Universal Studios: ‘Bourne Stuntacular’ to open in spring of 2020

lebeau

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Bruce Almighty did good at the box office too. That doesn't mean it deserves an attraction.

I don't recall making that argument. But obviously box office is only one component. I have gone on at length in the Epic Universe thread about what makes an IP suitable for theme park development while defending the Monsters despite their lack of recent success at the box office.

Terminator 1 and 2 are great, great movies with a cool look you can base an attraction on. Bourne Identity had 1 or 2 okay movies and had just a run of the mill average foreign spy look to it. "You don't say oh wow this looks like a scene from Bourne Identity."

There isn't even a good villain in most of the Bourne movies. Terminator has a slew of them and even the bad ones have their moments.

Are the Terminator movies really great? I would say that the first one was a really good B-movie and the second one was a boderline remake with a bigger budget and once-revolutionary special effects. I'll stop short of saying either movie achieved actual greatness.

If I had to chose between Terminator and Bourne for a theme park attraction, I would prefer Terminator. The sci-fi elements open up more possibilities. I'm just saying I think people are over-estimating the popularity of Terminator while under-estimating the potential for Bourne.
 

RustySpork

Oscar Mayer Memer
Are the Terminator movies really great? I would say that the first one was a really good B-movie and the second one was a boderline remake with a bigger budget and once-revolutionary special effects. I'll stop short of saying either movie achieved actual greatness.

420176


:joyfull:
 

Frankenstein79

Well-Known Member
Are the Terminator movies really great? I would say that the first one was a really good B-movie and the second one was a borderline remake with a bigger budget and once-revolutionary special effects. I'll stop short of saying either movie achieved actual greatness.

If I had to chose between Terminator and Bourne for a theme park attraction, I would prefer Terminator. The sci-fi elements open up more possibilities. I'm just saying I think people are over-estimating the popularity of Terminator while under-estimating the potential for Bourne.

What???? You are way off man.

They are both ultra classics that are definitely rewatchable. I saw the Bourne movies 1 time each and don't want to ever see them again, especially the forgettable last 2... or 3. The last one made me honestly hate Matt Damon it was so bad.

Also Terminator and Terminator 2 are very different movies.

In T2 Sarah Conner is a total badass. Nothing like the delicate flower she was in the first one. Yet another difference is her companions in the 2nd one. They are a Terminator and her teenage son, who provide a unique father/son dynamic with humor.
 

OG Runner

Well-Known Member
Wow, a difference of opinion on two movie franchises. It is hard to imagine, especially here on these discussion boards.
Unless Universal is going to do exactly the same thing that Disney has done with Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular and
reenact scenes from the movie, does it really matter which franchise you liked more? T2 is gone.
 

lebeau

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
What???? You are way off man.

They are both ultra classics that are definitely rewatchable. I saw the Bourne movies 1 time each and don't want to ever see them again, especially the forgettable last 2... or 3. The last one made me honestly hate Matt Damon it was so bad.

Also Terminator and Terminator 2 are very different movies.

In T2 Sarah Conner is a total badass. Nothing like the delicate flower she was in the first one. Yet another difference is her companions in the 2nd one. They are a Terminator and her teenage son, who provide a unique father/son dynamic with humor.

Agree to disagree.

I would argue the similarities (it's the same plot!) outweigh the differences (this time the target is John Connor, not Sarah and he's protected by a good robot instead of a human).

The first two Terminator movies are both good. I wouldn't argue otherwise. Whether or not they are great is going to be highly subjective. I set a pretty high bar for greatness. For my money, Cameron has only achieved greatness once; Aliens.
 
Last edited:

Frankenstein79

Well-Known Member
Agree to disagree.

I would argue the similarities (it's the same plot!) outweigh the differences (this time the target is John Connor, not Sarah and he's protected by a good robot instead of a human).

The first two Terminator movies are both good. I wouldn't argue otherwise. Whether or not they are great is going to be highly subjective. I set a pretty high bar for greatness. For my money, Cameron has only achieved greatness once; Aliens.

Most franchises have a similar plot in it's movies.

Harry Potter - a young wizard must battle a dark wizard 1-7
Jurassic Park/World - dinosaurs escape a zoo owned by a rich guy and the poop hits the fan
Fast and the Furious - fast cars, action scenes, they defeat the main bad guy
Most Horror movies - a psycho, creature or supernatural force tries to kill people
 

Frankenstein79

Well-Known Member
I think the front of the park could have used a ride more than a show. with the addition of "Bourne" the first 2 attractions on the right are still shows. "The Secret Life of Pets" ride would have been a much better addition.

Plus Production Central already has Shrek which is just like Minion's. Give us something that's not run of the mill and like the attractions right next to it.
 
Last edited:

lebeau

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Most franchises have a similar plot in it's movies.

