Universal's 3rd theme park (Universal and WB close to a deal)

[rteetz]

Many people still love the Looney Tunes, myself included. They're comparble to many of the classics Disney Characters. That's like saying people won't go to Magic Kingdom because Mickey was created in 1928. It's just untrue.

Plus I think that the new Space Jam will change many kids perspectives on Looney Tunes.

I know people still like looney toons as do I but my point was today's generation of kids don't like them much.

 

[ITALIANNYC]

Bugs bunny is an icon and should be featured heavily in a park if its true.

 

[Dfan79]

I'm not talking about adults. I'm talking about little kids. No parents I know let their kids watch looney tunes because of the outright violence.
Mickey doesn't shoot Pete in the face with a shotgun.

I know people still like looney toons as do I but my point was today's generation of kids don't like them much.

There are certain characters that will be around forever and the Looney Tunes are some of them. As for the violence in their cartoons, no one has a problem with the violence in every other movie and cartoon that's the basis' for lands in Universal Orlando.

Marvel, King Kong, Jurassic Park, Harry Potter (2 lands), MIB, The Simpsons, E.T., Terminator, The Mummy, etc

 

[Planogirl]

Just about all cartoons were violent at one time. The past (less violent IMO) generations strangely enough watched them without problems. However cartoons in general have been toned down and Looney Toons can be too. The only problem characters I see are Coyote and Roadrunner.

 

[PuppyJonathan]

New info

I don't like Pokemon at all, but I've been told because of its recent popularity that it will also be in the new park. It will be apart of the Nintendo section of the park. Yuck.

Universal riding the hype train like they always do

 

[Planogirl]

Universal riding the hype train like they always do

Is there anywhere not riding that "hype train"? I bet that Disney will jump on board in time. They just react rather slowly.

 

[ParkHoppers]

I am not the biggest fan of Universal but for the first time in history I am rooting for Uni to get even bigger and better in the near future. Why? Because it might be the only thing that helps WDW get bigger and better. I know that WDW has a lot being built as of now but because I can't see how good the new options will be yet I am still a bit bitter about how WDW has been sitting idle the last many years. I best be overly impressed with Avatarland and Star Wars land when they are finished. And I want a large rebuild of parts of Epcot before I say WDW has returned to being the world's leading park.

 

[whiporee]

PH -- did you plan for your avatar to look so much like a lion? It's really cool.

 

[ColoradoDreamin]

New info

I don't like Pokemon at all, but I've been told because of its recent popularity that it will also be in the new park. It will be apart of the Nintendo section of the park. Yuck.

As an interesting note...Pokémon Go may be popular, but it hasn't stopped the Nintendo Stock from dropping over 25% in the last 4 days. That is a serious drop.

A related story: http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/25/investing/nintendo-shares-pokemon-go/index.html

 

[GaryDis]

As an interesting note...Pokémon Go may be popular, but it hasn't stopped the Nintendo Stock from dropping over 25% in the last 4 days. That is a serious drop.

A related story: http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/25/investing/nintendo-shares-pokemon-go/index.html

It sounds like it's just an adjustment to all the hype. If I'm reading it correctly, the stock is still up quite a it from before the release.

 

[Dfan79]

Perhaps "Pokemon Go" is like the movie "They Live" and the game is showing us the real world. Maybe... just maybe there have been badly drawn monsters living among us the whole time... and the only way to stop them is with stupid red balls.

 

[Lee Matthews]

I'd never see myself going to a Six Flags park so if DC properties make it to Universal Parks I'm onboard with that. Love that Universal are becoming a big powerhouse

 

[skier_pete]

What is interesting about this rumor (and that makes it seem unlikely) is that I am sure that Marvel would NOT want to have their product in the same park as DC. I would almost bet there would be some sort of rider in their contract that stated something to that effect. And certainly DC would never agree to be in the same theme park as Marvel. And I couldn't imagine Universal wanting BOTH marvel and DC in it's same theme park (yes - I know we are talking about a different gate, but still I mean the same theme park population.)

