• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

News Disney to heavily reduce Capital Expenditures in the parks throughout 2020 during COVID-19 crisis

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Oh, I absolutely think Nintendo is valuable for Universal. I expect it to be a big success. I just don't think it's comparable to IPs like Star Wars and Harry Potter in terms of overall interest. Video games are a niche compared to books and movies -- especially back in the 1980s and 1990s. Less so today. It's much easier/more likely for someone to watch a couple of movies and become a fan of an IP than it is for someone to spend the money to buy a video game system and a game that they weren't already interested in.
I think it will do well...a strong foundation for that park

But I think a lot of that parks appeal will be where else they get their idea from? What else is planned.

I will say that there is a stark contrast - to me - between the environment/popularity in potterland and what I saw in Anaheim.

I’d say Disney earned more laurels with pandora...which doesn’t support the “bigger franchise” theory
 

mellyf

Active Member
Advertisement
I think you're dramatically overestimating Nintendo.

It's very successful in the video game world (although not as successful as stuff like Grand Theft Auto), but it doesn't even compare to things like Harry Potter and Star Wars.

Maybe someone else has said this (I still have a couple more pages to go), but I think when it comes down to it, it will depend on the rides, not the IP. Just like FoP. I couldn't care less about Avatar (the movie), but the ride is a whole different ballgame.

To be honest, the one I'm most excited about is the classic monsters land. I grew up on Creature Features. :D :D

Btw, it completely annoys me that I still have "New Member" below my username. I will acknowledge that I very rarely post, but I've been a member of the forum since 2013. :)
 
Last edited:

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
I think it will do well...a strong foundation for that park

But I think a lot of that parks appeal will be where else they get their idea from? What else is planned.

I will say that there is a stark contrast - to me - between the environment/popularity in potterland and what I saw in Anaheim.

I’d say Disney earned more laurels with pandora...which doesn’t support the “bigger franchise” theory

It's always going to come down to execution. If the execution is poor, the best you can hope for is an early surge of people coming to see it when it first opens, which would then die down quickly as word spreads.

If the execution is very good or great, the IP doesn't really matter. People will want to see it because they hear how about the quality. Pandora is a prime example -- I don't know if I'd call it great, but it's certainly good. I enjoyed it and I've never even seen Avatar.
 

A Noble Fish

Well-Known Member
I didn't say I wanted Grand Theft Auto in a theme park, but Grand Theft Auto V sold 120 million copies. Breath of the Wild has sold around 18 million. Nintendo's best ever selling game was the original Super Mario Brothers which came packaged in with most Nintendos, and that was still only about 63 million.

Mario and Pokemon are absolutely big properties and should definitely be a boost for Universal, but they're just not comparable to a property like Harry Potter.
I'd argue that the most valuable theme park properties/features are (not the property value in general) are:
  1. Location
  2. Quality
  3. Good economic environment
  4. Company Brand (What is the consumer expecting? Disney, Universal, SeaWorld, Legoland, Six Flags, etc.)
  5. Demographic Skew
  6. Mickey Mouse & Friends
  7. Star Wars
  8. Harry Potter
  9. Nintendo (Super Mario Bros., Legend of Zelda, etc.)
  10. Disney's non-IP rides as viewed from the public (Space Mountain, Splash Mountain, Big Thunder, Haunted Mansion, It's a Small World)
  11. Pokémon
  12. Looney Tunes & Merry Melodies
  13. Lord of the Rings
  14. Batman
  15. Marvel Cinematic Universe (I don't think its BO returns necessarly show its theme park pull 1:1, but it definitely still has reach)
  16. Game of Thrones
  17. Spider-Man
  18. Pirates of the Caribbean
  19. Jurassic Park
  20. Avatar
  21. Toy Story
  22. Frozen
  23. Beauty and the Beast
  24. The Lion King
  25. Aladdin
  26. Alice in Wonderland
  27. Indiana Jones
  28. 007
  29. Star Trek
  30. Alien
  31. Hunger Games
  32. Hanna Barbera
  33. Lego
  34. Minecraft
  35. The Muppets
  36. Winnie the Pooh
  37. Jaws
  38. The Jungle Book
  39. Cinderella
  40. Tarzan
  41. 101 Dalmatians
  42. Transformers
  43. Planet of the Apes
  44. E.T.
  45. Shrek
  46. Fast and Furious

The order is far from perfect, but I think it's a good starting point just jotting down my brief thoughts on the subject.

I think however, that IP's are not as important as quality. It is rarely the deciding indicator. Good economic regions, give high quality theme parks with a good brand a huge boost. That seems to be the rule, and while you will inevitably pull someone in with an IP, quality still comes first as history has shown us many, many times.

Loyal fanbases are a huge boost to broad market appeal. Potter still appeals to people who haven't seen the movies or books, but remember, it is also popular in the mainstream. Potter also has the luxery of being the crown jewel of Universal and what they have setup in Orlando in particular is something special. I went to Universal specifically because of how good I had heard Potter was even as I hadn't read the books or movies. If they did it like their Jurrasic Park land, which is by no means bad, it would have not have attracted nearly as many people.

Even untapped markets like video games such as Portal, Half-life, Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead, Fallout, and others could have huge potential, but are probably more built for a specific ride than an entire land. You also have to remember, not every IP translates well to a themed environment. Cars may be popular in terms of merchandise, but it's not necessarily beloved like the Lion King, but it works as a themed environment. Avatar as well. Yet, even something popular like the Fast & the Furious done poorly won't bring anyone in (though it's more 'cheap thrills' movie experience than a 'I want to step into this world!')

