• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Universal's Epic Universe (South Expansion Complex) - Construction Resumed

lebeau

Well-Known Member
Just looking at just video game sales, Mario is top, followed by Pokemon, followed by Zelda. If you include the franchise as a whole (including movies, merchandise, TV shows, etc), Pokemon is by far the highest (dominated by merchandise sales that beat out just about everything else including Star Wars).

Someone brought that up around here a while ago. The problem is those numbers don't translate. If they did, Hello Kitty would be one of the most popular things at Universal.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
I think

Why do HTTYD and not just Dreamworks Land??? I love that property and watched the movies and all the different shows but to carry an entire land? I do not know. I get Mario but isn't The Legend of Zelda like the 2nd most popular Nintendo Property? or perhaps it is Pokemon but not Donkey Kong. The name, the design, its blue sky but still I hope they do this right. Nintendo Land to me is the biggest draw that is timeless, maybe monsters too.
DreamWorks Animation is not a shared universe. The park is past Blue Sky.
 

ThemeParkTraveller

Well-Known Member
Very impressed with what I'm seeing so far. This should be one of the finest theme parks ever created when it opens. Are we sure that the bottom right is exclusively How to Train Your Dragon? It doesn't look anything like Berk from what I can tell. My memory of the series is a bit foggy, so maybe they're basing it off another area from the movies.

latest
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
No. I wanted Zelda. I find HTTYD to be over-rated, and Fantastic Beasts is mediocre at best. I hope they can come up with great rides for crappy properties. It’s been done before.

I’m left with an overwhelming feeling of, “you could have chosen any IPs for your nonsense-themed park and THESE made the cut?” I can honestly say, of all the world’s they’ve picked, Mario is the only one I’ve said, “I wish I could go there.”

The name is ridiculous. Universal’s Epic Universe? Really? WTH does that even mean? Islands of Adventure was a more compelling project.

Why did they need to build a 3rd (4th lol) park for these properties, again? There’s dead weight in the existing parks where these could fit.


I think Dragons is overrated too. And yeah, I wanted Zelda! :( And come on, no more Potter. What's next, an IP based on the Cursed Child? :p (I read the script. It's a lousy soap opera with wands.)
 

bartholomr4

Well-Known Member
Universal might have held back a couple details for later. Some of them might even be ground-breaking. But by all means, let's make snap judgments.

With Galaxy's Edge at 12 to 14 acres and the cost to build of 1/2 a billion dollars.... One fact for Comcast to answer is where is the money to come from to build this at 750 Acres. Its not a one to one for sure, but Comcast owes $100 billion due to the Sky purchase and has promised to reduce that debt and increase its dividends. It wants to invest in streaming, wireless and expanding in Europe..... I would like to know where the money is coming from and if this will be a "budget" job or really the quality you would expect.

I think the concept is awesome and like others here love the competition for Disney.... I just think the Universal Universe is a long train coming, and wonder if it will be here before the middle of the next decade.....
 

Timothy_Q

Well-Known Member
Honestly, I'm a bit over the "1 land for an IP". So for me, losing HTTYD for an overall Dreamworks area would be fine, but I understand the thought process.

We are getting Classic Monsters and Nintendo; so those lend credence to multiple IPs with one cohesive theme; which Dreamworks doesn't allow for.
So if we went "Dreamworks", it would not be cohesive and would instead be mishmashed. Less "Fantasyland" or "Classic Monsters" and more "Kidzone". And that, as we know, doesn't age as well.
They could still be sepparate mini lands, inside a broader DW land.

Mario and DK aren't visible from each other.

DW land could've been 3 smaller sections. Dragon, Panda and Shrek, or Trolls
 

rreading

Premium Member
So while we love Disney for our theme park vacations, we have visited Busch Gardens, and look forward to seeing Universal when my kids and Universal are ready (wanted them to flesh out HP just as they have now - now my boy needs to get into HP).

I would be thrilled for Universal to get this right, and I expect that they may...but the comment about debt is interesting...and they definitely need some details here. The broad strokes show potential. MOM instead of Fantastic Beasts would work, I guess (not that I ever wanted to see the MOM); HITMD could be gorgeous (though the concept art doesn't look it); and the villains could be really cool. Nintendo isn't really our thing.

But at this point, my impression is that "we'll see".

If it will be great, then it will be. Who knows yet?
 

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
I’m not personally excited about the properties they chose other than Mario but will hold off on any further judgment until we receive concrete details.
The MK opened with the 19th century Tom Sawyer and already old live action adaptations of Treasure Island and Jules Verne. Plus the forgotten Toad and a rehash of last decade's expo Small World.

IP doesn't make a ride. Or park. Although that old wisdom might be subject to some erosion in the current fashion of putting IP central. In the guests' attention and affection. And in IP exclusive lands or otherwise putting IP central to theme and area character.
 
Honestly, I'm a bit over the "1 land for an IP". So for me, losing HTTYD for an overall Dreamworks area would be fine, but I understand the thought process.

We are getting Classic Monsters and Nintendo; so those lend credence to multiple IPs with one cohesive theme; which Dreamworks doesn't allow for.

So if we went "Dreamworks", it would not be cohesive and would instead be mishmashed. Less "Fantasyland" or "Classic Monsters" and more "Kidzone". And that, as we know, doesn't age as well.

Lets be honest if you put a few attractions based on each ip in the land it would not be a problem. Look at fantasy land now. What does a mermaid, dwarfs, beasts, flying ships, kids singing a song, and many more have in common? similar drawings? same studio? all fantasy? its the same issue with DreamWorks. You can put them all together and it be good. Even if they just picked two or three of the IPs to do it still would be better than trying to remake Burk on a IP that has nothing coming out in universe and seems to be done with the newest movie.
 

Tonto

Well-Known Member
As always I’ll reserve final judgement till the product is done. Regarding my initial impressions, consider me underwhelmed.

Like all of Universals attractions as of late including Gringotts, Universals marketing’s vision is better than the final product. This is not a fact just my opinion.
 

Rich T

Well-Known Member
I do think httyd is a strange property to build 4 years after the final film has come and gone. I don't think that ip has the staying power for an entire land of a flagship park. Also this concept art seems vague on purpose even Nintendo land has little to nothing that marks it as such.
HTTYD has built up a solid foundation of fans and recognition. I personally think the first film is one of the most perfect fantasy films of all time (live or animated) and the sequels, while not being as memorable, took risks, look great, and did things no other animated film has tried. The long-running animated series has a lot of fans, too. The important thing, though, is that it's a colorful, wonderful world that really lends itself to theme park ride ideas. Even guests with no knowledge of the films will find themselves in an adventurous setting of Vikings and dragons full of fun rides. It's a win-win.
 

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

Top Bottom