Epic Universe Expansion Speculation

[Skold]

I just keep reminding people Skull Island broke it anyway

Hey, now!

(The tangled copyright issues that sprang from this publication is a wild story!)

And of course let's not forget this classic,

 

[AustinT]

Anecdotally, a lot of hardcore fans who saw the first one multiple times and trailed off doing the same for the second.

I'm not arguing for no presence in theme parks, but I question the true size of it's audience and how successful it's actually been- breaking even and huge profits are not the same even if it's in the black. I'm not convinced they need to build on the scale of Potter to shift the same merch. I also don't really want to hang on every word screamscape prints either, no one else is saying that so far.

Thank you for looking at things realistically and analytically. Wicked FG will be struggling to squeak past 500M as a final tally at the box office as it continues to drop like a rock. Massive drop off from the first film's 750M+ tally. It's certainly has popularity, but it seems like that's taken a hit. I think this massive marketing push two years in a row and the non-stop press push on social media has just tired out the average person who wasn't already a huge fan.

It'll certainly make a beautiful, immersive land wherever it ends up, but I do wonder how they approach this one. A break from the franchise for 5+ years and maybe returning with a cheaper film continuation with a themed land seems like a safe bet. Plopping it in Epic would mean a ton of capital and a lot more faith behind it than plopping it into USF, so it'll be interesting to see what they decide.

 

[DOOMBOT]

I was myself skeptical of Wicked for a long while. I viewed it as trendy and not suited for a long-term "land" project. You can find posts from me like that as of like, 2 months ago.

I've come around on it. I think the strength of Oz really carries it over the finish line. It's one of the biggest and most iconic broadway shows of all time, strengthened by its' deep connection to one of the most iconic classic films ever. The Wizard of Oz is iconic to a fault, where it's almost difficult to rewatch because it's been remixed and parodied and retold just so many times. It's also a story with a long history of theme park adaptations, big and small. There's a reason why Disney World chose the Wicked Witch scene to debut one of their most impressive animatronics ever, at the time.

If you play into those classic and universally recognizable elements, and strengthen it with iconic characters and moments from Wicked itself (Elphaba, Glinda, Defying Gravity, Pink & Green, Popular, No One Mourns the Wicked), you'll have a land that makes total sense within the whole that is Universal Orlando Resort.

 

[Cup_Of_Coffee]

The best reason Wicked (the Emerald City we see in the film) work for the parks is because they’d be an incredibly well themed land, with an A+ score, and recognizable characters. It would simply be a slam dunk of a land.

 

[belloq87]

I think my struggle with WICKED is that I simply reject, on a philosophical level, the entire branch of postmodern, deconstructionist "Actually, this great arch-villain is really a sympathetic person who was unfairly treated" storytelling that has been somewhat fashionable over the last 20 years. It's less about WICKED itself and more the general impulse it represents.

Don't make me sympathize with the Wicked Witch. Let classic villains be villains, it's more fun. And that broadness translates well in the theme park format.

(I still think you can do a good WICKED land/attraction.)

 

[Mad Dog]

I was myself skeptical of Wicked for a long while. I viewed it as trendy and not suited for a long-term "land" project. You can find posts from me like that as of like, 2 months ago.

I've come around on it. I think the strength of Oz really carries it over the finish line. It's one of the biggest and most iconic broadway shows of all time, strengthened by its' deep connection to one of the most iconic classic films ever. The Wizard of Oz is iconic to a fault, where it's almost difficult to rewatch because it's been remixed and parodied and retold just so many times. It's also a story with a long history of theme park adaptations, big and small. There's a reason why Disney World chose the Wicked Witch scene to debut one of their most impressive animatronics ever, at the time.

If you play into those classic and universally recognizable elements, and strengthen it with iconic characters and moments from Wicked itself (Elphaba, Glinda, Defying Gravity, Pink & Green, Popular, No One Mourns the Wicked), you'll have a land that makes total sense within the whole that is Universal Orlando Resort.

