News Project 2027: Fast & Furious: Hollywood Drift... East...?

Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
warfelg said:
The issue I have with it is they chose an IP that’s massively losing popularity. IMO USO should lean into nostalgia more with its IP usage.
Click to expand...

If you're going to make that argument, you have to show that the older IPs you're nostalgic about are, in some objective way, more popular than F&F. And I don't think you can do that.

Besides, the IP for a ride like this isn't all that important. Did anyone really care that Rip Ride Rockit wasn't tied to any IP? Then they're not going to care what IP tie-in they use here either.
 
themeparktribune said:
If you're going to make that argument, you have to show that the older IPs you're nostalgic about are, in some objective way, more popular than F&F. And I don't think you can do that.
Click to expand...
Top 10 Universal Franchises inflation adjusted box office take per film:
1 - Jurassic Park, 7 films, $588.3M per
2 - Jaws, 4 films, $542.1M per
3 - Back to the Future, 3 films, $407.3M per
4 - Secret Life of Pets, 2 films, $339.3M per
5 - Bourne, 5 films, $260.8M per
6 - Despicable Me, 10 films, $241.6M per
7 - Shrek, 11 films, $237.8M per
8 - Fast and the Furious 12 films, $218.7M per
9 - Mummy, 5 films, $218.7M per
10 - Minions, 6 films, $201.6M per

And then for each of these here's the critics weighted score (at release) and audience weighted score (currently) according to Rotten Tomatoes (meaning the most popular box office movies count more than lowest):
1 - Jurassic Park, Critics 67%, Audience 78%
2 - Jaws, Critics 74%, Audience 76%
3 - Back to the Future, Critics 86%, Audience 89%
4 - Secret Life of Pets, Critics 58%, Audience 63%
5 - Bourne, Critics 73%, Audience 81%
6 - Despicable Me, Critics 63%, Audience 83%
7 - Shrek, Critics 67%, Audience 70%
8 - Fast and the Furious, Critics 56%, Audience 78%
9 - Mummy, Critics 50%, Audience 62%
10 - Minions, Critics 54%, Audience 75%

So composite weighting all of that (35% of overall ranking from each category) and Universals Top 10 most popular franchises based on per film performance is: (surprisingly reviews pulled some from the top 15 into the top 10, so I'll give all 15 I had)
1 - Back to the Future
2 - Jurassic Park
3 - How to Train your Dragon
4 - Jaws
5 - King Fu Panda
6 - Bourne
7 - Despicable Me
8 - Shrek
9 - Fast and Fruious
10 - Secret Life of Pets
11 - Pitch Perfect
12 - Meet the Parents
13 - Minions
14 - The Mummy
15 - Halloween

So what isn't represented in parks?
Jaws is only at Japan, Halloween is a HHN house so they have minimal representation despite its popularity. Nothing at all: Back to the Future, Meet the Parents, Bourne, Pitch Perfect, and Halloween

Remove what doesn't lend itself to a ride and Universal's most popular attractions without US based park representation are in order:
Back to the future, Jaws, Bourne

Now you can debate Shrek and Kung Fu Panda with the minimal play zone areas (a jungle gym and a splash zone).
 
  • Like
Reactions: RollyCoaster
Bourne has a show at USF and Jaws is still prominently features at USH, so both of those are absolutely represented in the theme parks.

The flaw in the reasoning is that it's necessary to make decisions about attractions based on what IP is currently popular, not what historically had a huge following. Fast & Furious is an active franchise with name recognition, and that alone will bring in people who are interested in checking out any attraction made with the franchise. Back to the Future, on the other hand, hasn't had any new content made since the early 90s, and thus it has little if any drawing power on brand recognition with most visitors under 30. Sure, it was massively popular when it came out and it definitely has a following, but it would be a very risky choice to use as the IP for a new extreme thrill ride.

I do agree that Back to the Future is underrepresented, but using it as the theme for this attraction is not the way to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dsdl
Bourne is a stunt show and Jaws is a scene in the studio tour. Neither are attractions.

Look, I get F&F is popular and everything, I’m just of the opinion that not every IP in the park needs to be a brand new IP and there’s still room for some legacy. BttF would make a really good coaster. Maybe something that can be like GotG:CR is more appropriate, but to say it’s risky is just wrong IMO.
 
Complex opinion here I guess. I'm always going to lean towards no IP being superior (Disney in general was great at that and I'm definitely very critical of them for literally never doing that nowadays), but I give Universal leeway because Epic Universe has a great mix of classic IP and newer IP, as well as their hub not having IP at all. If they want to build a F&F coaster (as someone who admittedly likes F&F but can see it from the prospective of someone who doesn't) I say they've built up the goodwill to do it in my book. Not the biggest fan of it being called Hollywood Drift but it's replacing a ride called Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit so it's not exactly a new issue for this plot of land.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DE_Creative, Great Adventurer, Ziva and 4 others
Tbh I don't mind the 'Hollywood drift" it makes sense to me. The movies were mainly in Holly and the fact that the "Hollywood drift" in Hollywood itself is just a coincidence. I do know that universal takes a lot of planning in advance to make their coasters come to life. Maybe the Hollywood drift in Orlando was in planning while they also just started planning the other one in Hollywood and they were originally planning this to be the name I buy long story short you guys are overreacting about this name I hope some of y'all agree with me.
 
warfelg said:
Bourne is a stunt show and Jaws is a scene in the studio tour. Neither are attractions.

Look, I get F&F is popular and everything, I’m just of the opinion that not every IP in the park needs to be a brand new IP and there’s still room for some legacy. BttF would make a really good coaster. Maybe something that can be like GotG:CR is more appropriate, but to say it’s risky is just wrong IMO.
Click to expand...

I'll give you Jaws even though USH does advertise the Studio Tour stops as part of their attraction lineup, but Bourne Stuntacular is most certainly an attraction at USF. It may not be a ride, but it is a full scale performance inside a purpose-built theater, and that definitely qualifies as full-fledged attraction in my book.

No, not every attraction needs to be based on the latest hit, but an IP needs to be strong enough to draw a crowd in order to justify using it as the foundation for an attraction, and I just don't think BTTF has that power right now. That said, Universal clearly feels the franchise has enough of a fanbase to continue representing it in the parks, and they did an extremely impressive temporary attraction for it last year at USH's Fan Fest Nights event (which unfortunately is not returning this year). I do think BTTF as a coaster would work extremely well within the context of a new park like USUK, as there it would be one of many attractions and could potentially star in its own section of the park to create more immersion. As a standalone attraction that represents the first headliner for the park in over a decade, however, an IP that resonates more strongly with the largest demographics of UOR visitors (grade schoolers, teens, and young adults) makes a ton more sense.

YachtyLogs said:
Complex opinion here I guess. I'm always going to lean towards no IP being superior (Disney in general was great at that and I'm definitely very critical of them for literally never doing that nowadays), but I give Universal leeway because Epic Universe has a great mix of classic IP and newer IP, as well as their hub not having IP at all. If they want to build a F&F coaster (as someone who admittedly likes F&F but can see it from the prospective of someone who doesn't) I say they've built up the goodwill to do it in my book. Not the biggest fan of it being called Hollywood Drift but it's replacing a ride called Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit so it's not exactly a new issue for this plot of land.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with utilizing IP on an attraction when it is a natural fit, and there's no denying that in an age of cross-platform representation, doing so is going to tap into a market that otherwise would be far less likely to visit the parks. What bothers me is when parks use an IP-centric approach, where instead of looking at what type of attraction makes the most sense to add and then seeing if an IP fits with the concept they're going with, they're picking the IP and then crafting an attraction around that choice. Using this method is far more likely to create attractions that are subpar, as instead of focusing on creating something that can stand alone they're expecting the built-in recognition of the property to drive popularity regardless of the quality of the experience.

Fortunately, with a high thrill coaster the ability to use IP as a crutch is far less pronounced than with a more story-driven attraction as set dressing can't be used as a substitute for physical sensations, so even if the queue and pre-show aren't that appealing the ride experience itself should be minimally affected by whether or not riders have affinity with F&F.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coasternerd, dsdl and jscll
amperedragon said:
I'll give you Jaws even though USH does advertise the Studio Tour stops as part of their attraction lineup, but Bourne Stuntacular is most certainly an attraction at USF. It may not be a ride, but it is a full scale performance inside a purpose-built theater, and that definitely qualifies as full-fledged attraction in my book.
Click to expand...

In my post that showed popularity I was trying to be careful enough to say “ride” as opposed to representation. Hence why the stunt show isn’t taken off of my list of films/franchises/attractions without ride representation.

Personally, I think a stunt show is a far better way to include the “new hot IP” where staying power is unknown.

amperedragon said:
No, not every attraction needs to be based on the latest hit, but an IP needs to be strong enough to draw a crowd in order to justify using it as the foundation for an attraction, and I just don't think BTTF has that power right now. That said, Universal clearly feels the franchise has enough of a fanbase to continue representing it in the parks, and they did an extremely impressive temporary attraction for it last year at USH's Fan Fest Nights event (which unfortunately is not returning this year). I do think BTTF as a coaster would work extremely well within the context of a new park like USUK, as there it would be one of many attractions and could potentially star in its own section of the park to create more immersion. As a standalone attraction that represents the first headliner for the park in over a decade, however, an IP that resonates more strongly with the largest demographics of UOR visitors (grade schoolers, teens, and young adults) makes a ton more sense.
Click to expand...
Ok so breaking down a few things:
- The ratings I did up above, those “audience scores” represent things of all time. I did it because others said how F&F is their most popular franchise and I was showing that it’s not.

Again, it’s top 10 and worth an attraction. That’s not my argument here. My argument is it wasn’t their only option and they are ignoring some of their biggest franchises that are still popular.

- BttF being a temporary FFN overlay is heartbreaking to me. I’m glad they did something. But that, IMO was not a great use of the IP.

- I disagree that BttF would be a good immersive land. There really isn’t an iconic location or set that would do well for this IP. It should be a stand alone attraction in an area with other stand alone attractions. And pushing it to UK would be an EXTREME let down since much of its story telling revolves around iconically American moments.

In fact, F&F would be better for a stand alone land that you mentioned as it lends itself better to an iconic setting (Race Wars, their warehouse “hideouts”) and multiple rides and everything together.

- That’s grouping of yours for largest demographics - 1/3 of them are likely not going to be able to ride (grade schoolers) and I would debate that another 1/3 likely don’t go see the F&F movies (teens).

In fact the last 4 F&F movies demographics have tended to skew to white and Hispanic male millennials. F9 was the only one to go under 25 years of age (about 24.7 y).

Heck using those three groups you could even say Shrek, Kung Fu Panda should have much more representation than they have.

——————

Like I said, F&F has an audience, and yes Supercharged was a terrible attraction that likely wasn’t the IPs fault. F&F should have representation somewhere in the park. It’s just my opinion that there are other IPs, namely BttF, that I would prefer to see represented and there are enough reasons to say it should be. As alluded to as well, if F&F is that big, then it should be its own themed area rather than a single attraction that would be more fitting for something like BttF.

Heck, I feel an even better idea would be to shift everything Mummy related to the Dark Universe area of Epic Universe, re-theme the Mummy Ride to F&F, retheme 5th/7th street to downtown LA, re-do Transformers into something F&F , then the stores can be a tuner shop (selling merch) with a “secret store” inside of it (selling props from the later movies where they are basically now a secret military branch), and finally food based on the cookouts at Doms place and the Sandwich shop where Mia worked in the first movie.

I personally feel, as of late, USO has done a particularly bad job of utilizing IPs outside of Harry Potter. MIB area never getting developed with more (which frankly should be where Tonight Show is given NYC setting). Tonight Show being a ride. Transformers being in their Hollywood themed area despite none of the movies being set there. The lack of follow-up and attention to Springfield is disheartening. And shoehorning all the Dreamworks IPs into what amounts to a play zone was a miss.

This coaster being F&F themed is just emblematic of the bigger USO problem. It’s starting to feel like a higher priced Paramount Parks problem of throwing IPs into random places with a loose connection and hope people just like the IP enough to ignore the rest. This decision just furthers the problem IMO.
 
warfelg said:
I disagree that BttF would be a good immersive land. There really isn’t an iconic location or set that would do well for this IP.
Click to expand...
Hard disagree. 50s Hill Valley is iconic IMO and just getting to walk around it would be amazing. My favorite part of the Hollywood tram tour is the part where you drive pass the clock tower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: outhikn
YachtyLogs said:
Hard disagree. 50s Hill Valley is iconic IMO and just getting to walk around it would be amazing. My favorite part of the Hollywood tram tour is the part where you drive pass the clock tower.
Click to expand...
And what about the 80’s version, or future version, or Wild West version? You also would struggle to do multiple attractions without it being really repetitive.

In fact I would say that making the facade of the ride look like Hill Valley with a shop looking like the diner would be more than enough to bring that to life.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: YachtyLogs
warfelg said:
And what about the 80’s version, or future version, or Wild West version? You also would struggle to do multiple attractions without it being really repetitive.

In fact I would say that making the facade of the ride look like Hill Valley with a shop looking like the diner would be more than enough to bring that to life.
Click to expand...
Okay I agree with this. I was mostly just disagreeing with you saying there's no iconic locations in BttF lol
 
anything guesses of what the ride plaza for the attraction would look like (espcially if they wanted to cover up sides of the ghostbusters firestation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad