bferrara16
Active Member
not to add more fuel to this fire (especially since I happen to enjoy Universal too), but apparently Universal now has fireworks set to music every night... sounds familiar, no?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Universal copy-cats...
- Thread starter tinkish
- Start date
snoopi_grl
New Member
Disney all the way! 
universal is so weird.
universal is so weird.
Ralph Wiggum
Account Suspended
bferrara16 said:
of course it does, they copied from SeaWorld.
it's comparing apples to oranges. UO doesn't market itself as a WDW-like destination. plenty of people vacation just to other parks here rather than WDW. you can appreciate them all or not. orlando wouldn't be what it is without WDW, but there it is. so go buy your ticket of preference, and have fun. Citywalk is a lot more edgier than downtown disney, that's the POINT. WDW is pixie dust and fairy tales, and that's great. UO's technology and thrills, and that's great. but the majority of WDW's newer attraction are directed towards thrills. that's a direct result of UO being right up the street. we all win.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Yeah thats what he said. Disney built Buzz then universal built MIB.cm1988 said:
DonaldDoleWhip
Well-Known Member
I hate Universal!
However, I have to stand up for MIB.
Buzz Lightyear was made because Toy Story became really popular and (Delta) Dreamflight was no longer interesting. Dreamflight closed in 1997 and Disney opened Buzz Lightyear (same ride vehicles) a year later.
Two years later, Men in Black opened, probably because the movie was successful and Universal wanted a ride that would recreate the movie for its guests.
See? Universal didn't copy Disney. In the words of Petter11435, Disney built Buzz then universal built MIB.
However, I have to stand up for MIB.
Buzz Lightyear was made because Toy Story became really popular and (Delta) Dreamflight was no longer interesting. Dreamflight closed in 1997 and Disney opened Buzz Lightyear (same ride vehicles) a year later.
Two years later, Men in Black opened, probably because the movie was successful and Universal wanted a ride that would recreate the movie for its guests.
See? Universal didn't copy Disney. In the words of Petter11435, Disney built Buzz then universal built MIB.
Ralph Wiggum
Account Suspended
I'm going off the concept time. MIB was skunkworked before buzz lightyear. revenge of the mummy was conceptual 10 years ago. UO was pitched way before MGM. on the flip side, Ripsaw Falls is a splash mountain port, which is nothing more than a tricked out log flume set to a story. theme park attractions run in cycles, the truly great ones stand up to the ages. Hating Universal is a waste of emotion. But it creates an empty space in line to be filled by another person.
Finally got through all the posts....whew! <WHEW> Univerasal Hollywood Citywalk opened after Pleasure Island, sometime in 1992 to 1994 (cant recall when). However, if you go strictly from the Disney Village at Lake Buena Vista, which opened in the early to mid 1970's, the shopping/dining area concept was first there. Citywalk was the first to take the idea of the village and pleasure island, combine them and expand upon it with a big, showy, streetscape with huge iconic signage and create an exciting atmosphere. Disney added the West side in the late 90's and expanded/re-vamped the shopping village to be a bit more exciting and add more theming - not just the florida resort style feel it originally had. Universal Florida's Citywalk opened in 1998 (or was it early 99?) with the IOA expansion. So it all depends on how you look at it. Each one takes ideas from the other, expands them, makes them better, and attempts to create a unique experience for their guests. By the way, yes to one of the posts - Pleasure Island was developed in part to capture some of that late night biz that Church Street was getting in Orlando. Animal Kingdom was to pick up some of the Busch Gardens biz, Disney/MGM to pre-empt some of Universal Florida's biz, etc. Those aren't the ONLY reasons they were developed, but the competitor's successes were a part of the drive to develop competing attractions or resort amenities for Disney's own guests and capture more of that dollar. Sorry for the length!!
snoopi_grl
New Member
what does MIB stand for?MissionSpaceFan said:
wdwishes2005
New Member
mensnoopi_grl said:
in
black
MKCustodial
Well-Known Member
Ralph Wiggum said:
Exactly. I'd never spend the thousands of dollars necessary for me to get to Orlando and not experience eveything it has to offer. Just because I love WDW it doesn't mean I can't appreciate what Universal, Sea World, Busch Gardens etc. have available.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Hey lets not forget Universal’s Grad Bash and Rock the Universal. Those are the most obvious examples of them copying Disney. Disney had both Grad nights and Night of Joy years before Universal came to town.
ScrapIron
Member
When DL Imagineers were working on POTC, they considered the Mine Train at Knott's Berry Farm the standard to beat (and those that get upset when they change/update rides should go to Knott's and take a good look at how tired an attraction can become if they don't). Knott's log ride predated Splash Mtn by years, and, in fact, there's a photo of Tony Baxter in the crowd at Knott's the day it opened.
And I'm sure you're all aware that the vast majority of the beloved Disney characters were not created by anyone at the Disney company. It really cracks me up when people complain about Pixar characters being used so much instead of "Disney" ones.
Cheers.
And I'm sure you're all aware that the vast majority of the beloved Disney characters were not created by anyone at the Disney company. It really cracks me up when people complain about Pixar characters being used so much instead of "Disney" ones.
Cheers.
slappy magoo
Well-Known Member
Not to get too terribly off-topic but this whole argument reminds me of another forum I used to frequent. It's not a Disney forum, it's a DVD forum, and it was started back when DVD was a relatively new format, and its future was not exactly secure. And a lot of people who were on the forum were (and are) really into watching movies in their original aspect ratio (heretofore known as OAR). Except for older or independent movies, this usually translates to "widescreen" to the masses. Or, "those annoying/stupid/ugly/worthless/take your pick of negative words black bars."
