UNITED States film giant Universal Studios on Tuesday signed a deal with South Korean partners to build its largest theme park in Asia at a cost of around 3 trillion won (S$3.7 billion). Besides the theme park, the Universal Studios Korea Resort will include a water park, shopping centre, hotels and a golf course, and has renowned American director Steven Spielberg as its creative consultant.

Work is due to start on the 4.3 sq km park in March next year on the site in Hwaseong city, about an hour's drive from Seoul, the South Korean capital. The park is slated to open in early 2014...

http://www.straitsti...ory_479635.html

CNBC says US$2.7 billion:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/34927883

$2.7 billion or $3.7 billion? That is a BIG difference!

Uh, the title and MSNBC have it in US dollars...the first story has it in Singapore dollars (thus the S). The title for this topic lists the US dollars. There is no difference in S$3.7 billion and US$2.7 billion, both rounded, of course.

In your quote, I hadn't seen the 'S' in front of $3.7 billion after it says 3 trillion won. I had seen what this topic title was.

It was there, and that was why I added the MSNBC quote...along with the fact that MSNBC shares an owner with the theme parks...as in NBC Universal...

So this theme park is gonna cost over 2 billion dollars. This must be a pretty huge park.

Theme parks (even just amusement parks in general) are very expensive to start up if they're going to be something more than just a small park.

the Universal Studios Korea Resort will include a water park, shopping centre, hotels and a golf course, and has renowned American director Steven Spielberg as its creative consultant.

That is part of the quote in Terpy's original post. See, it isn't just a theme park. It is supposed to be a huge resort, kinda like a miniature Walt Disney World (I think).

So first, Paramount decides to build a park in Korea, and now Universal wants to too?

What's next? Disneyland Korea?

Wow, and i thought Cedar Fair spent an extreme amount of money at $1.25 billion in one setting on the 5 rather large Paramount Parks.

What I don't get is why Paramount sold their parks when a few years later they get back into it.

Easy:

a. The Paramount getting back into it is VIACOM, not CBS which sold the parks.

b. The getting back into it is only licensing, and they collect money to use their name(s) and intellectual properties.

What I don't get is why Paramount sold their parks when a few years later they get back into it.

Out with the old and in with the new!!

.....kidding

Anyways, it wasn't Paramount that sold the Paramount Parks, it was CBS who had aquired the parks from Viacom after a huge corporate split. However, CBS felt that the parks did not fit well within their buisness and sold them. (with/without negotiating with Viacom??). Also, the new park will be built and owned by another company, while using some MAJOR licensing from viacom. Although, from what i see on other sites, viacom will try and introduce "enhanced" versions of its top rides at its own former park chain. Again though, this is a different kind of ownership i believe.

This was posted yesterday on http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=55799003&postcount=34

What is this for?

Is that for the new Paramount Park that is being planned/built over in Korea?

^^is wall-e even a paramount picture? i can't find a list with it on it.

No, Wall-E is Disney/Pixar. But where do you see Wall E in any of those renderings? I certainly don`t see him.

WALL*E is on the 3-D screen.

These images hardly seem professional, much less realistic or sensical... I don't think it's a real proposed thing.

Well to be technical, I see Eve on the screen, not Wall E. But you never know. Maybe they did not invest a lot of money into high quality renderings. After all, good renderings take talent and time. Both of which require money.

i'm in the same boat as goodyellowkorn, if it was a true rendering, there wouldn't be a disney/pixtar character being part of a proposed display.

I don't think that is wally....

It is Eve, from the movie Wall*E. It doesn't matter if it's Wall*E himself, it is a character that it's owned by Disney and Pixar. If it were a Universal or a Warner Brothers character being shown, I could say "yeah, park's license out each other's movie's all the time." But Disney? No one, and I mean no one, is as fiercely protective of their respective trademarks and characters as Disney. Must we bring up when Disney threatened legal action against a daycare for a painting of Mickey on the wall? (Notably, Universal stepped in and offered free use of their own Hanna-Barbera licensed characters to gain publicity - and succeeded).

