el_super
Well-Known Member
Are you only looking at attendance or are you looking at revenue too?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Disney plans to accelerate Parks investment to $60 billion over 10 years
- Thread starter CaptainAmerica
- Start date
Are you only looking at attendance or are you looking at revenue too?
LSLS
Well-Known Member
Simply saying it's still in second is not totally true, and really ignores what actually happened. Universal's best park went from 3 million behind Disney to just 2 million after Potter opened (and that park actually went from 4 million behind to just 2 million). Next phase went from 2 million behind to under 1 million behind. Now, Universal parks own the 2nd and 4th spots among parks in Orlando. So making up that kind of ground did change things, and it's not out of the realm to think Epic results in them being higher on average per park.
LSLS
Well-Known Member
Huh? So your game changer thing is revenue and not attendance? So you want to make game changer about something that is impossible to measure from the outside? Cause unless I'm mistaking, there is 0 way to get a breakdown of how much revenue individual parks bring in.
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
Basil of Baker Street
Well-Known Member
Yep. You can go to AK at 3-4pm and ride everything without G+
SWGE was a game changer?
Only in Bob’s dreams.
Only in Bob’s dreams.
el_super
Well-Known Member
Since attendance can be artificially manipulated (by controlling pricing) how does it make sense for it to be the only metric to gauge success?
SplashJacket
Well-Known Member
AK might be my second favorite Orlando park, but I found myself visiting it the least once I became a local since it was the most isolated, closed early, and you could do so much in so little time in didn’t hold you for much of the day.
The bones are phenomenal, AK just needs to start bulking
SamusAranX
Well-Known Member
This has to be trolling. Even the biggest pixie duster in the world can’t deny that HP was truly a game changer in Orlando and the theme park industry. Then try to compare GE to it with a straight face? Ha.
Maybe if GE was fully realized as conceptualized initially AND wasn’t tethered to a mediocre at best era in the SW universe, it could have been.
Maybe if GE was fully realized as conceptualized initially AND wasn’t tethered to a mediocre at best era in the SW universe, it could have been.
Andrew25
Well-Known Member
Attendance can be artificially manipulated on a day to day basis to "move" people to lesser crowded days... but attendance for the year will remain the same. Also, if you want to utilize revenue as measure of success, we can expect for Universal to have the same level of growth in profits tied to Potter that far exceeds Disney's growth.
Both resorts are growing tremendously... but one of them has definitely outshined the other.
It's the one single park in Orlando that, outside Dinorama, doesn't need any rethemes/upgrades... they just need to add stuff.The bones are phenomenal, AK just needs to start bulking
DisneyDodo
Well-Known Member
No, this is definitely a Disney vs Universal distinction. Most of Uni’s slow-moving dark rides have height requirements (e.g., ET, CitH, MIB, SLOP, Yoshi). None of Disney’s do.
This essentially makes visiting Universal a nonstarter for families with young kids. It’s a shame because I’d love to bring my kids there, but until my youngest child is at least 3+, it’s not a consideration.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
You’re the one that said something objectively and demonstrably false.
Web Slingers, Runaway Railway, Ratatouille, Zootopia, and Frozen Ever After all have no height requirements.
3 out of the 4 attractions coming to fantasy springs will not have height requirements.
There are other attractions coming down the line that will not have height requirements.
Jrb1979
Well-Known Member
Good for them. Then why doesn't Universal do the same?
Disone
Well-Known Member
It was NOT a disaster on multiple planes. It was a disaster in on just one starship
Last edited:
Phicinfan
Well-Known Member
They are a thrill ride park, no one denies that, its their nitch since Disney technically doesn't go for the huge thrill usually, other than a few.
Andrew25
Well-Known Member
Lawyers
We live in a world where you can sue a theme park because someone got a headache on a ride.
https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/fort-lauderdale-woman-suing-universal-orlando-over-rocky-ride/
Don't get me wrong, Universal shouldn't be putting ridicously restricted restrains on rides like an omnimover, but it's not done without a purpose.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
That's the heart of the criticism...
If Universal makes a series of Pokemon rides that toddlers can't go on, they've continually missed the plot. The plot being you can't capture the multi-child family until the youngest hits 40 inches. It's a huge demo they are excluding.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
Because Universal is stupid?
It actually is a good question because there’s literally no reason for Uni not to be building a bunch of rides without height restrictions. As mentioned, Disney has no problem doing it.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
That’s a question you should ask universal.
But there are some recent additions that absolutely could and should have no height restrictions
Disone
Well-Known Member
Universal is not number two and four in Orlando nor the Americas. At least not yet. 2023 numbers have yet to be released.
Harry Potter no doubt was a game changer and helped universal double attendance. But doubling your attendance when you only have a couple million visitors to begin with is not a significant as it sounds.