>>2792974
>Why didn’t you say Gringotts
I did earlier.
>And they went with two BTTF-connected coasters at Epic Universe and Great Britain
I would not say Stardust is a BTTF coaster. It's a cheeky wink to the fans, nothing more.
>They could just have the BTTF coaster here take place at night and create a bunch of props and stuff to give the illusion that you are in the 1960s. And it would be very different from whatever indoor ride they’re offering at Epic and IoA.
>Besides, they’re already doing trackless Pokemon ride for the park.
A: BTTF takes place in the 50s.
B: I guess, but I still feel like the gaping hole in the park's line up is an experience in the vein of Jaws, Twister, Kong, EQ. That's still mentally what people associate with Studios so if it was BTTF it would have to be heavy animatronic elements. If it's a dark ride that turns into a coaster then it's just a ripoff of the Mummy which is fine but like...
C: We don't know shit about Pokémon yet. They could do a trackless Great Movie Ride with Universal IPs in the EQ building for all we know.
>Why should Potter have a cooler ride than BTTF? Should Studios continue to flop itself for IOA and Epic?
That's just like your opinion man. I would find another experience like the Jurassic World dark ride but themed to another property pretty cool. Especially if it's screenless.
I don't really care what they build, you just asked my opinion and I feel like that whole corridor of the park having 3 indoor coasters might be undesirable.
