- Jul 13, 2018
- 3,121
- 5,417
Universal's Epic Universe Wish List & Speculation
- Thread starter Brian G.
- Start date
-
Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
- Status
- May 26, 2012
- 1,947
- 2,692
- Aug 7, 2018
- 7,141
- 9,228
No... it’s for The Smurfs land. It’s rumored to be larger than Pandora.
- Aug 18, 2017
- 5,126
- 6,190
Reading a thread on the TPS Facebook group reminds me of the complete purgatory SNW is in for Orlando. Again, MIB makes it a little less urgent but given how long you say it's going to be before they start on EU again, a big part of me wishes that they would just go ahead and slate SNW for KZ and the HP stuff for FFL (and yes, MIB if need be). While it would still require improvement financial outlook-wise, I predict it would require a substantially smaller one, especially since you don't have to build everything at once.
And yeah, there's still spots that can be improved at the parks (which is NOT some damning indictment of them--to paraphrase Walt Disney, a park is never finished).
And yeah, there's still spots that can be improved at the parks (which is NOT some damning indictment of them--to paraphrase Walt Disney, a park is never finished).
Last edited:
I mean I get why spreading out the planned attractions into the existing parks is good for us, the fans, but nothing would be as profitable for them as families staying an extra day or two to visit a whole other theme park.
A new ride at USF may bring in some new guests and help with attendance for a year or so, but they’re hoping that opening a whole new park captures more of a family’s vacation EVERY year.
- Aug 18, 2017
- 5,126
- 6,190
How many years' delay would be worth it for them when they could get this stuff built sooner and get tourists back? Much less of a risk for as certain a draw, and opening SNW in ~2024 instead of ~2027 would be a much smarter move IMO.
The truth is, people complain about how few rides the non-MK parks at WDW have, but that's what's inevitably going to happen when you build more than two (dry) gates. Part of why Epcot went so neglected was because they spread themselves so much with two more parks. It's going to take several years for their finances to recover from this--if when their finances finally do, they dump it all on a new park, the same thing could happen to Studios and Islands.
There's a good case to be made for just opening with SNW and whatever they're planning for Potter, if they are insistent on EU. Is it ideal? Nope! But something has to give, and to me it's better than having to wait until ~2027 because they want two birds in the bush over the one in their hand.
Last edited:
- Jul 13, 2018
- 3,121
- 5,417
I think I'd be more concerned about Universal parks becoming like MK parks if
A. the Universal parks weren't already brimming with attractions and
B. if Epic Universe had only, what, the 3 to 5 shows and attractions Animal Kingdom opened with, as opposed to the 11 rides and 2-3 shows Epic Universe will open with. EU in its unaltered form will still have more rides two decades from opening than Animal Kingdom does.
Ultimately, I don't think spreading themselves thin is of much concern when one of your parks is a Toon Lagoon dark ride and a Lost Continent revamp away from using all its expansion space. I suppose it would be nice if they improved USF with a Potter and SNW expansion, but then they lose their anchors for a third park, which attracts tourists while adding another day's visit. Sure you attract visitors with SNW and Potter anyway, but you don't get the extra return from that added day.
- Mar 25, 2010
- 720
- 527
Based on what?
I'm arguing Pokemon has the potential and the IP strength to take up just as much or more space than Potter. It needs to be approached differently. I argue the earnings for it's ip, which are 3 times as much as potter (in essentially the same time frame) dictate it might be worthy going much bigger than what we've seen with Potter and SNW. Naysayers are actually comparing Pokemon to Hello Kitty... I mean, let's not kid ourselves , that just isn't a fair comparison. I'm arguing statistics, demographics and revenue across different streams which makes Pokemon a strong contender. I'm not simply comparing the bottom lines.
Honestly, before I looked at the numbers for Pokemon the other day and the segments its earnings are in compared to other properties, I didn't even think much of it. I would have agreed with everyone else with a snap like ride, which I agreed with before I looked at the numbers and I saw SNW activities.
When I looked at the numbers and saw that it's not only a merch giant, It's a game giant, and the biggest IP of all time I changed my mind and instantly saw it's potential. Not only is Pokemon Go garnering 60 million visitors a month, apparently it has downloads the size of 1/7th of the global population, and it also reached those numbers faster than any other game on the list. The property was over 20 years old at the time of it's launch, meaning it's still very relevant. It also requires a data connection, not only wifi to play. That mean's it's highly probable unlike other games on that list, many more of the downloads are likely directed at more individual personal accounts and devices.
