Nubs70
Well-Known Member
Growing, evolving, progress, continuous improvement..... life is not static.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Disney plans to accelerate Parks investment to $60 billion over 10 years
- Thread starter CaptainAmerica
- Start date
USF is in drastic need of an update and Universal knows it. I expect once Epic opens for that park to get the attention it needs. However it’s not all doom and gloom for the USF until that point, here’s how USF will limp through the transition period: Entertainment.
USF is getting a new night parade and night show this summer, it’s not announced yet but they have been installing new fountains in their lagoon and just put out a casting notice for parade performers starting in July. People also forget that USF has two, massive, highly attended and beloved (not to mention profitable,) seasonal events: HHN and Mardi Gras. People will still flock to that park during those times. It will probably still take a hit but between those offerings and the incredible pull of wanting to ride the Hogwarts Express will do fine.
Long term it’s all about the electric rat and his hundreds of friends. I think it still flys under the radar with us adults but Pokémon is a phenomenon with preteens. It is the most profitable and popular IP in the world, more the Mickey, the Princesses, Mario, everything. Placing a well done Pokemon Land in USF could have a similar impact to the first Harry Potter Land. The reason it hadn’t happened yet is that Pokemon is a joint venture between Nintendo and Game Freak (the game’s developer) and thus needed a different rights agreement to the other Nintendo properties (which Universal obtained just prior to the pandemic.) While I would love Zelda to come first, it would be a much smarter business decision to roll out Pokemon next and place it in the park that needs the most help.
USF is getting a new night parade and night show this summer, it’s not announced yet but they have been installing new fountains in their lagoon and just put out a casting notice for parade performers starting in July. People also forget that USF has two, massive, highly attended and beloved (not to mention profitable,) seasonal events: HHN and Mardi Gras. People will still flock to that park during those times. It will probably still take a hit but between those offerings and the incredible pull of wanting to ride the Hogwarts Express will do fine.
Long term it’s all about the electric rat and his hundreds of friends. I think it still flys under the radar with us adults but Pokémon is a phenomenon with preteens. It is the most profitable and popular IP in the world, more the Mickey, the Princesses, Mario, everything. Placing a well done Pokemon Land in USF could have a similar impact to the first Harry Potter Land. The reason it hadn’t happened yet is that Pokemon is a joint venture between Nintendo and Game Freak (the game’s developer) and thus needed a different rights agreement to the other Nintendo properties (which Universal obtained just prior to the pandemic.) While I would love Zelda to come first, it would be a much smarter business decision to roll out Pokemon next and place it in the park that needs the most help.
Life is turbocharged!!!
Andrew25
Well-Known Member
I think people will be surprised by what and how quickly Universal will act post-Epic with their current parks.
USF will become "Epcot" in that it'll still remain busy with seasonal events and locals treating it as "their park" filled with nostalgia. IOA might have the better slate of attractions, but USF is still good.
In addition to entertainment, we're getting a "new" kids land this year that will be a "quick" hit for Universal. There's also one project that might be happening far sooner than people think once Epic construction starts to die off later this year and onto early 2025.
Brer Oswald
Well-Known Member
Pokémon is the largest media franchise in the world, so opening up a theme park land in America would in fact be a “game changer”.
el_super
Well-Known Member
How? Creatively? Universal has been buying out IP to fill their parks for 25 years now. It's basically their standard MO now. And thinking it's some kind of creative leap, is same thing people said about them buying into Marvel or Harry Potter or Mario.
Financially? Again probably not. Generally here the problem is one of demographics and there isn't a lot of overlap between the group that "loves Pokemon so much they would travel to a Pokemon themed amusement park" and "people who do not currently attend a theme park." The target demographic of people that like Pokemon is probably pretty close to the same one they already captured with Mario and are thusly already attending the park.
Pokemon will be good at maintaining their numbers and keeping people interested as their other properties wane, but a game changer? Probably not. It's not going to be the kind of radical change that is going to force Disney to go out and buy Digimon.... unless they already do. They own a lot.
Andrew25
Well-Known Member
Key point here. Universal's original MO was to tackle the pre-teen/teen/young adult crowd... that has shifted and will continue to shift dramatically over the next few years.
While Epic will still lean towards the more thrilling crowd, we're getting a solid slate of family-friendly additions. The Zelda/Pokemon rumors are also all leaning towards family-friendly experiences... so Universal is certainly shifting towards that audience.
Brer Oswald
Well-Known Member
Not just the 7-13 crowd. The 7-30 crowd. Large amounts of people born in the 90s onward have nostalgia for at least one generation of Pokémon. It’s one of those rare franchises that transcends generations, and it’s showing no signs of stopping. It’s about as safe of a bet as one could make.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
… Except that they still make rides with ridiculous height requirements if they’re actually trying to target a younger demographic, even in lands like Super Mario World.
Andrew25
Well-Known Member
Oh believe me, that is still an issue with Universal along with unnecessary restraints on attractions like Secret Life of Pets, a slow moving omnimover.
Universal has defined themselves as the place for thrill seekers... now they need to go big on family experiences that don't sit you in front of a screen and shake you. The Pokemon/Zelda plans sound like it'll be mostly non-screen with more inclusive ride systems.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
Potter was a game changer. Star wars was supposed to be a game changer but hasn't come anywhere close to it. Nintendo could very well be, and with Pokemon, I wouldn't bet against it. Of course it's always just one more project. Things are always evolving, as they should be.
If they can nail a Pokemon Snap Safari ride with mostly animatronics and a gamified twist (maybe having you control a camera and photos be judged along the ride) and present a Sword/Shield style gym battle show with special effects on top of a bunch of meet and greets that land will print money.
el_super
Well-Known Member
Maybe? Kind of? It seems like some are overusing the term game changer here. They just seem like regular moves to me.
Not really fair to say something like Potter was a game changer but Galaxy's Edge was not. Disney's business model changed drastically after the opening of Galaxy's Edge. Doesn't seem like "game changer" is being used consistently.
Andrew25
Well-Known Member
We can go back and forth about the quality of the lands/attractions/etc... but almost everyone in the industry will agree that Potter changed the theme park industry whether you personally like it or not.
It's been nearly 15 years since Hogsmeade opened, and Butterbeer still gets long lines throughout the land... and they serve it at multiple locations. There's maybe 2 people in line for Blue Milk at any given time lol
Hogsmeade on its owned caused a construction boom at Universal to not just build additional Potter lands, but more importantly, additional onsite hotel capacity and a water park.
Galaxy's Edge is a great product (again, we can argue about all the land's details/missing elements/etc.), but it's not a "game-changer" by any means as it takes what was learned from Hogsmeade but just turned it into Star Wars.
el_super
Well-Known Member
If you lower the bar to say Harry Potter was a game changer, then you absolutely must accept that Galaxy's Edge has changed the game as well. Disney has re-tooled their entire entrance admission media model, became less reliant on AP sales and revenue, overall revalued their entire product, and offered more line management and crowd management systems all because of Galaxy's Edge. It has worked so well for them, that they have found a path toward investing another $60 billion dollars in parks, because they know they can recoup that money in additional admissions at their re-valued rate.
This entire thread exists because of the success of Galaxy's Edge. How is that not a game changer? Denying one but not the other just seems inconsistent.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
Is this satire?
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
I hope so! Remember how they abandoned the virtual queuing system for SWGE on day one?
Talk about misreading the demand…