[🌎 Universal GB] General Discussion

[Benjsh]

Alicia said in her USGB video last week that Universal have green lit other Wicked films and effects told those who design the attractions to go out and do whatever they want with the IP. That will surely pop up somewhere even if it’s just a single attraction.

There's no doubting the huge popularity of Wicked however the fact it's fanbase is so massively female leaning makes me less sure that it would work at Universal park.

I think the original Wizard of Oz IP probably works better as a theme park area as it's not so centered around the two female characters like Wicked is. The marketing for Wicked is very much Ariana and Cynthia Erivo and it's hard to steer away from that now.

 

[SeeSharpy]

Sadly seems the Zelda film rights are owned by the wrong company too.

I've always been a bit iffy about LOTR being that Amazon have their grubby paws all over it nowadays.

Those ghastly Minions have another film out next year..

Would prefer a Zelda land be based on the games and nintendo own those rights! rather than a currently unreleased film though!

Hyrule Castle vs Sleeping Beauty's Castle!

 

[xtpower]

I think Wicked is being lined up for the American Parks. But the news about LOTR has my psyched, that's the IP for us, the Americans can have Wicked, give me Middle Earth.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

There's no doubting the huge popularity of Wicked however the fact it's fanbase is so massively female leaning makes me less sure that it would work at Universal park.

I am genuinely struggling to process the logic that an Intellectual Property is unsuitable for a major theme park development specifically because it is popular with women.

Have you perhaps heard of a small, niche company called Disney? They have built an entire global empire, and several castle centric parks, based almost exclusively on the marketing of female protagonists. I don't recall the "massively female leaning" fanbase of Frozen preventing the construction of the World of Frozen in Hong Kong, or the upcoming Kingdom of Arendelle in Paris. In fact, that demographic is precisely why it is one of the most valuable IPs in existence, full stop.

I think the original Wizard of Oz IP probably works better as a theme park area as it's not so centered around the two female characters like Wicked is. The marketing for Wicked is very much Ariana and Cynthia Erivo and it's hard to steer away from that now.

Your argument that the original The Wizard of Oz is "not so centered around the two female characters" is baffling. The protagonist is Dorothy Gale. The antagonist is the Wicked Witch of the West. The benevolent guide is Glinda the Good Witch. The entire narrative drive of the 1939 film is a young girl's journey to find her way home, facilitated, or hindered, by women.

If you are suggesting that the male demographic is so fragile that they cannot enjoy a multi million pound E-ticket dark ride because the marketing features Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo, then I fear for the future of the species.

The Barbie movie grossed $1.4 billion. The Eras Tour is the highest grossing tour of all time. "Female leaning" fanbases are not a niche risk. They are currently the most lucrative economic demographic on the planet. Universal would be biting their hand off to secure that spend.

 

[Benjsh]

I have to be honest......I was really really underwhelmed by Nintendo world at Epic Universe.

Pro's:
Visually it's really cool to look at. I think they got that aspect absolutely spot on. When you walk into the land it does feel magical.

cons:
It's very claustrophobic when busy (which is practically 90% of every day) with quite small pathways
The two attractions they went with were also massively underwhelming too. Bowsers and Minecart aren't rides I'm desperate to experience again.

Hopefully if they do a Luigi ride or a Zelda ride in the future they choose better attractions / hardware.

 

[xtpower]

I have to be honest......I was really really underwhelmed by Nintendo world at Epic Universe.

Pro's:
Visually it's really cool to look at. I think they got that aspect absolutely spot on. When you walk into the land it does feel magical.

cons:
It's very claustrophobic when busy (which is practically 90% of every day) with quite small pathways
The two attractions they went with were also massively underwhelming too. Bowsers and Minecart aren't rides I'm desperate to experience again.

Hopefully if they do a Luigi ride or a Zelda ride in the future they choose better attractions / hardware.

I think the issue is that SNW started at USJ which is infamous for it's space constraints as well as USH. So they probably saved a ton of time and money by taking those original designs and layouts and just tweaking them somewhat for Epic.

