Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USH- Property Licenses Question

Collapse

Ad Widget

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • USH- Property Licenses Question

    In regards to only Universal Studios Hollywood losing license to use Marvel walk-around characters (apparently they will sell off their remaining Marvel merchandise & keep the Marvel Mania store for now)...

    The Florida park seems to have more property licenses than Hollywood... such as Harry Potter, Men in Black, Ghostbusters, Beetlejuice, Barney, Madagascar, etc.

    So do most of the above licenses only apply for Florida, like how Harry Potter can only be in IOA and not USH. Because I'm wondering why USH doesn't bring in characters like Men in Black & Ghostbusters to the park. Beetlejuice usually only appears during the peak season.... SOMETIMES... I should have asked the actor backstage why he infrequently appears as Beetlejuice in the park. Almost as infrequent as the Madagascar characters.

    Also, why was the decision made for Curious George to replace the themeing on Nickeoldeon Blast Zone??

    USH just seems to be turning to ash since mid-2000. Early 2000 they tried quite a few things. Now there's not much going on. I saw the USH president couple times (I think he's had that position since 1999), I probably should have talked to him more as well.

    "You're not thinking fourth dimensionally!" -Back to the Future

    "With this place, I wanted to give them something real, something that wasn't an illusion, something they could see and touch. An aim devoid of merit."
    -Jurassic Park

  • #2
    Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

    Originally posted by filmfreak11 View Post
    In regards to only Universal Studios Hollywood losing license to use Marvel walk-around characters (apparently they will sell off their remaining Marvel merchandise & keep the Marvel Mania store for now)...

    The Florida park seems to have more property licenses than Hollywood... such as Harry Potter, Men in Black, Ghostbusters, Beetlejuice, Barney, Madagascar, etc.

    So do most of the above licenses only apply for Florida, like how Harry Potter can only be in IOA and not USH. Because I'm wondering why USH doesn't bring in characters like Men in Black & Ghostbusters to the park. Beetlejuice usually only appears during the peak season.... SOMETIMES... I should have asked the actor backstage why he infrequently appears as Beetlejuice in the park. Almost as infrequent as the Madagascar characters.

    Also, why was the decision made for Curious George to replace the themeing on Nickeoldeon Blast Zone??

    USH just seems to be turning to ash since mid-2000. Early 2000 they tried quite a few things. Now there's not much going on. I saw the USH president couple times (I think he's had that position since 1999), I probably should have talked to him more as well.
    USF, no longer uses Ghostbusters. The deal expired in 2004, I believe. As for Nick, I am guessing Universal might get rid of their ties to Viacom(Nick).
    Goodbye, Me Bizarro is not Monkey Joe. Me Bizarro hates Disney parks so much. Hello

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

      Originally posted by filmfreak11 View Post
      In regards to only Universal Studios Hollywood losing license to use Marvel walk-around characters (apparently they will sell off their remaining Marvel merchandise & keep the Marvel Mania store for now)...

      The Florida park seems to have more property licenses than Hollywood... such as Harry Potter, Men in Black, Ghostbusters, Beetlejuice, Barney, Madagascar, etc.

      So do most of the above licenses only apply for Florida, like how Harry Potter can only be in IOA and not USH. Because I'm wondering why USH doesn't bring in characters like Men in Black & Ghostbusters to the park. Beetlejuice usually only appears during the peak season.... SOMETIMES... I should have asked the actor backstage why he infrequently appears as Beetlejuice in the park. Almost as infrequent as the Madagascar characters.

      Also, why was the decision made for Curious George to replace the themeing on Nickeoldeon Blast Zone??

      USH just seems to be turning to ash since mid-2000. Early 2000 they tried quite a few things. Now there's not much going on. I saw the USH president couple times (I think he's had that position since 1999), I probably should have talked to him more as well.



      Curious George is an actual Universal property. Even a parking structure is named off him.

      As for why Men in Black and Ghostbusters (both columbia pictures releases), it has to be a special deal. The Men in Black ride is in Florida, not Hollywood... so i'm sure it has to do with fees that Hollywood would need to pay for characters that don't even have a ride.

      I think one of Universal's main problems is that the theme park really isn't "universal" enough. Universal as a movie studio isn't as well remembered for what movies they're attached to as Disney or even Warner Bros is.

      There's only a few recent movies that identify to me as "universal" and those are Back to the Future, E.T., Jaws, King Kong, Mummy, Jurassic Park, and the American Tale films. (actually, there are a few more but nothing that are theme park worthy).

      The film version of Hulk is a Universal property... I wonder if they can do anything with that? Hellboy2 is Universal pictures release.


