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

UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
JT3000 said:
They can only hope? I've never seen either of those movies, but they've both scored over 90% on Rotten Tomatoes...
Click to expand...

Probably meant in terms of box office results rather than critical success. Neither fared well; West Side Story actually made less money in the US than the original version did in 1961 -- and that's not even factoring in inflation.
 
BrianLo

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
Animaniac93-98 said:
Universal is releasing the first Wicked movie this Thanksgiving.

I'd say Oz, as a concept, could make use of similar acerage.
Click to expand...

Good point, Oz would definitely work fairly well as a property. The rights are a bit messy and all over the place, with depictions also entering public domain.

I assume they'd just also pay off WB, whose rights are expiring in 2035 for the MGM movie.

James Bond, Star Trek might work vaguely for the UK audiences, the first as a stunt show.


Does Universal have the worst back catalogue of all the majors now? They really don't have that robust of a franchise mix that they actually own. Sometimes I forget that they don't even own Men in Black or Transformers. Or Ghostbusters for that matter.

I'd make an argument Nintendo as a company has a better stable of IP than the entirety of NBC-Universal, that really was their power move since they don't really seem to want to jump on the MCU bandwagon anymore than they have.

Other than that being fully explored as they plan to do, Lord of the Rings is still maybe the last golden goose. The Hobbit Movie set tour (Shire) remains as delightful as ever and practically is a perfect model for Epic's Portal/walled-garden concept.
 
Gusey

Gusey

Well-Known Member
Universal Studios Japan had a Land of Oz section at one point:
1708680046810.png
 
ToTBellHop

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member
MisterPenguin said:
Not if it's as poorly received as In the Heights and West Side Story.
Click to expand...
Ariana Grande could be for Uni what Olivia Rodrigo is for Disney. Give ‘em both a coaster! Although I suspect if they offer Ariana just a coaster; she will be like, “yes…and?”

All you need is green paint, and you can have Oz: Rip, Ride, Rock it!
 
PizzaSpringRoll2017

PizzaSpringRoll2017

Member
Diehard Wicked fan here. Seen it 9 times on Broadway, sometimes cite it as my favorite work of art in any medium ever (sometimes). This movie will be a disaster, Ariana and Cynthia are both way WAY too old to play the characters and just don’t have the right personalities at all. Elphaba and Glinda are supposed to be like, 19, and with consistent close up shots on the actors throughout the movie the casting just is not going to work at all. Ariana doesn’t have Glindas face or personality at all, they literally only cast her because she made that “Popular” cover. The CGI also looks gross, it doesn’t have the handmade feel and glam-steampunk aesthetic the show needs. Cynthia also butchered the iconic Defying Gravity riff at the end of the trailer. From the first moment set images and casting came out, it’s been clear that the people making this don’t understand Wicked.

Notably, the trailer made a huge point to show the events of the original Wizard of Oz. Which anyone who’s seen Wicked will know, they intentionally never show Wizard characters on stage, only in shadows and alluded to once they reach the part of the show that takes places at the same time as Wizard.

That’s not even getting into the beyond baffling choice to split this into two movies. The absolute confidence they had to make a 3 hour musical into two movies with ridiculous budgets is scary. I’m really really concerned they’re going to stretch out the runtime with original characters and weird additional scenes, I don’t trust the team making this to write new scenes. And we already know they’re adding original characters.

I don’t think this is going to be more popular with general audiences either. All of this is just going to come off as cringe and weird to someone unfamiliar with the source material.
 
PizzaSpringRoll2017

PizzaSpringRoll2017

Member
BrianLo said:
Idina would have been 31 and Kristen 34 when it premiered. Ariana is currently 30 and Cynthia 37. I don't know if it's that out of whack. I realize it's a movie and not to take away from any of your other points though.
Click to expand...
The issue is that in a movie, you’re staring up close at the actors the entire time and it all seems more grounded in reality. On stage you can just cast for voice and general appearance because it seems less literal, it’s farther away and you don’t get a great up close look at characters for very long. Movies generally just seem more “real” than musicals, even when it’s the same plot. It’s the reason the cannibalism in Sweeney Todd was a funny punchline in the show, but seemed gory and disturbing in the movie. Or why when the plant eats everyone in Little Shop of Horrors it seems hilarious and fun on stage, but was kind of depressing in the original cut of the movie

I think what Universal really should’ve done was an animated adaptation right after Frozen, with the full original cast. Musical fans get an awesome animated faithful adaptation, little girls get Let It Go 2 with Idinas big songs, and Universal gets their first smash hit Disney style musical avoiding all the issues with live action. What a timeline that would have been
 
Animaniac93-98

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
BrianLo said:
Does Universal have the worst back catalogue of all the majors now?
Click to expand...

