Universal Epic Universe (South Expansion Complex) - Opens May 22 2025

[UNCgolf]

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.

I wasn't clear -- I wasn't suggesting audiences for those particular IP are prone to whale behavior. I meant merchandise sales in general, regardless of IP, can be skewed by things like whale behavior. It applies just as much to Harry Potter merch sales as anything else.

I was attempting to argue that merchandise sales aren't necessarily the best metric to use when determining overall reach/fandom; there are plenty of people who engage with/enjoy specific IP but don't buy much merchandise (if any at all). Obviously when something has sales numbers at the level of Pokemon it's incredibly popular, but I don't think that tells you that it has the absolute largest market base for something like a theme park. I think HP's combination of book sales, box office results, and streaming numbers suggest it currently has the largest market base of any IP.

I think the combination of that gigantic market base and the fact that it's so well-suited to theme park translation are why HP was such a singular and likely unrepeatable success.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

I won't post it here but there is a video of Celestial Park with all of fountains on posted on ThemeparX.com.

I really don't see the comparisons to Epcot's spine project.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I won't post it here but there is a video of Celestial Park with all of fountains on posted on ThemeparX.com.

I really don't see the comparisons to Epcot's spine project.

Cant compare the two, its a planter with broken ground lighting VS an EIPC fountain

 

[jrhwdw]

I won't post it here but there is a video of Celestial Park with all of fountains on posted on ThemeparX.com.

I really don't see the comparisons to Epcot's spine project.

I saw it! Thanks!!!

 

[McMickeyWorld]

 

[Agent H]

It’s so cool to see this actually close to functioning as if people in the park.

 

[Sorcerer Mickey]

Actually, the idea was somewhere where children and adults alike could have fun
View attachment 847087

Parents and children can have fun together on a playground.

Who goes to Disney? Families with kids where the parents grew up going to Disney. Families with kids who have never been to Disney and would like to go so everyone can have a good time. Adults who were kids that grew up with Disney.

I don't have the numbers, but I highly doubt there is a sizable portion of Disney visitors who are just adults who never went as kids and have no prior attachment to the parks.

I'm not knocking adults who enjoy Disney World or theme parks in general. But the main goal of the parks is to appeal to children or the child inside us adults.

@UNCgolf said it's a bad idea to gear entire lands towards children. Fantasyland? Toy Story Land? Mickey's Toontown? Dr. Seussland? Super Nintendo World?

 

[Stripes]

I won't post it here but there is a video of Celestial Park with all of fountains on posted on ThemeparX.com.

I really don't see the comparisons to Epcot's spine project.

To me, Celestial Park reminds me of DCA 1.0. It feels soulless and uninspired. Is it pretty? Absolutely. But, the fountains, sculptures, and architecture (excluding the carousel) look like something I would find at a nice outdoor mall in LA.

 

[BrianLo]

By the time UNI finishes building something Pokémon related in the USA it will have cultural relevance for everyone under 50.

Ha, true! I wish I had those old conversations from Inside Universal or whatever it was called. About how irrelevant the franchise was. This is before the transmedia phenomenon that was Pokemon Go. What’s old is new again with the cards.

But Pokemon is now a “lifestyle brand” officially.

 

[BrianLo]

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.

Technically Pokemon Go had as much (technically more) worldwide penetration than the Harry Potter novel sales.

And for the record I’m staunchly peak Potter fandom age. I’m not diminishing Potter, just that people really tend to underestimate how big Pokemon is.

The broader point that potter is a lot easier to adapt is definitely not lost on me. But Pokemon has made quite a number of transmedia jumps at this stage. IF they can crack it and do it justice.

 

[DarkMetroid567]

To me, Celestial Park reminds me of DCA 1.0. It feels soulless and uninspired. Is it pretty? Absolutely. But, the fountains, sculptures, and architecture (excluding the carousel) look like something I would find at a nice outdoor mall in LA.

This has been my thought too. It makes me empathize with the people who hate the EPCOT core which I don’t mind.

It looks something like The Grove or the Bellagio. Which, mind you, are well-themed! Just not in a way that I really like for a transformative theme park.

 

[Moth]

I think the main reason Pokémon hasn't hit Uni yet is because there's no good ride hook that is not based off of a niche N64/switch spin-off.

I know, I know, Snap is a good idea, I endorse it, but you try making a good idea for a ride disregarding it and including a battling or trading element.

