Universal's Epic Universe Wish List & Speculation

[Disneyson1]

I also think that, while “Snap” is probably the most obvious way to do a Pokémon ride, it necessitates watching a physical experience through a screen... which to me feels less-than-ideal.

 

[youhow2]

Fair. So, let’s look at the games.

Assuming guests fully understand the necessary, step-by-step, process of this:

Guest choose a starter Pokémon on the power band/app. The generation is selectable, or “power starters” can be purchased from a collection of fan favorites. You can also buy a plush version of your starter that links to your Power Ban

Interactive event 1 - Catch more Pokémon. It’s basically Pokémon Go, only with animatronic Pokémon. Repeat ad naseum.

Interactive event 2 - Trainer/Gym Battle. It’s basically Pokémon Go, only set-up like SNW’s boss fights, with a live performer. You could maybe have 1 or 2 in a land.

Interactive event 3 - Legendary Battle. It’s Pokémon Go only with a SNW boss fight. Almost a cross between interactive events 1 & 2.

If you notice, I keep referencing Pokémon Go. That’s because almost all the interaction in the Pokémon universe is indirect; the trainer rarely interacts with other Pokémon directly. It’s always through their own Pokémon. It’s not like SNW’s boss fights where guests can use the power band to personally fight Bowser Jr. Guests will swipe their power band or starter to begin the event, then stare at a menu to choose moves, then just an attack. The world of Pokémon is a passive world. I think, for the vast majority of guests, they’ll 2 of those events, say “that’s it?” and then wonder what the point of it all was.

Well, I would imagine there'd be an imaginary rule that explains you can't have pokemon battles outside of battle arenas, and there would be a few different areas with multiple arenas for guest inside the land. The way I'm imagining it, you'd have to also wear "protective glasses or equipment" to battle. While you can take most things home with you, there'd only be one place on earth your pokemon can come to life outside of your app, but when you return to the parks it's the pokemon you've nutured and cared for battling with you.



Trainer and gym battles, pvp, catching pokemon, "best in show/beauty" competitions, and then again, tying the attraction to the burgeoning world of esports by making it the "real" pokemon game. I mean, the esports competitions alone could end up being a billion+ dollar revenue generator alone if planned right.

Having different times of day and different digital micro transactions to lure out different kind of pokemon for a chance to catch. Different areas to catch them. Different mini rides and activities for the chance of catching different kinds of pokemon. And then again, based on real time spent in park pokemon training... That's the kicker. Throw variety at the different types of catching activities and make it interesting. I am also visualizing mini rides and activities with a high degree of variability. A fishing ride where most of the time you'll catch Magikarps and Horseas, but maybe every one in 9 rides you get to battle (and a chance to catch) a Gyarados. Want to evolve your evee? You need to complete a quest to earn or buy the stones. Want to compete in a pokemon battle arena? You'll have to spend time at the park leveling up your pokeomon through battles and activities.



The amount of space the land would need would be massive. The amount of interactions and cost of maintenance would be relatively high, but by introducing a micro transaction based system on top of in park purchases to access additional content to "become a pokemon trainer", But, again I think they could reasonably get away with spending in upwards of $2 billion on such a land, and it would still pay for itself in less than a year or two.


Then not to mention, with influencer culture you'd literally have influencers out there who could make money being "real life" pokemon trainers.


The potential for this is ridiculous.

 

[Legacy]

Well, I would imagine there'd be an imaginary rule that explains you can't have pokemon battles outside of battle arenas, and there would be a few different areas with multiple arenas for guest inside the land. The way I'm imagining it, you'd have to also wear "protective glasses or equipment" to battle. While you can take most things home with you, there'd only be one place on earth your pokemon can come to life outside of your app, but when you return to the parks it's the pokemon you've nutured and cared for battling with you.



