Does anybody know what Vivendi plans to do with the property other than sell off small parcels of it?
But we're dealing with a delicate balance. Right now, there's so much with just the two parks themselves--it's not just another Universal park elsewhere, where modified copies of attractions at USH and USO can be put in--a third park at Universal Orlando would have to still be original and fresh--and frankly, I have no clue what the theme would be, other than movie/adventure related.
So I have a feeling the property will be used for hotels, convention centers, and the water park. I simply can't see a third park going up (I see more room for attractions at USO and IOA, but other than that...).
I hope that Vivendi doesn't move too quickly on this. Let the land sit for a while. Don't make Disney's mistake of opening new parks instead of building up the existing ones.
There's plenty of room and opportunity for expansion in IOA and USF. I hope Vivendi fully develops the market for those parks before it adds a third.
If it does, then whatever entertainment gap exists between those parks, that a third park could fill, would become apparent.
"Your vacation getaway at Universal Escape! Ride the movies at Universal Studios Orlando. Journey into adventure at Islands of Adventure. And catch the entertainment you missed at our newest park: ALL THE OTHER STUFF!"
*shrugs* I dunno. I'm sure if they put their heads together they could come up with something--heck, I could come up with something if I really sat down and thought about it, but I'm not getting paid, either, so...
I also believe in the small world principle. (No, not that abominable Disney ride.) Contrary to what we may think, the movers and shakers at Disney and Vivendi are not that far removed from us. The internet is far too powerful and easily accessed tool to ignore, and these people are most likely visiting sites like this to sample the opinions and ideas of their market. Since this is the best designed site of this genre that I've discovered (kudos, Robert), I suspect that some of these folks are checking it out too. I also feel that most of the thoughts and opinions expressed on this site (yes, even Kevin's) are very creative and insightful. So, I strongly believe that we can influence the direction of the industry.
Will the Simpsons park be built? I think so. It is too unique and too good of an idea to pass up. I don't think that Disney, Vivendi, Busch, or Six Flags will do it though. It doen't seem to fit with their image. Maybe the folks at Cedar Fair will jump on this idea and use it as a way to get into the Orlando market. Somebody better act soon though, because the window of opportunity on a Simpsons park will last for about ten more years and then the market recognition will start declining. That would be a shame.
Back to the third park issue. I really liked the seven continents idea proposed in the post above. Imagine what it would be to have a theme park with a continents of the world theme. This could be World Showcase on steroids. Themed thrill rides, themed family rides, shows and attractions, and great restaurants. Something for everybody. This would also complement the movies that Universal puts out like The Mummy and The Scorpion King since many of them are set in exotic locations. Imagine the possibilities.
I think that if Vivendi were to build "just a thrill park" or even "just a theme park" then it would be a step backwards for them.
Islands of Adventure is the perfect combination between thrill/theme. That's the combination they should pursue--it's what they're good at doing--and better at doing compared to Disney.
On the other hand, where Universal excels in thrill, Disney makes up for in theme. The thrill aspect takes up most of the teen and young adult demograph, but as for the toddler, child, old adult, and elder, Disney's tame, family oriented rides deliever just as much enjoyment. What Universal needs to do is measure in some gentle themed dark rides to target the park to a wider audience.
Course, you can't please everyone all the time.
I'm not sure what the official next step would be after theme and thrill, but I think interactivity would be a reasonable choice.
DisneyQuest at Downtown Disney is an excellant example, providing a number of small attractions that are interactive and provide the rider with a unique, personalized experience everytime.
Think Universal can take that concept a step further, designing rides that are interactive on a grander scale? It'd be an extensive deal of work, but if executed properly (I guess executed properly is my newest all time phrase) it could make Universal really successful.
If you think about, the only major thing that puts Disney over the top is their registered cartoon characters and full-length animated films. If they didn't have movies staring Disney characters, would Disney be as great as they are now? Or if Universal did, would it really make any difference?
I, for one, don't feel that DW is too big. I like the options and I have the income to enjoy all of them if I choose. The reason why I don't go there more frequently is the fact that I feel that Disney puts out a mediocre product at a premium price. If they would put some money in their parks and give me a reason to be there more often, I would be. Unfortunately, they don't, and I'm voting with my money.
I also see a great opportunity in USF and IOA. I like their product, and I want to see them grow to become more of a destination resort in the category of Disney. If they can manage to pull it off, I see everyone benefitting because Disney will have to get off their duffs in order to compete.
By the way, change is good. The old casinos in Las Vegas are going out of business because they won't change to meet the expectations of their market. If you ask any of the oldtimers who have gone to Las Vegas over the years, they like it much better now.
Disney cannibalized its own parks with Animal Kingdom. It cannibalized Disneyland with California Adventure.
Universal saw a net gain with Island of Adventure, but not as much as its business forecasts demanded. (Once again, guys, you've got to *promote* the park!)
So neither company is going to rush to build without solid evidence that a new park will attract new business.
Universal could make the argument that they need the additional park to become a "destination" resort like Disney. They can accurately point to the fact that few tourists book Orlando to go to Universal. Most of their business is brought to town by their competitor, Disney.
(Some folks at Disney, curiously, are making the same argument for a third park in California, despite DCA's failure to bring in new business. They say that DCA hasn't put the Disneyland Resort "over the top" for having the critical mass to become a destination resort that would attract new tourists.)
The problem with this argument, especially as applied in California, is that people don't book a vacation to see three parks, or four. They book to see the Magic Kingdom, Islands of Adventure and Epcot.
The theme and content of the parks are the attraction, not the sheer number of them.
That's why I think Universal must work at building up IoA and USF as first-choice attractions, the parks that people want to see before any others when visiting Orlando. Once they get a significant number of people coming to Orlando to see Universal, with a side trip to Disney, that's when Universal can hit 'em with the third park to try and keep those people on property all week, so they never feel the need to go see the Mouse.
Both of these ideas would require partnering with or buying another film studio. I don't think Vivendi's got enough compelling intellectual property by itself at this point to build another park. Sure, Vivendi's got a lot of music acts, but those names don't last long enough to justify the capital expense of a major theme park ride.
Animation Park - (Okay, you'd need a more compelling title). But bring together DreamWorks, Aardman and Nickelodeon and create an animation-driven park for kids and adults that would make the Magic Kingdom look like a tired, stale and irrelevant relic.
Wizards and Witchcraft - It'd have to be a deal with Warners. But throw Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings into a park and watch these magicians turn people into money.
Like I said, Universal should take its time before adding another park. But I think both these ideas would have enough shelf-life that they would still hold up 6-10 years from now, which is the earliest Universal should be thinking about for a new park.
First, they DO have to turn USF and IOA into COMPLETE parks. USF used to be complete, but with Kongfrontation closing yet again, no Hercules/Xena, no decent Nickelodeon thing, and the threatened closure of the Hanna Barbera ride, that park is becoming quite lean. IOA would probably suffice with an actual show in the Pandemonium Circus, an A-level attraction and a couple of B-level attractions. THEN they could focus on Number Three.
The reason Animal Kingdom cannibalized Epcot and Disney/MGM was due to two different factors. One was that the average American vacation was shortening to five days at its inception. Considering that Epcot is considered a two-day park, and most families spend another two days at the Magic Kingdom, something had to go. So for most families it was either Day Two at Epcot or one day started at the miniature AK and ended at MGM. The other factor was that Disney didn't bother to add anything of worth to those other two parks. If USF hadn't added Men In Black, you would have seen the same exact phenomenon over at their parks.
Still, for a third park to survive in the Orlando market, it MUST attract the locals. AK certainly did not do that. IOA is starting to do that. Why is one doing so while the other isn't? Thrill rides. More to the point, RE-RIDEABLE rides. Besides the Safari, what does anyone want to do over and over again in AK? The castrated Dinosaur no longer counts. Compare that to IOA with its three coasters, three fun water rides and then the spectacular Spidey.
So Number Three would definitely have to focus on such rides. But making the park solely a "thrill" park would be stupid. Universal still needs the family tourists. And those family tourists don't all flock to WDW for thrill rides. They want the theming as well as family attractions. So the new park would definitely need a good mix of the two. Just like IOA has done so successfully.
Finally, Universal needs a third park (and possibly a fourth) for it to truly become a "resort destination." Many people have started making sure to add Universal to their vacation plans, but most still aren't making Universal the bulk of their vacation plans. Adding a third park would keep people there for at least four days. Plus, the market for families with older kids is far larger than the Magic Kingdom target market and having a true alternative for those families seems to be a smart move to me.
I like a lot of the ideas on here, but I will present what I have been thinking of and my reasons for it. But I think I will give it its own piece of this thread, since I want Universal Creative to focus on it!!! :-)
Okay, I picture a HUGE circular lake in the center, like Epcot's. This is necessary for Universal to create a nighttime show that will last more than a summer!
Around the lake will be a huge walkway, like Epcot's again, but nothing will be between the walkway and the lake, so more people can see the show.
On the opposite side of the lake are many gateways. These will all be huge, like the gateways to Jurassic Park in IOA, but with actual gates on them. This way, it will be much easier for Universal to schedule attraction-openings and such. Say on a slow day, two gates can open at park-opening with the other gates opening throughout the day. This way people aren't walking by closed attractions and griping about it.
When a gate opens, the view beyond will feature an icon in each section, with the rest of the land surrounding it.
My only ideas for each "gate" so far are an Aardman area, a Fairytale/Fantasy Forest area (two areas for the kiddies there), a Mummy-themed land, a "Classic Monsters" town and something themed with water, so all the water rides can be in one area and can be closed on ugly days.
The Aardman area will be Wallace and Gromit's town, but all of the Aardman creations will be featured. I haven't thought of an icon for this area, because I don't think W&G's house is all that recognizable. I have ideas for a dueling dark ride for the upcoming Tortoise and Hare movie, as well as my obsessed-over Chicken Run pie machine/roller coaster. Maybe a carousel with sheep? I am sure this area will have millions of ideas.
My Fairytale/Fantasy Forest area will be Shrek's domain, but once again, is his house readily recognizable for icon status? Maybe a beanstalk or a gingerbread house instead. This is a natural area for a Camp-Jurassic-style play area, but I only recently came up with it so I haven't put much effort into it.
The Mummy area has either a pyramid or some massive tomb as the icon. In fact, the icon here can be like the pyramid at Epcot's Mexico pavilion and can actually house several attractions, shops, etc. Surrounding it is an early-20th-century village. I have two ideas for major rides here. One uses the balloon-trip-down-the-river portion of Mummy II and involves 3-D, roller-coaster movement and Kong's quick drops. The other is taken from II's bus-escape through London, but turned into a combo of Earthquake and Jaws. This area can also feature the Scorpion King since his movie is coming out.
My Classic Monsters area will feature a town just like in Frankenstein. Beyond the town will be the icon, which is a huge scary mansion. This can also feature several attractions, shops, a restaurant, and the like. Before you get to the mansion, obnoxious arrows will point to the basement, where the wacky Beetlejuice dark ride will be. Behind the town will be the Black Lagoon, where there will be a ride to find the Creature. This is like a scary version of the submarine ride at Disneyland, with a little motion simulator thrown in. This area also calls for a Dracula flying coaster which flies in and out of the mansion and town, which of course will be insanely difficult to build. My favorite part of this area will be after dark (or any time Universal picks) the whole area will become much scarier. Like Universal's Halloween Horror Nights, monsters will jump out or roam around scaring anyone brave enough to enter.
The park could open with these four areas and be complete, if done correctly. But I picture up to eight different areas, which would eventually turn this into a two-day park. I think Universal definitely needs to stop at four parks, for they don't want to fall into Disney's current trap. So a park that can constantly grow and change is necessary. Eventually IOA and USF will get to the point where they can no longer grow beyond new shows and such. The Orlando parks are getting to the point to where each company has to add something big every year to bring people back, so at least one park must have a never-ending ability to expand.
The fourth park, which I also have major ideas for, will HAVE to be something completely new and original. Using films and other licenses just cannot stretch to yet another park without Universal seeming to be non-creative. Besides, this park leaves open space for any new franchise the film division discovers.
Okay, on another thread we have been debating Orlando's quality of life which got me to thinking about how Disney and Universal have basically added nothing to the deal. Well, with the Lockheed property getting conventioneer hotels, now is the time for Universal to change this.
I say Universal should add an Arts Complex to the site. Something architecturally spectacular with performing arts theatres, museums, classy restaurants, maybe an amphitheatre since Hard Rock's seems to have a full slate.
When the theme parks here get built, they will need something like CityWalk to keep people spending money after the theme parks, but they shouldn't just make CityWalk2. Going in this direction could really improve their cachet in Orlando.
Plus, there is just so much they could do with a complex like this. Touring Broadway plays could stop here and tickets could be sold in kiosks outside all the theme parks. Maybe some renowned creative persons could start some theatre groups here. Heck, even some of the lesser Vegas shows would probably do well here.
Downtown Disney's weekend art show does really well, so why not a world-class art museum? Or a history museum dealing with Orlando's history? You could throw a lot of Walt in there and his rabid fans would show up in droves.
Or how about the National Theme Park Museum? Or even just the Universal Theme Park Museum? Show us exhibits on how attractions are made. Show us models of proposed attractions. You could make it half-museum/half-Disney-Quest and probably make a mint. I think a lot of people who head to Orlando for just the parks would love to visit a museum that let them know more about them. Look how successful the behind-the-scenes tours are at WDW.
Universal has such a catalog of entertainment productions, they could probably do an entire Universal Museum. Stuff that doesn't necessarily make good theme park attractions (cough, Lucy, cough) but are good museum exhibits outside those parks could fit here.
The theme parks may be a decade away, but those conventioneers won't be. Give them something to do in the area NOW, and they will probably continue to come back until you have the theme parks.