I think that Pokémon at Universal is gonna lean into AR and... probably utilize a tie-in with Pokémon GO honestly. I know that sounds insane but it's been going on for ten years already, the framework is there, just join forces and make the main appeal of the land a "Battle Arena" that has holograms or some projecting technology reflect the battles that take place in GO.

I probably overshot the gun saying it's the only IP that can handle it's own gate, but it's not without warrant.

I forgot the point I was trying to make, but anyways, where's my dragon drone tests? I wanna see how they make a Gronckle fly!

Also InsideUniversal is harsh on non-Universal or Potter IP, if you want a good example look at the Hello Kitty store announcement and everyone trying to downplay THAT juggernaut of an IP . So the fact they downplayed Pokémon for awhile isn't shocking as much as I love that place.

 

[MisterPenguin]

 

[MisterPenguin]

 

[Andrew25]

Interesting strategy by Universal, but their pricing on Quick Service locations will be the most expensive out of all of the UOR/WDW prices.

UOR also did a price increase on F&B (amazing how little backlash they get) yesterday.

 

[UNCgolf]

Technically Pokemon Go had as much (technically more) worldwide penetration than the Harry Potter novel sales.

And for the record I’m staunchly peak Potter fandom age. I’m not diminishing Potter, just that people really tend to underestimate how big Pokemon is.

The broader point that potter is a lot easier to adapt is definitely not lost on me. But Pokemon has made quite a number of transmedia jumps at this stage. IF they can crack it and do it justice.

I don't think that's really a 1:1 comparison, plus there's a tremendous number of variables involved in both of those numbers. How many people downloaded Pokemon Go because it was popular but barely used it and/or don't really care about Pokemon? Does grouping all 7 HP books together for sales figures really make sense, since that presumably involves a ton of overlap in individual customers?

On the other hand, Pokemon Go almost certainly introduced people to Pokemon that weren't previously interested and probably created new fans. And of course many people read HP from libraries or borrowed books, so book sales alone don't give you accurate numbers of actual readership.

So... who knows?

I still think HP has a broader reach than Pokemon in terms of overall fan base, but I could absolutely be wrong.

 

[UNCgolf]

Also, even though I'm obviously not impressed with Isle of Berk as a setting or the attraction lineup, the AA (or whatever they are) dragons do look pretty awesome.

 

[BrianLo]

I don't think that's really a 1:1 comparison, plus there's a tremendous number of variables involved in both of those numbers. How many people downloaded Pokemon Go because it was popular but barely used it and/or don't really care about Pokemon? Does grouping all 7 HP books together for sales figures really make sense, since that presumably involves a ton of overlap in individual customers?

On the other hand, Pokemon Go almost certainly introduced people to Pokemon that weren't previously interested and probably created new fans. And of course many people read HP from libraries or borrowed books, so book sales alone don't give you accurate numbers of actual readership.

So... who knows?

I still think HP has a broader reach than Pokemon in terms of overall fan base, but I could absolutely be wrong.

Definitely and I should clarify I was roughly comparing kind of peak user base versus sales of one novel. Not the entire series collectively versus entire downloaded software collectively.

They are both very big. Nor do I remotely think we need anything on the scale of the x3 Potter lands. Maybe an AR type product that can be played across the three parks.

As far as Pottet goes - The HBO series will probably reignite it even more. I’d still love to see an additional attraction in either studios or Epic, but we’ve probably hit peak saturation now.

 

[BrianLo]

To me, Celestial Park reminds me of DCA 1.0. It feels soulless and uninspired. Is it pretty? Absolutely. But, the fountains, sculptures, and architecture (excluding the carousel) look like something I would find at a nice outdoor mall in LA.

A pretty good comparator, I’m seeing a lot of Paradise Pier here. Hard to not see it with the fountains.

I think I like it marginally more than Shanghai Disneyland’s plaza. Which pushes being a park like setting, but has very little in the feel of a Chinese Walled Garden and more just urban sprawl. The fountains here are a plus versus the lack of anything kinetic there. Though on spec I like the Eastern flank of SDL’s hub (if the castle is treated as North) more than Celestial gardens.

I think some overt criticisms are going to be shade and really the lack of berm. The in park hotel views from the Tokyo New hotel are a lot nicer despite how atrocious that hotel is.


Maybe I’m just railing against the inspiration, which is Vegas ultimately. But gardens and park are misnomers.

 

[BrianLo]

Here’s one thing they’ll definitely never learn.
Gluing rocks to concrete doesn’t make it classy guys.

Brief hot take - in the end this is not the pinnacle of themed design as touted. At least the hub.