 

[Benjsh]

I am genuinely struggling to process the logic that an Intellectual Property is unsuitable for a major theme park development specifically because it is popular with women.

Have you perhaps heard of a small, niche company called Disney? They have built an entire global empire, and several castle centric parks, based almost exclusively on the marketing of female protagonists. I don't recall the "massively female leaning" fanbase of Frozen preventing the construction of the World of Frozen in Hong Kong, or the upcoming Kingdom of Arendelle in Paris. In fact, that demographic is precisely why it is one of the most valuable IPs in existence, full stop.

Your argument that the original The Wizard of Oz is "not so centered around the two female characters" is baffling. The protagonist is Dorothy Gale. The antagonist is the Wicked Witch of the West. The benevolent guide is Glinda the Good Witch. The entire narrative drive of the 1939 film is a young girl's journey to find her way home, facilitated, or hindered, by women.

If you are suggesting that the male demographic is so fragile that they cannot enjoy a multi million pound E-ticket dark ride because the marketing features Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo, then I fear for the future of the species.

The Barbie movie grossed $1.4 billion. The Eras Tour is the highest grossing tour of all time. "Female leaning" fanbases are not a niche risk. They are currently the most lucrative economic demographic on the planet. Universal would be biting their hand off to secure that spend.

That's exactly what I'm saying as this is how the world works. Also to my knowledge there is a Wizard of Oz area in a major theme park in the world but not a specific Wicked or Barbie one.

I don't think the Disney argument holds much weight either. As always Disney is the exception to the rule as it's the biggest brand in the industry. What they can get away with it doesn't necessary translate to other Theme Park operators.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

That's exactly what I'm saying as this is how the world works. Also to my knowledge there is a Wizard of Oz area in a major theme park in the world but not a specific Wicked or Barbie one.

I don't think the Disney argument holds much weight either. As always Disney is the exception to the rule as it's the biggest brand in the industry. What they can get away with it doesn't necessary translate to other Theme Park operators.

I am afraid that your assessment of "how the world works" appears to be stuck in a boardroom circa 1950.

You claim that "to your knowledge" there is no specific Barbie theme park area. Then your knowledge is woefully incomplete. Mattel Adventure Park in Arizona features a Barbie Beach House as a primary anchor attraction. It exists. It is real. It is not a no go zone for anyone possessing a Y chromosome.

To dismiss Disney's absolute dominance with female led IPs as an "exception" is a spectacular inversion of logic. They are the biggest brand in the industry precisely because they appeal to the entire population, rather than writing off 51% of it as a niche market. Universal is not a plucky underdog, they are a Tier 1 operator who understands that families make booking decisions.

Universal's own Epic Universe (which only opened last year) features an entire area dedicated to How to Train Your Dragon, where one of the headline attractions features Astrid heavily. Their Trolls meet and greets, led by Poppy, generate massive queues. I haven't seen reports of men bursting into flames or their wallets spontaneously combusting because they had to interact with a female protagonist.

The films Barbie, Wicked: Part One, and Wicked: Part Two have generated billions of dollars at the global box office. Universal is a capitalist enterprise. They follow the money. If you think they will turn down a slice of the highest grossing cultural phenomenon of the decade because some men might feel their masculinity is threatened by the colour pink or a witch that isn't melting, you are sorely mistaken.

And let us not forget that the two single largest children's IPs of the last two decades are also female-led.

Peppa Pig is a global juggernaut that practically prints money for Paultons Park and Merlin alike.

Bluey is the most streamed show in the US and the current saviour of CBeebies Land. (And before anyone interjects, yes, Bluey is a girl. I know it confuses some people that a blue dog can be female without wearing a pink bow, but do try to keep up).

If millions of young boys can happily watch, engage with and demand merchandise of a female piglet and a female heeler puppy without their gender identity crumbling into dust, I am fairly confident that the general public can handle a green woman singing on a broomstick.

