@
Tim_4, you're making generalizations an then comparing. Harry Potter was a risk because they took on a challenge that Disney considered too much. They tossed out their ideas and went full steam into Rowling's vision and let Warner Bros. helm the project. That's different than a purely reactionary decision.
I'm not trying to make comparisons
at all. People think I hate Universal or Harry Potter and that just isn't true. I was the biggest Harry Potter fan you could find growing up (midnight book releases and the whole bit), until Book 7 ruined ten years of buildup and the movies were even worse. I also enjoy Universal, for what it is. What I object to is people arguing that Universal is beating Disney at Disney's game. That just isn't true. It's a different market but people refuse to acknowledge that. WWoHP is a flawlessly executed immersive environment, but it's the first one they've even attempted, let alone executed. The rest of the park is filled with eyesores like this:
The biggest thing I object to is the ridiculous hyperbole that the anti-WDW crowd likes to throw out there. If someone said "I had a bad experience with a cast member" or "FLE isn't really my thing," I'd be much more apt to take them seriously. Unfortunately, the language people choose is more along the lines of "Disney service has COMPLETELY gone to sh*t" or "Disney isn't spending a penny on expansion." That kind of hyperbole makes the argument seem ridiculous and you (general "you," not just @
lazyboy97o) lose credibility.
Finally, things that are complaints about Disney are excused when it's Universal. People don't like when Disney makes "screen" attractions, for example, while the most often-praised Universal attractions are all screen-based. MILF doesn't belong in Tomorrowland, but Hogwarts somehow belongs in the vaguely conceived "Islands of Adventure." Disney "only" targets young girls, while Universal gets a pass for squarely targeting teens and twenty-somethings. People complain that Disney uses franchises instead of original content, while that's ALL Universal does. Heck, some people don't even like when Disney uses DISNEY franchises.
To reiterate, these
aren't complaints of mine. They're complaints of others that I argue are delegitimized when applied with a double standard.
Off Topic and not my point at all: One (minor) beef I do have about WWoHP is that it focuses on the film version of things. I would have preferred originally conceived character designs rather than Daniel Radcliffe and friends. If Disney were to ever build Marvel attractions, I hope they'd go more Lee/Kirby than Whedon/Downey.
...lucky SOBs
