Am I the only one who thinks that the Simpsons is a very slowly dying franchise not relevant to today's teens? IMO, the only reason why Disney would build a Simpsons attraction is because it's a legacy franchise for older adults. I actually put Aerosmith coaster in the same category....it would be dead if it wasn't for being an awesome coaster. (and yes, I'm an Aerosmith fan)
Looking at Fox's movie portfolio, based on gross sales, there are few - if any - franchises worth investing in for permanent theme park attractions. You need to be popular yesterday, today and tomorrow for an IP to resonate with mass audiences.
Let's dissect Universal Epic rumored lands because it's a working case study of new IP attractions:
The common theme here is (1) time - anywhere from decades to generations and (2) future - guaranteed to have future releases to constantly stimulate interest.
- Classic Monsters: iconic, timeless stories re-made over generations and possibility for strong future reboots
- Nintendo World: arguably the most famous and iconic video game franchise ever across cultures and generations, constantly rebooting and updating on newer and newer gaming platforms for youths/adults to enjoy
- How to Train your Dragon: One of Paramount's most successful franchises - starting 10 years ago and likely sequels in the future. Also pretty obvious that Universal has dibs on Paramount properties.
- Fantastic Beasts: While very new, it piggybacks off of the huge HP franchise. It's also heavily relying on the 2021 release.
TDL;DR Fox's movie portfolio is worthless for theme park attractions IMO
A good IP can help with interest in an attraction, but it can't save bad rides and bad implementation.
A good ride can keep old, past-their-prime, and even problematic IPs popular.
Otherwise, by your theory, Fast and Furious is a theme park knockout.