Shrek's Adventure London

[bluesonichd]

Well the first 10000 map tickes that where given away have all been claimed in the to batch releases they did. Some people must still be interested

 

[Rick]

Well the first 10000 map tickes that where given away have all been claimed in the to batch releases they did. Some people must still be interested

Exactly, and enthusiasts don't like anything. If Alton announced a 300ft giga with red track, enthusiasts would want it to be 301ft with blue track.

Shrek is a massive brand and will sell tickets like there's no tomorrow.

 

[Rick]

Are you seriously calling Thomas The Tank Engine outdated? It's been going for 70 years and it's the most popular pre school IP there is. I bet you Thomas Land will still be at Drayton in 15 years time attracting hoards of guests whilst this Shrek IP will barely be remembered.

No it isn't. Thomas is huge, it's extremely popular in Britain, America and Japan. I see kids with Thomas merchandise everywhere when I'm out. Shrek? None at all. I can't even remember the last time I saw something Shrek related in a shop.

The first film came out in 2001, but the series was never really that popular until the 2nd film came out in 2004. So if these parents who were 8 when this first came out are now no older than 22, but the films are definitely not something for younger children. Besides, if their children were 4 or 5 (or at least old enough to understand what Shrek is about) then that means their parents were about teenagers...besides, I don't know a single parent who has a young child that likes Shrek. But you know what they do like? Thomas The Tank Engine. Shrek's an IP that's deader than disco which was thanks to the 3rd and 4th film's failures. This attraction won't be as successful as you're making it out to be.

Do some research, please! The 4th film (a failure(!)) made double at the box office what the first film made, it made more at the box office (nothing else - just box office) than what HIT (owner of Thomas, Bob the Builder etc) was sold to Mattel for in 2011.

Why? Because it has more earnings potential = bigger brand.

 

[Danny]

The difference between Thomas and Shrek is that the former is a timeless classic, whereas Shrek simply won't have that much of an appeal further on down the line that other franchises have. Yes the franchise is still somewhat able to be milked, but it won't be long until that milk turns stale.

 

[Ted]

Do some research, please! The 4th film (a failure(!)) made double at the box office what the first film made, it made more at the box office (nothing else - just box office) than what HIT (owner of Thomas, Bob the Builder etc) was sold to Mattel for in 2011.

Why? Because it has more earnings potential = bigger brand.

If you did some research yourself, you would find the 3rd and 4th films failed critically. In order for films to be a success, they have to do well at the box office and with the critics. The 4th film may have done well finacially, but it didn't succeed critically. So if the 4th film wasn't a failure, then why was the 5th film initially cancelled?

It's quite clear you're some kind of odd Shrek fanboy who can't take criticism of why your precious Orge isn't as popular as he was 10 years ago.

Oh and by the way, Thomas The Tank Engine makes around £1Billion a year and he continues to make more, so it's made more money than Shrek has in 14 years. Also, did you say that some of Disney's IPs are "crazy outdated"?. I'm interested to know what ones they are...

 

[Rick]

If you did some research yourself, you would find the 3rd and 4th films failed critically. In order for films to be a success, they have to do well at the box office and with the critics. The 4th film may have done well finacially, but it didn't succeed critically. So if the 4th film wasn't a failure, then why was the 5th film initially cancelled?

It's quite clear you're some kind of odd Shrek fanboy who can't take criticism of why your precious Orge isn't as popular as he was 10 years ago.

It's not cancelled? It's going to happen, Katzenberg said so - sometimes you can make more money by going away and coming back when the market isn't saturated with products similar to your own - or indeed other franchises that you own. That's true of many products, but particularly with films and music (Stone Roses, Star Wars etc).

I haven't seen the third film and slept through part of the fourth. I can take or leave it, but cold hard facts speak for themselves. Whether a film fails critically or not is irrelevant, if it's a success at the box office that means that there is a huge target market for the property - it doesn't matter what the critics make of it, it's not the critics who buy the merchandise and ultimately make a film a winner or not for the production company.