Trainer and gym battles, pvp, catching pokemon, "best in show/beauty" competitions, and then again, tying the attraction to the burgeoning world of esports by making it the "real" pokemon game. I mean, the esports competitions alone could end up being a billion+ dollar revenue generator alone if planned right.

Having different times of day and different digital micro transactions to lure out different kind of pokemon for a chance to catch. Different areas to catch them. Different mini rides and activities for the chance of catching different kinds of pokemon. And then again, based on real time spent in park pokemon training... That's the kicker. Throw variety at the different types of catching activities and make it interesting. I am also visualizing mini rides and activities with a high degree of variability. A fishing ride where most of the time you'll catch Magikarps and Horseas, but maybe every one in 9 rides you get to battle (and a chance to catch) a Gyarados. Want to evolve your evee? You need to complete a quest to earn or buy the stones. Want to compete in a pokemon battle arena? You'll have to spend time at the park leveling up your pokeomon through battles and activities.



The amount of space the land would need would be massive. The amount of interactions and cost of maintenance would be relatively high, but by introducing a micro transaction based system on top of in park purchases to access additional content to "become a pokemon trainer", But, again I think they could reasonably get away with spending in upwards of $2 billion on such a land, and it would still pay for itself in less than a year or two.


Then not to mention, with influencer culture you'd literally have influencers out there who could make money being "real life" pokemon trainers.


The potential for this is ridiculous.

And the audience for all that would be miniscule. The cost of all that R&D, infrastructure, and space would not be worth ROI. People don’t go to theme parks to play a video game. They’re not going to pay $100 to level grind, then get up-charged to hasten the grind. They’re not going to go on a ride multiple times “for the chance” to get a Gyarados. Guests aren’t going to watch virtual beauty competitions. We’ve seen “game” attractions at Disney that involved watching actual guests participate while spectators could interact with what was happening (American Idol Experience and WWtbaM-Play It), and neither lasted longer than 5 years. It’s just not what guests want to do.

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

So, how bout a 2025 opening for that there Epic Universe? Too optimistic?

 

[Scott W.]

So, how bout a 2025 opening for that there Epic Universe? Too optimistic?

2024 would be possible. It's just a matter of when Universal want to pull the trigger.

 

[Alicia]

Between 2024 to 2026 is what I’m thinking of, sooner is less likely, but I am hopeful 26 at the latest.

Hard to predict though, as things are still very bad out there right now, and if all goes well, things could get better rather quickly. But after 2020, it’s hard to be entirely optimistic.

 

[Scott W.]

Between 2024 to 2026 is what I’m thinking of, sooner is less likely, but I am hopeful 26 at the latest.

Hard to predict though, as things are still very bad out there right now, and if all goes well, things could get better rather quickly. But after 2020, it’s hard to be entirely optimistic.

I think the next few months is going to be critical and is purely dependent on how successful the vaccine rollout is, the quicker the vulnerable get vaccinated, the quicker the deaths start to drop and the quicker things can start to return to a new normal.

This period is going to set the tone for the rest of the year and potentially early next year.

 

[JungleSkip]

2024 would be possible. It's just a matter of when Universal want to pull the trigger.

I think the next few months is going to be critical and is purely dependent on how successful the vaccine rollout is, the quicker the vulnerable get vaccinated, the quicker the deaths start to drop and the quicker things can start to return to a new normal.

This period is going to set the tone for the rest of the year and potentially early next year.

considering how that’s going so far in the US...I’m not optimistic we’re seeing the park before 2025 or 26

 

[youhow2]

And the audience for all that would be miniscule. The cost of all that R&D, infrastructure, and space would not be worth ROI. People don’t go to theme parks to play a video game. They’re not going to pay $100 to level grind, then get up-charged to hasten the grind. They’re not going to go on a ride multiple times “for the chance” to get a Gyarados. Guests aren’t going to watch virtual beauty competitions. We’ve seen “game” attractions at Disney that involved watching actual guests participate while spectators could interact with what was happening (American Idol Experience and WWtbaM-Play It), and neither lasted longer than 5 years. It’s just not what guests want to do.

