Impressed by Universal

[Ralphlaw]

I posted much of this in the Universal thread, but thought it apropos to put it here as well.

My daughter and I took a cab from the Boardwalk to Universal to see Harry Potter on December 28th. Very impressed. Here's why:

1. The Harry Potter areas are wonderful.
2. Forbidden Journey is the best ride I have ever ridden anywhere.
3. The cast members were excellent, including:
A. A man from Olivanders who came out of the shop to give my daughter pointers on wand use.
B. An owl salesman named Roderick who was 100% happy and in character.
C. A line person who liked my Dr. Who shirt, and commented again on it 45 minutes later.
D. The valets at the Royal Pacific hotel who were great at helping us get a taxi back to the Boardwalk.

We'll be going back. By contrast, Disney seemed a bit tired and lackadaisical. The Disney CMs that we met were good, but many seemed tired and a bit "going through the motions".

I truly wonder how little Disney would have done by way of improvements over the years if Universal hadn't pushed them. I also did a bit of research on Disney's proposal to J.K Rowling years ago. Apparently all that Disney offered was a Buzz Lightyear type of wand shooting spell ride and a petting zoo. This would have been a small corner of Fantasyland. And knowing how slowly Disney seems to move these days, who knows if they'd even be up and running by now.

Sorry Disney, but Universal is beating you in certain ways. Yes, their parks are over commercialized, loud and too flashy. Even the express lines are slow. But there was a lot to be impressed by. I can't help but feel a touch of arrogance with Disney right now, whereas the Harry Potter areas are everything Disney used to be.

 

[Wngo905]

Sorry, Had TO
Yah, know this is a site for Disney Fans (not dark-side Universal fans) right? LOL

In all seriousness, I notice you covered one part of Universal, specifically Harry Potter, and not the rest, except for the Royal Pacific. We will see what is a bigger draw and better done in December won't we?

 

[DeletedAccount55555]

To be fair, Universal reportedly had concerns about the long-term drawing power of the Potter franchise as it was planning Hogsmeade. That's why two existing rides were rethemed and they reused the kitchen from the old Enchanted Oak Tavern to cut down on costs.

I do tire of Disney fans feeling they have to hate on Universal. Both parks have their flaws, of course, but the competition makes each one stronger.

 

[networkpro]

Theres no real hate for Universal, there's just where this post should appropriately be posted. IMHO Universal has taken the former superfund site and created a nice year-round destination.

 

[AndyS2992]

My issue with Universal with most of the rides are very similar. 3D simulator type ride where you get bumped about, dropped face first off a building and almost will always have a water splash effect that splashes you. Transformers, Minions, Spider Man, both big Harry Potter rides, Jimmy Fallon, Kong, F&F, Simpsons, all share these things. Too repetitive and hope for some more diversity in the future. Still a great place though.

 

[networkpro]

It is tangentially related though since Disney arrogance is what led to Harry Potter going to Universal and creating a monster competitor.

Which in turn led to Disney having to up it's game with Avatarland and Starwarsland.

If OP changes his title to Disney dropped the ball on the Harry Potter franchise and created a monster at Universal it would be completely relevant.

Nope, Disney didnt want to kowtow to JK Rollings' demand for control. What was critical was Comcasts purchase of the Blackstone investments stake for a billion. At the time Comcast still has sufficient capital to make the necessary investments for elevating their parks with new attractions and experiences.

 

[networkpro]

yeah that's arrogance. JK Rowling wanted a realistic world not just one or two rides in Fantasyland.
Disney passed and built a competitor in Universal on what used to be an empty park.

now Disney is making these realistic worlds anyway (Pandora, Starwarsland) so it's not like they save any money by not meeting JK's demands.

I dont buy your argument that its arrogance, nor that Universal was an empty park. Universal just lacked investment for years (specifically 2000-2011 when under the Blackstone Umbrella... the very same issues while they held Six Flags chash the check)

 

[Miss Bella]

I've never understood why Disney fans get offended by someone liking Universal. I like them both. These days I'd probably give the edge to Universal. I'm not a big fan of fast pass plus and having to plan my vacation months in advance.

 

[aliceismad]

Seems like a little competition is a good thing for both Universal and Disney. I'm excited for when my kiddo is old enough to enjoy more at Universal, but the overabundance of screen rides is a deterrent for me, and a trend I'm a bit afraid Disney is following (FOP, Mickey & Minnie RR, Star Wars, Rat...).

 

[Rlandrigan]

The Royal Pacific was a great hotel for us - was very happy except for the restaurant, which being mostly empty seemed to give up. A great pool, good entertainment poolside, nice rooms, great staff otherwise.

Potterland is brilliant - really great, just too small

Where universal falls off is everywhere else - the Marvel stuff is weirdly outdated, and the funnypages stuff is just...odd. The Dudley doright water ride would be great with theming and cleanup, King Kong is fun, the jurassic park discovery center is really great for kids. A lot of the rides are very similar, and lordy does the quick service food need help.