Oz, the original, isn't presently strong/current enough for a real successful theme park land. Wicked, if there wasn't a loved/well known
old movie, wouldn't be popular enough for a strong theme park land. But combine those two concepts today, and it's potential, if good
attractions are developed, are sky high.

 

[DOOMBOT]

Now, just to throw it out there, a good bit of my support for Wickedlans is dependent on those classic elements. How likely are we to see those included? There was an Oz land developed in Dubai(?) recently by WB. What would be in the public domain at this point, and what could potentially be on the cutting room floor due to possible licensing disputes?

 

[AustinT]

What would be in the public domain at this point, and what could potentially be on the cutting room floor due to possible licensing disputes?

Pretty sure its just specifics such as the slippers being ruby colored and the dress being an exact copy of the original film's that are off limits. Not an issue at all.

Oz, the original, isn't presently strong/current enough for a real successful theme park land.

I think the Wizard of Oz is one of the most iconic and well known films there is. If not the film specifically, most major elements from it (characters, yellow brick road, twister, Emerald City, etc) are so ingrained into pop culture that everyone knows them.

I'd also agree with some of you that leaning heavily on Oz in general while sprinkling some of the more popular elements from Wicked into a land will be a slam dunk for the general public and keep the Wicked die-hards happy too

 

[Mad Dog]

Pretty sure its just specifics such as the slippers being ruby colored and the dress being an exact copy of the original film's that are off limits. Not an issue at all.


I think the Wizard of Oz is one of the most iconic and well known films there is. If not the film specifically, most major elements from it (characters, yellow brick road, twister, Emerald City, etc) are so ingrained into pop culture that everyone knows them.

I'd also agree with some of you that leaning heavily on Oz in general while sprinkling some of the more popular elements from Wicked into a land will be a slam dunk for the general public and keep the Wicked die-hards happy too

....and...that's why a combination of the two could be a really powerful land....merch and food too.............But, as always, the most crucial aspect is developing 'good/strong' attractions to go with the land.

 

[Wicked Salad]

I think my struggle with WICKED is that I simply reject, on a philosophical level, the entire branch of postmodern, deconstructionist "Actually, this great arch-villain is really a sympathetic person who was unfairly treated" storytelling that has been somewhat fashionable over the last 20 years. It's less about WICKED itself and more the general impulse it represents.

Don't make me sympathize with the Wicked Witch. Let classic villains be villains, it's more fun. And that broadness translates well in the theme park format.

(I still think you can do a good WICKED land/attraction.)

I'd agree about other films, but Wicked never tells you that Elphaba is 100% good. It's implied she still did all the things she did in The Wizard of Oz. We just have more context behind her actions. The creators of the show/movies have said theoretically they wanted people to be able to stitch The Wizard of Oz and Wicked together as if the camera is just moving over and showing you something else happening.

I agree there's a simplicity to the 1939 film that would work great in a land; however, Wicked provides more interesting and complex themes that would give it more depth and world building.

 

[Legacy]

I think my struggle with WICKED is that I simply reject, on a philosophical level, the entire branch of postmodern, deconstructionist "Actually, this great arch-villain is really a sympathetic person who was unfairly treated" storytelling that has been somewhat fashionable over the last 20 years. It's less about WICKED itself and more the general impulse it represents.

Don't make me sympathize with the Wicked Witch. Let classic villains be villains, it's more fun. And that broadness translates well in the theme park format.

(I still think you can do a good WICKED land/attraction.)

I mean… it’s based on a book that came out 30 years ago, which doesn’t necessarily present the Wicked Witch as “good” but rather complicated. It’s very much a product of post-Cold War perspective of the world. Elphaba essentially is a terrorist… to the Wizard and most of Oz. She’s a freedom fighter to the Animals. The nuance of that dichotomy is the point.

 

[OLSinFLA]

Pretty sure its just specifics such as the slippers being ruby colored and the dress being an exact copy of the original film's that are off limits. Not an issue at all.