Considering what people do for completely virtual pokemon with pokemon go... Yeah, hard disagree. "If we ride the fun ride that's fun again maybe we'll get to battle and capture a Gyarados, then I can maybe win a gym badge from winning at the fire gym and be on my favorite youtube show and maybe I can enter the master tournament at the end of the year and we can comeback for free, then I'll be a true pokemon master!"? Also, Those are bad comparisons. I think most of the content would direct guest to one on one battles with each other, or solo or family group experiences. This would be more comparable to how kids sit on youtube and watch other people play games all day, but with the opportunity to partake in said activity themselves. And for every battle that gets posted by one of those influencers online, there's 10's of thousands of kids begging their parents to take them to the parks to play, get "real" pokemon, and have the chance to become the next "Ninja", of Universal's and TPC own proprietary souped-up "IRL" version of pokemon red or blue.

Guest go to parks for rides, shows, attractions and other immersive entertainment. Arguably, the opportunity exist with pokemon to blur the line and propel the type of entertainment found in parks forward in a big way. Also, people independent of parks do everything you speak of, and the avenues which they use to do so make billions of dollars a year and the opportunity to scale an experience to be built in a park exist. Again, you're talking about an IP with better sales than all, period.


So we can disagree based on opinions of what themed entertainment design is in it's current state, but until something like what I'm describing gets built and fails, no grounds exist to dismiss it. The R&D would also be a lot less taxing than you believe considering most of everything would only need to be adapted from existing designs and technology, and then they would use anything developed across multiple parks. The blueprint for successful interactivity exist within the games.

Also, the video game industry has a wider audience and generates more revenue yearly than theme parks, and it's not even close. The demo you'd be targeting would not only be theme park fans, but video game and pokemon fans. The strategy employed would be to take up more market share from the mouse and open up new streams of revenue from new & existing guest, while perhaps creating an app or a pokemon manager game that gets..."Supercharged" (sorry I had to) whenever you visit the parks... That not only serves as a marketing tool, but perhaps even an non parks related revenue stream.

In terms of the economics of building the attraction the amount of additional audience you'd need to attract percentage wise from those audiences to justify my $2 billion land budget number is miniscule at best, needing only 2-3% at most which I believe most would see as a tolerable risk for the potential gain, especially with the power of the IP being the absolute strongest compared to anything else on this planet... Also, people just aren't going to stop going to parks anyways, so the risk is covered unless it fails abysmally and no one shows.

With support of esports and tournaments etc. built into the land and the proper content strategy, you're introducing another stream of revenue that in one or two events (like an HHN or Mardi Gras) a year could make quarterly or even yearly merch for some lesser properties represented on site possibly look like a joke.


I respect your opinion and where you're coming from and all, but the numbers don't lie, and on the surface they absolutely make sense. SNW seems almost like a test run for pokemon.

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

Considering what people do for completely virtual pokemon with pokemon go... Yeah, hard disagree.

Pokemon Go is free. Also what you're describing sounds more exhausting than the normal theme park experience. People catch Pokemon casually, sure, will they focus on that when they're trying to maximize their once-in-a-lifetime trip, I don't know. Those people are out there, sure. They're not me! I don't even think they're any of my friends, who play Pokemon and couldn't give a damn about Super Nintendo World.

Look, I think people on these forums have already addressed many of the issues we have with this idea, many of which you've nonetheless reiterated. I'm not going to go over them. I get you're trying to say that many of your ideas are justified because Pokemon is the highest grossing media franchise. And thus it deserves half a park or three lands spread out across multiple parks. Maybe we're all just a bunch of theme park fans who value a level of variety in the parks and either can't or won't see the insane possibility of Pokemon in the parks because what you're describing simply hasn't been done before. Who are we to say it won't work when it hasn't been done before.