I'm really glad we went - it was fun, and again Potter was amazing. But it's a two day park.

 

[DeletedAccount55555]

I could make the same argument that most of Disney parks is made up of boat and dark rides with animatronics. I think the real difference is Disney fans (and the theme park faithful in general) perceive animatronics to be unique in each attraction, yet somehow screens are all the same.

I also think fans get hypocritical about the use of screens. If Universal had made something like Flights of Passage, I imagine it'd be bashed for being another screen-based ride. Because Disney built it, suddenly it's hyped as among the best attractions ever.

As far as I've heard, Universal Creative is very aware of the "screens" perception, but stuff like Kong, Fallon and F&F was too far along in development to change. Perhaps the new Potter coaster opening this year will show that its moving away from relying so much on screens.

Before you think I'm a Universal fanboy, I can name plenty of faults on their side. F&F is one of the worst attractions in Orlando, seemingly built for ride capacity rather than entertainment and destroying two attractions in the process. Universal stage shows and parades also pale in comparison to Disney.

 

[aliceismad]

I could make the same argument that most of Disney parks is made up of boat and dark rides with animatronics. I think the real difference is Disney fans (and the theme park faithful in general) perceive animatronics to be unique in each attraction, yet somehow screens are all the same.

I dislike the screens because they sometimes cause me to suffer dizziness, etc. I'm sure it's a more efficient way to build more thrilling rides vs. say a coaster (both in land size and cost), so it's smart of Universal and Disney to utilize them. I appreciate the immersive-ness of rides. Some screen rides are better at this than others. I'm sure the same can be said of animatronic-based dark rides.

 

[AndyS2992]

I could make the same argument that most of Disney parks is made up of boat and dark rides with animatronics. I think the real difference is Disney fans (and the theme park faithful in general) perceive animatronics to be unique in each attraction, yet somehow screens are all the same.

I also think fans get hypocritical about the use of screens. If Universal had made something like Flights of Passage, I imagine it'd be bashed for being another screen-based ride. Because Disney built it, suddenly it's hyped as among the best attractions ever.

As far as I've heard, Universal Creative is very aware of the "screens" perception, but stuff like Kong, Fallon and F&F were too far along in development to change. Perhaps the new Potter coaster opening this year will show that its moving away from relying so much on screens.

Before you think I'm a Universal fanboy, I can name plenty of faults on their side. F&F is one of the worst attractions in Orlando, seemingly built for ride capacity rather than entertainment and destroying two attractions in the process. Universal stage shows and parades also pale in comparison to Disney.

I get what you are saying but to me a screen is a screen whereas anamatronics are actual physical props and are a little more interesting and unique. Plus as stated above, I suffer motion sickness so a lot of screen based attractions leave me feeling crappy afterwards which is another reason I personally don’t like them used excessively.

 

[DeletedAccount55555]

The dizziness problem with screens I definitely understand. That's a fair criticism.

 

[marni1971]

Tell me you didn’t ride Fast and the Furious...

 

[wdwfan22]

Universal is nice to visit but it's not Disney. Universal has to many screen based attractions. The harry potter attractions are nice but that's the only area in the park that is highly themed. The Harry Potter lands are to small for the amount of people especially the gift shops that it's not enjoyable by any means.

 

[aliceismad]

Was F&F a cheap afterthought ride designed to eat up people after HP raised crowd levels? I've not ridden it, so I've no idea, but it's strange that it gets such poor reviews across the board when clearly Universal is capable of better.

 

[Miss Bella]

Seems like a little competition is a good thing for both Universal and Disney. I'm excited for when my kiddo is old enough to enjoy more at Universal, but the overabundance of screen rides is a deterrent for me, and a trend I'm a bit afraid Disney is following (FOP, Mickey & Minnie RR, Star Wars, Rat...).

Over abundance of screen rides ? There’s only a handful. The majority of rides are not screen rides. Disney has 3 screen rides. Universal has maybe 4 or 5.

 

[marni1971]

Was F&F a cheap afterthought ride designed to eat up people after HP raised crowd levels? I've not ridden it, so I've no idea, but it's strange that it gets such poor reviews across the board when clearly Universal is capable of better.

It was down to mishandling and mismanagement by people who didn’t understand what they were asking for.

 

[aliceismad]

Over abundance of screen rides ? There’s only a handful. The majority of rides are not screen rides. Disney has 3 screen rides. Universal has maybe 4 or 5.

F&F
Kong
Fallon
Minion
Spider Man
Transformers
Simpsons
HP EfG
HP FJ

(Plus Shrek is a 4D screen show, which doesn't count but gives my DH more vertigo sometimes.)

Some of those are great rides, and some are amazing technology. But they all could potentially ruin my day, and that lowers the value of the parks to me. I risk it for the HP rides. The others? Probably not. Disney has it's fair share of screen-based rides/attractions existing or forthcoming, but the wide variety of non-screen rides with excellent themeing is a bigger draw than Universal, for me, especially since there are 4 parks rather than just the two.