List of most-played mobile games by player count - Wikipedia
I'm advocating for more and ringing the alarm bell because that's some serious numbers. Games just don't do that, not even the most popular online games. Halo and Call of Duty don't do that. Overwatch doesn't do that. World of Warcraft doesn't do that. It places Go, a mobile game in the upper echelon of free games, in the same category of cross platform, console and pc games games like League of Legends which apparently peaks around 100 Million players a month, generates 10's of millions in official esports tournaments, and billions in revenue a year. The only games doing substantially higher monthly numbers for players is Fornite, Minecraft and Roblox. You don't see me saying Universal needs to build a giant Fornite land or Minecraft land. It wouldn't make sense, perhaps beyond a singular shooter attraction for Fortnite, but the characters are humanoid so that might be a problem for some families. I wouldn't bother.
Unlike other games on that list and in it's league Pokemon doesn't have the problem of little substance or culture in it's universe. It's not a shooter or an open sandbox "building blocks" universe with little to no story. It has a storyline that can put anyone in the shoes of it's protagonist. It is not a "Hardcore" game, But it is enjoyed by and has a Hardcore and Casual audience of both sexes, and with more than enough age variance. It checks all the boxes.
Potter has the problem where it will almost certainly never be something you can actually go "do". The allure of Potter is the story and the fantasy of its universe, but recreating a representation of it's universe outside of a movie or faithfully in an ar game is just not possible yet, and it will always have the stigma of being super geeky, larpy. The Harry potter AR game by the same Studio as go, has 17 million players to date. The difference in numbers is staggering.
There is also stigma in much of the world surrounding the use of magic. Pokemon just does not have that problem, They are animals of an alternate universe. The allure of Pokemon has always been you can emulate the story and take part of the universe through the video game or the card game or even the merch. Anyone can participate on any interest level. It's easy to understand and has cute characters... It's almost based on nature, more so than a story... Whether you want to play the game or not, again it's cute, collectable creatures, they are pets.
In terms of design, if they go for the "come here and play and catch and battle pokemon" approach, which I think it would be criminal not to, They can test the waters with a land designed around the original 151, and do expansions to the different regions and Pokemon in different parks, all the way up to the current number of 893, until the returns begin to diminish. I can't imagine if they execute properly we wouldn't at least get representation of Kanto and Johto.
The opportunity exist to make the world of Pokemon real... And it is not only probably the only property on earth they could probably pull this off with, It is also a safe bet as it is the highest grossing IP of all time, with all the right numbers in all the right places for a Theme Park and other major media representation.
Pokemon may also be the one property that could help establish a more dominate market position in Theme Parks because of it's major appeal across casual and hardcore gamers. The amount of gamers worldwide is much larger than Theme park visitors yearly. If I'm universal, looking to gain market share in orlando and worldwide, Pokemon is a property that is going to extract new visitors to my park from different, much larger demo, and, built impressively enough will take days away from planned vacations from Disney. The attraction gamified will not only be a time suck from Disney, but a merch and money suck as well.
Seriously, imagine like a "Pokemon trail" or something that emulates the kanto (Ash ketchum's) region with activities like SNW where you are hunting and capturing pokemon. The amount of land it would take up would be huge, but I honestly don't see the cost associated for that portion of being more expensive than any of the more expensive crazy rides we have got in the last few years. Pokemon trail with the original 151? I don't recall directly how many don't have an evolution path, but lets say they sprinkle 60 locations across this path where you can capture Pokemon. How much would each activity cost, the building/sets, animatronics, etc. $5-10 million a piece(which would be insane, for at most 2 or 3 animatronic figures per location just fyi)? So the capture activity cost as much as a modern major ride or area that only has on-ride photos and ride merch to recoup cost beyond regular park draw. I'd even argue a ride period would be more of a hassle to maintain than the area.
Pokemon would essentially be an arcade or game attraction that guest not only come to play, but are already trained to expect to spend money to play, in upwards of1 billion people worldwide. The trail would suck you in and take time to navigate. "Mom, I need to go to the pokestore to buy a "hi-potion" just incase this dugtrio I am trying to catch kicks my butt, "mom I need more master balls cause I unlocked a legendary encounter, If I catch it I can be in the hall of fame and we can get free tickets to come back next year", "Mom I caught an evee but I need to buy or trade a moonstone to evolve it".