The Godfather Part 2 - voted third best film of all time by the people of IMDB was reviewed in the New York Times as "Everything of any interest was thoroughly covered in the original film, but like many people who have nothing to say, Part II won’t shut up… Looking very expensive but spiritually desperate, Part II has the air of a very long, very elaborate revue sketch.".

Oh and by the way, Thomas The Tank Engine makes around £1Billion a year and he continues to make more, so it's made more money than Shrek has in 14 years.

If it makes £1bn a year, why was the company that owns it sold for a third of that? That would be the most ludicrous transaction in the history of business. In 2012, HIT Entertainment (that's everything - not just Thomas) posted a pre-tax profit of £169,488,000. You better call HMRC, this could be the next Tesco!

 

[Plastic Person]

If you did some research yourself, you would find the 3rd and 4th films failed critically. In order for films to be a success, they have to do well at the box office and with the critics. .

This isn't true at all, at least not from Hollywood's perspective. But Shrek is definitely an ailing franchise.

 

[Ted]

@Rick
The fact you've resorted to swearing at me shows how immature you are. Are you really that angry people are criticising this attraction and you would go out of this way just to protect it? It's an outdated IP, if this was 2005, then yeah, I can see why such a thing like this would exist. But Shrek is not popular as he was 10 years ago

It's not cancelled? It's going to happen, Katzenberg said so - sometimes you can make more money by going away and coming back when the market isn't saturated with products similar to your own - or indeed other franchises that you own. That's true of many products, but particularly with films and music (Stone Roses, Star Wars etc).

Just because he says it's going to happen, doesn't mean it will happen. I know you said that this quote was from last Summer. Well guess what? Dreamworks had to lay off a lot of employees due to financial failures of films like Turbo, Rise Of The Guardians and Penguins Of Madagascar underperforming at the box office. And this was after Katzenberg said about a new Shrek.

I haven't seen the third film and slept through part of the fourth. I can take or leave it, but cold hard facts speak for themselves. Whether a film fails critically or not is irrelevant, if it's a success at the box office that means that there is a huge target market for the property - it doesn't matter what the critics make of it, it's not the critics who buy the merchandise and ultimately make a film a winner or not for the production company.

Does this mean that a certain percentage of the film's box office comes from sales of the merchandise and not from the ticket sales? I gotta say that's very unimpressive if it's true. Shrek 4 did very well in Russia, so it must be popular there. Why not build a Shrek attraction in Moscow instead? It would be more successful. By the way, the film was released nearly 5 years ago, would Shrek be popular now as it was 5 years ago? Do you really people are coming go the attraction in London like people do for Harry Potter at Universal? I don't think they would.

The Godfather Part 2 - voted third best film of all time by the people of IMDB was reviewed in the New York Times as "Everything of any interest was thoroughly covered in the original film, but like many people who have nothing to say, Part II won’t shut up… Looking very expensive but spiritually desperate, Part II has the air of a very long, very elaborate revue sketch.".

No idea what relevance this has. Godfather Part II is a great film which was both critically and financially successful. Got nothing to do with Shrek.

If it makes £1bn a year, why was the company that owns it sold for a third of that? That would be the most ludicrous transaction in the history of business. In 2012, HIT Entertainment (that's everything - not just Thomas) posted a pre-tax profit of £169,488,000. You better call HMRC, this could be the next Tesco!

Now I'm just gathering that you hate Thomas and you're a bit jealous that it's a bigger IP that Shrek is. If you really want to compare Shrek to another successful IP at a UK park, then try Peppa Pig World at Paultons. It's debatable whether it will be timeless, but it's definitely more popular than Shrek and not an outdated IP.

Also, you still haven't answered my question about what IPs from Disney are outdated. Which ones are they?