Harry Potter - a young wizard must battle a dark wizard 1-7
Jurassic Park/World - dinosaurs escape a zoo owned by a rich guy and the poop hits the fan
Fast and the Furious - fast cars, action scenes, they defeat the main bad guy
Most Horror movies - a psycho, creature or supernatural force tries to kill people

I don't want to beat a dead horse to the point where everyone else here is banging their heads against a wall. But I'll take one more stab at this before I move on.

Let me reiterate that I liked the first two Terminator movies just fine. They are both very good for what they are (a low-budget cult movie and a big budget actionpalooza). T3's not good, but it's watchable. This is where the repetition really begins to wear thin. Salvation at least attempted to do something new, but that's about all it had going for it. The execution was really poor on that one. Genisys tried to have its cake and eat it too with a reboot/sequel hybrid that disappointed most. I have heard Dark Fate isn't much better. It gets back to the original cast, but doesn't have anything new to say.

Your franchise summaries are comically broad. Yes, all the HP movies involve wizards and all the F&F movies have action scenes. That doesn't make them functionally copies of one another. Watch one of the Christopher Columbus Potters and compare it to one of the later entries in the franchise. They are radically different beasts.

Most sequels are unnecessary. It's especially hard to make a sequel to something like Jurassic Park because the premise has a problem baked into it. Why would anyone ever go back to the island? All of the JP sequels have struggled with this issue and I would argue that none of them have ever overcome it. Harry Potter and Fast & Furious are more open to sequels. Our heroes can have multiple adventures.

The Terminator also has a limiting premise. The entire story is told in the first movie. We know everything we need to know about this world by the time the credits roll. There's not a lot of drama left in the war between man and machines when you know going in how it's going to end. The heroic John Connor will lead humanity to victory. If you deviate from that, you're not really making a Terminator movie anymore. Might as well call it something else. But if you stick to it, you're very limited in the stories you can tell.

Cameron seemed to be aware of that which is why he basically retold the same story in T2 but with bigger action and special effects. Audiences watching the revolutionary CGI in T2 weren't all that concerned that Cameron was hitting the same story beats. The action scenes were next level. Very few sci-fi action movies, Terminator or otherwise, could touch what Cameron did with T2. Which is why Schwarzenegger's career suffered post T2 and why Cameron never revisited the series. There's no story left to tell.

People have argued with me that you could tell stories about the post-apocalyptic period before humanity's ultimate victory. You can, but why? We know the outcome already. You'd be better off setting your story in a new world which isn't constrained by Cameron's prophesy. He doesn't have a copyright on killer robots. Do something new. You could also set a story after the machines are defeated, but again, why not just do something original at that point?

Most of this more relevant to the movie franchise itself than it is to Universal theme parks. The best fit for a theme park attraction is more complicated than the subjective quality of the source material and its ability to generate infinite sequels. For example, no movie series is as evergreen as James Bond, but it would be challenging to build a 007-themed land.

I started this conversation by suggesting that Terminator probably isn't as relevant as a lot of its diehard fans think it is. The soft box office performance of Dark Fate this weekend supports my argument. Once you get past the people who grew up on the original movies, it doesn't have a lot of devotees.

I think the front of the park could have used a ride more than a show. with the addition of "Bourne" the first 2 attractions on the right are still shows. "The Secret Life of Pets" ride would have been a much better addition.

Plus Production Central already has Shrek which is just like Minion's. Give us something that's not run of the mill and like the attractions right next to it.

They have to work within the existing footprint. That building couldn't house a dark ride. It was built for a show.
 

OG Runner

Well-Known Member
I don't want to beat a dead horse to the point where everyone else here is banging their heads against a wall. But I'll take one more stab at this before I move on.

Let me reiterate that I liked the first two Terminator movies just fine. They are both very good for what they are (a low-budget cult movie and a big budget actionpalooza). T3's not good, but it's watchable. This is where the repetition really begins to wear thin. Salvation at least attempted to do something new, but that's about all it had going for it. The execution was really poor on that one. Genisys tried to have its cake and eat it too with a reboot/sequel hybrid that disappointed most. I have heard Dark Fate isn't much better. It gets back to the original cast, but doesn't have anything new to say.

Your franchise summaries are comically broad. Yes, all the HP movies involve wizards and all the F&F movies have action scenes. That doesn't make them functionally copies of one another. Watch one of the Christopher Columbus Potters and compare it to one of the later entries in the franchise. They are radically different beasts.

Most sequels are unnecessary. It's especially hard to make a sequel to something like Jurassic Park because the premise has a problem baked into it. Why would anyone ever go back to the island? All of the JP sequels have struggled with this issue and I would argue that none of them have ever overcome it. Harry Potter and Fast & Furious are more open to sequels. Our heroes can have multiple adventures.