It already has a cult following that participates in the universe, and they already have the blueprint in pokemon go and design spec for all the characters. The trail would require maintenance, but for the most part the "prizes" would be digital. They would cost nothing. The development of the software for the activity might be in the 100's of millions. Might. Niantic might already have a great framework to build off of if they are willing to shake hands.
That activity, or any other potential activity like, even if it alone cost as much as the entirety of potter could certainly demand the cost because there is potential to tie in multiple upsells to one of the biggest merch giants of all time, and it could suck in money like a "carnival game land" and people would be happy about it, people would travel far and wide to do it. You can walk the trail and play "pokemon snap" with your phone while others who are engaged with the "game" play and try to capture the pokemon. Then you still build the rides and shows for the "casuals" who wouldn't want to play or try to find and take pictures of these pokemon because that's not people go to theme parks for, apparently.
How folks just aren't seeing this opportunity I don't understand, and I certainly don't understand not wanting them to do it or advocating against it. There is precedent in Potter and SNW for interactivity inside of the lands. To go for something next level with Pokemon really feels like a no-brainer to me. It's what the property is built around, and It's obvious these interactive features are popular. Pokemon is absolutely the property to go all in on interactivity with, and it can reasonably sustain higher spending than any other property to do so.
- Jul 13, 2018
- 3,121
- 5,417
All you are doing is putting charts and lists out there. There’s nothing that tells me that it could take up as much space as Potter. I’ve heard you mention interactive stuff. Great. You aren’t telling us what the lands or rides would be, which is the most important part.Based on what?
I'm arguing Pokemon has the potential and the IP strength to take up just as much or more space than Potter. It needs to be approached differently. I argue the earnings for it's ip, which are 3 times as much as potter (in essentially the same time frame) dictate it might be worthy going much bigger than what we've seen with Potter and SNW. Naysayers are actually comparing Pokemon to Hello Kitty... I mean, let's not kid ourselves , that just isn't a fair comparison. I'm arguing statistics, demographics and revenue across different streams which makes Pokemon a strong contender. I'm not simply comparing the bottom lines.
Honestly, before I looked at the numbers for Pokemon the other day and the segments its earnings are in compared to other properties, I didn't even think much of it. I would have agreed with everyone else with a snap like ride, which I agreed with before I looked at the numbers and I saw SNW activities.
When I looked at the numbers and saw that it's not only a merch giant, It's a game giant, and the biggest IP of all time I changed my mind and instantly saw it's potential. Not only is Pokemon Go garnering 60 million visitors a month, apparently it has downloads the size of 1/7th of the global population, and it also reached those numbers faster than any other game on the list. The property was over 20 years old at the time of it's launch, meaning it's still very relevant. It also requires a data connection, not only wifi to play. That mean's it's highly probable unlike other games on that list, many more of the downloads are likely directed at more individual personal accounts and devices.
List of most-played mobile games by player count - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I'm advocating for more and ringing the alarm bell because that's some serious numbers. Games just don't do that, not even the most popular online games. Halo and Call of Duty don't do that. Overwatch doesn't do that. World of Warcraft doesn't do that. It places Go, a mobile game in the upper echelon of free games, in the same category of cross platform, console and pc games games like League of Legends which apparently peaks around 100 Million players a month, generates 10's of millions in official esports tournaments, and billions in revenue a year. The only games doing substantially higher monthly numbers for players is Fornite, Minecraft and Roblox. You don't see me saying Universal needs to build a giant Fornite land or Minecraft land. It wouldn't make sense, perhaps beyond a singular shooter attraction for Fortnite, but the characters are humanoid so that might be a problem for some families. I wouldn't bother.
Unlike other games on that list and in it's league Pokemon doesn't have the problem of little substance or culture in it's universe. It's not a shooter or an open sandbox "building blocks" universe with little to no story. It has a storyline that can put anyone in the shoes of it's protagonist. It is not a "Hardcore" game, But it is enjoyed by and has a Hardcore and Casual audience of both sexes, and with more than enough age variance. It checks all the boxes.
Potter has the problem where it will almost certainly never be something you can actually go "do". The allure of Potter is the story and the fantasy of its universe, but recreating a representation of it's universe outside of a movie or faithfully in an ar game is just not possible yet, and it will always have the stigma of being super geeky, larpy. The Harry potter AR game by the same Studio as go, has 17 million players to date. The difference in numbers is staggering.
There is also stigma in much of the world surrounding the use of magic. Pokemon just does not have that problem, They are animals of an alternate universe. The allure of Pokemon has always been you can emulate the story and take part of the universe through the video game or the card game or even the merch. Anyone can participate on any interest level. It's easy to understand and has cute characters... It's almost based on nature, more so than a story... Whether you want to play the game or not, again it's cute, collectable creatures, they are pets.
In terms of design, if they go for the "come here and play and catch and battle pokemon" approach, which I think it would be criminal not to, They can test the waters with a land designed around the original 151, and do expansions to the different regions and Pokemon in different parks, all the way up to the current number of 893, until the returns begin to diminish. I can't imagine if they execute properly we wouldn't at least get representation of Kanto and Johto.
The opportunity exist to make the world of Pokemon real... And it is not only probably the only property on earth they could probably pull this off with, It is also a safe bet as it is the highest grossing IP of all time, with all the right numbers in all the right places for a Theme Park and other major media representation.
Pokemon may also be the one property that could help establish a more dominate market position in Theme Parks because of it's major appeal across casual and hardcore gamers. The amount of gamers worldwide is much larger than Theme park visitors yearly. If I'm universal, looking to gain market share in orlando and worldwide, Pokemon is a property that is going to extract new visitors to my park from different, much larger demo, and, built impressively enough will take days away from planned vacations from Disney. The attraction gamified will not only be a time suck from Disney, but a merch and money suck as well.
Seriously, imagine like a "Pokemon trail" or something that emulates the kanto (Ash ketchum's) region with activities like SNW where you are hunting and capturing pokemon. The amount of land it would take up would be huge, but I honestly don't see the cost associated for that portion of being more expensive than any of the more expensive crazy rides we have got in the last few years. Pokemon trail with the original 151? I don't recall directly how many don't have an evolution path, but lets say they sprinkle 60 locations across this path where you can capture Pokemon. How much would each activity cost, the building/sets, animatronics, etc. $5-10 million a piece(which would be insane, for at most 2 or 3 animatronic figures per location just fyi)? So the capture activity cost as much as a modern major ride or area that only has on-ride photos and ride merch to recoup cost beyond regular park draw. I'd even argue a ride period would be more of a hassle to maintain than the area.
Pokemon would essentially be an arcade or game attraction that guest not only come to play, but are already trained to expect to spend money to play, in upwards of1 billion people worldwide. The trail would suck you in and take time to navigate. "Mom, I need to go to the pokestore to buy a "hi-potion" just incase this dugtrio I am trying to catch kicks my butt, "mom I need more master balls cause I unlocked a legendary encounter, If I catch it I can be in the hall of fame and we can get free tickets to come back next year", "Mom I caught an evee but I need to buy or trade a moonstone to evolve it".
It already has a cult following that participates in the universe, and they already have the blueprint in pokemon go and design spec for all the characters. The trail would require maintenance, but for the most part the "prizes" would be digital. They would cost nothing. The development of the software for the activity might be in the 100's of millions. Might. Niantic might already have a great framework to build off of if they are willing to shake hands.
That activity, or any other potential activity like, even if it alone cost as much as the entirety of potter could certainly demand the cost because there is potential to tie in multiple upsells to one of the biggest merch giants of all time, and it could suck in money like a "carnival game land" and people would be happy about it, people would travel far and wide to do it. You can walk the trail and play "pokemon snap" with your phone while others who are engaged with the "game" play and try to capture the pokemon. Then you still build the rides and shows for the "casuals" who wouldn't want to play or try to find and take pictures of these pokemon because that's not people go to theme parks for, apparently.
How folks just aren't seeing this opportunity I don't understand, and I certainly don't understand not wanting them to do it or advocating against it. There is precedent in Potter and SNW for interactivity inside of the lands. To go for something next level with Pokemon really feels like a no-brainer to me. It's what the property is built around, and It's obvious these interactive features are popular. Pokemon is absolutely the property to go all in on interactivity with, and it can reasonably sustain higher spending than any other property to do so.
It’s time to end this now. It’s just going round and round.
- Jul 27, 2015
- 9,725
- 47,978
- Jul 13, 2018
- 3,121
- 5,417
You know...Animal Crossing cafe. Just put it up two flights of stairs ensconced in a hidden nook of one of the show buildings. Don't advertise it. In fact just make it for a couple people, a casual, quasi-Club 33 esque experience. Hell, it doesn't even have to be Animal Crossing. Just put a nice secluded 10-15 capacity cafe overlooking a (themed!) secrion of EU. We can all chat about whether the paint applied to themed rocks is appropriately realistic.
