Disney and Universal: Two very different paths

EPCOTCenterLover

EPCOTCenterLover

Well-Known Member
stevehousse said:
A poster on the previous page mentioned this, but Disney will always continue to beat Universal because ofthe lack of family and children's rides. That's the reason we don't go to uni, my son is barely 44 inches and my other son is only 2. As much as me and my wife would love to go, it just doesn't make sense to buy te tickets when my kids can barely go on anything!

Not to mention my son is a huge Potter Fan and I would not torture him with, "we are at Harry potter land, but you can't go on anything because you aren't talk enough"

Yes we will work on going to uni in a few years once the boys are older, but for now, we will stick with Disney since we can do so much for with the kids!
Click to expand...
I feel the same way about taking my grandkids to Cars Land- they love the movie and characters, but why take them when they are still too small to ride Radiator Springs Racers?
 
flyerjab

flyerjab

Well-Known Member
I think that the only way Disney could shock the world at this point would be to announce Star Wars expansion information at both DL and WDW in the fall as someone hinted at on another thread. What would probably follow would be how Disney will go on to shock the world at how slow they move to actually make the expansions happen.
 
JimboJones123

JimboJones123

Well-Known Member
Fastpa
bhg469 said:
Fast pass was around long before there were message boards so those who thought it would fail probably weren't very vocal, I don't know where that comes from. I was probably not even a teenager when it came out also, I'm 34 now.

You know what would also have helped eat lines? More omnimovers like haunted mansion, or more attractions in general.

One could argue that we will rarely see fun well-themed queues in the future because of fast pass.

What isn't helping is closing rides in favor of meet and greets or play grounds. In Epcot's case, closing entire pavilions and leaving them empty to use for an annual event on top of other things.

As for Disney shocking the world.. Really? Universal is already a third way into the potter 2.0 which seems to be more hyped than disney and their Pandora announcement which has yet to break ground. If they wait any longer those families that witch to universal vacations are going to have grand kids that prefer universal.
Click to expand...
sFastpass launched in 1999.
 
ford91exploder

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
JimboJones123 said:
When you have a $100 million attraction, what's another mil or so for premium materials?

The culture of abandonment strikes again.
Click to expand...

As an engineer I would argue that the extra million NOW will translate to millions in reduced lifecycle cost, To the manager not spending the extra million means a bigger bonus this year, Human nature dictates the inevitable result. There was a study done a while back where kids if they held oof eating a cookie for ten minutes could have two cookies, The majority ate the cookie. Sigh...
 
jensenrick

jensenrick

Well-Known Member
flyerjab said:
I have a slightly different view than a number of the posters on this site that have been to WDW since its inception. I am in my 40s with a wife and 3 children (b6, b10, g12) and my wife and I never went to Disney as kids or as adults until 2009. From frequenting this site since the announcement of Avatar (great progress on that by the way!) I have noticed that a popular view is that WDW has been in decline for the past decade while Universal - with Comcast money - is growing like crazy and long-time Disney fans are becoming more and more impressed as time passes. Also, living near Philadelphia, I have friends that have Comcast as their cable company and know what there monthly cable/phone/internet bill is and I can clearly see why Universal can afford to toss half a billion dollars to Universal each year to improve the parks.

Anyway, I will freely admit that visiting Disney for the first time in 2009, my wife and I were totally blown away by the 'world.' We have since been back 3 times and only stay at the deluxe resorts so we are the idiots that love to through our money away and stay at the most overpriced resorts that Disney offers. Our appreciation for the layout and feel of the Disney parks has only grown during each trip.

I would like to think that I am not in the pixie dust snorting class of individuals but am one that truly enjoys what Disney has to offer. In comparison, in 2012 we visited Universal for one day to see Harry Potter. What was interesting was that I was warned ahead of time by a Potter fanatic coworker of mine to not expect too much. In truth, I found that she was right. While my wife and kids loved the Potter section of IOA, I was definitely underwhelmed by it. Because of the age of my kids at the time, however, there really was not much else for us to go on except for the Dr. Suess Landing area which was great. I am anxiously awaiting Potter Phase 2.

In the end, I guess that my wife and I benefit from the fact that we have not lived through the history and development of WDW as many here have. It is still new to us I suppose and we are extremely pleased with our time spent there. It is crazy expensive but I don't mind spending that type of cash on vacations. In fact, we purchased DVC points this year at VGF and are scheduled back next May 31st - hopefully the mine train will actually be usable by then. Although a Disney fan, I am frustrated by the project timelines for what Disney does.
Click to expand...