I think the Wizard of Oz is one of the most iconic and well known films there is. If not the film specifically, most major elements from it (characters, yellow brick road, twister, Emerald City, etc) are so ingrained into pop culture that everyone knows them.

I'd also agree with some of you that leaning heavily on Oz in general while sprinkling some of the more popular elements from Wicked into a land will be a slam dunk for the general public and keep the Wicked die-hards happy too

Whats limited to the 1939 film are: The ruby slippers, the look of the tin man and lion, the specific color green of the Witch, and the spiral design of the yellow brick road. The score and screenplay, obviously. Anything in the Oz books themselves are in the public domain.

Thank you for looking at things realistically and analytically. Wicked FG will be struggling to squeak past 500M as a final tally at the box office as it continues to drop like a rock. Massive drop off from the first film's 750M+ tally. It's certainly has popularity, but it seems like that's taken a hit. I think this massive marketing push two years in a row and the non-stop press push on social media has just tired out the average person who wasn't already a huge fan.

It'll certainly make a beautiful, immersive land wherever it ends up, but I do wonder how they approach this one. A break from the franchise for 5+ years and maybe returning with a cheaper film continuation with a themed land seems like a safe bet. Plopping it in Epic would mean a ton of capital and a lot more faith behind it than plopping it into USF, so it'll be interesting to see what they decide.

I assume you mean $500 million domestically as its already tallied $454 million including worldwide

 

[UOR92]

I’m a huge fan of the first Wicked and just got out of seeing For Good. Let’s just say that any kind of attraction or land should pretend like the second act doesn’t exist. Anything they create should end with defying gravity and a “they all lived happily ever after but please for the love of God don’t pay attention to part 2”.

Shew. What a jumbled mess. I can see why this thing is taking a hit in the box office.

 

[AustinT]

I assume you mean $500 million domestically as its already tallied $454 million including worldwide

No, not much more than 500M for the final worldwide total. It's virtually done making money in all markets. US is the biggest market by a massive margin and it's doing under 10M for the weekend. This thing did not have legs at all.

 

[Brian G.]

I think we need to give the BO talk a rest.

 

[belloq87]

I mean… it’s based on a book that came out 30 years ago, which doesn’t necessarily present the Wicked Witch as “good” but rather complicated. It’s very much a product of post-Cold War perspective of the world. Elphaba essentially is a terrorist… to the Wizard and most of Oz. She’s a freedom fighter to the Animals. The nuance of that dichotomy is the point.

I prefer an uncomplicated, gleefully evil Wicked Witch. Is that because it's the version I grew up with? Probably. It's also had an undeniable cultural longevity.

But as I've established, it doesn't really matter what I'd prefer. Universal will do what they're going to do, and it will either be good (on its own merits) or it won't be. If they build a big, wondrous dark ride themed to WICKED, I can guarantee you I won't be sitting in the ride vehicle with my arms crossed, miffed that they've built something with a "complicated" Wicked Witch; I'll be thrilled I've gotten a new dark ride.

(I do find it, perhaps, a little curious why there's a lot of pushback when anyone expresses even extremely mild personal ambivalence about WICKED, but that's not a discussion for this thread.)

 

[Legacy]

I prefer an uncomplicated, gleefully evil Wicked Witch. Is that because it's the version I grew up with? Probably. It's also had an undeniable cultural longevity.

But as I've established, it doesn't really matter what I'd prefer. Universal will do what they're going to do, and it will either be good (on its own merits) or it won't be. If they build a big, wondrous dark ride themed to WICKED, I can guarantee you I won't be sitting in the ride vehicle with my arms crossed, miffed that they've built something with a "complicated" Wicked Witch; I'll be thrilled I've gotten a new dark ride.

(I do find it, perhaps, a little curious why there's a lot of pushback when anyone expresses even extremely mild personal ambivalence about WICKED, but that's not a discussion for this thread.)

