• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

How would WDW look in 2019 if Universal Orlando never opened

ChrisFL

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Just a fun "What if" scenario.

Whether people want to admit it or not, Universal has driven a lot of growth at WDW and arguably pushed the creation of these things at WDW:

- Disney MGM/Hollywood Studios
- Rock n Roller Coaster
- Mission Space
- Pandora
- Star Wars Galaxy's Edge
- maybe Expedition Everest?

and others



I predict the Great Movie Ride would have opened in Epcot as originally intended....we wouldn't see a Studios park in 1989, possibly not another new park for 5-6 more years....maybe they jump to making Animal Kingdom as the third park. For all we know they might not have opened Disneyland Paris the same way.

We probably wouldn't have any Pandora or Galaxy's Edge area, but maybe they'd put some more attractions in MK with some of the plans originally for MGM Studios.


Thoughts?
 

justintheharris

Well-Known Member
Just a fun "What if" scenario.

Whether people want to admit it or not, Universal has driven a lot of growth at WDW and arguably pushed the creation of these things at WDW:

- Disney MGM/Hollywood Studios
- Rock n Roller Coaster
- Mission Space
- Pandora
- Star Wars Galaxy's Edge
- maybe Expedition Everest?

and others



I predict the Great Movie Ride would have opened in Epcot as originally intended....we wouldn't see a Studios park in 1989, possibly not another new park for 5-6 more years....maybe they jump to making Animal Kingdom as the third park. For all we know they might not have opened Disneyland Paris the same way.

We probably wouldn't have any Pandora or Galaxy's Edge area, but maybe they'd put some more attractions in MK with some of the plans originally for MGM Studios.


Thoughts?
It's really impossible to tell. But Disney World certainly wouldn't be as good. It may not have Hollywood Studios or Animal Kingdom at all and certainly no IP based lands (which I actually think have been greatly executed in the parks) since Wizarding World wouldn't have been developed. On that note, Disney may have secured the rights to Harry Potter if Rowling didn't have Universal to turn to after Disney wouldn't give the franchise anything else.
 

hakunamatata

Make The Universe Balanced Again
Premium Member
I think Disney World would exist and maybe a different experience but just as big. You dont buy 40 square miles and not plan on doing something big.
 

PorterRedkey

Well-Known Member
All theme park lovers benefit from the competition between Uni and Disney.

Potter made Disney recognize Universal as a threat to their market share. Disney responded with new lands and Universal is adding a ride a year along with reasonably priced hotels. The battle for a small percentage (10%?) of the Orlando market has led to a lot great things for us fans. So while they’re fighting, I’ll be enjoying all the new additions*! 😀

*does not include Fast and the Furious - Supercharged as an addition I will enjoy
 

JIMINYCR

Well-Known Member
Verrry different. In everything competition brings out the best in a person and in businesses. It forces one to keep moving forward and gives a reason to continually add more to draw in your customers. Without Uni biting at their heels, showing WDW that there was another game in town, WDW might have added some improvements but not to the extent they have. If no Uni, and others, Disney would have been satisfied to a point and not invested as much in moving forward.
 

mergatroid

Well-Known Member
Just a fun "What if" scenario.

Whether people want to admit it or not, Universal has driven a lot of growth at WDW and arguably pushed the creation of these things at WDW:

- Disney MGM/Hollywood Studios
- Rock n Roller Coaster
- Mission Space
- Pandora
- Star Wars Galaxy's Edge
- maybe Expedition Everest?

and others



I predict the Great Movie Ride would have opened in Epcot as originally intended....we wouldn't see a Studios park in 1989, possibly not another new park for 5-6 more years....maybe they jump to making Animal Kingdom as the third park. For all we know they might not have opened Disneyland Paris the same way.

We probably wouldn't have any Pandora or Galaxy's Edge area, but maybe they'd put some more attractions in MK with some of the plans originally for MGM Studios.


Thoughts?
I'd say Rock n Roller coaster would have been added regardless as the Studios was popular already and needed additions.
I'd also say I don't see Mission Space's existence or creation having anything to do with Uni and the Animal Kingdom needed additions, so I'd class Expedition Everest as having nothing to do with Uni either.

Disney MGM Studios was 99.9% a result of Universal being built and I'm pretty certain that Galaxy's Edge wouldn't have had as much money put in if it weren't for Uni, if built at all.

However all of that is speculation on our parts.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Well-Known Member
It's really impossible to tell. But Disney World certainly wouldn't be as good. It may not have Hollywood Studios or Animal Kingdom at all and certainly no IP based lands (which I actually think have been greatly executed in the parks) since Wizarding World wouldn't have been developed. On that note, Disney may have secured the rights to Harry Potter if Rowling didn't have Universal to turn to after Disney wouldn't give the franchise anything else.
Ok...now I snarfed coffee...

They have one IP land that was executed well in Orlando...which ones am I forgetting?
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Well-Known Member
I'd say Rock n Roller coaster would have been added regardless as the Studios was popular already and needed additions.
I'd also say I don't see Mission Space's existence or creation having anything to do with Uni and the Animal Kingdom needed additions, so I'd class Expedition Everest as having nothing to do with Uni either.

Disney MGM Studios was 99.9% a result of Universal being built and I'm pretty certain that Galaxy's Edge wouldn't have had as much money put in if it weren't for Uni, if built at all.

However all of that is speculation on our parts.
I’m having a hard time making any headway with this one...

So if mgm was built because of universal...how would rockinrollercoaster been added anyway if the park it was in hadn’t been warranted?

But never mind that. Star Wars land would have been a safe bet if they acquired it as they did at some point. I think it was rushed on their end. The popularity of the potter additions on both coasts and lots of competition from Universal Orlando we know did drive avatar and Star Wars land - however.

I think the problem with Star Wars is they were rushed and didn’t like the choices they had when they designed and started to build. They knew they wanted to distance themselves from the Lucas movies - so they had to “sacrifice” the theme from the originals to knock out the prequels. I get that.

But in 2014-2016 when the designing was going on...they knew they only had the abrams reboot with the end of the original cast to deal with. They wouldn’t have had any clue if it was going to be a smash new film series. They assumed the label would sell...but from reports they have taken as much of the nostalgia/pull out of that label in the land.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Well-Known Member
Look at that picturesque competition, just stunning. just saying 😝
View attachment 389728
...but the rides are really cool. After they’ve worked the shakedown Kinks out they have 3 universally (pun intended) well regarded “E” attractions in place.

Disney has managed to get an overhyped mine train and one doozy in FOP built.

At the end of the day...people want to be amused.

It’s probably worth mentioning that they pulled a lot of creativity from WDI during the late Eisner era to do it...what was left hadn’t been proven to be the cream of the crop
 

ParkPeeker

Active Member
...but the rides are really cool. After they’ve worked the shakedown Kinks out they have 3 universally (pun intended) well regarded “E” attractions in place.

Disney has managed to get an overhyped mine train and one doozy in FOP built.

At the end of the day...people want to be amused.

It’s probably worth mentioning that they pulled a lot of creativity from WDI during the late Eisner era to do it...what was left hadn’t been proven to be the cream of the crop
I didn't mean that as a jab at universal AT ALL. considering disney in terms of looks...
389734
 

mergatroid

Well-Known Member
I’m having a hard time making any headway with this one...

So if mgm was built because of universal...how would rockinrollercoaster been added anyway if the park it was in hadn’t been warranted?


But never mind that. Star Wars land would have been a safe bet if they acquired it as they did at some point. I think it was rushed on their end. The popularity of the potter additions on both coasts and lots of competition from Universal Orlando we know did drive avatar and Star Wars land - however.

I think the problem with Star Wars is they were rushed and didn’t like the choices they had when they designed and started to build. They knew they wanted to distance themselves from the Lucas movies - so they had to “sacrifice” the theme from the originals to knock out the prequels. I get that.

But in 2014-2016 when the designing was going on...they knew they only had the abrams reboot with the end of the original cast to deal with. They wouldn’t have had any clue if it was going to be a smash new film series. They assumed the label would sell...but from reports they have taken as much of the nostalgia/pull out of that label in the land.
I was working on the premise that people would see and understand that I was replying to the Op, hence me quoting his post. He clearly ask for views on why Disney Studios was built and then separately asks about the Rock n Roller coaster which is within the studios, I was merely addressing both points.

I understand the logic that without Disney studios then clearly nothing within it could have been added to it, I was really working on the basis that most would see that and that I wouldn't have to take the time to point that out. Apologies if that wasn't apparent.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Well-Known Member
I was working on the premise that people would see and understand that I was replying to the Op, hence me quoting his post. He clearly ask for views on why Disney Studios was built and then separately asks about the Rock n Roller coaster which is within the studios, I was merely addressing both points.

I understand the logic that without Disney studios then clearly nothing within it could have been added to it, I was really working on the basis that most would see that and that I wouldn't have to take the time to point that out. Apologies if that wasn't apparent.
No problem
 
Top Bottom