I feel that I have a unique perspective on this as my father worked for Disney , my mother worked for Universal and I've previously worked for BOTH.
I love both separately and equally. They both have their place in Orlando and they both benefit greatly from the other's presence.
I am passionate about Disney in many ways, but I am also passionate abotu the quality being put into making something truly great and unique. I think both resorts have accomplished this.
I realize we didn't have message boards back when MGM and Universal were both about to be open. I'm curious as to what the reactions would be at the time. Even well after Universal opened, there wasn't much reason for Disney fans to react badly about the place. It's only when Universal became a resort destination itself with world class resorts and attractions did I suddenly witness the worst coming out of Disney fans.
I can definitely understand it. Universal and Disney had a rivalry before Mickey Mouse was even created. Universal was doing studio tours when Walt Disney was still in grade school, but that's going back a bit far...
What we have now is the comparison of the parks in Orlando. In my opinion, since the start of the Eisner era, Dinsey parks have been under-built, then slowly built up over time with new attractions, yet they always seem to charge the price. This even continues today with HKDL and DSP. I liked the fact that Universal seemed to be building much more at opening day into both of their parks (even if there were some problems with operations early-on).
MGM Studios even seemed to copy some ideas, Catastrophe Canyon was basically an outdoor version of the earthquake portion of Universal's studio tour. Both had simulator rides coming soon after the Orlando parks opened, Star Tours vs. Back to the Future, both were very different but thrilling.
Although MGM had the Tower of Terror by 1994, overall, the sheer amount of attractions at Universal always made it a favorite for me.
Now we're trying to compare Disney's 4 parks to Universal's 2. Islands of Adventure was the major potential competitor that suddenly everyone was talking about, good or bad. I saw on some other message boards, the most hateful posts about how horribly bad this place must be, even before it was open, but I just couldn't see why.
I'd been following the construction since the beginning and it seemed like they were truly going all out and making an amazing park. A park with the same quality and attention to detail as we saw at the Magic Kingdom, but for a different audience.
Ok, so people don't like the fact that there are outdoor rollercoasters...but IMO Universal had a choice to make. They couldn't make a completely Disney like park and expect people to skip Disney. They HAD to make something that you couldn't find at Disney, and that was big, thrilling rides. The problem with big rides like rollercoasters is that they don't all fit into buildings very well. Universal decided to do the next best thing and design the queues to tell the story of the ride (and I think they've succeeded at least in the Dueling Dragons queue). The rides themselves are overall more thrilling, more wet, and more edgy than you find at the Disney parks, which makes them more appealing to a certain range of people.
Of course it was designed well, by the same people who designed some of Disney's attractions since yes, they were ex-imagineers. You can thank Eisner and the bad start of "EuroDisney" for that. If the French wanted to visit there in droves, we might not have seen IOA as it exists today.
Universal Studios has been redefining itself since it opened. It is interesting because it takes a very different approach than Disney, where it is trying to keep up with pop culture and changing attractions more frequently to keep it fresh and new every couple of years.
Some people have said they haven't really done anything...I don't know where they're getting that idea, 7 major attractions have been completely replaced with new ones in the past 11 years, in addition to the other new ones they've built in unused areas.
DHS has been doing some of the same things, although it seems like they're sometimes too late when catching the pop culture train.
The resort area of Universal is really nice, no need for buses at all to get where you're going, you barely need a boat. You can walk anywhere within the range of 5-10 minutes, the parks, City Walk, the hotels, pools, restaurants, it is such a change of pace from Disney, although I do love the monorails. The hotels are very nice and supposedly much cheaper (I'm relatively local so haven't stayed at ANY hotels)
IOA has some very unique areas, although spiritually it does seem a bit like what DisneySea looks like, and I would not be surprised if some projects were started before the Imagineer layoffs, the hotels Miracosta and Portofino, plus two separate "Sinbad" attractions seem too coincidental.
Now here is where some problems start. I love IOA, I think it is an amazing park with incredible rides, shows and food (!) but from the beginning there were a few things it had to overcome.
First, the marketing of the resort area received a D- grade from me and has slowly worked its way up to a C+, still nowhere near where it should be. I live in Tampa now and still a lot of people have no idea what IOA is or where it is. People are clueless about it. It's also not a "regular" park, it has kids sections but it's not a typical family theme park, it has thrill rides, but is not a typical amusement park, it's a bit of a hybrid which might be where some of the difficult lies in trying to market it.
