and eat food. Interactivity and games are filler. SNW’s boss battles are kinetic, active group games that can be completely skipped. They’re designed to be fairly chaotic fun with no prior investment. Pokémon isn’t that type of game. Putting 12 people in a room to watch a kid yell commands at something (or press buttons on a menu) isn’t something people will line up for more than once. The trainer life is personal, intimate, lonely and droll. It’s not actually a good time.

A land that expects most of its guests to stare at their phone in order to play games or access things throughout the land isn’t a fun time. It divides attention between the game and the land. Requiring multiple rides on something is monotonous, regardless of how fun it is. For the vast majority of people, the experience you want Universal to invest in would be a miserable experience. And the profitability of the IP doesn’t change that.

 

[Alicia]

I don't remember what the publically available rumors say, but I could have sworn the drop tower idea was kaboshed based on the FB permits.

So maybe I don't want to say it's not out of the running, especially with potential EU redesigns, but perhaps @Alicia can more accurately explain what the current publically available rumors are.

No current plans for any drop tower attraction at Epic Universe as far as I know, no.

Well said Alicia! I feel like this quote from Peter Alexander when he was asked to work on Walibi Smurf (Peter Alexander worked extensively on attractions at Universal Studios Hollywood and Florida), is perfect for this conversation, and really gets down to the business side of theme park design when related to intellectual property.

“
Unfortunately, the character's success on television had not translated into theme park attendance: only 700,000 guests had attended during the park's first year (1989) versus the projection of 1,800,000, and attendance had declined thereafter. By the time I got there, the park was virtually empty.





As I walked through the park with the General Manager I noticed something: everything was Smurf-themed. They even had a "Future Smurf" world, like Tomorrow Land, only filled with Futuristic Smurfs. When I first entered the park I kind of liked the Smurfs, but by the time I left, I was sick of them: they had too many Smurfs. "And if you don't like Smurfs," The General Manager said sadly, "You don't come to the park."





From that I learned a lesson: selecting a single theme for an entire park, resort, shopping complex or entertainment center can be risky. The best bet is to provide a variety of themes and thus appeal to the largest possible demographic”

Granted, the Smurf’s popularity, even at the time, is nowhere close to Pokémon itself, let alone Nintendo. But I think there is still a lot of truth in his statement. People want variety. Not every guest is the same. Building a park for fans of one property loses its appeal quickly. It sounds fun and exciting in theory, but the metrics don’t always work out.

that sounds like a smurfing nightmare

 

[JungleSkip]

This is such a weird circular argument. Pokemon is obviously never going to be more than a single land. But the fact that a highly detail SNW/WWOHP Pokemon land is even possible (hell I’d say it’s probable) should be excited for a fan of the franchise.

Anything more would be an unrealistic expectation

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

This is such a weird circular argument.

Argument circular weird a such is this.

 

[OhHaiInternet95]

Deciding which IPs are most profitable can be tricky.

 

[shiekra38]

Everyone's gonna be real upset when they just build SNW

Kidding, kinda

I think Pokemon has a high likelihood of happening sometime

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

Everyone's gonna be real upset when they just build SNW in 2025 instead of 2020

Fixed it slightly.

 

[shiekra38]

Fixed it slightly.

Is that supposed to say "2025 instead of 2023" lol?