Nintendo and Universal form theme park partnership

Discussion in 'Non-Disney Theme Parks and Destinations' started by See Post, May 9, 2015.

Random Thread
  1. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt

    Who??
     
  2. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By leemac

    <<Despite Nintendo's popularity, it still feels like a move they're making because they have nothing good enough in their own line up to me. And that seems pretty lame.>>

    Iger has plunked down nearly $16bn to buy Pixar, MARVEL and Lucasfilm for exactly the same reason.
     
  3. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt

    Good point.
     
  4. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By dagobert

    But even without the accquisition of Lucasfilm, Disney would have been able to use SW and Indy in the parks and Disney already did that since MDE was CEO.

    The same goes for Pixar in the parks.

    From a studios point of view, the point is valid.
     
  5. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt

    I think one could also argue that unlike Universal Disney actually does have a cache of strong vibrant brands to leverage in the Parks from Mickey to the Frozen characters, a film which grossed over $1 billion worldwide. Having control of LucasFilm, Pixar and Marvel help tremendously for sure, but it's not like Disney was completely void of creative franchises without them.
     
  6. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By CuriousConstance

    I was going to say the same thing. For 50 years Disney did fine on their own without Pixar, Marvel, and Lucasfilms. Yes that added a lot, but they still use lots of their own stuff and turn out really good movies (Big Hero 6) that they can use. All these years and Universal has NOTHING worthwhile, so resorts to video game characters? I still think it's lame.
     
  7. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By dagobert

    And Disney was always at its best when WDI created something original, like SM, BTMRR, POTC, MM or Disney's best attraction ever PM/HM.
     
  8. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By leemac

    <<But even without the accquisition of Lucasfilm, Disney would have been able to use SW and Indy in the parks and Disney already did that since MDE was CEO.

    The same goes for Pixar in the parks.>>

    But those were all licensed properties - no different to Uni taking Nintendo. They paid for the rights.
     
  9. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By leemac

    <<For 50 years Disney did fine on their own without Pixar, Marvel, and Lucasfilms. Yes that added a lot, but they still use lots of their own stuff and turn out really good movies (Big Hero 6) that they can use. All these years and Universal has NOTHING worthwhile, so resorts to video game characters? I still think it's lame.>>

    Try being a theme park designer in 1984 when the studio hadn't had a hit in years.

    Uni has an incredible history for a studio - all those monster movies that they are trying to rebuild into their own MCU, their Spielberg properties like Jurassic Park, the Fast franchise, the Bourne movies, Despicable Me etc. The studio doesn't have NOTHING.

    Uni wooed Legendary from WB to build franchises - beginning with Crimson Peak in the fall and continuing with Warcraft and the likes of Pacific Rim.
     
  10. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By barboy5

    " For 50 years Disney did fine on their own without Pixar, Marvel, and Lucasfilms."

    Nonsense!
    But keep up not only the sheer ignorance but shining bias as well.
     
  11. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By dagobert

    >>>But those were all licensed properties - no different to Uni taking Nintendo. They paid for the rights.<<<

    Of course that's true. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't necessary for Disney to purchase LF or Pixar to use the IPs in the parks, since you mentioned Iger's purhases.
     
  12. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By CuriousConstance

    "Uni has an incredible history for a studio - all those monster movies that they are trying to rebuild into their own MCU, their Spielberg properties like Jurassic Park, the Fast franchise, the Bourne movies, Despicable Me etc. The studio doesn't have NOTHING."

    Maybe not nothing, but seems like they already have attractions based off of most of their popular franchises already. If Disney announced tomorrow they were making a new land based on a popular video game franchise, I'd think the same thing.
     
  13. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA

    <Try being a theme park designer in 1984 when the studio hadn't had a hit in years.>

    'The Apple Dumpling Gang'
    'Herbie Goes Bananas'
    'Tron'
    'Splash'
    'The Fox and the Hound'
    'Trenchcoat'
    'Something Wicked this way Comes'

    Just a sample of the movie out put from the few years previous to 1994.

    Let's build a theme park attraction! :-/
     
  14. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA

    ^^^ 1984 that is :-/
     
  15. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By leemac

    <<If Disney announced tomorrow they were making a new land based on a popular video game franchise, I'd think the same thing.>>

    I find it odd that you seem to find a "video game franchise" any lower on the creative spectrum than say a movie or TV show. The likes of Super Mario and Donkey Kong have some engaging characters in some interesting environments.

    I'd take some of those Nintendo worlds over some of the Disney Channel crap that has been in the parks in recent years.
     
  16. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt

    "I find it odd that you seem to find a "video game franchise" any lower on the creative spectrum than say a movie or TV show."

    Why? Maybe some people don't care for Super Mario or Donkey Kong. I'd certainly be skeptical if Disney announced today that these franchises were being developed into attractions for its parks.

    Speaking of lame ideas does anybody here remember when Disney licensed the Gummi Bears and built a temporary attraction called Gummi Glen in Fantasyland? Ugh. Also this:

    <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.disneygals.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Disneyland-Afternoon-Avenue.jpg">http://www.disneygals.com/wp-c...enue.jpg</a>
     
  17. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By CuriousConstance

    "I find it odd that you seem to find a "video game franchise" any lower on the creative spectrum than say a movie or TV show. The likes of Super Mario and Donkey Kong have some engaging characters in some interesting environments."

    I don't see what's so odd about it, it's just one person's opinion. You don't find video game franchises less worthy of theme park attractions compared to movies, and I do. My opinion is more of a gut reaction than any thought out, logical reason anyway.
     
  18. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By SafariRob

    It's all about the characters. Don't believe me? Ask Six Flags how their WB partnership is doing. (Actually, the Justice League ride this year and movie next year should help turn things around. Anyway...)

    I think it's a good partnership. You could argue a very good case for Mario being the Mickey Mouse of video games. (What does that make Pac-Man? Donald Duck? Anyway...)

    The Nintendo characters are still very popular. In addition to the Mario universe, they have Pokemon and Zelda...both huge franchises in their own right. You could create several attractions on the Mario characters alone.

    Bravo, Universal!
     
  19. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By RoadTrip

    Maybe I'm showing my age but I think some of the Nintendo "characters" are just as "classic" as any coming from a film franchise. They also appeal to a wide age-range... I love playing Super Mario Carts on our Wii, and so do my granddaughters.

    I never got into X-Box... just too "geeky" a platform for me. I'm just not a heavy duty "gamer". The Nintendo stuff has always seemed better suited for the casual user.
     
  20. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By SafariRob

    Exactly. The Nintendo characters are classic. Even non-gamers know Mario. That's why Universal made the deal. It's brilliant.

    Can you imagine a dark ride based on Super Mario Kart or a 4D shooter based on ANYTHING Nintendo? The possibilities are endless.

    Curious George is still pretty popular. If they are moving CG out for this, he should reappear somewhere else. Maybe even CG a dark ride if Universal is serious about transitioning from movie studio to full-fledged theme park.
     

Share This Page