Enough talk! Have at you!
"Wait, we have to deal with multiple corporate entities to make the Pokemon park? It couldn't possibly be worth it,"Go look at the Wikipedia list of highest grossing media franchises of all time. Now tell me how "Pokémon Theme Park" is not the FIRST thing they'd want to do.
"We're not sure if a Pokemon theme park will be successful" sounds like something hard to swallow but so dumb I could believe someone thinks it.
Late response, but forgot to mention this:
It's worth noting Universal was originally supposed to distribute Detective Pikachu in the first place, before Warner Bros. ended up with the worldwide distribution rights. Actually makes me think that Universal(/Comcast) dropping DP from their release slate that film and now canceling Nintendo theme park plans may be reflective of a broader lack of faith in Nintendo as a whole.
Canceling a Pokemon theme park land is even stupider than Disney passing on Harry Potter. Like, when Disney canceled on Harry Potter, it was still 'sorta' new and was technically still unproven long term (which... I don't understand how Avatar wasn't but...). Pokemon has hung around longer than Potter, and is basically a merchandising empire. The land could cost as much as Star Wars land and still break even easily.
Pokemon and Harry Potter have been in the cultural consciousnesses for roughly the same amount of time, it would be difficult to gauge the impact of one over the other since they focus on different markets all together. One is a film-centric IP (despite it's origins as a novel) and the other is a game-centric one. Both of them have dipped their toes in the other's mediums--but they largely remain out of competition with one another and only have any connection due to Universal Studios' theme park ventures.
What boggles the mind (and makes me wonder how far back this 20th Century Fox deal was in the works at Disney) is that the announcement of Pandora at Animal Kingdom was a direct response to the smash success of Harry Potter at Universal, and still years before Universal would announce a partnership with Nintendo. Why Disney did not approach Nintendo for a "Pokemon Island" at Animal Kingdom is beyond me, it's certainly a better fit than Avatar, especially considering Disney's target audience.
The thing is to Universal execs ... they're mostly old-ass movie/TV guys. Harry Potter has proven box office numbers.
Video games are probably still to them ... well video games. Popular sure, but deep down they still likely don't have the same trust in them as they would in a hit movie franchise.
Making an investment as large as having 3 huge areas of your theme park dedicated to a video game company probably scared them off a bit, but my guess is when they see Great Detective Pikachu doing big box office they're going to want back in on the Pokemon park at least.
Does the deal with Universal tie all Nintendo properties to Universal?
Like what would happen if Nintendo were to say "OK, cool, we'll take Pokemon and Zelda to those Disney guys".
Which honestly is probably better for Nintendo, lol, because they'd get exposure at both Universal and Disney parks that way.
Universal has the rights to all Nintendo IPs. Pokemon is the only one that raises questions, due to TPC.
Pokemon and Harry Potter have been in the cultural consciousnesses for roughly the same amount of time, it would be difficult to gauge the impact of one over the other since they focus on different markets all together. One is a film-centric IP (despite it's origins as a novel) and the other is a game-centric one. Both of them have dipped their toes in the other's mediums--but they largely remain out of competition with one another and only have any connection due to Universal Studios' theme park ventures.
What boggles the mind (and makes me wonder how far back this 20th Century Fox deal was in the works at Disney) is that the announcement of Pandora at Animal Kingdom was a direct response to the smash success of Harry Potter at Universal, and still years before Universal would announce a partnership with Nintendo. Why Disney did not approach Nintendo for a "Pokemon Island" at Animal Kingdom is beyond me, it's certainly a better fit than Avatar, especially considering Disney's target audience.
Avatar is the biggest movie of all time with James Cameron willing to personally design the area, you have to understand these are movie execs making most of the decisions here.
They're going to favor a popular movie franchise over any game franchise 10/10 times.
Universal execs will probably be "holy crap! This Pokemon thing is really legit!" once they see Great Detective Pikachu's box office.
There's nothing to suggest that Universal is undervaluing Pokemon or isn't interested in it in the future.
Well I mean if they valued it as highly as probably the younger generation does, I would imagine they'd be in deep for several Pokemon attractions.
Maybe they will be in deep for Pokemon attractions? They already have ongoing construction in all of their parks. Resources aren't infinite, and Pokemon, like any theme park attraction, has to wait its turn. The time to worry would be after SNW in Osaka is finished up.