The industry isn't avoiding female led IPs. It is built on them.

The argument that "there isn't a specific Wicked land yet" also ignores the basic reality of the product lifecycle. Until the recent two part film adaptation, Wicked was a stage musical (and a book). Theme parks operate on visual language; typically they need the film assets to build the land. Universal Pictures produced those films. They own the IP. Now that the cinematic universe exists and has been a commercial success, the land becomes viable. It is vertical integration 101.

It is also rather rich to use the "it hasn't happened yet so it won't work" argument whilst simultaneously campaigning for a Lord of the Rings land. The Return of the King was released in 2003. It was the highest grossing film of its time. Yet, 23 years later, there is still no Middle Earth land in any major theme park on the planet.

Using your own logic, if the absence of an existing land proves an IP is unsuitable, then Middle Earth is a far riskier bet than Oz.

That isn't "how the world works". That is how you think the world works.

 

[Benjsh]

'Best of my knowledge' means im not aware of one. Not that I said it didnt exist. You've also named a regional park in Arizona which says everything. We arent talking a huge resort here are we?

Also you say im stuck in the past but would teenage boys and lads in their early 20's be massively excited for a Wicked Dark Ride? I dont think many would. That was the whole point.

Sorry I seemed to have touched a nerve.

 

[Dave]

The thing is though like it or not, the us is becoming less and less of a democracy by the day with trump, he has violated the constitution multiple times, he has hundreds of judges who he put in charge who are loyal, most the supreme Court judges (who essentially decide is laws are legal, and who has the power to do certain things) are loyal to maga / trump.

If you want a bit of a glimps, the current situation has been following project 2025 to a T so check there.

I think this Could affect universal, however this could actually make them want to invest more, sounds backwards but this year tourism is down because of trump, and if he continues this it will probably continue. The UK government would be stupid to stop universal, even for sanctions (as it wouldn't impact that much of the US but could harm the UK tourism).

It’s more complicated than that, Trust me I have been fascinated by and watched and studied US politics for over 15 years. But that’s for another topic.

 

[jon81uk]

Also you say im stuck in the past but would teenage boys and lads in their early 20's be massively excited for a Wicked Dark Ride? I dont think many would. That was the whole point.

Would teenage boys and lads be excited by a Frozen dark ride, or a Little Mermaid one, or a Winne the Pooh one? That hasn't stopped any of these rides being very popular at Disney. Why should the fact teenage boys might not want to ride a Wicked ride mean it shouldn't be built? Teenage boys won't want to ride a Bluey coaster but Alton Towers are building one.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

'Best of my knowledge' means im not aware of one. Not that I said it didnt exist. You've also named a regional park in Arizona which says everything. We arent talking a huge resort here are we?

Also you say im stuck in the past but would teenage boys and lads in their early 20's be massively excited for a Wicked Dark Ride? I dont think many would. That was the whole point.

Sorry I seemed to have touched a nerve.

You haven't touched a nerve. You have simply triggered my allergy to confident assertions that ignore the fundamental economics of the leisure industry.

To address your point about "teenage boys and lads in their early 20s": frankly, who cares?

If Universal were building a park exclusively for "lads", it would consist entirely of a Fast & Furious ride, a Call of Duty simulator and a massive Wetherspoons. Fortunately for their shareholders, they are building a destination resort for families.

The demographic you are championing is notoriously cash poor compared to families. They are not the ones booking the £3,000 hotel packages. They are not the ones buying the premium merchandise. The primary decision maker for booking family holidays and short breaks is, statistically and overwhelmingly, female. Building a land that appeals to women and girls isn't a risk. It is a calculated strategy to capture the people who actually control the credit card.

The idea that young men simply refuse to engage with anything that isn't hyper masculine is outdated. Do "lads" refuse to ride Flight of the Hippogriff or Slinky Dog Dash? No. If the ride system is good, if the tech is impressive, and if the experience is immersive, they will ride it. A state of the art E-Ticket dark ride based on Wicked will generate queues regardless of whether the protagonist wears a dress or a cape.

