Universal Orlando Resort (USF, IOA, Epic) Discussion Thread

[Wes]

Ummmmmmm Pottermore is a project by JK Rowling that's keeping the Harry Potter franchise alive and active past the already written books.

[O-Town77]

The Potter universe has ended. No more books and no more movies. J.K. dead-ended the series because she was sick of writing it.

Michael Crichton's dead. Does this mean Jurassic Park will be razed?

 

Jurassic Park 4 is scheduled to come out in about 2-3 years from now.....

 

Potter has ended. If they are claiming that Jaws is being pulled because its

no longer relevant -- why would they add a franchise that has been ended

to replace it?

 

There are a ton of active film franchises that will likely live on for year to

chose from (Star Trek, James Bond, Twilight, etc.)

Edited December 7, 2011 by O-Town77

[robbalvey]

^^So by that logic, Disney never should have built Indy 6 years after the final movie?

 

Final movie? They made an Indy movie after Disney opened their attractions (the last movie came out in

2008) and another film is in development. Not to mention that Disney opened their rides / stunt shows around the same time

that Young Indiana Jones was a TV series.

 

You "youngsters" really give me a chuckle sometimes.

Remember what I told you in my email to you about not being obnoxious anymore on the forums, or you'll find yourself banned...again? Re-read that email. This is your final warning.

[SoCalCoasters]

If I recall correctly, didn't Rowling say if she felt like writing another book she would?

 

Also they're doing that online interactive book thing. And Lego Harry Potter Years 5-7 was just released. The franchise is still continuing...

Edited December 7, 2011 by SoCalCoasters

[O-Town77]

^^So by that logic, Disney never should have built Indy 6 years after the final movie?

 

Final movie? They made an Indy movie after Disney opened their attractions (the last movie came out in

2008) and another film is in development. Not to mention that Disney opened their rides / stunt shows around the same time

that Young Indiana Jones was a TV series.

 

You "youngsters" really give me a chuckle sometimes.

Remember what I told you in my email to you about not being obnoxious anymore on the forums, or you'll find yourself banned...again? Re-read that email. This is your final warning.

 

I went back to edit the post / tone down it down.

[Jew]

Final movie in the original trilogy. You know what I meant.

 

But you are correct: Star Wars and Indy did things to keep the franchise alive. Sort of like how Pottermore was just launched into "beta" and almost immediately filled up its 1-million spots allocated for "beta testing"? It hasn't even been made available on e-book yet, so when that happens it is going to blow up the best seller list all over again.

[O-Town77]

Final movie in the original trilogy. You know what I meant.

 

But you are correct: Star Wars and Indy did things to keep the franchise alive. Sort of like how Pottermore was just launched into "beta" and almost immediately filled up its 1-million spots allocated for "beta testing"? It hasn't even been made available on e-book yet, so when that happens it is going to blow up the best seller list all over again.

 

Actually, that is a misconception. Everyone assumes its was planned as a trilogy -- but it's only because Lucas had trouble coming up with a storyline for film #4. In the late 1970's, Speilberg and Lucas signed a deal with Paramount Pictures to make five Indiana Jones films.

Considering, Lucas was also planning to film six Star Wars movies during this same time -- I seriously don't know how they figured they would have had the time.

[jjune4991]

Pretty sure Lucas was trying to make 9 Star Wars films. But he just made them up all along...just like what he did with Indy 4.

[BeemerBoy]

There are a ton of active film franchises that will likely live on for year to

chose from (Star Trek, James Bond, Twilight, etc.)

Hang on. You're suggesting that Twilight would be a more viable option than continuing on with Harry Potter?

 

I did read that right?

[O-Town77]

Pretty sure Lucas was trying to make 9 Star Wars films. But he just made them up all along...just like what he did with Indy 4.

 

You make an excellent point. Lucas wanted 9 total -- I've got no idea why he started with #4.

The plan was for the first six during the 1980's. Then the last 3 for the 1990s.

[Wes]

Still trying to figure out how something that has been around for 13 and has only increased in popularity can be considered a fad.

[Sir Clinksalot]

^

 

Granted, I'm not a Potter fan...

I think this is the biggest problem with Potterdump.

 

It seems like you have to be a Potter "fan" to really appreciate it. (ok, yes, obnoxious people, please post that you're not a Potter fan but you still enjoy it...but you know what I mean.)

 

For example, I'm not a Winnie the Pooh fan...but I *love* Pooh in Tokyo. I'm not a Star Wars fan, but I enjoy Star Tours. I'm not a Spiderman fan, but I like the attraction. People who aren't Jurassic Park fans don't need to know anything more than "Hey, there's a dinosaur" to get the attraction.