So you know what, maybe you're right and we're all wrong. We just can't see the numbers and potential behind it. But I think I speak for a lot of people on this forum when I say that based on our previous experiences with interactive elements in the parks, and our own personal preferences of what we would prefer to see in the parks, the level of Pokemon involement you're describing sounds like a big drag and waste of resources. It's the same reason I don't want a full Mario, Marvel, or Star Wars park.

EDIT: Just to do some prolepsis, variety in Pokemon environments, isn't the variety I'm looking for.

 

[Grabnar]

I think the best you could hope for is something like Sorcerers of the Magic Kingdom with some interactive cards for sale in Merch shops.

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

I think the best you could hope for is something like Sorcerers of the Magic Kingdom

What's Sorcerers of the Magic Kingdom?

EDIT: Okay, that just looks awful.

 

[hidepak]

I think people are really underestimating the power of immersive environments experiences with little theming to be incredibly successful. The idea that Pokémon is only a safari ride is really not thinking creatively at all. Look at the success of hagrid. I really don’t think it’s impossible to imagine a variety of rides / roller coasters that allow you to visit Pokémon and be in that world while also populate that with animatronics & sculptures ala hagrid and what’s about to be done with Velocicoaster. A coaster that has you face to face with a fire breathing charizard, could be a hyper coaster with a statue and some queue theming. Also the possibilities are endless beyond coasters to any ride system. There could be a raft ride that takes you through water gym and shows you aquatic pokemon. If you aren’t familiar with the games the barrier of water and learning “surf” is often a core element of the story. Just find it hard to understand why universal wouldn’t seize this opportunity unless the rights are tied up.

 

[highdefrex]

The idea that Pokémon is only a safari ride is really not thinking creatively at all. Look at the success of hagrid. I really don’t think it’s impossible to imagine a variety of rides / roller coasters that allow you to visit Pokémon and be in that world while also populate that with animatronics & sculptures ala hagrid and what’s about to be done with Velocicoaster. A coaster that has you face to face with a fire breathing charizard, could be a hyper coaster with a statue and some queue theming. Also the possibilities are endless beyond coasters to any ride system. There could be a raft ride that takes you through water gym and shows you aquatic pokemon. If you aren’t familiar with the games the barrier of water and learning “surf” is often a core element of the story. Just find it hard to understand why universal wouldn’t seize this opportunity unless the rights are tied up.

Narratively, too, an obvious one jumps to mind: A ride where “we” are helping Detective Pikachu solve a case, and it’s a dark ride following that very case unravel, naturally including tons of Pokémon along the way and a big, fun climax that ends with him thanking us for helping out as we roll back into the station.

I haven’t followed Pokemon since the hype of Red/Blue/Yellow when I was a kid, but like you said, the idea that the IP could only be a safari ride or only AR is silly when there are tons of ways to approach the franchise and make diverse rides out of it to fill a land. But like Legacy said, doing a massive land/park that’s completely interactive would be too much, both for general park goers and from a financial POV; IMO, a small expansion would be the way to go, but there’s ways around it without making the whole thing interactive and colossally budgeted.

 

[Nico]

Pokemon Go is free. Also what you're describing sounds more exhausting than the normal theme park experience. People catch Pokemon casually, sure, will they focus on that when they're trying to maximize their once-in-a-lifetime trip, I don't know. Those people are out there, sure. They're not me! I don't even think they're any of my friends, who play Pokemon and couldn't give a damn about Super Nintendo World.

Look, I think people on these forums have already addressed many of the issues we have with this idea, many of which you've nonetheless reiterated. I'm not going to go over them. I get you're trying to say that many of your ideas are justified because Pokemon is the highest grossing media franchise. And thus it deserves half a park or three lands spread out across multiple parks. Maybe we're all just a bunch of theme park fans who value a level of variety in the parks and either can't or won't see the insane possibility of Pokemon in the parks because what you're describing simply hasn't been done before. Who are we to say it won't work when it hasn't been done before.

