**NEWS** Little green martian to be replaced by big green ogre **NEWS**

[mr_buttonpusher]

Changes are being made to Movie World 3D theatre, the Roxy Theatre. Movie World is replacing Marvin the Martian in the 3rd Dimension with Shrek 4D. They will also be renovating the theatre by upgrading the seating to interactive 3D theatre seating. This will reduce the capacity of the theatre by 100. There will also be Shrek characters appearing on the streets of Movie World. Shrek will be appearing with Princess Fiona but she will be in her human form to act as chaperone for the Shrek character suit. At the same time, management is debating whether or not to continue the other Batman characters such as Cat Woman, Robin, Mr Freeze, Bat Girl and Penguin as they have been temporarily removed during the promotion of the new batman movie, Batman Begins. Sincerely mr_buttonpusher

[taronga]

Has anyone got some goss on this project? I doubt it will be a Shrek attraction!

[joz]

Has anyone got some goss on this project? I doubt it will be a Shrek attraction!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Really? Tell us, why won't it be Shrek?

[taronga]

I've mentioned this on the (aussieparks) site!

[matty_o_911]

I also believe it won't be Shrek, for numerous reasons that I outlined on another website and will not repeat myself. But if it does happen to be Shrek, then I will be very dissapointed with Movie World for ruining its branding by taking in a non-Warner Bros franchise for an attraction. My bet is that it might be an English version of The Mask 3D that was created for Warner Bros. Movie World Madrid. A 3D movie from another Warner Bros. park seems more plausible to me than one from a Universal Studios park.

[joz]

Lets make this fun, who else thinks it won't be Shrek?

[matty_o_911]

On another website I didn't seem to be getting much support for my anti-Shrek campaign, so do people really not have any problems with Movie World abandoning its WB theming and taking on a Universal/Dreamworks product. Every other ride/attraction at Movie World is Warner Bros related, so why would they change now?? It just makes no sense to me.

[Richard]

I figure it's about as bad as Universal "abandoning" their theming and taking on Shrek - which is a Dreamworks product. The other Warner Bros. parks around the world haven't had the good fortune ours has. I'd be willing to bet it is no longer economical to develop a WB-based 4D attraction for a single park with relatively insignificant attendance.

[jcgoldcoast]

Is it possible that Warner Bros has the rights for Shrek in Australia, therefore making it a WB product in this country?

[matty_o_911]

Well the Shrek movie was made by Dreamworks. However the 3D attraction was made by Universal Studios for its themeparks. Also, Universal I believe are currently in talks to acquire Dreamworks. Whether or not Warner Bros could purchase the rights for Shrek in Australia is not my point - I just don't want to see any attractions at 'Warner Bros Movie World' that Warner Bros had nothing to do with making. And I'll just quote what is used on the description of the Movie World section of this forum: "Warner Bros. Movie World is home to various rides and attractions, themed to Warner Bros. films and concepts." Now if Shrek comes in, then the park will hardly feature various rides and attractions all themed to Warner Bros. films and concepts. It would have to be changed to: "Warner Bros. Movie World is home to various rides and attractions, MOSTLY themed to Warner Bros. films and concepts with the exception of Shrek 3D which was brought in only for the purpose of attracting visitors and making money without any worries about destroying the consistent Warner Bros. branding at this park and annoying the hell out of matty_o_911."

[joz]

I think you’ve missed the point: Shrek 4D is rated at least equal, if not higher then every 4D movie out there, with the exception of Mickey's Philarmagic – and with good reason, it’s an excellent movie. The fact that it’s not Warner Brothers is a pretty weak reason not to have it. I see what your saying (Its not WB) but really, who cares? I’m not going to say no to a brilliant new attraction. Its based on a Movie, and that’s good enough for me. I must admit though, I love comment that about Shrek that it “was brought in only for the purpose of attracting visitors”. Dude, it’s a theme park. New things are built to attract guests, hence why they call them ‘attractions’.

[bigglesworth003]

Besides us internet geeks, your joe every customer at WBMW wouldn't have a clue it's not WB maierial You think anyone going on the one at Universal go 'HEY! wait a second this isn't a Universal Brand, BOYCOTT!!!!!"