First, welcome to the forums! :) Second, despite our differing viewpoints, I truly appreciate your viewpoint and your post. Consider this a handshake from the other side. Here is a review that I can respect- you tried Uni, it wasn't for you- can't argue with that. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for not using the phrase, "it just wasn't magical." That makes me gag.

Third, I can totally see why you would be blown away by the World. I don't think anyone can argue that it isn't a beautiful resort, (especially at the deluxe resort level ;)) even if it isn't a beautiful as it once was. It does make me personally sad (although I stress that I don't want to influence your enjoyment level) that you never got to see original flavor Epcot, when it was truly beautiful and well, sorta regal . . . when the Studios truly had a "tour", when the Animation studio was vibrant and alive; I could go on, but I won't.

You have it absolutely right how the years and difference in experiences can affect your feelings. You and I are probably similar ages (I'm 46), but I've been going to WDW since I was 7. While I treasure my memories of things that are no more, I also sorta envy you- you are seeing sights like the Castle at the end of Main St with fresh eyes. Who is to say who is better off?

(sorry for the babbling brook I seem to be today):oops:
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
PeteNY said:
I just got in and checked in, funny thing is, the reply's and comments are the reason I try not to come on this site. my post was just to say that my family likes Disney better, I was there in the 70's with one park, and it was great, not because of the rides, because the place inspired our imaginations and we had a place to enjoy our family. (might I add with enough room to enjoy, with out being constantly bumped into). Epcot blew my mind, then studios was fun (we still have a family karaoke video from the first year). I love the theaters in animal kingdom and the theme; Its a great place to enjoy with my family, this trip alone 11 family members gathered to enjoy from Hop De Doo to a beer in Germany, to a hotel pool. to end this post on a high note, the new fantasy land isn't that bad, nothing major but ask my 2 yr old, he loved it.
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with preferring WDW over Universal. I happen to share that opinion too. Where some of the snarky responses come from is your refusal to acknowledge anything positive about the Universal parks. This is no different than the "doom and gloomers" finding a problem with everything and anything that Disney does. Both places have pros and cons. It doesn't have to be one or the other. It can both taste great and be less filling. To quote one of my favorite bands "it's not a black and white world, we should all learn to appreciate the beauty of grey".
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
I think you are probably talking about older kids. I'm not even talking about the kids not wanting to do something or it being over their heads. It's the exact opposite. They would want to do almost everything. My 3 year old is now a hair over 40in tall. At WDW he can do every ride but 5: Space Mountain, EE, MS, Primeval Whirl and RnRC. Last year he was under 40in but still could do everything in MK but the mountains and Stitch (no big loss).

Flash over to Universal. Here's the list of rides he can't do today:
1) Revenge of the Mummy
2) MIB
3) Hollywood Rip Rockit
4) Jurassic Park
5) Dragon Challenge
6) Dudley Do-Right
7) Popeye and Blutos Barges
8) Hulk Coaster
9) Dr Doom's Fearfall
10) Harry Potter Forbidden Journey

And last year before he hit 40in add in
11) The Simpsons
12) Despicable Me
13) Spider Man
14) Suess Trolley Train

That's over 1/3 of the rides at both Universal parks today that he can't do and about half he couldn't do last year. I am not going to take my kids to a theme park and then make them wait for me to do rides. I don't see the point in paying for a ticket for a park or parks that we can't do that many rides in. Also why I don't spend much time at DHS. If I wait a few years we will be able to ride everything.
Click to expand...
I have to admit you are correct. My kids were at least 6 before we ever went. There really isn't much that a 3 or 4 year old can do anyplace. That is one of the reasons why I never considered taking them before the age of 6 and that included the family trip I organized that included my grandchildren. I had promised that trip just as soon as the youngest was 6.

I can tell you also that there are a number of things on that "can't do" list that shouldn't be ridden by a 65 year old either or any age from birth to infinity. I doubt that Walt took his girls to the Merry Go Round at age three and then sat on the bench eating peanuts while they rode. I don't fault anyone for taking younger children there, but due to the fact that their experiences will be greatly altered by size or ability to understand what is happening, was my prime motivation for waiting. I have never regretted that decision. :)
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Goofyernmost said:
I have to admit you are correct. My kids were at least 6 before we ever went. There really isn't much that a 3 or 4 year old can do anyplace. That is one of the reasons why I never considered taking them before the age of 6 and that included the family trip I organized that included my grandchildren. I had promised that trip just as soon as the youngest was 6.