 

With Potter, I felt completely lost and the entire land meant nothing to me.

 

I went through it once, it didn't appeal to me, and I'm done. That's it. I personally don't have any reason to go back because I feel they designed that land for people who are casual Potter fans and up.

 

For the random person who hasn't seen the movies or read the books, it just doesn't play well to those people, and the responses you hear from the non-Potter fans even on this forum kinda reflect that.

 

I'm all for building a $200 million dollar ride and the equivalent expansion. But build something I can appreciate, even without having seen any of the movies.

 

That right there is my biggest issue with the Potter lands.

 

--Robb "It's built for the fans, not for everyone." Alvey

 

I haven't been to Potterland, but I can totally see that. Sometimes being so strict to the story is a bad thing, certainly seems to be in this case.

 

Most of the people who are fans, even casually, of HP LOVE the land, the ride, etc. There are "some" people with no knowledge of the HP universe that like it as well. But I would think the vast majority of people who have no knowledge of the HP universe would feel the same as those on this forum.

 

And that's really too bad that it doesn't tell "the story" very well and assumes that you would have a working knowledge of the franchise. This isn't always the case.

 

In the past, rides have done a great job of telling the story even for those not familiar. The "News of the World" videos in the Indy queue come to mind. Even the pre-show on BTTF and Simpsons do a great job of this for Universal.

 

Hopefully this will get better with the expansion/addition to USH.

 

All that said, HP isn't going anywhere, it's popularity isn't going anywhere. Just like with Star Wars/Indy, there will eventually be a "next generation" of kids that grow up with Potter. Even though Star Wars came out 21 years before my Son was born, he still grew up with those movies. HP is going to be the same thing.

 

And as was said above, there is Pottermore, books to come on e-Books, re-releases of the movies, etc.

 

Saying that HP won't be popular in 20-30 years would be like saying they shouldn't have made the Lord of the Rings movies because Tokien published those books in the 50's.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Sir Clinksalot

[O-Town77]

There are a ton of active film franchises that will likely live on for year to

chose from (Star Trek, James Bond, Twilight, etc.)

Hang on. You're suggesting that Twilight would be a more viable option than continuing on with Harry Potter?

 

I did read that right?

 

Personally, A Twilight attraction would make me vomit.

But Stephenie Meyer is still writing more books and more movies are on the way.

I wouldn't want it to be built, but acknowledge that it would likely be successful.

 

It's an active franchise versus one that has completely ended its story arc.

I think it's silly to demolish an attraction (Jaws) because "its a dead franchise" just to

replace it with another dead one.

 

I think Twilight has a similar-sized fanbase to Potter..... Plus, it's newer

and seen as "cooler" -- at least according to the Wall Street Journal:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204261704574276261288253316.html

 

Just food for thought. I wouldn't like it -- but there are demographics outside

of mine that would be drawn to the park for a Twilight attraction.

Edited December 7, 2011 by O-Town77

[PriestofSyrinx]

Still trying to figure out how something that has been around for 13 and has only increased in popularity can be considered a fad.

 

Ill have to agree. Its a power house of a franchise. It will have lasting impact, because my generation will turn their children on to Harry Potter, just like my generation of parents turned us on to their pop culture. This will continue to have a lasting impact for years to come.

 

If anything is going to be a fad in Orlando, it maybe Avatar at Animal Kingdom, which could turnout to be flop, who knows?

 

Nick "Cant believe I just defended UO over WDW" Wells

[BeemerBoy]

For the record, I thought The Smurfs, The Muppets, G.I. Joe, Transformers, and even Star Wars for that matter, were supposed to be "dead" too when I retired those toys to my closet three decades ago.

 

Also, did Universal junk the old "Ectomobile"? Just curious, so we can discuss that when a new Ghostbusters film rolls out.

 

Nothing is dead as long as money exists.

[PriestofSyrinx]

Nothing is dead as long as money exists.

 

Thats one of the best things I have ever read. You need to trademark that.

[O-Town77]

Still trying to figure out how something that has been around for 13 and has only increased in popularity can be considered a fad.

 

As much as I loved the highly successful Back to the Future trilogy -- it probably qualifies for "fad"

status since Universal already yanked the ride from most of its parks. Movies fade

from memory if they don't make it to theaters every few years.

 

If a franchise goes long enough without a new movie -- the public usually forgets it.

We are talking about something that only lasted for 7 books -- there have been far more

prolific franchises as to # of volumes and people will look to new books/movies after they

finish reading those 7.

 

By comparison, Ian Fleming wrote 12 James Bond books in roughly that same time period.

He provided a lot more storylines to draw from... which is what has propelled 22+ films

to be made so far. Again, no end in sight for Bond. But J.K. has retired HP (and in

my opinion, a little too early).

[O-Town77]

For the record, I thought The Smurfs, The Muppets, G.I. Joe, Transformers, and even Star Wars for that matter, were supposed to be "dead" too when I retired those toys to my closet three decades ago.

 

Also, did Universal junk the old "Ectomobile"? Just curious, so we can discuss that when a new Ghostbusters film rolls out.

 

Nothing is dead as long as money exists.

 

Keep in mind, J.K. Rowling has very tight control over the rights to Harry Potter.

If she says, no more -- then that's the way it stays.

 

Almost all the other franchises you mentioned didn't have a creator with such firm control over its content (Excluding Star Wars, since Lucas also has that kind of power).

[Sir Clinksalot]

^ You keep trying to convince everybody that HP is a Fad ... it's not working.

 

BTTF a fad? Are you serious? Just because a ride was removed doesn't mean that the movies aren't popular anymore. My daughter just watched the movies for the first time a few weeks ago and LOVED THEM!!

[O-Town77]

Still trying to figure out how something that has been around for 13 and has only increased in popularity can be considered a fad.

 

Ill have to agree. Its a power house of a franchise. It will have lasting impact, because my generation will turn their children on to Harry Potter, just like my generation of parents turned us on to their pop culture. This will continue to have a lasting impact for years to come.

 

If anything is going to be a fad in Orlando, it maybe Avatar at Animal Kingdom, which could turnout to be flop, who knows?

 

Nick "Cant believe I just defended UO over WDW" Wells

 

It may have a lasting impact, but one without anything new to offer in 4-5 years when this land would be built.

I do agree that Avatar is probably a mistake -- one successful film is a bit risky to base a half billion dollar themed

land on. What happens if Avatar 2 is a huge box office flop? Suddenly, that expensive land at Animal Kingdom

is tarnished.

 

Also, there are a ton of franchises available with lasting impacts. Many which fit the "ride the movies" theme of Universal Studios better than Potter.

[BeemerBoy]

To be fair, I'll agree with "Bond." I've always thought it would be a wonderful resource for theme park related material.

 

I still think you're selling the Potter franchise short though. I'll just leave it at that.

[robbalvey]

If anything is going to be a fad in Orlando, it maybe Avatar at Animal Kingdom, which could turnout to be flop, who knows?

Right, but I can't think of many people in Hollywood more "bankable" than James Cameron, can you?

[O-Town77]

^ You keep trying to convince everybody that HP is a Fad ... it's not working.

 

BTTF a fad? Are you serious? Just because a ride was removed doesn't mean that the movies aren't popular anymore. My daughter just watched the movies for the first time a few weeks ago and LOVED THEM!!

 

I'm not trying to convince everybody of anything.

 

I simply agree with what a lot of media outlets have already said. That Harry Potter is fading and is gradually being replaced by Twilight.

Don't kill the messenger. Twilight will eventually fade and probably be replaced by Vampire Diaries -- who knows?

 

BTTF is no longer relevant enough for Universal to keep it at their parks. I own the trilogy and love the films. But kids don't

know them unless their parents force 'em to watch the DVD's. I think you are getting hung up on the semantics of the term

fad. Just because something runs its course, doesn't mean it still isn't great to watch for nostalgia. Just like Generation Z

won't know Harry Potter because there won't be any new books or films -- they will only know it when parents introduce them

to "the classics" since it will fade from pop culture (without new offerings).

 

I don't see people hanging posters of Catherine Bach (Daisy Duke) on their walls anymore, either. Time marches on.

[Jew]

Speaking of George Lucas, he did an interview with Time magazine in 1983 saying he was burned out and done with Star Wars after Return of the Jedi. Then he got divorced a few years later and went back to work on the prequels.

 

JK Rowling also said last year during her interview with Oprah that a new book in the series is still a possibility.

 

Even if a new book is not written, Pottermore was just launched and will include tons of previously unreleased material and an online game/social networking portal with more unique content. That can carry the franchise for years to come.

 

Nor have I seen a single article or media outlet say Harry Potter is fading...

[O-Town77]

To be fair, I'll agree with "Bond." I've always thought it would be a wonderful resource for theme park related material.

 

I still think you're selling the Potter franchise short though. I'll just leave it at that.

 

Perhaps, I'm selling it short.

 

I just think J.K. Rowling really did an "Amanda Bynes retirement" -kinda thing with Harry Potter. Retired it way too early.

Forcing the studio to try to stretch out 7 books into 8 films due to the lack of storylines, yet Warner wanting to keep the

films going. But without the films in theaters, I know it will fade like everything else does.

 

I am totally shocked that theme parks haven't done more with Bond. There is just so many opportunities to work with at

this point....