You are projecting a very specific, and rather fragile, insecurity onto a demographic that just paid billions to see Barbie, Wicked and Avatar.

 

[Benjsh]

Would teenage boys and lads be excited by a Frozen dark ride, or a Little Mermaid one, or a Winne the Pooh one? That hasn't stopped any of these rides being very popular at Disney. Why should the fact teenage boys might not want to ride a Wicked ride mean it shouldn't be built? Teenage boys won't want to ride a Bluey coaster but Alton Towers are building one.

Disney isn't comparable. It's almost unique in the theme park industry as the brand is so powerful.

I don't think boys and teenagers are actually wanting to visit disney parks for those specific attractions either.

 

[Benjsh]

You are projecting a very specific, and rather fragile, insecurity onto a demographic that just paid billions to see Barbie, Wicked and Avatar.

Well that's a mess of a statement all in it's own.

First of all I didn't even mention Avatar. But you now you brought it up that's a franchise geared to both sexes far more evenly I'd say. A lot more than Barbie n Wicked anyway which are without a doubt marketed more to females than Avatar is. That's just a fact.

Would you be excited to ride a Barbie Dark Ride? I know I couldn't care less about one personally but I know I'm not the target audience. I will stick to my 'fragile insecurity' thanks.

 

[jon81uk]

Disney isn't comparable. It's almost unique in the theme park industry as the brand is so powerful.

I don't think boys and teenagers are actually wanting to visit disney parks for those specific attractions either.

But thats the point, the teenage boys don't want to visit Disney parks for those attractions and the parks and those rides are still incredibly popular. The fact some attractions won't have boys wanting to ride them isn't a reason not to build them.
Teenagers won't want to go to the Octonauts ride at Alton Towers either, but its popular.

 

[tayspru]

The fact that you suggested Wizard or Oz (a franchise that has the exact same ratio of male / female characters as Wicked) suggests your argument is nothing to do with facts and everything to do with your personal feelings regarding Wicked, the commercial success of a musical property, and some unexplained issue with Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande

That being said the chances of Wicked coming to USUK is close to 0 and the franchise is far more likely to appear in USH or Epic first

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Well that's a mess of a statement all in it's own.

First of all I didn't even mention Avatar. But you now you brought it up that's a franchise geared to both sexes far more evenly I'd say. A lot more than Barbie n Wicked anyway which are without a doubt marketed more to females than Avatar is. That's just a fact.

Wicked has been running on Broadway for over twenty years. It is a cultural institution. It is the prequel to The Wizard of Oz, one of the most universally recognised stories in the Western canon. To pigeonhole it as a "female only" interest is to ignore two decades of box office reality.

Universal does not make multi billion dollar CAPEX decisions based on whether a 22 year old man in a bucket hat thinks a franchise is "for girls". They make decisions based on what will convince a family of four to book a three night stay in a hotel. In that equation, Wicked is a powerhouse.

Would you be excited to ride a Barbie Dark Ride? I know I couldn't care less about one personally but I know I'm not the target audience. I will stick to my 'fragile insecurity' thanks.

To answer your question directly: Yes.

If Universal Creative or Walt Disney Imagineering poured $100 million into a Barbie Dark Ride utilising a trackless ride system, state of the art animatronics, and a compelling narrative structure, I would be very excited to ride it. I am a theme park enthusiast. I appreciate the art of the medium. I appreciate world-class engineering and immersion.

I suspect you would too. Let’s not pretend that the enthusiast community, a large part who are grown men who will happily squeeze themselves into a Big Apple kiddie coaster or sit on a plastic pig at Paultons just to add a +1 to their coaster count, is suddenly going to draw a moral line in the sand because a ride is pink.

If Mack Rides built a Barbie themed multi launch coaster, you would be in the queue. If Intamin built a Wicked themed Blitz coaster, you would be in the queue. The IP is merely the wrapper. The hardware and the experience are what drive attendance.

 

[Benjsh]

I dont know how to break it to you guys but it would appear Universal's blatant male favouritism over their IP's has snuck up and caught many of you off guard. In their basic nature they have just been geared more towards lads than girls for a long long time. Thats not to say girls / females dont enjoy visiting because plenty do of course but just examine the IP's that are on offer.

Without a doubt Potter is 50/50 and has Universal appeal if you pardon the pun. You might even argue more popular with girls these days but its definitely close. Everyone loves Potter afterall.

However Id argue that likes of Jurrasic Park, Transformers, Minions, Men in Black, Fast n Furious, Back to the Future, The Simpsons, The Mummy, Bourne Identity, Water World, Terminator etc are geared more towards lads than they are to the girls.

Is that fair? I think so and I dont think im being sexist to say this. I think most women would agree those arent the most female orientated of IP's.

And I repeat....Im not saying those franchises arent enjoyed by girls too but Id say they massively favour lads in most cases.

This isnt Disney. This is Universal.

 

[Plastic Person]

Universal will want to appeal to the broadest possible range of potential guests. Theme parks are no longer just fodder for teenage boys and blokes in anoraks; their cultural reach is enormous. Yes, Universal have benefited from diverting and even subverting Disney’s fairytale aesthetic, but it’s daft to suggest they’re out for the lads.

Most importantly, Wicked is not only a massively popular, untapped franchise but it’s teeming with fundamentally theme parkish content. If Universal built a new version of FLY round the Emerald City, winged monkeys and all, I doubt many people would skip it as it’s “for girls”. And if so, hey, there’s always Jurassic World for the fellas.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I dont know how to break it to you guys but it would appear Universal's blatant male favouritism over their IP's has snuck up and caught many of you off guard. In their basic nature they have just been geared more towards lads than girls for a long long time. Thats not to say girls / females dont enjoy visiting because plenty do of course but just examine the IP's that are on offer.

Without a doubt Potter is 50/50 and has Universal appeal if you pardon the pun. You might even argue more popular with girls these days but its definitely close. Everyone loves Potter afterall.

However Id argue that likes of Jurrasic Park, Transformers, Minions, Men in Black, Fast n Furious, Back to the Future, The Simpsons, The Mummy, Bourne Identity, Water World, Terminator etc are geared more towards lads than they are to the girls.

Is that fair? I think so and I dont think im being sexist to say this. I think most women would agree those arent the most female orientated of IP's.

And I repeat....Im not saying those franchises arent enjoyed by girls too but Id say they massively favour lads in most cases.

This isnt Disney. This is Universal.

I am struggling to process the assertion that Minions, a franchise about unintelligible, gender ambiguous, yellow tic-tacs that is marketed primarily to toddlers and grandmothers on Facebook, is "geared more towards lads". If that is your benchmark for masculinity, I fear the bar has been lowered into the Marianas Trench.

You have listed a catalogue of legacy IPs (Terminator, Back to the Future, WaterWorld, Men in Black) that represent Universal's past, not its future. Most of those attractions have either been removed or are legacy assets in existing parks. Universal is not building a theme park in Bedford based on the box office hits of 1995.

There is, however, a the critical flaw in your logic.

If you are correct, and Universal's historic portfolio has been heavily skewed towards a male demographic, then that is precisely the business case for building a Wicked land.

You do not grow a global business by simply selling more of the same product to the same people. You grow by diversification. If your portfolio is "heavy on lads" (to use your terminology), you don't build another Fast & Furious ride; you build an attraction that captures the demographic you are currently underserving.

Disney didn't buy Marvel and Star Wars because they wanted more princesses, they bought them to capture the young male demographic they were missing. Universal building a Wicked land (or a Nintendo land with Princess Peach, or a DreamWorks land with Poppy) is the exact same strategy in reverse.

It is about balancing the portfolio to ensure that everyone in the family has a reason to visit. A park that appeals exclusively to "lads" is a park that leaves 50% of the potential revenue on the table. Universal is far too smart to do that.