I can tell you also that there are a number of things on that "can't do" list that shouldn't be ridden by a 65 year old either or any age from birth to infinity. I doubt that Walt took his girls to the Merry Go Round at age three and then sat on the bench eating peanuts while they rode. I don't fault anyone for taking younger children there, but due to the fact that their experiences will be greatly altered by size or ability to understand what is happening, was my prime motivation for waiting. I have never regretted that decision. :)
Click to expand...

But a 3 or 4 year old CAN enjoy almost all of the rides at MK. That is my whole point. Disney still has the market cornered on the family with kids under 10. I don't judge anyone's choices on when and where they bring their kids. I have my preferences and what works for me, others can do what works for them. My oldest went to WDW at 2, 4 and 5 (with another trip in about 2 months) and I can say I definitely don't regret the decision to take those trips.
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Jacquellie said:
I'm a disney fanatic - but contrarily, I thought universal was more interesting. Only been once, 15 years ago and I remember saying 'I prefer this to disney world because it's more adult'. But over the years WDW has captured my heart - it's the magic, I totally buy into it. So my question is, does universal do "magic"? Leaving attractions and accommodations aside, what are they doing to match that disney "feeling"? Any insights or observations?
Click to expand...
I cannot pinpoint exactly what they are doing any more then I ever could when Disney was the leader in "magic". I can tell you this as a 30 year plus fan of WDW, there must have been a strong wind from the south that blew it up to Universal, because with my visit there in January 2013, Uni had it and WDW was only wishing that they tied it down before the wind blew. It wasn't about specific rides it was about atmosphere. Believe me no one hates to say this more then me, but Disney needs to make some changes if they ever expect the full force Magic to return. For those that are new visitors now and you are feeling that magic, all I can say is you cannot even imagine what it used to be like.
 
Voice of Disney sanity

Voice of Disney sanity

Well-Known Member
These posts about " I prefer disney over Uni are pointless and redundant" that is not what this thread is about. I'm the guy on here that is advocating the point that Uni can overtake Disney
BUT I STILL PREFER DISNEY OVER UNI

Nobody is arguing which is a better property. Disney is. The thread is about which way each company is heading and there is no doubt Uni is heading up and Disney is headed down. Even the Disney advocates on this thread aren't arguing with that fact. OK YOU CAN CLOSE THIS THREAD NOW :)
 
danlb_2000

danlb_2000

Premium Member
Voice of Disney sanity said:
These posts about " I prefer disney over Uni are pointless and redundant" that is not what this thread is about. I'm the guy on here that is advocating the point that Uni can overtake Disney
BUT I STILL PREFER DISNEY OVER UNI

Nobody is arguing which is a better property. Disney is. The thread is about which way each company is heading and there is no doubt Uni is heading up and Disney is headed down. Even the Disney advocates on this thread aren't arguing with that fact. OK YOU CAN CLOSE THIS THREAD NOW :)
Click to expand...

I think you will find people here who will argue that point.
 
P

Prock3

Member
JimboJones123 said:
That is a false assumption. The Yeti is HEAVY. The understructure is heavy in itself, as is the very unnecessary heavy fur.

There are plenty of ways to redesign it to be a fraction of the weight. Lighter materials would also give it the ability to be significantly more kinetic.

Heck, kill some weight, and it could become more mobile in the room. Imagine that.

It is an engineering nightmare. Far too heavy for its size.

Are these numbers right?
3 tons for the fur alone.
11 tons for the entire Yeti.
Click to expand...
Its heavy because its huge, they wouldn't overbuild it, that would just be stupid of them. To make it lighter other than rebuilding it out of Carbon Fiber, which would never ever ever ever ever ever ever be worth the cost, you would have to start removing the internal components that are responsible for motion and result in a loss of motion. And yes the fur is way too heavy, maybe they could remove the fur from the unseen side of the yeti, saving maybe a ton. If you want to lose weight from the yeti you will end up with a loss of motion, thats really the only way to do it. Shedding weight from an incredibly complex machine isn't as easy as unzipping the fur and just ripping things out. And reducing the weight isn't guaranteed to keep the base from cracking anymore.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom