Posted Tuesday, October 11, 2011 8:09 AM | Contributed by Jeff
The $1.5 billion Paramount Park in Spain hopes to rival Disneyland Paris as a European tourist destination when the movie theme park debuts in spring 2015. Located on the Mediterranean coast about 270 miles southeast of Madrid, Paramount Park Murcia will feature 30 attractions with an adjacent shopping center, hotels and casino.
Read more from The LA Times.
With all those Spanish parks doing as well as they are, and the insane success of Disneyland Paris, this sounds like an excellent idea
Not sure how elaborate the theme-ing will be once completed, but the concept art seems to indicate it may be close to Universal caliber. This is what I envision the former US Paramount parks could have (and perhaps should have) been.
Most of the US parks were seasonal. I don't think you can really afford to spend that much without scoring 5 million+ people a year.
Yeah, I can agree with that...I didn't realize most of the parks in Spain are open year-round.
I actually really liked Rango. Lots of Cohen brother movie and Fear and Loathing references. I'm surprised they are creating a land around it though. I thought it didn't do well. But I could see how it might have done well in Spain, what with the spaghetti western feel and all.Last edited by janfrederick, Tuesday, October 11, 2011 3:29 PM
Rango land would make more sense if there are sequels in the works.
Wait, I'm confused here. I thought Paramount Parks division was history, and the company was focusing on only movies going forward.
I read the article, and it said that Paramount was licensing the parks and giving design direction. So, it made sense...oh, just parks that someone wanted to open with the Paramount name and licenses, simple.
Then, I looked through the article, and saw the same exact Paramount Parks logo from the U.S. parks, and some of the same exact rides the U.S. Paramount parks had like Italian Job Stunt Track. I then noticed eerie similarity to former U.S. Paramount parks like the epic entrance fountain.
So, it'd appear that Paramount is having a high level of involvement with this Paramount park, such that it's not them simply collecting money for license use? Does this mean a Paramount Parks division is being reborn or did it never die? I understand they're not investors in this new park directly, but they must have a division that is working on creating the park concepts, which makes them invested in a way?Last edited by Jeph, Wednesday, October 12, 2011 3:35 AM
You answered your own questions, so I don't understand the confusion. Viacom didn't want to own theme parks, so they spun off the US parks with CBS, licensing the brands. (Obviously CBS didn't want the parks either.) Viacom is fine with the licensing and creative input, they just don't want the risk or non-growth business of theme parks on their books.
I guess it's that I thought "Paramount Parks" was completely dead.
I figured that when the U.S. Paramount parks were operating under Viacom, there was a "Paramount Parks" division of Viacom that worked strictly on overseeing all the parks (and creating all the park concepts), like Cedar Fair.
After Cedar Fair bought the U.S. Paramount parks, I figured this "Paramount Parks" division was completely wiped out, no longer necessary.
So, the strict licensing of Paramount stuff would make sense to me, with the individual investors taking care of all the design direction for their park. But, Viacom/Paramount providing design direction is what's confusing me.
In other words, who is left at Viacom/Paramount that would provide assistance with designing theme parks? I thought the theme park aspect of their business was dead.
Is this park apart of that larger deal that Paramount (maybe) announced maybe a year or two ago, where they were going to build a bunch of resorts affiliated with their products? I believe the first one was supposed to open in San Diego?
Bolliger/Mabillard for President in '08 NOT Dinn/Summers
When Viacom spun off CBS, they were still licensing everything. They're not opposed to licensing. It's different than ownership, which is not the business they want to be in. It's not more complicated than that.
Jeph, I think I understand your confusion, which stems from the fact that the similarities between this and some of the old Paramount parks and attractions suggests there's some sort of creative bloodline shared between the two. It seems to me it's more likely that there's some executive who encouraged the new designers to steal as much as they could from the old parks to save time concepting new things.
You must be logged in to post