I don't know you guys, this thread just suddenly makes me tired and want something utterly relaxing, you know?
I don't know you guys, this thread just suddenly makes me tired and want something utterly relaxing, you know?
Pokemon is a good candidate for a theme park land, it will more than likely not take up as much space as PotterBased on what?
I'm arguing Pokemon has the potential and the IP strength to take up just as much or more space than Potter. It needs to be approached differently. I argue the earnings for it's ip, which are 3 times as much as potter (in essentially the same time frame) dictate it might be worthy going much bigger than what we've seen with Potter and SNW. Naysayers are actually comparing Pokemon to Hello Kitty... I mean, let's not kid ourselves , that just isn't a fair comparison. I'm arguing statistics, demographics and revenue across different streams which makes Pokemon a strong contender. I'm not simply comparing the bottom lines.
Honestly, before I looked at the numbers for Pokemon the other day and the segments its earnings are in compared to other properties, I didn't even think much of it. I would have agreed with everyone else with a snap like ride, which I agreed with before I looked at the numbers and I saw SNW activities.
When I looked at the numbers and saw that it's not only a merch giant, It's a game giant, and the biggest IP of all time I changed my mind and instantly saw it's potential. Not only is Pokemon Go garnering 60 million visitors a month, apparently it has downloads the size of 1/7th of the global population, and it also reached those numbers faster than any other game on the list. The property was over 20 years old at the time of it's launch, meaning it's still very relevant. It also requires a data connection, not only wifi to play. That mean's it's highly probable unlike other games on that list, many more of the downloads are likely directed at more individual personal accounts and devices.
List of most-played mobile games by player count - Wikipedia
I'm advocating for more and ringing the alarm bell because that's some serious numbers. Games just don't do that, not even the most popular online games. Halo and Call of Duty don't do that. Overwatch doesn't do that. World of Warcraft doesn't do that. It places Go, a mobile game in the upper echelon of free games, in the same category of cross platform, console and pc games games like League of Legends which apparently peaks around 100 Million players a month, generates 10's of millions in official esports tournaments, and billions in revenue a year. The only games doing substantially higher monthly numbers for players is Fornite, Minecraft and Roblox. You don't see me saying Universal needs to build a giant Fornite land or Minecraft land. It wouldn't make sense, perhaps beyond a singular shooter attraction for Fortnite, but the characters are humanoid so that might be a problem for some families. I wouldn't bother.
Unlike other games on that list and in it's league Pokemon doesn't have the problem of little substance or culture in it's universe. It's not a shooter or an open sandbox "building blocks" universe with little to no story. It has a storyline that can put anyone in the shoes of it's protagonist. It is not a "Hardcore" game, But it is enjoyed by and has a Hardcore and Casual audience of both sexes, and with more than enough age variance. It checks all the boxes.
Potter has the problem where it will almost certainly never be something you can actually go "do". The allure of Potter is the story and the fantasy of its universe, but recreating a representation of it's universe outside of a movie or faithfully in an ar game is just not possible yet, and it will always have the stigma of being super geeky, larpy. The Harry potter AR game by the same Studio as go, has 17 million players to date. The difference in numbers is staggering.
There is also stigma in much of the world surrounding the use of magic. Pokemon just does not have that problem, They are animals of an alternate universe. The allure of Pokemon has always been you can emulate the story and take part of the universe through the video game or the card game or even the merch. Anyone can participate on any interest level. It's easy to understand and has cute characters... It's almost based on nature, more so than a story... Whether you want to play the game or not, again it's cute, collectable creatures, they are pets.
In terms of design, if they go for the "come here and play and catch and battle pokemon" approach, which I think it would be criminal not to, They can test the waters with a land designed around the original 151, and do expansions to the different regions and Pokemon in different parks, all the way up to the current number of 893, until the returns begin to diminish. I can't imagine if they execute properly we wouldn't at least get representation of Kanto and Johto.
The opportunity exist to make the world of Pokemon real... And it is not only probably the only property on earth they could probably pull this off with, It is also a safe bet as it is the highest grossing IP of all time, with all the right numbers in all the right places for a Theme Park and other major media representation.
Pokemon may also be the one property that could help establish a more dominate market position in Theme Parks because of it's major appeal across casual and hardcore gamers. The amount of gamers worldwide is much larger than Theme park visitors yearly. If I'm universal, looking to gain market share in orlando and worldwide, Pokemon is a property that is going to extract new visitors to my park from different, much larger demo, and, built impressively enough will take days away from planned vacations from Disney. The attraction gamified will not only be a time suck from Disney, but a merch and money suck as well.