I can almost guarantee that Disney will never have any of its Pixar characters placed in any park, attraction, film, or other media that does not carry the Disney or Pixar name.

Besides, these "plans" do not even appear to obey the laws of physics. What is that roller coaster hanging out at the top? If this is a proposed, real attraction, I would be surprised.

Well, licensing issues differ given what you intend to use it for, for instance, plush toys. Kings Island has toys from all walks of life, so to speak, with Shrek, Looney Tunes, and Disney characters.

But anyway, I'd be willing to bet it's a simple Magic of the Movies-styled show where they show the technological achievements the film industry has gone through culminating with the massive CG films that have graced the silver screen the past decade or so; the Wall-E characters are probably just a (very weird) placeholder for any CG animated films under Paramount, in essence, Dreamworks. But considering Dreamworks is partnered with Universal in terms of licensing for major theme park attractions (Universal Singapore has two areas themed to the flicks Shrek and Madagascar), I can understand why a Dreamworks animated film isn't featured on any of the conceptual renderings.

Speaking of which, I also find it weird that Transformers are a part of the renderings for the Preview Center considering the new Transformers ride is going into a UNIVERSAL park. TWO of them (Singapore and Hollywood for 2012).

It seems saddening that several Paramount properties that could've been used as theme park attractions are now in the hands of other companies:

• Indiana Jones - You're talking about a property that is ripe for a dark ride/coaster combo. Too bad Disney snagged it up when they realized George Lucas also worked on the Indy franchise alongside Steven Spielberg.
• Transformers - Although fairly late in the game, if the parks hadn't have been sold off (and if Paramount actually still had the reigns to them), having the Transformers would have been the answer to Universal's Spiderman attraction with the same technology. The fact that Busch Gardens Europe installed the same technology into a seasonal park is concrete evidence that it can be done at a park like Kings Island
• War of the Worlds - Could have easily been an Earthquake-style attraction at any of the former Paramount parks (I was actually shocked that Uni didn't pick up this as a retheme for their Earthquake ride instead of going with the supremely generic Disaster ride)
• Shrek/Madagascar - Even though Nickelodeon is their pride and joy, the fact that a few of the parks have two kids' areas would've been prime reality for both a Nick-themed AND Shrek-themed kids' area

But then again, all of the movie properties you named either didn't really succeed, or are being used far better now than they would've been at Paramount Parks. For example, I'd rather have Indiana Jones Adventure at Disneyland than Adventure Express having Indiana Jones themeing.

And I'm personally shocked at Universal using Transformers for their new ride. To be honest, I feel like the "Transformers" movie franchise is over and done with. It was "fun" and now it's over. The movies weren't spectacular, the premise wasn't great, and it was just another remake of an old cartoon. To use it in place of the immensely popular Spiderman theme is a little silly if you ask me. But considering the Marvel deal was only for Islands of Adventure, I can understand why they looked for a replacement. But Transformers?

War of the Worlds wasn't a big smash hit with audiences or critics, though as you said it would've been a great replacement for Earthquake.

But I just think if these plans are "official" and Paramount / VIACOM is in a deal and these are official, press-release images, they wouldn't be using "placeholders." If these are official, I honestly can see Disney threatening legal action as they did with the daycare... It may be a "wonder of CGI" type film like you said, but I still doubt Disney would lend their library.

^ That's the thing though. Transformers isn't a replacement for Spiderman. They're just using the same technology that Spiderman has and putting it in different parks with the Transformers theme, such as Uni Hollywood and Uni Singapore.

^ That's the thing though. Transformers isn't a replacement for Spiderman. They're just using the same technology that Spiderman has and putting it in different parks with the Transformers theme, such as Uni Hollywood and Uni Singapore.

Right, but I'm saying... I would use Spiderman, and not Transformers. If Spiderman can't be used, so be it. But Transformers wouldn't be my second choice, either.

Maybe the artist accidently did not know and put that in there?

As highly professional as that sounds, I doubt such a blaring error would make it past... well... anyone.