wow I swear this is like a Disney bar fight or something! (not trying to start an alcohol at WDW thing here)
I would just offer the following statements:
First, MK hasn't gotten a new E-ticket. That's very true. HOWEVER, there has not been the need to do so compared with the other parks. With attendance PROBLEMS at the other parks, put the attractions where they are needed. Now that attendance is rising at the others, I have a good feeling MK will be next to get something big (especially with the new real estate that opened up).
I am one that does not like Universal because I feel they play copycat and dirty pool. BUT, that is a very personal statement and merely goes to MY OWN enjoyment of Universal. That is NOT the foundations for arguments here.
Having said that, I believe comparisons, as many have suggested, must be done appropriately here. If you want to compare Buzz to something, it should be Jimmy Neutron. Both were renovations of an old attraction with a similar thrill level. Having said that, I think Buzz wins because it has a much higher re-ride factor and utilized a more creative approach. MIB is certainly a much better ride, and it should be. I would compare it more to M:S in status (which I have not ridden yet, so I cannot comment appropriately).
I do agree that Universal has some good queues, but that is their biggest downfall as well IMHO, especially at IOA. USF tends to have good consistency. The attraction meshes with the queue itself. MIB has a great queue. It has a great look in the ride as well. Twister is the same way. B2F has a mediocre look to its queue, and the ride itself has a mediocre appearance also (not commenting on the technology but on the housing and overall appearance). IOA on the other hand has some of the most inconsistent themeing I have ever seen. Dragons' queue is outstanding (and certainly screams to me the rumored theft of Disney ideas, but that is a debate for another time), but the ride itself falls below Six Flags level IMHO. Hulk has a mediocre queue, outstanding first portion with the tube and over-water experience, and a HORRIBLE ending. It has some of the biggest let-down factor of any coaster I have ever ridden. Spiderman is the opposite. A terribly done queue (nice idea but horrible execution) and a good looking attraction. I just think Disney trumps in all categories when it comes to consistency of storytelling.
Finally, to compare what Universal has done since 1999 to what Disney has done is a bit off as well. Universal had one theme park up until 1999. Now they have two. The addition of resorts and other facilities is A NEW BALLGAME for them still. They have seen what Disney and others have done for over 30 years almost. While the markets and management of the companies have changed drastically, I would like IOA much more to EPCOT Center's opening. It was meant to be Universal's trump card; their ultimate expense, much like EPCOT Center was when it opened in 1982. To claim that IOA comes anywhere near the ambition, grandeur, or sheer amazement factor of Epcot @ opening is unfounded at best IMHO. Welldone, sure, but Groundbreaking IOA is NOT.
Bottom line, comparing attraction to attraction is inappropriate because Universal will always have the advantage simply on age and space available (i.e. # of "big" attractions over fewer parks). Disney is not living up to its potential, but Universal is still not posing a threat to take over... only to lessen Disney's lead at the moment if they continue down this same path.