The Terminator also has a limiting premise. The entire story is told in the first movie. We know everything we need to know about this world by the time the credits roll. There's not a lot of drama left in the war between man and machines when you know going in how it's going to end. The heroic John Connor will lead humanity to victory. If you deviate from that, you're not really making a Terminator movie anymore. Might as well call it something else. But if you stick to it, you're very limited in the stories you can tell.

Cameron seemed to be aware of that which is why he basically retold the same story in T2 but with bigger action and special effects. Audiences watching the revolutionary CGI in T2 weren't all that concerned that Cameron was hitting the same story beats. The action scenes were next level. Very few sci-fi action movies, Terminator or otherwise, could touch what Cameron did with T2. Which is why Schwarzenegger's career suffered post T2 and why Cameron never revisited the series. There's no story left to tell.

People have argued with me that you could tell stories about the post-apocalyptic period before humanity's ultimate victory. You can, but why? We know the outcome already. You'd be better off setting your story in a new world which isn't constrained by Cameron's prophesy. He doesn't have a copyright on killer robots. Do something new. You could also set a story after the machines are defeated, but again, why not just do something original at that point?

Most of this more relevant to the movie franchise itself than it is to Universal theme parks. The best fit for a theme park attraction is more complicated than the subjective quality of the source material and its ability to generate infinite sequels. For example, no movie series is as evergreen as James Bond, but it would be challenging to build a 007-themed land.

I started this conversation by suggesting that Terminator probably isn't as relevant as a lot of its diehard fans think it is. The soft box office performance of Dark Fate this weekend supports my argument. Once you get past the people who grew up on the original movies, it doesn't have a lot of devotees.



They have to work within the existing footprint. That building couldn't house a dark ride. It was built for a show.

Hi. Totally serious here. I thought they actually redid much of the building itself for the new show. If they wanted to put
a dark ride there couldn't they have extended out of the back of the building? Just asking.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Hi. Totally serious here. I thought they actually redid much of the building itself for the new show. If they wanted to put
a dark ride there couldn't they have extended out of the back of the building? Just asking.
Some major work was done, but expanding the building in the back would be a bigger challenge as it is already right at a major fire access road for the park.
 

Frankenstein79

Well-Known Member
They have to work within the existing footprint. That building couldn't house a dark ride. It was built for a show.

I just think it's all set up wrong. They've got 3 shows as the first 3 attractions on the right (Bourne, Monster Makeup and Animal Actors). There should be more rides on the right as you come in.

Fine, if they need to keep it as a theater. Then they should turn "Production Central" into "Illumination Central" and make it a part of it. This way they can put "Sing" in the theater and replace Shrek with a "Life of Pets" attraction.
 

JT3000

Well-Known Member
I just think it's all set up wrong. They've got 3 shows as the first 3 attractions on the right (Bourne, Monster Makeup and Animal Actors). There should be more rides on the right as you come in.

Fine, if they need to keep it as a theater. Then they should turn "Production Central" into "Illumination Central" and make it a part of it. This way they can put "Sing" in the theater and replace Shrek with a "Life of Pets" attraction.

Animal Actors is nearly in the back of the park, hardly one of the first attractions you come across. And while it would make sense to have SLOP across from Minions, Bourne is in Hollywood, not Production Central.
 

Frankenstein79

Well-Known Member
Animal Actors is nearly in the back of the park, hardly one of the first attractions you come across. And while it would make sense to have SLOP across from Minions, Bourne is in Hollywood, not Production Central.

It is the 3rd thing you come to on the right, which seems ridiculous for a park. Shows should be sprinkled throughout a park, not at the front.

And as for Bourne I said "Make it a part of it (Illumination Central)".
 

OG Runner

Well-Known Member
DHS has two shows right when you walk in too with Indy and Frozen. Little Mermaid is right there also really. I think you’re making up this weird stipulation for show locations.

I should just stay on the sidelines, but the Indy show is actually farther from the front of the park than the Little Mermaid, and neither is
really near the front of the park, also none of the shows are right in the same area, which I think was the point being made. Honestly,
I don't think it matters.
 

JT3000

Well-Known Member
It is the 3rd thing you come to on the right, which seems ridiculous for a park. Shows should be sprinkled throughout a park, not at the front.

That's like saying Men in Black is only the 5th or 6th thing you come across on the right (if you skipped Kidzone). It's still the back of the park, not the front. There's also no one forcing you to do the attractions in that order. You could've easily gone to Transformers after Horror Make-up.

And as for Bourne I said "Make it a part of it (Illumination Central)".

Okay, but there's no point in doing that. Hollywood works just fine as a separate land (it at least has theming), and where is the demand for a Sing attraction?
 
Last edited:

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom