What if Movie World built Super Nintendo World instead of Wizard of Oz?

[omega237]

I know the Wizard of Oz is already in WBMW, but this got me wondering what it would be like if Village Roadshow theme parks negotiated a deal with Universal and Nintendo, and they added Super Nintendo World based off the Hollywood version due to it’s size & budget with Mario Kart: Bowser’s Challenge, and the games via the power bands to Warner Bros Movie World instead of the Wizard of Oz?

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

OMG right! Then they should build a Pirates of the Carribbean next to the new Space Mountain too!

[omega237]

2 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

OMG right! Then they should build a Pirates of the Carribbean next to the new Space Mountain too!

You’re being sarcastic huh?

[New display name]

3 hours ago, omega237 said:

I know the Wizard of Oz is already in WBMW, but this got me wondering what it would be like if Village Roadshow theme parks negotiated a deal with Universal and Nintendo, and they added Super Nintendo World based off the Hollywood version due to it’s size & budget with Mario Kart: Bowser’s Challenge, and the games via the power bands to Warner Bros Movie World instead of the Wizard of Oz?

Super Nintendo World in Japan cost 351m USD to build.

Edited June 20 by New display name

[themagician]

3 hours ago, omega237 said:

Super Nintendo World based off the Hollywood version due to it’s size & budget

[omega237]

So would Super Nintendo World fit in WBMW if they never made the Wizard of Oz area?

[themagician]

@omega237 in terms of area, surprisingly yes.

 

But in terms of a simple copy paste, definitely not. The widest part of SNW is 100m, while WoO is 68m at the narrowest and 88m at the widest.

[omega237]

Well Yoshi’s Adventure wouldn’t be included along with Donkey Kong Country which leaves only Mario Kart Bowser’s Challenge. Some of the interactive games with some games made exclusively for the park to fill in the space.

[Baconjack]

1. Wouldn’t have happened because Nintendo famously is not super protective of who uses their IP and certainly wouldn’t charge bucketloads of cash for a theme park operator to use their IP

2. Wouldn’t have happened because each Super Nintendo World costs hundreds of millions to build (Wizard of Oz did not cost $100m that is straight up creative accounting)

3. Wouldn’t have happened because Village don’t have the financial and creative resources of universal to make rides of the quality of what is in the actual Super Nintendo world

Edited June 20 by Baconjack

[LoZza]

It's called Movie World, they're already pushing it with the DC superheroes as it is 

[Levithian]

On 20/06/2025 at 12:03 PM, Baconjack said:

3. ...creative resources of universal to make rides of the quality of what is in the actual Super Nintendo world

They do and have had in the past. They have always managed to achieve a LOT with basically ZERO budget. It's downright sad how little money is available for the AV department. The problem is ALWAYS money. Both in terms of getting the funding to actually pay for all the cool stuff originally planned in the design of the attractions, AND getting the budget to maintain it with staff and replacement equipment it actually requires to keep running. 

The last one in particular has always been a big problem. The attitude from MUCH higher ups always seemed to be installations with complete disregard for manufacturer operating conditions/environment and forget about it. High temps? humidity? dust? nah, never heard of that.  Never have to spend another cent on anything, nothing will ever fail. It's not like these media rich environments need dedicated staff to keep them maintained each day. It's fine for someone to do a pass through and ignore all the stuff that's not working because there is never any budget put aside to replace. 

Edited June 21 by Levithian

[themagician]

4 hours ago, LoZza said:

It's called Movie World

‘The Super Mario Bros. Movie’

[Gazza]

DAE remember when MW had a Pokemon attraction, thereby proving Nintendo could be licensed to MW.

[Naazon]

They also had Harry Potter stuff. Turns out Movieworld swings both ways  

[wikiverse]

MW also had a Shreck 3D movie at Roxy - which at the time was Dreamworks (now owned by Universal), so there's clearly not an agreement with WB to use exclusively WB properties.

Everything is available for licensing for the right amount of money.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

3 hours ago, wikiverse said:

Everything is available for licensing for the right amount of money.

You're 100% on the money. I think the argument from most folks though is they don't have the right amount of money.

[Baconjack]

On 23/6/2025 at 1:50 PM, wikiverse said:

MW also had a Shreck 3D movie at Roxy - which at the time was Dreamworks (now owned by Universal), so there's clearly not an agreement with WB to use exclusively WB properties.

Everything is available for licensing for the right amount of money.

Of course not. Wizard of Oz is an MGM film after all. But there’s only so much you can license given Disney and Universal between them have almost everything covered so our parks have to make do with what they have.

Dreamworks was never ever going to get renewed at dreamworld because universal would rather chew on glass than licence its own IP to a competitor no matter how far away said competitor is.

Dreamworld could have had a bluey attraction in ABC kids world if they wanted to. Presumably the IP was too expensive and Disney gobbled up the rights for top dollar instead.

[TBoy]

5 hours ago, Baconjack said:

Dreamworld could have had a bluey attraction in ABC kids world if they wanted to.

I believe the merchandising rights for Bluey are owned by the BBC, not the ABC. Dreamworld could still hypothetically do so and put it in Dreamland (I think that's what happens with Wiggles, I don't think they're owned by ABC like the others) but as said it would be too expensive. Bluey is one of the most streamed shows on Disney+ in the US so the BBC would likely charge a fair amount for the rights.

[Ashley Jeffery]

Movie World would of been better off trying for minecraft rights.

[omega237]

On 25/6/2025 at 9:10 AM, Baconjack said:

Of course not. Wizard of Oz is an MGM film after all. But there’s only so much you can license given Disney and Universal between them have almost everything covered so our parks have to make do with what they have.

Dreamworks was never ever going to get renewed at dreamworld because universal would rather chew on glass than licence its own IP to a competitor no matter how far away said competitor is.

Dreamworld could have had a bluey attraction in ABC kids world if they wanted to. Presumably the IP was too expensive and Disney gobbled up the rights for top dollar instead.

But Universal doesn’t have a Universal Studios theme park. Plus Nintendo would license WB Movie World the theme park rights in Australia with negotiating with Universal to help. Warner Bros Movie World = The sets of the entire area, facades, and queue for Mario Kart: Bowser’s Challenge, Universal = The audio animatronics for the entire area, and attraction along with the ride vehicles shipping them to MW, Nintendo = the animation.

Edited June 29 by omega237

[Brad2912]

4 hours ago, omega237 said:

But Universal doesn’t have a Universal Studios theme park. Plus Nintendo would license WB Movie World the theme park rights in Australia with negotiating with Universal to help. Warner Bros Movie World = The sets of the entire area, facades, and queue for Mario Kart: Bowser’s Challenge, Universal = The audio animatronics for the entire area, and attraction along with the ride vehicles shipping them to MW, Nintendo = the animation.

Think you are overlooking that SNW cost more than the entire value of village theme parks to construct…. 

[Levi]

WoO is a good IP, the final product is just extremely lackluster competed to what we were expecting. it kinda makes me wish we got an area similar to Dark Universe at Epic, except obviously using WB characters to create the area.

[omega237]

2 hours ago, Levi said:

WoO is a good IP, the final product is just extremely lackluster competed to what we were expecting. it kinda makes me wish we got an area similar to Dark Universe at Epic, except obviously using WB characters to create the area.

Only flaw to that is the lack of monsters. Universal has a legacy of monsters that they could create stories with. WB doesn’t.

[jjuttup]

35 minutes ago, omega237 said:

Only flaw to that is the lack of monsters. Universal has a legacy of monsters that they could create stories with. WB doesn’t.

Someone hasn't heard about how much of a monsterous dick Jack Warner was. I'm sure you could make a Mr Toad's style ride out of that... or a maze.

[Naazon]

8 hours ago, omega237 said:

Only flaw to that is the lack of monsters. Universal has a legacy of monsters that they could create stories with. WB doesn’t.

WB worked with Miramax which was founded by Harvey Weinstein, so theres monsters if you look.