All things Universal Studios Hollywood

T

Touchdown

Well-Known Member
Professortango1 said:
Sounds pretty niche to me. Nintendo is a huge miss for me as the area feels like a lesser Toontown and the one ride is so disappointing.

To have another land themed to generic cartoon world with another AR-based attraction looking at cartoon characters seems like a very dumb move. Almost as bad as another Fast and Furious-themed attraction. Nobody wants to step into the world of F & F. It's just warehouses and urban decay.

I'd much prefer a version of the Universal Monsters land we are seeing at Epic. Or NYC with Ghostbusters and Ninja Turtle.

They definitely need something besides Harry Potter to draw me in and Pokemon is just doubling down on what we already have with Mario. I don't want more of the same,.
Click to expand...
I think you don’t appreciate how big Pokemon is. It’s literally bigger than Mickey Mouse (this is the only IP where that is true.) Between the mainline games, Pokemon Go, and the card game its reach is enormous. Look at what Mario did for USH, Pokémon will be bigger.
 
mickEblu

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
So you wanna tell me that today’s penny pinching, spreadsheet worshipping regime would get rid of Pooh for a Country Bears return or an Ewok ride? That’s hard to be believe. That would only happen if they moved Pooh somewhere else. I heard one random rumor of Pooh being moved to Pinocchio but that sounds awful in every way.
 
mickEblu

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
Agent H said:
Because a. No one had thought of something like that yet and b. What would that even look like?
Click to expand...

Just pointing out that revenue didn’t rule every decision in the past. If so we would have had a Mickey Mouse land. The focus was on transportive placemaking. But things change. Clearly, a Pokémon land would do well. But I’m not sure there is anything inherently about that world that I need to see in a theme park setting. So many other properties that would lends themselves to a theme park attraction or land much better.
 
Agent H

Agent H

Well-Known Member
mickEblu said:
Just pointing out that revenue didn’t rule every decision in the past. If so we would have had a Mickey Mouse land. The focus was on transportive placemaking. But things change. Clearly, a Pokémon land would do well. But I’m not sure there is anything inherently about that world that I need to see in a theme park setting. So many other properties that would lends themselves to a theme park attraction or land much better.
Click to expand...
I’d still take Pokémon over Simpsons and I’m not even a Pokémon fan.
 
mickEblu

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
Phroobar said:
Star Wars comes in after Winnie the Pooh. Princesses after that. That is why the country bears had to leave for Pooh.
Click to expand...

Right and I can see how moving Pooh (key word moving) for more Star Wars in general might appeal to them but I don’t think Ewoks would necessarily be the needle mover and merch mover that would make the hassle worth it for them. Especially if the plan is to move Pooh to Fantasyland which I hope is not true. That would be a lot of dollars spent on a couple C tickets and a net gain of 0 attractions. Now maybe if you re putting in an a speeder bike coaster that sort of launches into the expansion pad at DL Forward like @britain suggested that might be worth the hassle. Of course all while maintaining the ambiance of Bayou Country or whatever rustic part of GE that would be. Don’t want to see any steel coaster tracks overhead.
 
Gusey

Gusey

Well-Known Member
mickEblu said:
Just pointing out that revenue didn’t rule every decision in the past. If so we would have had a Mickey Mouse land. The focus was on transportive placemaking. But things change. Clearly, a Pokémon land would do well. But I’m not sure there is anything inherently about that world that I need to see in a theme park setting. So many other properties that would lends themselves to a theme park attraction or land much better.
Click to expand...
Toontown?
They're building a Pokemon attraction at Universal Studios Japan. I don't think an actual Pokemon land is in the works, just the attraction, but Food Boulevard (the Simpsons food) would need to be replaced if Simpsons leave
 
mickEblu

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
Gusey said:
Toontown?
They're building a Pokemon attraction at Universal Studios Japan. I don't think an actual Pokemon land is in the works, just the attraction, but Food Boulevard (the Simpsons food) would need to be replaced if Simpsons leave
Click to expand...

I think a standalone attraction works but what do they do with Springfield? It clearly has to be a mini land of some sort.

Toontown opened in 1993. I was talking about the 50s. It’s also not really “Mickey Mouse” land as he shares the space with the Fab 5 and Roger but point taken. Roger from what I understand was more the catalyst for Toontown. Also the land, even if my not my favorite at the park, accomplishes what it sets out do. What I was getting at is the intention and motivation behind what gets chosen to be built has shifted in a major way since Disneylands opening.
 
milordsloth

milordsloth

Well-Known Member
Gusey said:
Toontown?
They're building a Pokemon attraction at Universal Studios Japan. I don't think an actual Pokemon land is in the works, just the attraction, but Food Boulevard (the Simpsons food) would need to be replaced if Simpsons leave
Click to expand...
Do you have a source for the pokemon attraction in Japan? I'm having trouble finding any details.
 