 

[Rick]

@TedTheHuman You tell me where your £1bn per annum figure comes from for Thomas and I'll answer your question

 

[James]

Who cares what it made 5 years ago in the box office. People are more getting at the point that Shrek is not a timeless classic. It's unlikely in 70 years Shrek will be looked at as one of the great classic franchises of the 00s.

 

[Rob]

I don't think how much a franchise such as Thomas makes per year is relevant to discussion regarding a new Melrin Midway attraction in London. Clearly there are good points to be made about whether Shrek is a suitable choice for this attraction but I think we are starting to get a little off topic. So if we can get back on topic before things get more heated (I've had to edit one post) then that would be lovely!

Thanks!

 

[Benzin]

Not everyone who owns a MAP can be really classed as an 'enthusiast'... Indeed, I'd reckon there are many more non-enthusiasts who own them currently than enthusiasts...

Would this place sell out if it wasn't owned by Merlin, or in the County Hall area? I doubt any other operator would bother with it, but Merlin only seem to like the IPs that have reached their peak of popularity about 5 years before the ride/attraction actually opened...

Remember when they were gonna retheme Old McDonalds Farm to Shrek? *shudders*

 

[Rick]

But it doesn't have to be a timeless classic in 70 years time - Merlin aren't investing into their new attraction in the hope that it has a 70 year lifespan, I am sure. They'll be looking for a relatively quick return.

Toy Story Midway Mania opened EIGHT years after the release of Toy Story 2. There seems to be an assumption that a franchise stops being relevant the second they stop making films, I don't understand that logic at all.

 

[Danza91]

In order for films to be a success, they have to do well at the box office and with the critics.

This is just not true. Plenty of films out there are hammered by critics but make a huge profit. Look at the whole Transformers franchise. The most recent film was panned by critics yet took over $1billion at the box office. And then plenty of acclaimed films take peanuts compared to these. Both are successes, it just depends on how you look at it.

For me, Shrek won't outlive Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean or Jurassic Park/World because it's just not as interesting or exciting, but it will be fine for a midway attraction.

 

[kydog1299]

I still remember Shrek being one of the biggest films of my childhood, because of its close links to fairytale characters and the general theme of it/idea of it was fantastic. I could watch Shrek over and over, and never get bored of the film at all. I know of some parents who still put the film on for their children who love it.

Probably the main reason for Merlin to choose the Shrek IP brand is because it's one of the most modern in relation to the age groups. Almost every child remembers the storyline and general idea of Shrek, and because this attraction is trying to appeal to an age market of 8+ aged children in families, it's timed right too. The Shrek franchise really took off roughly 7 years ago, correct timing for those children to of watched Shrek, right?

They clearly would not go for a really modern, 2014/2015, unstable brand, because the chances of it getting stale are much faster than that of Shrek. Taking something like Big Hero 6, or Inside Out, would not get the draw or attention that Shrek would get, because its popularity is not as grand as that of Shrek, and the stability of the theme is also not as good as that of Shrek.

I can see exactly why Shrek was chosen if I am honest, and I think it's one of the best franchises/themes to be chosen for this attraction.

 

[Rick]

Absolutely @kydog1299

 

[Plastic Person]

You're all welcome to your opinions, but it's madness to suggest that the Shrek franchise only got going with the third film, or that it's even comparable to Toy Story, which succeeds timelessly based on it's fantastic storytelling, whereas Shrek tends to lean on pop cultural references that have dated terribly. Saying that, the first film has lots of heart.. Still, Merlin seem to know what they're doing.

Here's an interesting piece on the ogre's ailing fortunes.

 

[jon81uk]

I still remember Shrek being one of the biggest films of my childhood, because of its close links to fairytale characters and the general theme of it/idea of it was fantastic. I could watch Shrek over and over, and never get bored of the film at all. I know of some parents who still put the film on for their children who love it.

