• 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)

lebeau

Well-Known Member
I think everyone here agrees that IP is secondary to execution when it comes to theme park attractions. The Harry Potter expansions represent a perfect marriage of a popular intellectual property with bar-raising delivery. Fast & Furious shows what can happen when a successful movie franchise gets slapped on a terrible ride. No IP in the world could have saved that attraction. If anything, the use of something like Fast & Furious on a slow-moving attraction just added insult to injury. Avatar is hardly beloved by movie-goers these days, but Disney fans are foaming over Pandora. Most kids today have never heard of Song of the South, but Splash Mountain is a classic. I could go on and on. IP can enhance, but it can't fix a poorly designed attraction or land.

Where we differ is on the popularity of specific intellectual properties. That's largely subjective, so disagreements are to be expected. @MisterPenguin says that the Universal Monsters are a weak IP, but he's basing that almost entirely on movie grosses. It's true, most of Universal's attempts to capitalize on their classic monsters have been unsuccessful. At least when it comes to new movies. But that's very far from the whole picture. The reason Universal keeps trying to launch franchises like the failed Dark Universe is because they know there is a built-in audience for these characters. They can see it in the perennial sale of merchandise. Monsters may not be selling movie tickets like superheroes these days, but they are still big money.

A while ago, there was a listing of the 30 highest-grossing media franchises in the world. It made a lot of waves when it proclaimed Pokemon the king of all media. The runner-up was Hello Kitty followed by Winnie the Pooh. By that metric, Universal should be building a Hello Kitty land instead of just a small shop with a meet and greet. But I think we all know, the numbers don't tell the whole story. While Pooh and company are popular characters, they are not the primary draw at Walt Disney parks. Harry Potter, by the way, ranked 10th below something called Shōnen Jump. Yeah, never heard of it.

There are other considerations. For example, suitability. Fast & Furious was a perfect fit for a theme park attraction. It begged for something like Test Track. That would have been a slam dunk. I think you're more limited with what you can do with something like Hello Kitty, although a good creative team could probably design a kick butt Hello Kitty land. The monsters, to my mind, are very theme-park friendly.

Will the monsters appeal to everyone? Nothing does. But there are a lot of fans of these characters specifically and old school gothic horror in general who will find a monsters land appealing. The fact that Universal and Tom Cruise botched the Mummy relaunch won't factor into their decision one bit.

Of course execution will be key. It always is. Removing that from the equation, the classic monsters are as viable an IP as many others featured in popular theme park attractions.
 

Edward Jackson

Well-Known Member
The point being that F&F was a $5 Billion franchise and the ride fizzled.

Whether you think the Universal Monsters franchise is weak or strong, don't look to the franchise to save it if the ride is weak.

And yes, I contend the franchise is weak. I asked above when was the last time a Frankenstein remake was popular... as a satire in Young Frankenstein.

And Universal's version of Frankenstein's monster is especially weak compared to all the modern horror monster franchises. Same with Universal's version of Count Dracula.

You can clutch your pearls all you want when hearing someone claim it's a weak franchise. It is weak. It hasn't been leveraged as a strong franchise in the parks. Modern movies based on them fail. Grab your smelling salts and deal with it.
That would be great. A dark ride with "Putting on the Ritz" playing in the background. :joyfull:
 

Edward Jackson

Well-Known Member
Some things that will be slam dunks: Nintendo Land, Fantastic Beasts. Things that may not be: Everything else. :cool:
I would have agreed with you on Fantastic Beasts until the last movie came out. Do you know if they are still going to do the
third installment at this point?
 