Second, driving by from I-4, just seeing the tops of the rides you might think it is more like an amusement park since most of the best theming is at ground level.
Third, and probably the most difficult question, do people who want big rollercoasters and thrill rides care as much about theming as the Disney clientele do? That is not one I can answer. I do think Universal suffers from more upkeep issues because their target market of teens and twentysomethings seem to have less respect for property. Universal has also had its own maintenace problems but IMO Disney has been just as bad in many areas. Guest service, well I've seen good and bad at both. Both resorts are now using a LOT of international students, sometimes with mixed results. It's sad that there aren't enough of well-paying jobs for local people who love the parks.
So IOA has never received the attendance it deserves, and although I will be sad at the loss of some of the incredible Lost Continent area of IOA, they NEED Harry Potter, at least to get people to finally see that, then see the rest of the park and say "wow, this whole place is really nice!". Yes, I'm sure some people will still hate it, but honestly the comparisons to six flags are really unfounded and closed-minded, especially when Disney has Dino-Rama and DCA to account for.
Park operations after they're designed have been sometimes done badly by both Disney and Universal. People (rightfully) complained about hip-hop music being played in the games section of the Lost Continent, yet I cringed every time I was forced to walk by the HSM pep rally at Tomorrowland
People are expecting Disney to come up with something big to compete with WWoHP and I think they will, these refurbs and small attractions are not what Disney needs. I wish they'd expand the Star Tours area of DHS and make a much larger themed area, they have a TON of things they could do to the area.
Some people are happy that Universal doesn't get the same attendance as Disney, but maybe if they did they'd be trying to clean up the parks more, offer more perks again for AP holders or better pay to make sure their CM's are always the best in the business.
I think the theme park landscape would look a lot different for Disney itself it wasn't for Universal. We might not have seen MGM sutidos to begin with, or Mission: Space or Rock'n'Roller Coaster, or who knows how many other projects that might not have been built if it weren't for even perceived competition.
So no matter what people say, I will still enjoy both resorts equally, both have their advantages, their faults, but both are a great time if you don't try to constantly compare them and nitpick everything.
I love both separately and equally. They both have their place in Orlando and they both benefit greatly from the other's presence.
I am passionate about Disney in many ways, but I am also passionate abotu the quality being put into making something truly great and unique. I think both resorts have accomplished this.
I realize we didn't have message boards back when MGM and Universal were both about to be open. I'm curious as to what the reactions would be at the time. Even well after Universal opened, there wasn't much reason for Disney fans to react badly about the place. It's only when Universal became a resort destination itself with world class resorts and attractions did I suddenly witness the worst coming out of Disney fans.
I can definitely understand it. Universal and Disney had a rivalry before Mickey Mouse was even created. Universal was doing studio tours when Walt Disney was still in grade school, but that's going back a bit far...
What we have now is the comparison of the parks in Orlando. In my opinion, since the start of the Eisner era, Dinsey parks have been under-built, then slowly built up over time with new attractions, yet they always seem to charge the price. This even continues today with HKDL and DSP. I liked the fact that Universal seemed to be building much more at opening day into both of their parks (even if there were some problems with operations early-on).
MGM Studios even seemed to copy some ideas, Catastrophe Canyon was basically an outdoor version of the earthquake portion of Universal's studio tour. Both had simulator rides coming soon after the Orlando parks opened, Star Tours vs. Back to the Future, both were very different but thrilling.
Although MGM had the Tower of Terror by 1994, overall, the sheer amount of attractions at Universal always made it a favorite for me.
Now we're trying to compare Disney's 4 parks to Universal's 2. Islands of Adventure was the major potential competitor that suddenly everyone was talking about, good or bad. I saw on some other message boards, the most hateful posts about how horribly bad this place must be, even before it was open, but I just couldn't see why.
I'd been following the construction since the beginning and it seemed like they were truly going all out and making an amazing park. A park with the same quality and attention to detail as we saw at the Magic Kingdom, but for a different audience.
Ok, so people don't like the fact that there are outdoor rollercoasters...but IMO Universal had a choice to make. They couldn't make a completely Disney like park and expect people to skip Disney. They HAD to make something that you couldn't find at Disney, and that was big, thrilling rides. The problem with big rides like rollercoasters is that they don't all fit into buildings very well. Universal decided to do the next best thing and design the queues to tell the story of the ride (and I think they've succeeded at least in the Dueling Dragons queue). The rides themselves are overall more thrilling, more wet, and more edgy than you find at the Disney parks, which makes them more appealing to a certain range of people.