Probably the main reason for Merlin to choose the Shrek IP brand is because it's one of the most modern in relation to the age groups. Almost every child remembers the storyline and general idea of Shrek, and because this attraction is trying to appeal to an age market of 8+ aged children in families, it's timed right too. The Shrek franchise really took off roughly 7 years ago, correct timing for those children to of watched Shrek, right?

They clearly would not go for a really modern, 2014/2015, unstable brand, because the chances of it getting stale are much faster than that of Shrek. Taking something like Big Hero 6, or Inside Out, would not get the draw or attention that Shrek would get, because its popularity is not as grand as that of Shrek, and the stability of the theme is also not as good as that of Shrek.

I can see exactly why Shrek was chosen if I am honest, and I think it's one of the best franchises/themes to be chosen for this attraction.

I read some where that the main reason that Disney has built a Little Mermaid ride in the last few years is because many of the people who saw the film back in 1990 are now grown up with children of their own and want to show this film to their kids.

Shrek isn't quite old enough for this yet, but does apply slightly, people who watched the films 14 years ago may now have children they wish to take to the attraction and experiance the characters they love.

 

[CGM]

Here's an interesting piece on the ogre's ailing fortunes.

I think the most surprising part of that article is that Shrek beat Monsters Inc. to best animated picture at the Academy Awards that year. I mean, what were they thinking!?

I was 9 when the first Shrek film came out and probably in the age range that the film was targeted at but I don't remember being particularly enchanted by it. It was a fun, quirky film that I definitely enjoyed and it got a lot of DVD play in our household. But even then it was clear that it didn't hold up when compared to Pixar's best. At no point have I ever considered it to be a classic film that should be passed down through the generations.

Shrek 2 was decent enough and at the time, the format still felt fresh. By the time Shrek the Third came around however, everyone was sick of it.

No matter how financially successful the franchise was, the reason that so many have doubts about this new attraction is that Shrek was in many ways a fad. The last release in the series was 5 years ago and it hasn't been relevant for even longer than that. Whilst some film franchises manage to permeate through pop culture long after their release, Shrek hasn't really done that and has very much dropped out of the public consciousness. When you compare it to film franchises that started around the same time such as Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, it's clear that Shrek hasn't fared as well.

In my view, it's a bit like making a ride based around the Guitar Hero series. Not too long ago it was immensely successful but for a number of reasons, it quickly outwore its welcome. Today, it's considered a dated IP and probably not something that would would want to associate an attraction with.

 

[Rick]

If the fifth film is on the way and it sounds like it is, this could well be a slam dunk. But, I think it'll work tremendously well without it.

I kind of understand where you're coming from with the Guitar Hero reference @CGM but I think we have a very different relationship (and I don't like that word in this instance) with video games than with films. There is a greater sentimental attachment to be had to the characters of a film than there is with a video game.

You don't need constant activity with an IP for it to be valid and interesting to the masses, Disney was operating Indiana Jones attractions for twenty years between the release of the the third and (terrible) fourth film and that IP was far less financially successful and less whole of market - but, the use of the IP in attractions helps keep the brand alive and in the minds of consumers. A lot of the debate in this thread looks at this the wrong way round. An attraction such as this helps perpetuate the forcefulness of a IP/brand, it works the opposite way around than what is being described.

The Little Mermaid is a good example of how Disney have used an IP with very little activity around it, to create a new ride to help bring the brand/IP back to the forefront. In the same way that Thomas Land helps make Thomas more of a thing in 2015, rather than it being just another TV programme that you watched when you were a kid.

Lastly, given the type of attraction that is being constructed here, a certain type of IP is needed and one that is animated, well humoured and diverse in its storytelling, not to mention one that is tried (or tired, depending on your point of view) in an amusement park setting.

Merlin can operate successful midway attractions without the use of an IP (or with IPs that they have created/nurtured themselves) so I don't see how this won't work, unless you guys really think that people will be put off visiting because of the Shrek brand, if you really think it's that much of a turn off - maybe you're right, maybe people will avoid - but the initial take up seems to be strong.