So you know what, maybe you're right and we're all wrong. We just can't see the numbers and potential behind it. But I think I speak for a lot of people on this forum when I say that based on our previous experiences with interactive elements in the parks, and our own personal preferences of what we would prefer to see in the parks, the level of Pokemon involement you're describing sounds like a big drag and waste of resources. It's the same reason I don't want a full Mario, Marvel, or Star Wars park.

EDIT: Just to do some prolepsis, variety in Pokemon environments, isn't the variety I'm looking for.

What youre describing is as if they made Hogwarts a functioning school, with homework, AND tuition. Could you do R&D to make classes, experiences, battles all feel real and fun? Yes. Could you get first time Larpers from the existing pool of Potter fans? Yes. Larpers? Maybe. Your regular theme park visitor with no interest in Pokémon? No.

Star Wars hotel as someone brought up will be our first experience with this concept in a theme park setting. That will be the test of this idea. People have concerns about it already.

Your idea is cool. The hogwarts idea is cool. But theyre not for the masses. It’s a one off experience for a small fraction of the population.

 

[youhow2]

I think the best you could hope for is something like Sorcerers of the Magic Kingdom with some interactive cards for sale in Merch shops.

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

Pokemon Go is free. Also what you're describing sounds more exhausting than the normal theme park experience. People catch Pokemon casually, sure, will they focus on that when they're trying to maximize their once-in-a-lifetime trip, I don't know. Those people are out there, sure. They're not me! I don't even think they're any of my friends, who play Pokemon and couldn't give a damn about Super Nintendo World.

Look, I think people on these forums have already addressed many of the issues we have with this idea, many of which you've nonetheless reiterated. I'm not going to go over them. I get you're trying to say that many of your ideas are justified because Pokemon is the highest grossing media franchise. And thus it deserves half a park or three lands spread out across multiple parks. Maybe we're all just a bunch of theme park fans who value a level of variety in the parks and either can't or won't see the insane possibility of Pokemon in the parks because what you're describing simply hasn't been done before. Who are we to say it won't work when it hasn't been done before.

So you know what, maybe you're right and we're all wrong. We just can't see the numbers and potential behind it. But I think I speak for a lot of people on this forum when I say that based on our previous experiences with interactive elements in the parks, and our own personal preferences of what we would prefer to see in the parks, the level of Pokemon involement you're describing sounds like a big drag and waste of resources. It's the same reason I don't want a full Mario, Marvel, or Star Wars park.

EDIT: Just to do some prolepsis, variety in Pokemon environments, isn't the variety I'm looking for.

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.

 

[Grabnar]

The big problem is that you’re describing a whole park based off of the level of interactivity that the SW hotel has which is going to never make an ROI. Your costs here are going to be astronomical and you’re going to have massive capacity issues; look at the lines the form to get the 2 second interaction with the HP wands and multiply that to a 1-2 min Pokémon battle and you start to see the issue of scale. Your throughput just won’t support the scale of experience you’re describing without being prohibitively expensive.

 

[Nico]

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.

Ok so merch and finances.

Option A: Spend 2 billion on a land where you have to get into a new industry (Esports) and make up the rest in merch. Risk failure.

Or

Option B: Spend $500 million on a Pokémon land of Potter/Nintendo quality and still make the same merch sales and get an ROI quicker. Minimized risk.

Execs would need to be incredibly passionate about Pokémon and this idea to choose option A.

 

[HandsomePete]

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.

There is no correlation between total spending on an IP and theme park visitation. Just like there's no correlation between IP popularity and satisfaction rating of that IPs attraction(s).

It's like saying Walmart is everyone's favorite store because it's the highest grossing retailer.

 

[shiekra38]

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'm not sure what you all are arguing about...But the fact that freaking Hello Kitty outsells HP and Star Wars makes me laugh sometimes