[jcgoldcoast]

Dreamworks has to agree to Universal using the characters as well, so I am guessing it is marketing for Dreamworks that they get paid for, not pay for!

[Adam]

Who doesn't love Shrek? I can't wait for the new movie ;-)

[matty_o_911]

Ok, so everyone disagrees with me again. So I take it that since none of you care about preserving a brandname - then you wouldn't object to Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck and all the other Looney Tunes joining in with Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck and the gang at Disneyland? I'm sure if that suggestion was to be made, there would be an uproaring of anger amongst people for ruining the 'Disney' brand by merging with characters synonomous with Warner Bros. I believe people when they say Shrek is a great movie, is a great 4D attraction, and would attract visitors - but on the prinicple that it does not fit in with every other single attraction at the park in being Warner Bros related I object very strongly to its presence. After all, the purpose of creating a film studio based theme park is to promote its own brand and make lots of money at the same time by providing entertainment based on its 'own' ideas and concepts - that is what every other film company theme park does - and not just taking from another company because they are to cheap and lazy to make their own. I am really hoping that Movie World will not dissapoint me and any other purists out there that have yet to side with me.

[Richard]

Look into it further and you will find that Universal's role in creating the Shrek 4D show would have been an almost exclusively a financial one, with limited creative input. Its production was handled by more or less the same people that did the movie (albeit downsized and many of the major production roles were filled by people who were previously lower in the pecking order). Ultimately, Universal approached Dreamworks to develop the film attraction. At this stage Universal had no interest (financial, partnership or otherwise) in Dreamworks. There's nothing new about parks not staying within their brand. Try and name a movie park which hasn't "wandered" - I can't think of any. In fact, even the Muppets joined the ranks of Disney long before they were acquired outright by the company. Don't forget the Star Wars franchise or Indiana Jones, both of which were seamlessly integrated into Disney's parks. At any rate there have been many instances of our Movie World venturing outside of the confines of WB licensing. Perhaps nothing as major as an entire attraction to this date, but if you're observant enough it's not hard to find a number of things "out of place" in any given day.

[nev]

Ok, so everyone disagrees with me again.  So I take it that since none of you care about preserving a brandname - then you wouldn't object to Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck and all the other Looney Tunes joining in with Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck and the gang at Disneyland? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Matty, have you ever seen the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" ? It's probably one of the funniest and well done combined animation / live action films created, and it features characters from pretty much every major animation house. If preserving a brand name in its purest form is of the upmost importance over profits and commercial sense, then why the hell did Coke lower themselves to bring out Diet Coke with Lime? Get over it. I couldn't care if it's the interactive Steve Irwin 3D crocodile hunt - the place needs a change after so many years of Marvin, and getting the best 3D animated experience in the world to replace it is a pretty damn good move.

[bigglesworth003]

^CLose TO Best i'd say 3rd best its behind Mickey's Philarmagic and It's Tough To be a Bug

[taronga]

Ok, so everyone disagrees with me again. I believe people when they say Shrek is a great movie, is a great 4D attraction, and would attract visitors - but on the prinicple that it does not fit in with every other single attraction at the park in being Warner Bros related I object very strongly to its presence.  After all, the purpose of creating a film studio based theme park is to promote its own brand and make lots of money at the same time by providing entertainment based on its 'own' ideas and concepts - that is what every other film company theme park does - and not just taking from another company because they are to cheap and lazy to make their own. I am really hoping that Movie World will not dissapoint me and any other purists out there that have yet to side with me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It looks like you and me agree on alot of what's been said. I also like the Shrek movies & enjoyed the 4d attraction but it's not gonna happen here. On the other parks, not all of Universals attractions are their own concepts. Speilberg (half partner of Dreamworks) was looking to purchase Universal parks. Disney parks were approached by George Lucas to include his rides and some financial. With Warner Bros. now owning rights to the Terminator franchise who would say no to an attraction based on that?? Once again there will be no Shrek!!!

[kennykoala]

tough to be a bug is great:)

[Psycho]

At any rate there have been many instances of our Movie World venturing outside of the confines of WB licensing. Perhaps nothing as major as an entire attraction to this date, but if you're observant enough it's not hard to find a number of things "out of place" in any given day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

* The Phantom promotion in 1996 (Paramount) * Hi5 performances * Marilyn Monroe in-park appearances (despite the fact nearly all her movies were made for Columbia, MGM or Fox) * The Saddle Club appearances Ok, a few random examples that just came to mind that MW has had over the past few years. Makes me wonder why people are getting so testy about Shrek when there are examples of licensed use of other studios products throughout the history of the park. And as for cheapening the brand...Universal Studios still uses Nickelodeon and Jimmy Neutron despite the brand being owned by Viacom (Paramount). Universal uses Beetlejuice - yet that was a Warner Bros release. They use Twister - even though that movie was predominantly branded Warner Bros. A lot of the movie parks cross-promote with other studios when it means $$. So, why all the fuss now?

[Adam]

I also like the Shrek movies & enjoyed the 4d attraction but it's not gonna happen here.

Taronga, either Movie World have changed their mind (in the last few days) on the Marvin the Martin replacement attraction, or you're incorrect! Why should Movie World limit it's future attractions to only those made by Warners? It's not about self brand promotion (that's what the new Panasonic Big Screen is for!) - it's about creating a unique, enjoyable and truly unforgettable experience for guests!

[matty_o_911]

Why should Movie World limit it's future attractions to only those made by Warners?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since they decided to call the park Warner Bros. Movie World. Afterall, the park has limited its past attractions by sticking to Warner Bros. attractions. In the past decade and a bit, there have been a plethora of film ideas which Movie World could have used - but they didn't. They limited their choices based on WB concepts such as Wild Wild West, Scooby Doo, Batman, Police Academy, Lethal Weapon, Looney Tunes, Superman, Matrix, Harry Potter, and so forth. Why should they break with consistent branding of attractions just because they are too cheap to make their own original 3D film. And by the way, when I complain about the branding - I am refering primarily to major attractions and other stuff, not small insignificant stuff like using Marilyn Monroe or Hi5 (which I also object to) and to Psycho, I don't know exactly what Twister you are referring to, but the 1996 film Twister with Helen Hunt was made by Universal, not Warner Bros. which perfectly legitimises its presence in Universal Studios. I can deal with minor discrepancies in Warner Bros. exclusivity such as the music that plays around the park and other little things. But I do not want to see something as major as an attraction being non-Warner Bros related. And besides, I'm sure Universal and Dreamworks who made the Shrek 4D attraction would like to keep some credit for producing it and not just let Warner Bros stick their logo on it - so when visitors to the park see pre-film titles or credits for Universal and Dreamworks they may wonder what it is doing in Warner Bros. Movie World.

[joz]

Its not that they're too cheap to make their own (Warner has to be involved with the whatever it is that’s going into Madrid) its just that Shrek is A. More marketable B. Probably better. Lets face it, the Mask is pretty old, and Son of the Mask has kind of ruined the Mask for most people. BTW, Wild West Falls is not themed to any particular film, just the entire Western Genre. The Western Action Show was also not themed to anything Warner Brothers. Others have already mentioned Hi-5 and Marilyn Monroe, well add Pokemon to that list; all of the singers from Superstars live in concert (which was a major if short-lived attraction) and that’s a mighty big list of non- WB stuff. By the way, the aforementioned still doesn't include the non - WB music around the park, decor, and who knows what else. Now can we stop flogging the dead horse, and can more people please come forward and say they don’t think its happening - its funny.

[bigglesworth003]

I'm sure Universal and Dreamworks who made the Shrek 4D attraction would like to keep some credit for producing it and not just let Warner Bros stick their logo on it - so when visitors to the park see pre-film titles or credits for Universal and Dreamworks they may wonder what it is doing in Warner Bros. Movie World.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure they(universal and Dreamworks) don't care, this brings in money to them anyway and i'll bet it doesn't say WB at the start if i recall there isn't anying at the start, like a normal movie. it just delves into the movie. Bottom line is WBMW is a buisness the bottom line is to make money and this way they will make more money than makeing there own movie, and the fact that Shrek is a safe bet for money making.