Lord of the Rings: Return of the Rumor

[Disneyhead'71]

If Universal does build a LOTR land, I hope to god it DOESN'T base it on any of the movies (especially the dreadful "Hobbit" flick). I hope Universal bases it on the books, and on The Hobbit in particular. I could see a Hobbit village in the park, with shops and an "inn" that serves Second Breakfast (i.e. brunch) and a Smaug's Mountain ride with a killer AA dragon. It's fun to think about...

Universal already has a close working relationship with Peter Jackson (See: Kong), Warner Bros. (See: Potter), and Weta Workshop/Digital (founded by Peter Jackson). Sooo...

And I pretty sure that the land would be called Middle Earth (instead of LotR land or The Hobbit land) and include both stories.

What they won't do is base it on the Amazon series, invent an entirely new never mentioned before location, and lock it into a singular time period that excludes all the popular characters.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

if they really wanted a magical fantasy land.

Haven't they had that since 1971?

Or other ideas since the 90s?

 

[lebeau]

What they won't do is base it on the Amazon series, invent an entirely new never mentioned before location, and lock it into a singular time period that excludes all the popular characters.

Who would do such a thing!?

 

[peng]

People on the IU forums are speculating that it is a fake leak put out as a way to crack down on leakers. Some people who are/were insiders have said that universal has redone most of their confidentiality training, specifically for non-NBCU IPs recently and have changed the way they communicate in that department. Someone on there mentioned that leaks for last year's HHN caused a outside partner to pull out and that UC was ed off about how accurate the mock up videos of the Hagrid coaster were. That and since this has been a popular rumor for the last decade, why not bring it back to get rid of them.

 

[King Racoon 77]

Ya, I can't imagine Comcast would shell out $200-300 million in licensing fees and then not do anything with them. If Uni has the rights, I'm sure we would already see Hobbit t-shirts, Hobbit beer, and second breakfast in the parks. That's a huge expense to hide without any profit associated with it.

I'm not sure why this rumor pops up every 2 years. Makes me wonder if there is a time window when the Tolkien estate allows new proposals. Someone seems some new Uni concept artwork for a proposal and suddenly the rumors become true again.

Some of us might already be having second breakfasts in the parks

 

[Stripes]

Exactly. This doesn’t pass the smell test. LotR doesn’t really add anything the parks don’t already have. It would make more sense for Disney to buy the rights if they really wanted a magical fantasy land.

J.R.R. Tolkien hated Disney's films and I believe forbade his works from ever touching the House of Mouse. He probably wouldn't want his work adapted at any theme park, but I don't think there is any public info regarding his opinions on theme parks. (He strikes me as the type of person who would absolutely loathe the idea, but I'm not a mind reader.)

He was a rather snobbish person. After seeing Snow White in theaters, CS Lewis and Tolkien pondered what the film would've been if its creator had been raised in a "civilized society."

 

[Disneyhead'71]

J.R.R. Tolkien hated Disney's films and I believe forbade his works from ever touching the House of Mouse. He probably wouldn't want his work adapted at any theme park, but I don't think there is any public info regarding his opinions on theme parks. (He strikes me as the type of person who would absolutely loathe the idea, but I'm not a mind reader.)

He was a rather snobbish person. After seeing Snow White in theaters, CS Lewis and Tolkien pondered what the film would've been if its creator had been raised in a "civilized society."

It was actually in Tolkien's will that Disney would never ever touch any of his creations.

 

[BubbaQuest]

With that logic, shouldn't we already be drinking Mario Sake-tinis at UOR?

Hopefully in 4 months! (USJ)

 

[The_Jobu]

I heard recently that Uni is not allowed to build a LOTR land because I would spend too much money there and cant afford it.

Take it as you will.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

I heard recently that Uni is not allowed to build a LOTR land because I would spend too much money there and cant afford it.

Take it as you will.

Yep, Uni would definitely hate for you to go to their park and spend all your monies there.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Let's keep in mind that that kind of hype led to underwhelming openings at the SWLs.

I would say that Uni could learn from Disney's mistake and not open a LotR land without being totally ready, but... Hagrid's.