Seriously, imagine like a "Pokemon trail" or something that emulates the kanto (Ash ketchum's) region with activities like SNW where you are hunting and capturing pokemon. The amount of land it would take up would be huge, but I honestly don't see the cost associated for that portion of being more expensive than any of the more expensive crazy rides we have got in the last few years. Pokemon trail with the original 151? I don't recall directly how many don't have an evolution path, but lets say they sprinkle 60 locations across this path where you can capture Pokemon. How much would each activity cost, the building/sets, animatronics, etc. $5-10 million a piece(which would be insane, for at most 2 or 3 animatronic figures per location just fyi)? So the capture activity cost as much as a modern major ride or area that only has on-ride photos and ride merch to recoup cost beyond regular park draw. I'd even argue a ride period would be more of a hassle to maintain than the area.
Pokemon would essentially be an arcade or game attraction that guest not only come to play, but are already trained to expect to spend money to play, in upwards of1 billion people worldwide. The trail would suck you in and take time to navigate. "Mom, I need to go to the pokestore to buy a "hi-potion" just incase this dugtrio I am trying to catch kicks my butt, "mom I need more master balls cause I unlocked a legendary encounter, If I catch it I can be in the hall of fame and we can get free tickets to come back next year", "Mom I caught an evee but I need to buy or trade a moonstone to evolve it".
It already has a cult following that participates in the universe, and they already have the blueprint in pokemon go and design spec for all the characters. The trail would require maintenance, but for the most part the "prizes" would be digital. They would cost nothing. The development of the software for the activity might be in the 100's of millions. Might. Niantic might already have a great framework to build off of if they are willing to shake hands.
That activity, or any other potential activity like, even if it alone cost as much as the entirety of potter could certainly demand the cost because there is potential to tie in multiple upsells to one of the biggest merch giants of all time, and it could suck in money like a "carnival game land" and people would be happy about it, people would travel far and wide to do it. You can walk the trail and play "pokemon snap" with your phone while others who are engaged with the "game" play and try to capture the pokemon. Then you still build the rides and shows for the "casuals" who wouldn't want to play or try to find and take pictures of these pokemon because that's not people go to theme parks for, apparently.
How folks just aren't seeing this opportunity I don't understand, and I certainly don't understand not wanting them to do it or advocating against it. There is precedent in Potter and SNW for interactivity inside of the lands. To go for something next level with Pokemon really feels like a no-brainer to me. It's what the property is built around, and It's obvious these interactive features are popular. Pokemon is absolutely the property to go all in on interactivity with, and it can reasonably sustain higher spending than any other property to do so.
- Mar 1, 2017
- 769
- 1,302
I think I could make a case for a Pokemon-themed boutique LARPing theme park, but it would still be a worse idea than just building an 8-10 acre Pokemon land inside a normal theme park.
I could make the case to do something along the lines with the Star Wars Hotel, as I think the idea would be more viable long-term with Pokemon fans than Star Wars fans.
- Jul 27, 2015
- 9,725
- 47,978
I could see that. A Pokémon Trainer Center hotel where “trainers” can come to hone their skills. Practice with animatronic Pokémon battles. Have Q&As with gym leaders. Go through a Safari Zone walk-through. End with a “tournament” that gets crashed by Team Rocket and everyone has to use their Pokémon together to beat them.
A boutique hotel would be way more feasible.
Let me just say: Amidst all the SNW talk or Wizarding World expansion theories, the land that brings a smile to my face every time I think about it is that Classic Monsters land. Good god, I cannot wait, and every time I see a notification alert that there are new comments in this thread, I think, “Please let there be some chit-chat and/or spec about that land,” only to be crushed at the sight of yet another thesis-length Pokémon comment.
- Aug 18, 2017
- 5,126
- 6,190
- May 22, 2015
- 194
- 295
Goodness, Pokemon has proven to be quite the contentious topic.
On another note, one thing I'm very excited for is the potential of the original music in the new gate. Some of the IoA music is absolutely incredible, I bet they could put out some real bangers for areas like the Monsters land and such.
On another note, one thing I'm very excited for is the potential of the original music in the new gate. Some of the IoA music is absolutely incredible, I bet they could put out some real bangers for areas like the Monsters land and such.
- Status