Professortango1

Professortango1

Well-Known Member
Touchdown said:
I think you don’t appreciate how big Pokemon is. It’s literally bigger than Mickey Mouse (this is the only IP where that is true.) Between the mainline games, Pokemon Go, and the card game its reach is enormous. Look at what Mario did for USH, Pokémon will be bigger.
Click to expand...
I appreciate how big the franchise is monetarily. Because....the entire franchise exists to sell cards. "Gotta catch (buy) them all." There are kiosks at all of my local supermarkets next to the defunct Redbox Machines.

But that doesn't mean the franchise is a good fit for a theme park land. Or a ride. Especially at USH.

When I google image search Pokemon, I just get a bunch of pictures of the different animals we can use in cockfighting. The occasional picture shows some grass or blue sky in the background. I search Ghostbusters and see the Ghostbusters with different cityscapes, the firehouse, the lab. I search Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle and I see them in sewers and on rooftops and the Technodrome.

Pokemon isn't a franchise that seems to have a varied and interesting world to step into. It would be like Disney creating a land themed to Turning Red. Sure, I enjoy the film, but the setting is just a modern Canadian city.

Springfield is iconic. Jurassic Park/World is iconic. Nintendo, despite looking like cheap Toontown, is iconic.
 
Gusey

Gusey

Well-Known Member
mickEblu said:
I think a standalone attraction works but what do they do with Springfield? It clearly has to be a mini land of some sort.

Toontown opened in 1993. I was talking about the 50s. It’s also not really “Mickey Mouse” land as he shares the space with the Fab 5 and Roger but point taken. Roger from what I understand was more the catalyst for Toontown. Also the land, even if my not my favorite at the park, accomplishes what it sets out do. What I was getting at is the intention and motivation behind what gets chosen to be built has shifted in a major way since Disneylands opening.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah definitely. I do think it was Star Tours and Toontown in the late 80s, early 90s that began the move to building attractions based on popular IPs. Before Star Tours, the original theme for the attraction going into that space was The Black Hole but Tony Baxter complained about its popularity and asked if they could get Star Tours (the more popular Sci-Fi movie). It may not be an obvious IP mandate as it is now, but it definitely began with Eisner
 
Gusey

Gusey

Well-Known Member
mickEblu

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
Gusey said:
Oh yeah definitely. I do think it was Star Tours and Toontown in the late 80s, early 90s that began the move to building attractions based on popular IPs. Before Star Tours, the original theme for the attraction going into that space was The Black Hole but Tony Baxter complained about its popularity and asked if they could get Star Tours (the more popular Sci-Fi movie). It may not be an obvious IP mandate as it is now, but it definitely began with Eisner
Click to expand...

Right and they worked great as standalone attractions. I’m not anti IP. When it comes to theme parks they have finite places to expand so I think picking IP that don’t have interesting or transportive settings is kind of criminal. All I want is the following…


1. IP chosen fits in the land /surrounding area
2. More of a mix between single IP lands and broader themed lands that allow for more of a variety of IP
3. Setting of chosen IP is transportive. Ideally of another time and place.
4. No Single IP lands in castle parks but if they must go in, I’d prefer they are outside of the berm or tucked away in corners.
5. Give us the fan favorite characters, recognizable settings, music, story beats of said IP. No original off brand stuff.
 
Gusey

Gusey

Well-Known Member
mickEblu said:
Right and they worked great as standalone attractions. I’m not anti IP. When it comes to theme parks they have finite places to expand so I think picking IP that don’t have interesting or transportive settings is kind of criminal. All I want is the following…


1. IP chosen fits in the land /surrounding area
2. More of a mix between single IP lands and broader themed lands that allow for more of a variety of IP
3. Setting of chosen IP is transportive. Ideally of another time and place.
4. No Single IP lands in castle parks but if they must go in, I’d prefer they are outside of the berm or tucked away in corners.
5. Give us the fan favorite characters, recognizable settings, music, story beats of said IP. No original off brand stuff.
Click to expand...
I definitely agree that IPs shouldn't be shoehorned. When it comes to IP, I want to see iconic characters and transported to iconic sights if they exist (something Back to the Future and Simpsons did well). A pokemon attraction would have to have the iconic Pokemon characters. I'm not too familiar with Pokemon but I do think a Pokemon Snap attraction that's a dark ride where you're finding iconic pokemon could be a good addition to a Universal park
 
britain

britain

Well-Known Member
Just a thought, maybe Pooh is marked for removal from Bayou Country simply because they want a WIDE path to the DL forward expansion area.

Just removing the Pooh Corner shops might not be sufficient.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom