Andrew C
You know what's funny?
What park works at opening....all have issues. Disneyland, Universal Studios Orlando, the original Jurassic Park....with the last one never recovering...
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Universal Epic Universe (South Expansion Complex) - Now Open!
- Thread starter Bob Harlem
- Start date
TalkToEthan
Well-Known Member
Ya I’m sure it does feel cheap……..
and because it likely was built with the lowest possible budget imaginable.
Where was that?????
I am sure the budget could’ve been even lower.
With that said, as a parent of a toddler, I absolutely love it. After a while, mommy and daddy need a beer while our kid burns off some energy. It is the perfect place for that.
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
Nature found a way
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Now what’s number actually one? I did this for a reason and it’s the reason Universal is driving me bonkers with their slow rolling of their major asset. It’s Pokemon. The entire Nintendo partnership was leaked to us in 2013 because they were circling around Pokemon. Yet here we are 12 years later and the franchise has absolutely exploded in several media spaces once more.
I have a feeling it’s not the most enthralling for those of you older than me - but it’s a fun fact you gave me a good opportunity to segue into it.
By the time UNI finishes building something Pokémon related in the USA it will have cultural relevance for everyone under 50.
TheCoasterNerd
Well-Known Member
Not a huge fan of Pokemon but I know a LOT of people who are. I think it'd be an easy win for them. Even if you're not a fan, or don't know much about it, it's still a very recognizable franchise and even beyond that just cute.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It’s not just Universal. The Pokémon Company is also part of the process and they’re not keen on Universal doing something and just plopping it everywhere. Of course one of the problems with DreamWorks Land is that it has now taken the plot that had historically been eyed for Pokémon at Universal Studios Florida.
Moth
Well-Known Member
The current rumors for Pokémon is the Springfield+World Expo plot with some small whispers that it could possibly hit the 20 acre expansion plot at EU.
If you ask me, Pokémon is one of the few IP, probably the only IP, that could hold a gate all on its own.
Agent H
Well-Known Member
A gate all its own? I’m not that familiar with the source material so correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think Pokémon has a lot of places to really visit.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
They’ve been having trouble coming up with like four different attractions.
Pokémon is another great example of how much because something works in a variety of other media doesn’t mean it will work in a themed experience, much less at the same scale. For as much different media exists, Pokémon is rooted in two core experiences: collecting and battling. Those two things are the heart of its major manifestations: the primary video games, the trading card game and even the animes.
Something truly grand really needs to deliver on those two aspects of the property which is not really possible with a physical experience because they don’t physically exist. There’s a definite appeal to the notion of “Pokémon in real life” (see Detectice Pikachu) which unfortunately pushes to much towards a bunch of static figures as set dressing due to cost limitations. Isle of Berk (see this is loosely related to the thread) may show a way forward with some of that, but something on the scale of Ryme City presents serious challenges.
Parks based on a narrow subject also face the problem of repetition. Again, the core aspects of the property are relatively the same. A park has to break away from the formula in the way side games do but while maintaining the broader appeal of the mainline games.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
There is no way. Despite having many varied locales, there is a purposeful homogeneity to everything that “works” in a game environment when you’re welcoming players back to something familiar but really doesn’t in a theme park where you’re likely looking for more variety.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
Perhaps in certain metrics. Visual design goes a long way too. Potter (and Avatar) have it in spades and I think that is helpful to make interesting environments. A very real criticism of HTTYD (beyond its name) is that it is inherently goofy. Though I do find it endearing, that’s probably my attachment to the material. It’s not pretty in the same sense that other things are upfront.
As per biggest franchises of all time. On the financial metrics it’s: Mickey and friends at 2, Winnie the Pooh at 3 (dominates infant merchandise), Disney Princesses at 4 and then Star Wars at 5. Contextually it all sort of makes sense why Disney is where it is. We kind of put various things on different scales, but at the end of the day Mickey brings people through the gate.