      Visit my mice chat toy shop!
      http://micechat.com/forums/merchandi...oy-shoppe.html

      Track Disney Animation Presence in the Theme Parks Worldwide!
      http://micechat.com/forums/disneylan...ired-them.html

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

        Originally posted by Coheteboy View Post
        I think one of Universal's main problems is that the theme park really isn't "universal" enough. Universal as a movie studio isn't as well remembered for what movies they're attached to as Disney or even Warner Bros is.
        Universal is known for single-handedly popularizing an entire genre of film. Not many studios that can make such a claim. They could probably create an entire park based on their own film library, but that isn't always what's best for business. If another franchise is popular, it only makes sense to snatch it. Disney is guilty of doing the same thing.
        Last edited by JtnOrl; 01-16-2008, 04:43 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

          Originally posted by Monkey joe View Post
          USF, no longer uses Ghostbusters. The deal expired in 2004, I believe.
          I did not know that. Haha. Thanks.

          "You're not thinking fourth dimensionally!" -Back to the Future

          "With this place, I wanted to give them something real, something that wasn't an illusion, something they could see and touch. An aim devoid of merit."
          -Jurassic Park

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

            Originally posted by JtnOrl View Post
            Universal is known for single-handedly popularizing an entire genre of film. Not many studios that can make such a claim. They could probably create an entire park based on their own film library, but that isn't always what's best for business. If another franchise is popular, it only makes sense to snatch it. Disney is guilty of doing the same thing.


            Well you're right that Universal's own properties might not be the best for business, but isn't it the job of the studio to make films that will be?

            but all in all, I think using its own library would be GREAT business if the attractions themselves were executed to perfection. It would also help keep the Universal brand stronger in people's minds than its now to confuse them with other studios.

            The only franchises that Disney reached out for in their theme parks are lucasfilm properties, and even had Lucas help create some original attractions for Disney.


            Visit my mice chat toy shop!
            http://micechat.com/forums/merchandi...oy-shoppe.html

            Track Disney Animation Presence in the Theme Parks Worldwide!
            http://micechat.com/forums/disneylan...ired-them.html

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

              Originally posted by Coheteboy View Post
              Well you're right that Universal's own properties might not be the best for business, but isn't it the job of the studio to make films that will be?

              but all in all, I think using its own library would be GREAT business if the attractions themselves were executed to perfection. It would also help keep the Universal brand stronger in people's minds than its now to confuse them with other studios.
              People walked out of USH thinking Universal made the Spider-Man movies, but Sony actually did it. I know it's not uncommon.

              People walked out of Waterworld and thinking of even renting or buying the DVD.

              So, I guess I'm saying the things they do are hits & misses.

              But the biggest miss is they don't merchandise very well in their stores.

              "You're not thinking fourth dimensionally!" -Back to the Future

              "With this place, I wanted to give them something real, something that wasn't an illusion, something they could see and touch. An aim devoid of merit."
              -Jurassic Park

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

                Originally posted by Coheteboy View Post
                The only franchises that Disney reached out for in their theme parks are lucasfilm properties, and even had Lucas help create some original attractions for Disney.
                I think you're forgetting about Pixar. Outside of the Pirates franchise, they've been the real workhorse of "Disney films" for a while now, and up until recently, they weren't even owned by Disney. Can you imagine what the Disney landscape would have been like without them for the past decade? They'll probably continue to make 90% of the films worth watching, because the actual Disney Pictures brand is in the dumps.

                As for Universal, I actually thought it was a shame when BTTF closed. Not because I liked the attraction, because I rarely ever rode it. I just didn't like seeing the Universal brand weakened. I'm still waiting for a new Kong attraction (based on their version.) If there's one property not currently in a theme park that deserves to be in one, that's it.
                Last edited by JtnOrl; 01-18-2008, 03:13 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

                  ^ The only version of their Kong (I think it was released Dec 2005?), was the big Kong prop from the New York premiere that was infront of BTTF for photo op. Then some genius thought of moving it to the backlot. Right after the studio tour's parting of the red sea/ Kong's ship miniature & set piece. People try hard to get a good picture of the balding beast.

                  But I guess they wanted room on the Upper Lot to redo BTTF to Simpsons... I don't know. I think they should have kept the Kong prop where people could still take photos... but clean him up a bit first.

                  "You're not thinking fourth dimensionally!" -Back to the Future

                  "With this place, I wanted to give them something real, something that wasn't an illusion, something they could see and touch. An aim devoid of merit."
                  -Jurassic Park

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

                    Originally posted by Coheteboy View Post
                    The only franchises that Disney reached out for in their theme parks are lucasfilm properties, and even had Lucas help create some original attractions for Disney.
                    You seem to be forgetting they reached out to MGM for it's properties in the Great Movie Ride, and Tower of Terror, and also reached out to Henson too for the Muppets as well as TMNT characters and show, well before they owned Henson. I don't believe Aerosmith is a Disney franchise or property either. They've also used characters from SNL in Cranium Command in at WoL at Epcot.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

                      Originally posted by upov View Post
                      You seem to be forgetting they reached out to MGM for it's properties in the Great Movie Ride, and Tower of Terror, and also reached out to Henson too for the Muppets as well as TMNT characters and show, well before they owned Henson. I don't believe Aerosmith is a Disney franchise or property either. They've also used characters from SNL in Cranium Command in at WoL at Epcot.