So to me the ONLY way this is true is if Universal was going to get out of the Marvel business, which I don't really believe for a second. So I don't see this one as a go.

 

[Dfan79]

There's no way that Universal will ever let go of Marvel, it is a moneymaker. And they want to keep it out of Disney's hands forever. Comics are never completely out of style.

If they do, then their letting their competition have something that it so bankable that it could be a fifth gate or a major expansion at Epcot or Hollywood.

 

[mikepizzo]

I'm not talking about adults. I'm talking about little kids. No parents I know let their kids watch looney tunes because of the outright violence.

Mickey doesn't shoot Pete in the face with a shotgun.

Have you seen the new Mickey Mouse show? I caught one segment while in the lobby of Caribbean Beach on our last trip. Mickey and Pluto were in space, Pluto had to go to the bathroom, Mickey brought him out, Pluto went to the bathroom, and then crystallized urine smacked Mickey in the face.

They aren't shy to do gross stuff, I'm sure they aren't shy to do violence. Maybe not gun related but I would be surprised if a similar level of slapstick isn't in this new Mickey Mouse show. For as long as I can remember slapstick has always been a party of Mickey Mouse cartoons. Not Mickey Mouse Clubhouse stuff, but always for the slightly older demographic.

 

[ColoradoDreamin]

There's no way that Universal will ever let go of Marvel, it is a moneymaker. And they want to keep it out of Disney's hands forever. Comics are never completely out of style.

If they do, then their letting their competition have something that it so bankable that it could be a fifth gate or a major expansion at Epcot or Hollywood.

A curious question..but how much is Universal really making on Marvel. Obviously the movies make a great deal of money - but Universal doesn't get that. Merchandise is almost all profit to Disney (so having it in their parks benefits Disney as well). The rides are good, but as some have said, many if not all would be great with a different theme as well. And IF they did have exclusive rights to DC with the rides, and merchandise (in Florida) for DC, then they COULD benefit more from DC in their parks then Marvel. And the idea of "keeping it out of the hands of Disney" isn't completely true. Right now as it is they are both benefiting from the relationship, and some would argue that Universal having it Marvel in their parks is benefiting Disney more.

I am not saying that I believe Universal is going after DC, but I also don't think it is as simple as you think it is. Marvel is making more money for Disney then it is Universal, there is no question about that. And Universal having Marvel in the parks is benefiting Universal's "competitor" as much as it is helping itself. So the question is, would they ever try to really compete with Disney by going with a competitor product (DC) rather than supporting the Marvel (Disney) brand. I don't think so, certainly not in the near future, but maybe one day.

 

[Dfan79]

A curious question..but how much is Universal really making on Marvel. Obviously the movies make a great deal of money - but Universal doesn't get that. Merchandise is almost all profit to Disney (so having it in their parks benefits Disney as well). The rides are good, but as some have said, many if not all would be great with a different theme as well. And IF they did have exclusive rights to DC with the rides, and merchandise (in Florida) for DC, then they COULD benefit more from DC in their parks then Marvel. And the idea of "keeping it out of the hands of Disney" isn't completely true. Right now as it is they are both benefiting from the relationship, and some would argue that Universal having it Marvel in their parks is benefiting Disney more.

Believe me Universal is getting a lot money from having them in their park. Plus people are more likely to ride a great Marvel attraction than a similar ride with a lame brand. I can't picture people saying "Let's go ride Hop, or Betty Boop or Fievel, etc."

 

[ColoradoDreamin]

Believe me Universal is getting a lot money from having them in their park. Plus people are more likely to ride a great Marvel attraction than a similar ride with a lame brand. I can't picture people saying "Let's go ride Hop, or Betty Boop or Fievel, etc."