Mouse Trap

Well-Known Member
I would have agreed with you on Fantastic Beasts until the last movie came out. Do you know if they are still going to do the
third installment at this point?
It's still on the slate, but far too early to start filming. It'll film, but WB will regret it - it's a pain point within the company right now. If they pull it they damage the fanbase and more importantly, upset JK.
 

trr1

Well-Known Member
The domestic take was down almost $75,000,000 from the first movie. The third installment is currently still
scheduled for November of 2021.
this was from OCTOBER 13, 2016
"Harry Potter creator and Fantastic Beasts screenwriter J.K. Rowling made a surprise announcement Thursday that she has finished the plot for five films in the Fantastic Beast franchise, expanding it from the trilogy it was originally announced as. She later said that she will be the screenwriter for all five installments."
so there may be 2 more after the third installment if it does well at the box office
 

Quinnmac000

Well-Known Member
I think everyone here agrees that IP is secondary to execution when it comes to theme park attractions. The Harry Potter expansions represent a perfect marriage of a popular intellectual property with bar-raising delivery. Fast & Furious shows what can happen when a successful movie franchise gets slapped on a terrible ride. No IP in the world could have saved that attraction. If anything, the use of something like Fast & Furious on a slow-moving attraction just added insult to injury. Avatar is hardly beloved by movie-goers these days, but Disney fans are foaming over Pandora. Most kids today have never heard of Song of the South, but Splash Mountain is a classic. I could go on and on. IP can enhance, but it can't fix a poorly designed attraction or land.

Where we differ is on the popularity of specific intellectual properties. That's largely subjective, so disagreements are to be expected. @MisterPenguin says that the Universal Monsters are a weak IP, but he's basing that almost entirely on movie grosses. It's true, most of Universal's attempts to capitalize on their classic monsters have been unsuccessful. At least when it comes to new movies. But that's very far from the whole picture. The reason Universal keeps trying to launch franchises like the failed Dark Universe is because they know there is a built-in audience for these characters. They can see it in the perennial sale of merchandise. Monsters may not be selling movie tickets like superheroes these days, but they are still big money.

A while ago, there was a listing of the 30 highest-grossing media franchises in the world. It made a lot of waves when it proclaimed Pokemon the king of all media. The runner-up was Hello Kitty followed by Winnie the Pooh. By that metric, Universal should be building a Hello Kitty land instead of just a small shop with a meet and greet. But I think we all know, the numbers don't tell the whole story. While Pooh and company are popular characters, they are not the primary draw at Walt Disney parks. Harry Potter, by the way, ranked 10th below something called Shōnen Jump. Yeah, never heard of it.

There are other considerations. For example, suitability. Fast & Furious was a perfect fit for a theme park attraction. It begged for something like Test Track. That would have been a slam dunk. I think you're more limited with what you can do with something like Hello Kitty, although a good creative team could probably design a kick butt Hello Kitty land. The monsters, to my mind, are very theme-park friendly.

Will the monsters appeal to everyone? Nothing does. But there are a lot of fans of these characters specifically and old school gothic horror in general who will find a monsters land appealing. The fact that Universal and Tom Cruise botched the Mummy relaunch won't factor into their decision one bit.

Of course execution will be key. It always is. Removing that from the equation, the classic monsters are as viable an IP as many others featured in popular theme park attractions.
Just for a note...Universal Studios Japan already has rights for Shonen Jump properties and you actually probably heard of Shonen Jump. Its Dragonball Z, Naruto, and things like that.
 

lebeau

Well-Known Member
Just for a note...Universal Studios Japan already has rights for Shonen Jump properties and you actually probably heard of Shonen Jump. Its Dragonball Z, Naruto, and things like that.
I have heard of them. Zero familiarity, but I am old.
 

Edward Jackson

Well-Known Member
this was from OCTOBER 13, 2016
"Harry Potter creator and Fantastic Beasts screenwriter J.K. Rowling made a surprise announcement Thursday that she has finished the plot for five films in the Fantastic Beast franchise, expanding it from the trilogy it was originally announced as. She later said that she will be the screenwriter for all five installments."
so there may be 2 more after the third installment if it does well at the box office
That was all I questioning. If the domestic take drops again, will it go the way of Divergent. The movies reviews and receipts went down
to a point that they decided not to even do the final installment.
 