                      Ah yes. You're right. They did get a bit loose with MGM Studios. I was thinking more in particular about Disneyland.

                      But with the Muppets, you can say that Disney did release a few of those Muppet movies (Treasure Island 1996 and Christmas Carol 1992). Muppet Vision debut in 1991 when a deal with Disney was already struck.

                      With Pixar, they had a partnership with Disney to release the feature films right from the get go. Disney didn't have to "reach out" to make theme park attractions as it was already part of the deal.


                      You're absolutely right about TMNT, SNL characters as well as MGM licenses (including Twilight Zone which nobody knows is a CBS property).


                      But my main point is that Universal is partnering with studios that don't really have anything to do with Universal all too frequently. Shrek is strictly Dreamworks. Nickelodeon is strictly Paramount. Simpsons is strictly 20th Century Fox. Men in Black is Sony. Twister is Warner Bros (but at least presented by Universal). Terminator is all over the map but never Universal. Harry Potter is Warner Bros.

                      Branding is important and I think universal is losing it's brand.


                      Visit my mice chat toy shop!
                      http://micechat.com/forums/merchandi...oy-shoppe.html

                      Track Disney Animation Presence in the Theme Parks Worldwide!
                      http://micechat.com/forums/disneylan...ired-them.html

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

                        Originally posted by Coheteboy View Post
                        Ah yes. You're right. They did get a bit loose with MGM Studios. I was thinking more in particular about Disneyland.

                        Branding is important and I think universal is losing it's brand.
                        Indiana Jones? Star Tours? Definitely not Disney films - either in their release or in their content.

                        Other than the traditional "Disney" branded films, no studio has a brand that is recognizable to the general public. They don't really care or know that Harry Potter was Warner Brothers, etc. Other than Disney, no other studio generates film that have that consistent brand & tone. A studio's films are all over the place.

                        For the parks, the Universal "brand" is about bringing Hollywood experiences to life. Debatable how well they've done that, but the public doesn't care if it's a Universal film or not as long as they're succeeding in delivering the experience.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

                          Originally posted by ekester View Post
                          Indiana Jones? Star Tours? Definitely not Disney films - either in their release or in their content.

                          Other than the traditional "Disney" branded films, no studio has a brand that is recognizable to the general public. They don't really care or know that Harry Potter was Warner Brothers, etc. Other than Disney, no other studio generates film that have that consistent brand & tone. A studio's films are all over the place.

                          For the parks, the Universal "brand" is about bringing Hollywood experiences to life. Debatable how well they've done that, but the public doesn't care if it's a Universal film or not as long as they're succeeding in delivering the experience.

                          Good lord. The thread isn't that long. Catch up.

                          Originally posted by Coheteboy View Post
                          The only franchises that Disney reached out for in their theme parks are lucasfilm properties, and even had Lucas help create some original attractions for Disney.
                          And since that above quote, I have been corrected that MGM Studios has included MGM properties, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Aerosmith, Twilight Zone, and others.



                          The Universal "brand" as you have described is what it has become: random Hollywood. I'm arguing that Universal COULD potentially take their own properties and make it worth while in a theme park and thus making "Universal" stronger in movie-goers minds as Disney has done for itself.

                          But one could also argue that Universal is including other studios in hopes that they don't team with Disney? Quite possible as even Disney was seen trying to hook up with the Harry Potter franchise.


                          Visit my mice chat toy shop!
                          http://micechat.com/forums/merchandi...oy-shoppe.html

                          Track Disney Animation Presence in the Theme Parks Worldwide!
                          http://micechat.com/forums/disneylan...ired-them.html

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

                            If they had the room, they could make a Dawn of the Dead attraction based off the remake. An Indy style attraction with guests riding in the built up buses, careening through the ravaged streets, avoiding zombies and the military. Of course, they could do many attractions with King Kong.
                            Even through it's paramount, I'd love to see a Cloverfield ride. Guests riding in suspended helicopters trying to escape the city, avoiding gunfire, missles, and of course, the monster.
                            Women, they make the highs higher and the lows more frequent.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: USH- Property Licenses Question

                              Originally posted by Coheteboy View Post
                              Good lord. The thread isn't that long. Catch up.


                              The Universal "brand" as you have described is what it has become: random Hollywood. I'm arguing that Universal COULD potentially take their own properties and make it worth while in a theme park and thus making "Universal" stronger in movie-goers minds as Disney has done for itself.

                              But one could also argue that Universal is including other studios in hopes that they don't team with Disney? Quite possible as even Disney was seen trying to hook up with the Harry Potter franchise.
                              My bad. I missed that. But I consider Star Wars a Fox film and Indy a Paramount film, not Lucas. But that gets into producer/distributor discussions which add even more complexity... so... moving on.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X