I think you are mistaken on how much money they are making off of it. You are just assuming they are. And if they owned DC, they could transform those attractions. Then it becomes an opinion that is divided on whether the DC brand can be as lucrative as the Marvel Brand. Universal is not making what you think off Marvel. And the parks do not draw as much due to Marvel. Just look at the huge attendance increase due to Harry Potter. They weren't even in the same galaxy as Disney till Harry Potter, and even now they still have a long ways to go. Moreover, as others have pointed out, Marvel is actually not as big of a draw in park entertainment as many other IPs are. You just can't get as immersed in a Marvel area as you can things like Harry Potter, Star Wars, and so many others. And that is because the area of "Marvel" isn't that much different than anything else. It's a city in most cases. Regardless, A good ride can stand on it's own. You wouldn't put "Betty Boop" to replace the Hulk. But you could put so many different movies, IPs (including DC) on that ride and still make it work and popular.

But when it comes down to it, if there was no other hurdles (like licensing issues with six flags and other companies) I am sure Universal could see some benefit to having DC over Marvel. Especially if they could somehow sell the Marvel rights to Disney for a high price, and get the DC rights at a better deal -- the end result could be very beneficial to Universal's bottom line. The problem lies in the other hurdles, and getting the right deal. That is probably not happening. But I guarantee those conversations have been had, just likely didn't go anywhere ("what do you mean you want 10 billion for that IP...")

 

[Dfan79]

I think you are mistaken on how much money they are making off of it. You are just assuming they are. And if they owned DC, they could transform those attractions. Then it becomes an opinion that is divided on whether the DC brand can be as lucrative as the Marvel Brand. Universal is not making what you think off Marvel. And the parks do not draw as much due to Marvel. Just look at the huge attendance increase due to Harry Potter. They weren't even in the same galaxy as Disney till Harry Potter, and even now they still have a long ways to go. Moreover, as others have pointed out, Marvel is actually not as big of a draw in park entertainment as many other IPs are. You just can't get as immersed in a Marvel area as you can things like Harry Potter, Star Wars, and so many others. And that is because the area of "Marvel" isn't that much different than anything else. It's a city in most cases. Regardless, A good ride can stand on it's own. You wouldn't put "Betty Boop" to replace the Hulk. But you could put so many different movies, IPs (including DC) on that ride and still make it work and popular.

But when it comes down to it, if there was no other hurdles (like licensing issues with six flags and other companies) I am sure Universal could see some benefit to having DC over Marvel. Especially if they could somehow sell the Marvel rights to Disney for a high price, and get the DC rights at a better deal -- the end result could be very beneficial to Universal's bottom line. The problem lies in the other hurdles, and getting the right deal. That is probably not happening. But I guarantee those conversations have been had, just likely didn't go anywhere ("what do you mean you want 10 billion for that IP...")

You're assuming that they don't make a lot of money off of Marvel. Of course Uni is making more money off of Harry Potter and the attendance has gone up as well, but Harry Potters don't grow on trees. Most IP's aren't world changing like Harry Potter and Star Wars. Most are average or less than that and they don't have any staying power. Remember how big Twilight was 5 years ago? Now look at it.

I think it would be silly of Uni to let Disney just have the Golden Goose. Even more so because of what Disney can do with it.

 

[ColoradoDreamin]

Disney is the one making the money off of Marvel as the Golden Goose, not Universal. Again, show me how they are making all this money off of Marvel. Disney is by far making more off Marvel then Universal. The movie's and merchandise makes a heck of a lot of money, tv makes money, but park rights -- that is not a golden goose as you say. You have yet to answer the question - how are they making money off of it? Yes, they make some, but not at the level they should be because they only own a small share of the profitability of the franchise. If there was a way for them to make a larger profitability of DC they would do it, no doubt about it. But as I said, the ability for them do that isn't likely as why would other companies give it up.

Your right, I am assuming they aren't making a lot of money on Marvel. But that is based on the amount they own in the brand. You just assume that since they have the name they must be making money. But Disney gets a portion of every dollar they make in their parks off of Marvel in a way, and Universal gets 0 off what Disney makes off Marvel.