They've already used up most the kinds of properties that lend themselves to the parks (Monsters, ET, Jaws, Earthquake, Hitchcock, Minions, Jurassic Park/World, Dreamworks).

It's not so much is it the worst, as what else is there left without getting the rights to something else?
 
BrianLo

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
Animaniac93-98 said:
They've already used up most the kinds of properties that lend themselves to the parks (Monsters, ET, Jaws, Earthquake, Hitchcock, Minions, Jurassic Park/World, Dreamworks).

It's not so much is it the worst, as what else is there left without getting the rights to something else?
Click to expand...

Totally, but some of those are very, very meagre IP by current day standards. They really have Jurassic Park and Minions with a smattering of Dreamworks/Illuminations. I'm quite thrilled on Monsters for what its worth, but more because it's a borderline original land than an IP showcase.

They are really quite lucky they are in *mostly* a two-way race in the movie-theme park business. I can't imagine how much licensing would cost if they actually were generally fighting a competitor over it. WB is quite unlucky that they are not and their recent earnings reflect that.
 
W

wdwfan4ver

Well-Known Member
JT3000 said:
Assuming that is their plan, I just don't see it actually working out that way. The logic is solid; provide a completely different product so you're not cannibalizing Orlando's business from its UK vacationers so much (although this would still happen to a degree.) However, Universal is already using so much of their IP in Orlando (and elsewhere) that I just don't see it being feasible to suddenly create an entirely new lineup for the British audience. Not unless they want to go questionably niche (Doctor Who?) But LOTR certainly isn't niche anymore. They add that to one of their parks and there will be demand to add it everywhere else ASAP. We're talking hate mail kind of demand. Epic's expansion plot could certainly still be there decades from now, but people's patience wouldn't be.
Click to expand...
I do know that there are rumors about Universal wanting to acquire theme park rights to James Bond and Paddington Bear for UK.

Orlando will not use up all the IPS Nintendo has. That could free up Nintendo IPS for UK if Universal does a UK theme park.
 
Last edited:
Rich Brownn

Rich Brownn

Well-Known Member
PizzaSpringRoll2017 said:
Diehard Wicked fan here. Seen it 9 times on Broadway, sometimes cite it as my favorite work of art in any medium ever (sometimes). This movie will be a disaster, Ariana and Cynthia are both way WAY too old to play the characters and just don’t have the right personalities at all. Elphaba and Glinda are supposed to be like, 19, and with consistent close up shots on the actors throughout the movie the casting just is not going to work at all. Ariana doesn’t have Glindas face or personality at all, they literally only cast her because she made that “Popular” cover. The CGI also looks gross, it doesn’t have the handmade feel and glam-steampunk aesthetic the show needs. Cynthia also butchered the iconic Defying Gravity riff at the end of the trailer. From the first moment set images and casting came out, it’s been clear that the people making this don’t understand Wicked.

Notably, the trailer made a huge point to show the events of the original Wizard of Oz. Which anyone who’s seen Wicked will know, they intentionally never show Wizard characters on stage, only in shadows and alluded to once they reach the part of the show that takes places at the same time as Wizard.

That’s not even getting into the beyond baffling choice to split this into two movies. The absolute confidence they had to make a 3 hour musical into two movies with ridiculous budgets is scary. I’m really really concerned they’re going to stretch out the runtime with original characters and weird additional scenes, I don’t trust the team making this to write new scenes. And we already know they’re adding original characters.

I don’t think this is going to be more popular with general audiences either. All of this is just going to come off as cringe and weird to someone unfamiliar with the source material.
Click to expand...
The producers said the split it because nothing could follow "Defying Gravity" but an intermission. Having seen what happened with "Dreamgirls" (The jump after "And I Tell You" which is obviously the point for a break) I agree - it was too big a tone shift so suddenly. (Plus it gives them a chance to expand on what is considered to be a weak book, and -- of course --add all those Academy Award eligible songs for two years in a row)
 
S

some other guy

Well-Known Member
UNCgolf said:
I think Narnia fails on the setting aspect of IP. Beyond going through the wardrobe and the lamp post in the snow, there's not really anything else that would jump out as Narnia for a land. Lord of the Rings has so many that I'm not sure what you even choose for a land (the Shire, Rivendell, Minas Tirith, Helm's Deep, Moria, Mordor, etc.)

I'm also not sure it has the reach/popularity at this point in its life. Netflix was supposed to be creating a TV series or movies, but that was years ago so it may have fallen through at this point -- much like Disney's plans to create a new series based on the Prydain Chronicles.
Click to expand...
maybe if Holy Land Experience was still a thing there could be a place for it, but yeah, Narnia's always kinda been the ghetto "fundie parents are too dim to pick up on the biblical aspects of LotR and freaked at wizard" backup fantasy franchise
 

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

Back
Top Bottom