I still think Nintendo, Star Wars, Marvel, and DC Comics are the only ones that could anchor an entire high-quality park for a second, third, fourth, fifth, or whatever gate. Pixar and Disney Animation are in a unique spot with their theme park read beloved films, but I don't think they could go at it alone.

Also, parks featuring animals, sciences, and others can also pull in additional people to that niche. Adult skewing theme parks like DisneySea and EPCOT, balance out the more kid-focused Castle parks, and a park like Hollywood Studios or Islands of Adventure skew towards the young adult crowd. Parks also work better for a complete resort to have different themes instead of just movies properties.

Smaller, but with known mainstream appeal properties like Peanuts and the Muppets still have a place as well.

Those are my random thoughts, haha!
 

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
Follow the money (yes, it is global). I think many will be surprised what is number one.

Honestly if you are lumping "Nintendo" under a single umbrella -Pokemon+Mario- it's not really a contest.

In totality if you lump Disney together it's obviously the most valuable IP holding company. I don't think that would surprise anyone here. But Nintendo is certainly a very strong contender.




There are so many metrics that matter when discussing what is and isn't popular in a theme park. Generally speaking if something can generate a lot of cash in various media formats (like a Pokemon), one would expect it would translate also very nicely.
 

DVCakaCarlF

Well-Known Member
Disney has recently opened lands themed to Star Wars and Toy Story, and has upcoming rides to Guardians, Troy, and Rat. Universal is countering with How to Train a Dragon *land*, an underwhelming Fantastic Beasts land, classic monsters land, and a Nintendo land. (All rumored).

Universal's available IP isn't necessarily bad. Disney's advantage will always be more compelling IP. For better or worse that's why we see so much on Disney's side. Universal can drop the same ride as, say, Slinky Dog and brand it to How to Train Your Dragon and Slinky Dog would likely still draw more people. Universal will certainly take a short term bump, but I'd still question sustainability on IPs alone. Their likely best shot is to take the potter lands and scale lessons to an entire park to make people not care about attached IPs. But that's going to take buckets of money and is currently a huge financial risk.
Disney’s edge has been and only will be nostalgia.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Follow the money (yes, it is global). I think many will be surprised what is number one.

Honestly if you are lumping "Nintendo" under a single umbrella -Pokemon+Mario- it's not really a contest.

In totality if you lump Disney together it's obviously the most valuable IP holding company. I don't think that would surprise anyone here. But Nintendo is certainly a very strong contender.




There are so many metrics that matter when discussing what is and isn't popular in a theme park. Generally speaking if something can generate a lot of cash in various media formats (like a Pokemon), one would expect it would translate also very nicely.

I've looked that list before and I actually don't think it's that useful. Anything that has spread out into multiple avenues is automatically going to have an advantage -- Pokemon is at the top, but it also has the most sales avenues (video games, card games, TV shows, movies, etc.). Anything that's been around a very long time has an advantage too (although not a very big one, since inflation isn't generally considered in lists like this). The vast majority of Mario's revenue comes from video games (around $32 billion), and it's a lot of money, but it's from roughly 200 games. Grand Theft Auto V has made around $6 billion as a single game -- it's an outlier, of course, but individual Mario games aren't that profitable; there are just so many of them.

Winnie the Pooh is 4th. Does anyone think Winnie the Pooh is the 4th most valuable media property in the world? I don't think Disney would even consider it top 5 among their own properties; no one is going to pay them several billion dollars for the rights. And then there's Lord of the Rings, which has been artificially constrained by licensing limitations. If the Tolkien Estate just threw open their doors and let people make anything, it would skyrocket up the list (especially if it was done 20 years ago).

Anyways, again, this isn't to say that Pokemon and Mario aren't valuable. Pokemon is exceptionally valuable. Mario really isn't that valuable outside of video games, and even then, it's not really Mario himself that matters -- most people aren't buying the games specifically because they have Mario, but because they trust Nintendo to make good games -- but it's still valuable. There are just far too many factors at play for a list like that to tell you much of anything.
 

DVCakaCarlF

Well-Known Member
.


I'm sorry you must be old. Obviously you don't realize the number of followers of Nintendo there are. Star wars people are weird to put it politely.
I’m not “old,” and, for the record, I grew up with Nintendo playing robocop, Mario, etc...Star Wars is way more of a “culture” than Nintendo could ever be, domestically.
 

disney4life2008

Well-Known Member
I’m not “old,” and, for the record, I grew up with Nintendo playing robocop, Mario, etc...Star Wars is way more of a “culture” than Nintendo could ever be, domestically.

Negative. Star wars is for weird people. I remember I got stuck at Hollywood studios during a star wars weekend it was horrifying.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
.


I'm sorry you must be old. Obviously you don't realize the number of followers of Nintendo there are. Star wars people are weird to put it politely.

People really struggle to see outside of their own bubbles.

Nintendo has a nice, loyal fanbase, but it's just not that popular. Pokemon as its own IP is incredibly popular, although Nintendo only owns 1/3 of it.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Negative. Star wars is for weird people. I remember I got stuck at Hollywood studios during a star wars weekend it was horrifying.

There's a difference between the hardcore Star Wars fans and the regular, casual fans. Hardcore Nintendo fans could easily be described as weird too, and there's a solid amount of overlap between hardcore Star Wars fans and hardcore Nintendo fans. It's not like those two groups are mutually exclusive.

There are also far more casual Star Wars fans than casual Nintendo fans.
 

Quinnmac000

Well-Known Member
Remember when people said Star Wars land was going to be crazy popular to the point you didn't need to advertise yet the crowds didn't show up to that level like expected.

Whereas a coaster for HP had ten hour lines for days.

We don't know how popular things are going to be until they come out.
 

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

Top Bottom