magicallactose

Well-Known Member
That was all I questioning. If the domestic take drops again, will it go the way of Divergent. The movies reviews and receipts went down
to a point that they decided not to even do the final installment.
I think the main difference is that The Crimes of Grindewald brought in a big overseas box office (even though it is widely considered a box office disappointment here in North America). The Divergent movies were not a hit internationally. https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2018/11/25/box-office-fantastic-beasts-2-is-a-domestic-disaster-but-an-overseas-smash/#e4ff2587fad0

Also, the Fantastic Beast films help to feed the already-established and highly successful 'Wizarding World' industry, from merchandising to books, to the themed lands. That's a big incentive for WB to keep the franchise going.
 

trr1

Well-Known Member
I think the main difference is that The Crimes of Grindewald brought in a big overseas box office (even though it is widely considered a box office disappointment here in North America). The Divergent movies were not a hit internationally. https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2018/11/25/box-office-fantastic-beasts-2-is-a-domestic-disaster-but-an-overseas-smash/#e4ff2587fad0

Also, the Fantastic Beast films help to feed the already-established and highly successful 'Wizarding World' industry, from merchandising to books, to the themed lands. That's a big incentive for WB to keep the franchise going.
I would like to see Harry potter and the cursed child as a movie to end the harry potter films
 

The Real Buzz Lightyear

Well-Known Member
this was from OCTOBER 13, 2016
"Harry Potter creator and Fantastic Beasts screenwriter J.K. Rowling made a surprise announcement Thursday that she has finished the plot for five films in the Fantastic Beast franchise, expanding it from the trilogy it was originally announced as. She later said that she will be the screenwriter for all five installments."
so there may be 2 more after the third installment if it does well at the box office
They should have had fantastic beasts be three movies not five.
 

The Real Buzz Lightyear

Well-Known Member
I think everyone here agrees that IP is secondary to execution when it comes to theme park attractions. The Harry Potter expansions represent a perfect marriage of a popular intellectual property with bar-raising delivery. Fast & Furious shows what can happen when a successful movie franchise gets slapped on a terrible ride. No IP in the world could have saved that attraction. If anything, the use of something like Fast & Furious on a slow-moving attraction just added insult to injury. Avatar is hardly beloved by movie-goers these days, but Disney fans are foaming over Pandora. Most kids today have never heard of Song of the South, but Splash Mountain is a classic. I could go on and on. IP can enhance, but it can't fix a poorly designed attraction or land.

Where we differ is on the popularity of specific intellectual properties. That's largely subjective, so disagreements are to be expected. @MisterPenguin says that the Universal Monsters are a weak IP, but he's basing that almost entirely on movie grosses. It's true, most of Universal's attempts to capitalize on their classic monsters have been unsuccessful. At least when it comes to new movies. But that's very far from the whole picture. The reason Universal keeps trying to launch franchises like the failed Dark Universe is because they know there is a built-in audience for these characters. They can see it in the perennial sale of merchandise. Monsters may not be selling movie tickets like superheroes these days, but they are still big money.

A while ago, there was a listing of the 30 highest-grossing media franchises in the world. It made a lot of waves when it proclaimed Pokemon the king of all media. The runner-up was Hello Kitty followed by Winnie the Pooh. By that metric, Universal should be building a Hello Kitty land instead of just a small shop with a meet and greet. But I think we all know, the numbers don't tell the whole story. While Pooh and company are popular characters, they are not the primary draw at Walt Disney parks. Harry Potter, by the way, ranked 10th below something called Shōnen Jump. Yeah, never heard of it.

There are other considerations. For example, suitability. Fast & Furious was a perfect fit for a theme park attraction. It begged for something like Test Track. That would have been a slam dunk. I think you're more limited with what you can do with something like Hello Kitty, although a good creative team could probably design a kick butt Hello Kitty land. The monsters, to my mind, are very theme-park friendly.

Will the monsters appeal to everyone? Nothing does. But there are a lot of fans of these characters specifically and old school gothic horror in general who will find a monsters land appealing. The fact that Universal and Tom Cruise botched the Mummy relaunch won't factor into their decision one bit.

Of course execution will be key. It always is. Removing that from the equation, the classic monsters are as viable an IP as many others featured in popular theme park attractions.
This post needs more likes!!! :D
 
Top Bottom