Look, I'm getting tired of defending myself but honestly, no one here has the authority to call my concept ridiculous.
I get certain users have more "theme park fan forum brownie points" than I, but that doesn't give anyone talking authority on what is or isn't possible, especially when precedent has been set. "Brownie points" also makes no one here more right or wrong than others. Crazymaking is a weak argument tactic and says way more about those who set that tone for this particular discussion than I. I hope folks reading these past few pages, especially those who may want to work in the industry one day don't relegate themselves to thinking "how it should be done", over "how do I make that possible". You also always try to account for the business side of things, you have to make money, it has to make sense. I wasn't interested in Pokemon at all beyond being a product of the 90's myself until I thought about it's implications for this industry. I love Theme Parks and I want to think of what the next thing can be, the next innovative expansion, etc. I also favor Universal's approach to Disney (usually), so it's exciting to see them have something that could give them another big win.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough with how I presented my concept, maybe I wasn't clear enough on how I extrapolated the data from the numbers we have. Still no excuse for the way this has gone. Let me try and be very clear.
I wouldn't treat Pikachu the same as Potter. I'd treat the
game the same as Potter.
From wikipedia:
Pokemon (100 Billion):
Established 1996
Mario (38 Billion):
Established 1981
Potter (32 Billion):
Established 1997.
I think it's downright silly to argue Pokemon should be relegated to a couple of rides and that it's not a strong contender for the Potter treatment, but I've been trying to be nice about it and stick to the data points without the attacks.
The amount of space I argue Pokemon should take up is comparable in size to combining potter in both parks into one uninterrupted land (and building smaller rides/using space a bit better). Pokemon's grossed roughly 3 times as much as Potter or Mario since it's inception. Mario also had a 15 year head start on earnings in a less competitive market. By all accounts and metrics, Pokemon is stronger than Potter and Mario, and has more earning power than both franchises combined over the same time period, and that's an irrefutable fact, no matter how anyone may feel about the property.
Let me highlight that last bit again:
Pokemon has outearned Potter and Mario combined over the past 24 years.
One is clearly the winner, and is quite literally at the top of the list of all time earnings for ip's, and yes, there is precedent for every piece of tech and a land the size and scope of what I've talked about.
To date, Universal has reportedly spent close to, if not more than a billion building potter at USO.
The data clearly shows in creating an experience with Pokemon, They can comfortably afford to spend more as it should outpace both Potter and Mario with proper representation... What would that look like? I think it's obvious they lean into the game. Let us ask ourselves, What does that look like in a Theme Park?
"They won't do it that way/spend that much/you're wrong cause I said so" is not a counterargument.
If anyone here had mastery over the design of theme parks and what was possible, and was employed in the industry, they wouldn't be posting. I implore everyone to be fair and play nice. What I've bought up here may never get built, but it is not impossible, and it is not a senseless concept without thought to earnings potential or cost or guest draw.
I invite folks to speculate and wonder about the potential, especially with some of the rumors we've heard rather than join in the self-righteous denigration.
If anything, What I've seen with SNW has led me to believe Mario and DK is just set up for what they will do with Pokemon. I believe they can emulate the experience of catching and training Pokemon in a theme park setting better than Pokemon go.