Oh, ambivalence towards the musical is completely warranted. I love it and I love the book, but I also think the musical is a poor adaptation of the book that eliminates a lot of nuance that does exist. The show/movie presents incredibly flat versions of the book characters, and I hate how the second act is “Glinda’s” where the last half of book focuses on how far Elphaba is willing to go to bring down the Wizard.

But I do think it’s important to point out misinterpretations of the story. The story is not “Wicked Witch isn’t wicked but misunderstood.” The show isn’t even about that. Elphaba steals her college roommate’s husband! She inadvertently tortures her college friends. Elphaba is not good. She’s ostracized, sure, but she is also surly and stubborn. She’s just… human. Not good or bad. She just is.

The point of the story is “What is ‘wicked?’” And ultimately, the book’s stance, is that “wicked” a matter of how OTHER’S interpret one’s actions (do they “have wickedness thrust upon them”). The show does have the same stance—it says as much—that “graying” of everything is just kinda lost in the power of friendship.

 

[belloq87]

I appreciate the clarifications... but you haven't sold me!

THE WIZARD OF OZ and RETURN TO OZ are "my" Oz stories. If that's WICKED for others, that's cool! If Universal does something great with it, I'm sure most theme park fans will be happy.

 

[tommyhawkins]

There are only 3 expansion plots in Epic Universe - I'm not going to entertain the notion they would drop a third of full park's build cost on a singular IP in Epic, least of all one that's success is up for debate. So the mega plot is two as far as I'm concerned

So I am inclined to go with what Alicia set out in her video- that if Wickeds going anywhere it's probably replacing Simpsons. So maybe this is the wrong thread to discuss it either way.

It's a nice idea that Universal only use their own IP in parks, but does that match reality?
Assuming Comcast is in active discussions with Warner Brothers to lock in licensing for a lot more than DC (I think that deal is a lot further along than reported) - If nothing is off the table for WB theme park IP what else could be utilised at Epic long-term?

 

[Frogki]

Oh, ambivalence towards the musical is completely warranted. I love it and I love the book, but I also think the musical is a poor adaptation of the book that eliminates a lot of nuance that does exist. The show/movie presents incredibly flat versions of the book characters, and I hate how the second act is “Glinda’s” where the last half of book focuses on how far Elphaba is willing to go to bring down the Wizard.

But I do think it’s important to point out misinterpretations of the story. The story is not “Wicked Witch isn’t wicked but misunderstood.” The show isn’t even about that. Elphaba steals her college roommate’s husband! She inadvertently tortures her college friends. Elphaba is not good. She’s ostracized, sure, but she is also surly and stubborn. She’s just… human. Not good or bad. She just is.

The point of the story is “What is ‘wicked?’” And ultimately, the book’s stance, is that “wicked” a matter of how OTHER’S interpret one’s actions (do they “have wickedness thrust upon them”). The show does have the same stance—it says as much—that “graying” of everything is just kinda lost in the power of friendship.

I do think a big part of the reason the musical feels less grey has a lot to do with Act I and the power of Defying Gravity as a musical number. I think in a lot of people's minds, that number kind of absolves Elphaba because not only is it triumphant, in that moment in the show it's righteous. Elphaba is standing up for something and I think Act II does a poor job of showing that she ends up making some pretty questionable and sometimes downright cruel choices in continuing to stand for those principles.

The closest I think the musical comes to acknowledging it is through No Good Deed and the snippet of a scene where she kidnaps Dorothy. Otherwise, Act II Elphaba still doesn't feel like the Wicked Witch we see in the Wizard of Oz.

With all that said, analyzing Wicked probably isn't a great use of this thread. I will say in response to the user above, I'm not certain of anything but I strongly feel that with all the teasing done through promotional materials for Epic, the utilization of multiple actors and production folks to promote Epic, and the comments made by a few creatives, it certainly feels like at least at some point, Wicked was being considered for Epic fairly seriously and I'd wager it probably still is even if it's a little more iffy at this point. I think we can acknowledge that the design of Oz immediately lends itself to a Epic style portal as well as the general fantasy vibes of the park.

It is interesting to consider all the WB rumors considering what's been going on with that company.