 

[JT3000]

People on the IU forums are speculating that it is a fake leak put out as a way to crack down on leakers. Some people who are/were insiders have said that universal has redone most of their confidentiality training, specifically for non-NBCU IPs recently and have changed the way they communicate in that department. Someone on there mentioned that leaks for last year's HHN caused a outside partner to pull out and that UC was ****ed off about how accurate the mock up videos of the Hagrid coaster were. That and since this has been a popular rumor for the last decade, why not bring it back to get rid of them.

I'm not sure what they were expecting with Hagrid's. The more accurate mock-up videos had less to do with leaked information and more to do with the ability to see most of the ride from above. So... not much they could've done there, except maybe shoot down all helicopters within the park's airspace, but that seems a tad extreme.

Let's keep in mind that that kind of hype led to underwhelming openings at the SWLs.

I would say that Uni could learn from Disney's mistake and not open a LotR land without being totally ready, but... Hagrid's.

It wasn't hype that led to an underwhelming SWGE opening, it was the fact that they designed & built a Star Wars land that wasn't Star Wars. Not the Star Wars people wanted anyway. IF Universal were to create a LOTR land, I think it's safe to assume they wouldn't make that same mistake. There would probably be some debate over whether or not they should copy the aesthetic of the films (which you know they would), but that's about it.

 

[MisterPenguin]

It wasn't hype that led to an underwhelming SWGE opening, it was the fact that they designed & built a Star Wars land that wasn't Star Wars. Not the Star Wars people wanted anyway.

And yet, now that it is complete, it has the crowds.

 

[JT3000]

And yet, now that it is complete, it has the crowds.

Should've opened complete. We'll see how long it actually lasts past the holidays season.

 

[Master Yoda]

Should've opened complete.

I would agree.

We'll see how long it actually lasts past the holidays season.

This is a picture I pulled from Facebook that was taken at DHS at around 6:45 AM this morning. We are currently 5 days into value season so so far so good.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

I would agree.


This is a picture I pulled from Facebook that was taken at DHS at around 6:45 AM this morning. We are currently 5 days into value season so so far so good.

View attachment 439477

The issue now seems to be how this system is "front loading" the day. It looks like that at park opening, but by 3pm the park is starting to clear out. This issue will correct itself when they switch to FP+/Stand-by.

And the real question is how many folks in that picture will leave the park at 7:05am when they can't get a boarding group?

The one thing that has become apparent with the opening of RotR is that DHS is still woefully short on capacity. But we already knew that didn't we @marni1971 ?

 

[Jon81uk]

The one thing that has become apparent with the opening of RotR is that DHS is still woefully short on capacity. But we already knew that didn't we @marni1971 ?

Once Mickey railroad is open, the park will be OK for attractions as long as you remember there are 5-6 shows in the park as well as the rides. The shows are old and out-dated, but this has always been a park heavy on shows as attraction capacity.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Once Mickey railroad is open, the park will be OK for attractions as long as you remember there are 5-6 shows in the park as well as the rides. The shows are old and out-dated, but this has always been a park heavy on shows as attraction capacity.

The fact that it is over 30 years old and only has 8 rides (soon to be 9) rides in the most attended theme park resort on the planet is still a problem.

 

[Jon81uk]

The fact that it is over 30 years old and only has 8 rides (soon to be 9) rides in the most attended theme park resort on the planet is still a problem.

There are lots of reasons with DHS though, it was meant to be a working studio with a proper tram tour that would take several hours to experience, therefore the original park 30 years ago didn't need as many attractions. It took a long time for the park to move away from this and in the process it added a lot of shows and other attractions.
Rides aren't the only thing that are an attraction. If that is the main thinking then Epcot only has about seven attractions.

 

[Stripes]

There are lots of reasons with DHS though, it was meant to be a working studio with a proper tram tour that would take several hours to experience, therefore the original park 30 years ago didn't need as many attractions. It took a long time for the park to move away from this and in the process it added a lot of shows and other attractions.
Rides aren't the only thing that are an attraction. If that is the main thinking then Epcot only has about seven attractions.

Yep. When it comes to capacity, shows pull a lot more guests through than a lot of ride attractions. For citing capacity issues, one should absolutely consider shows as capacity increasing attractions. Also the quality of the average attraction is important for park capacity (queues are the most dense cluster of guests). The average ride at DHS is much more popular than the average ride at say USO. So while USO may have 4 more rides, the difference in park capacity is much smaller.