The two big attractions that were cut made it all the way to permitting. Budgets had long been allocated for them. It’s unusual for something to get that far and still be cut. Broom was also reworked for a good while for Universal Studios Florida before finally dying.
Why did they get cut if not for budget?
Broom was moved to Universal Studios Florida because they weren’t sure how long the park would be paused. They eventually decided it wasn’t worked as they wanted, and similar experiences opened elsewhere, and resumed the park. This ended up being more of a true cut to costs.
The tea cups were not covered in 1971. It, along with poor drainage and uncovered queues outdoors (Mansion, HoP, Country Bears) were quickly modified as best as they could be.
I'm not saying they wanted the park to be poorly built. There's also no indication that they consider the park poorly built. This is a subjective take, after all. Do you think they considered IOA poorly built? Because it took them over a decade to add another indoor attraction, which would seem to indicate they didn't see a problem. It's still the only entirely indoors attraction built there in the past 26 years.
Yes, they could have made Epic an indoor or 'domed' park if they wanted to, but in addition to such a plan eating heavily into the park's budget, I'm also confident that most people wouldn't actually want that. I'm not seeing the Hollywood street with a ceiling in Japan or Singapore and thinking, "Yeah, let's build that here." Thanks, but no thanks.
That’s not how stats works. Obviously you’re not going to be able to get reviews from everyone, that’s why having a good n size matters (and 2000 probably could be!) There are other reasons why just deferring to Google Reviews is not a truly representative sample, but not with this argument.
Just a reminder there aren't enough people who've yet left reviews for them to be statically of any value.
The Google reviews have 3.9 out of 5 with a total of 1,989 reviews. That's not a quarter of a single day's attendance.
The far worse Trip Advisor at 2.1 is based on ONLY 304 FRIGGIN' REVIEWS. There are like three to four times as many people in line for the Potter ride at any given moment than have left a review there at Trip Advisor.
If people don't like the park, the OVERWHELMING majority are not bothering to leave a review saying so which could very well be true but these kinds of posts do nothing but create the illusion of being useful.
And yet Universal has someone pasting boilerplate (AI?) responses to acknowledge poor reviews so somebody in corporate doesn’t think it’s a good look. Which is the whole point of mentioning the reviews in the first place. It’s bad for the brand.
Just a reminder there aren't enough people who've yet left reviews for them to be statically of any value.
The Google reviews have 3.9 out of 5 with a total of 1,989 reviews. That's not a quarter of a single day's attendance.
The far worse Trip Advisor at 2.1 is based on ONLY 304 FRIGGIN' REVIEWS. There are like three to four times as many people in line for the Potter ride at any given moment than have left a review there at Trip Advisor.
If people don't like the park, the OVERWHELMING majority are not bothering to leave a review saying so which could very well be true but these kinds of posts do nothing but create the illusion of being useful.
I don’t really disagree with any of this, which is why I didn’t respond re: the TripAdvisor rating, I think 304 probably isn’t enough. But you said “there aren't enough people who've yet left reviews for them to be statically of any value”, and that’s just not really true.
If we were talking scientific polling with representative samples, I'd agree - just a thousand would be plenty - but that's not what this is so I don't understand how it possibly could be.
We know it's not, though.