Now what’s number actually one? I did this for a reason and it’s the reason Universal is driving me bonkers with their slow rolling of their major asset. It’s Pokemon. The entire Nintendo partnership was leaked to us in 2013 because they were circling around Pokemon. Yet here we are 12 years later and the franchise has absolutely exploded in several media spaces once more.
I have a feeling it’s not the most enthralling for those of you older than me - but it’s a fun fact you gave me a good opportunity to segue into it.
Those numbers are mainly built around merchandise (and sometimes video game) sales, which I don't think is the most helpful metric for this discussion for a variety of reasons. Individuals get counted far too many times -- whales who are collectors and purchase huge amounts of merchandise, individuals who have purchased 25 different Mario branded games, etc., just as one issue.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that means they aren't massive IPs (they obviously are) just that I don't think those numbers are that useful in terms of judging a potential audience for a theme park land compared to other data points (Winnie the Pooh is obviously a good example of this in terms of why Disney hasn't built a Hundred Acre Wood land).
I'm pretty confident that Harry Potter has reached more people in terms of engaging with the underlying material than any of the franchises you mentioned between the books (which are arguably the most popular books ever written) and the movies. That's really what you're looking for in terms of drawing people in; you want the broadest reach possible to increase the potential audience. I don't think even a Pokemon land will comparable to HP in terms of being a draw (Nintendo certainly hasn't been, despite also generally being above HP on those franchise lists) -- not only because I think HP has a larger overall fan base, but also because it's more conducive to building a great themed experience.
I think HP is almost singular because of the combination of massive fanbase (one of the biggest, if not the biggest, of any IP) and the fact that the setting itself is part of the draw -- people want to be in those physical spaces. The actual setting isn't always a draw even when the IP is popular (this is a problem for Marvel, e.g.); HP has both (although they still really missed by not having an actual larger, explorable Hogwarts by now).
I pointed this out as an issue for the Nintendo land years ago -- not that it wouldn't be successful, but that it wasn't going to be at the level of Harry Potter. The Mushroom Kingdom etc. is more of a backdrop than a well-realized location. Most people that enjoy Mario games weren't wishing they could visit the setting, so that aspect of it isn't really a major draw.
Last edited:
WDWFREAK53
Well-Known Member
To really make a theme park land based on Pokemon work, I think you'd need an in-depth dark ride which explains what it is. Trainers, evolving, etc.
You have that all-encompassing attraction and then people who aren't fans of the franchise will understand the battle arenas, the different types, etc.
You "catch" Pokemon throughout the land (and within the attractions), and they get saved to your band (or Pokeballs). As you collect more, you can evolve them and then take them to battle arenas, choose your Pokemon to battle, and go up against other visitors.
TalkToEthan
Well-Known Member
Can not be
No single or dedicated property can sustain a “WORLD CLASS PARK”(I know you didn’t specify but I’m presuming you’re talking about Disney/Universal or dare I say something even at the Busch level) . Not one, none!
Not wand, not light saber, not Rings, not Spock, nor a trading card—-zip
……a single property is insufficient to attract enough bonafide vacationers and overseas travelers to ultimately support a park.
Last edited:
Gusey
Well-Known Member
Pokemon is extremely popular at the moment, at least from my experience working in a shop in small city where we've had to put a limit on the expensive sets because we were selling out within an hour of going on the shelves. The Pokemon ride supposedly replacing Japan's Spider-Man will probably indicate how well they could pull it off. The Japan Pokemon parade was well-received as far as I can remember
Last edited:
Misted Compass
Well-Known Member
Osaka
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
I think you’re right with most of your statement, but with this paragraph in particular, I think it’s unnecessary to minimize the cultural penetration of Mario, Pokémon, et al by suggesting that the audience trends more readily toward whale behavior or that semi-frequent game releases tip the scales significantly. There are plenty of Disney whales too, and there’s probably more Disney merchandise at your local Target than Nintendo merchandise.
I think the argument that Potter is simply much better suited to direct-to-theme-park translation than perhaps any singular IP ever stands well enough on its own.