Of course it was designed well, by the same people who designed some of Disney's attractions since yes, they were ex-imagineers. You can thank Eisner and the bad start of "EuroDisney" for that. If the French wanted to visit there in droves, we might not have seen IOA as it exists today.
Universal Studios has been redefining itself since it opened. It is interesting because it takes a very different approach than Disney, where it is trying to keep up with pop culture and changing attractions more frequently to keep it fresh and new every couple of years.
Some people have said they haven't really done anything...I don't know where they're getting that idea, 7 major attractions have been completely replaced with new ones in the past 11 years, in addition to the other new ones they've built in unused areas.
DHS has been doing some of the same things, although it seems like they're sometimes too late when catching the pop culture train.
The resort area of Universal is really nice, no need for buses at all to get where you're going, you barely need a boat. You can walk anywhere within the range of 5-10 minutes, the parks, City Walk, the hotels, pools, restaurants, it is such a change of pace from Disney, although I do love the monorails. The hotels are very nice and supposedly much cheaper (I'm relatively local so haven't stayed at ANY hotels)
IOA has some very unique areas, although spiritually it does seem a bit like what DisneySea looks like, and I would not be surprised if some projects were started before the Imagineer layoffs, the hotels Miracosta and Portofino, plus two separate "Sinbad" attractions seem too coincidental.
Now here is where some problems start. I love IOA, I think it is an amazing park with incredible rides, shows and food (!) but from the beginning there were a few things it had to overcome.
First, the marketing of the resort area received a D- grade from me and has slowly worked its way up to a C+, still nowhere near where it should be. I live in Tampa now and still a lot of people have no idea what IOA is or where it is. People are clueless about it. It's also not a "regular" park, it has kids sections but it's not a typical family theme park, it has thrill rides, but is not a typical amusement park, it's a bit of a hybrid which might be where some of the difficult lies in trying to market it.
Second, driving by from I-4, just seeing the tops of the rides you might think it is more like an amusement park since most of the best theming is at ground level.
Third, and probably the most difficult question, do people who want big rollercoasters and thrill rides care as much about theming as the Disney clientele do? That is not one I can answer. I do think Universal suffers from more upkeep issues because their target market of teens and twentysomethings seem to have less respect for property. Universal has also had its own maintenace problems but IMO Disney has been just as bad in many areas. Guest service, well I've seen good and bad at both. Both resorts are now using a LOT of international students, sometimes with mixed results. It's sad that there aren't enough of well-paying jobs for local people who love the parks.
So IOA has never received the attendance it deserves, and although I will be sad at the loss of some of the incredible Lost Continent area of IOA, they NEED Harry Potter, at least to get people to finally see that, then see the rest of the park and say "wow, this whole place is really nice!". Yes, I'm sure some people will still hate it, but honestly the comparisons to six flags are really unfounded and closed-minded, especially when Disney has Dino-Rama and DCA to account for.
Park operations after they're designed have been sometimes done badly by both Disney and Universal. People (rightfully) complained about hip-hop music being played in the games section of the Lost Continent, yet I cringed every time I was forced to walk by the HSM pep rally at Tomorrowland
People are expecting Disney to come up with something big to compete with WWoHP and I think they will, these refurbs and small attractions are not what Disney needs. I wish they'd expand the Star Tours area of DHS and make a much larger themed area, they have a TON of things they could do to the area.
Some people are happy that Universal doesn't get the same attendance as Disney, but maybe if they did they'd be trying to clean up the parks more, offer more perks again for AP holders or better pay to make sure their CM's are always the best in the business.
I think the theme park landscape would look a lot different for Disney itself it wasn't for Universal. We might not have seen MGM sutidos to begin with, or Mission: Space or Rock'n'Roller Coaster, or who knows how many other projects that might not have been built if it weren't for even perceived competition.
So no matter what people say, I will still enjoy both resorts equally, both have their advantages, their faults, but both are a great time if you don't try to constantly compare them and nitpick everything.
I believe there is the market. It's was just not well executed. Paris was a mistake to begin with. I am a big WDW-fan since childhood, one of the biggest in Berlin I believe and still I prefer to wait another year or even two before I go to WDW again instead of visiting DLP for 15% of the costs next month although they have some superior attractions (SM is much better than at MK, PotC is longer, more like the one in DL and BTMR is even more exiting because it's on an island) And if they even don't get a WDW-fan like me to do a second trip, it must be even more difficult to reach the average German or European.