Anyway, whenever a movie came out on DVD that wasn't in OAR ("fullscreen"), the forum would pitch a fit. If a movie came out in two versions, one OAR and the other fullscreen, the boards would be filled with people complaining that they got the wrong one. And there were always stories of people trying to explain what the advantages of OAR are, and how those arguments would often fall on deaf ears ("I don't like the black bars! You get less picture! You have to be a fool not to know that!")
So, there was one kid who took our appreciation of OAR to new heights (or depths, depending on your point of view). He was just a kid, but he told everyone on the forum that he was in his 30s married and with children (but his grammar & spelling were so horrible, everyone thought that, if he was a grown man, he was either severely learning-deficient, or English was not his primary language). He would make up stories about getting in fights-bare knuckle drag down brawls-with friends and family and strangers because they just didn't understand OAR. The sad thing was, he wasn't writing these stories to make US look ridiculous. If he did, I'd have to commend him. He genuinely thought that if we believed he kicked a visiting relative out of his house for wanting a fullscreen DVD over a widescreen one, that we'd think he was more "one of us." That sort of behavior was one of the reasons I stopped visiting that site with any regularity. I like OAR too, but I'm not gonna, you know, KILL someone because they don't.
And that's how I feel about the whole Disney vs. anyone else who dares to own and operate a theme park mentality. I prefer WDW to any other park I've ever gone to as well. I'm an hour away from a Six Flags park, and I consider it so poorly run, especially when it comes to crowds, if I go there at all, it's on a weekday when school is in session. I take a sick day, hit all the coasters that don't give me whiplash or spine ailments, the water rides if it's warm enough, and then I'm good for a couple of years. I haven't gone since 2002, and that was with a single mom I was dating so her 2-year old could do all the kid things. I haven't ridden a ride there since 2000. I tried going once in 2003 and the line to get INTO the park, at 11 in the morning, was over a half-hour long, and I gave up.
But both WDW & USF are light-years beyond what regional parks have to offer, and we all know that (or at least, we're all willing to admit that WDW is that good and some of us refuse to believe US has anything to offer). It just boggles my mind that some people talk about one park or another as some sort of cesspool, when most theme parks couldn't hold a candle to any of the 6 parks between the two companies on the best of days.
As has been mentioned before, Walt Disney himself wasn't always innovative, but he was ALWAYS improving. And it stands to reason that other people and other companies will do the same. Hell, I just a drank a Diet Coke Zero for the first time today, which seems to be an attempt to take business away from Pepsi One, and I didn't even think Pepsi One generated enough sales to warrant Coke making a comparable product, but there you are.
I know I'm rambling. Damn sugar lows. I guess I'm saying that, when it comes to just about any kind of product or experience, including theme parks, there's only SO much innovention out there. Disney takes things other people do and makes them better (or tries, when they're not being too cheap), and other theme parks do the same. It's the way of the world. Disney will probably always have an advantage because
a: They do invest so much in theming (in my local Six Flags, their idea of making interesting queues is to throw up a couple of televisions to show old Bugs Bunny cartoons, R&B music videos and eleventy kajillion commercials).
b: Its sheer size allows visitors to have more than a "theme park" experience. Again, by example, the hotels around my local Six Flags park seem to be mostly standard no-frills motels, some clean national chains, some rat traps. And Disneyland has some similar problems right outside the property's borders (which is why Walt bought so much Florida land to make WDW, so that wouldn't happen again) USF is making the effort to also be a destination and more power to them, but WDW, by virtue of its size, its longevity & the iconic images of the characters, draws people in. Most people here were either babies or not even born yet when WDW opened, and it's just as much of our collective consciousness as Sesame Street (or for the much younger board members, MTV). You can't remember, or imagine, a time when it wasn't around, when you didn't know WDW existed. And its distance, the fact that most of us just can't get in the car and go when the mood strikes, adds to that allure.
Maybe one day people will feel the same way about USF-it's just too soon to make that call yet, but the whole argument over whose copying who just masks what most people in this thread are really saying: "I love WDW more than Universal." GO back (if you have the time, haha) and read some of the posts in this thread. It often veers away from the concept of copying to what people prefer more, which park or ride they love more.
To make a long post short (I know, too late) everyone copies everybody and that includes WDW as a copier and a copy-ee. There are few truly original innovations, just improvements on what came before. Pleasure Island is Disney's Church Street. Space Mountain is an indoor Wild Mouse coaster with a theme. Everyone copies everybody elsse. And it's just not that big of a deal. When USF "invents" a ride called Space Mountain, than we can talk about copying.
Anyway, whenever a movie came out on DVD that wasn't in OAR ("fullscreen"), the forum would pitch a fit. If a movie came out in two versions, one OAR and the other fullscreen, the boards would be filled with people complaining that they got the wrong one. And there were always stories of people trying to explain what the advantages of OAR are, and how those arguments would often fall on deaf ears ("I don't like the black bars! You get less picture! You have to be a fool not to know that!")
So, there was one kid who took our appreciation of OAR to new heights (or depths, depending on your point of view). He was just a kid, but he told everyone on the forum that he was in his 30s married and with children (but his grammar & spelling were so horrible, everyone thought that, if he was a grown man, he was either severely learning-deficient, or English was not his primary language). He would make up stories about getting in fights-bare knuckle drag down brawls-with friends and family and strangers because they just didn't understand OAR. The sad thing was, he wasn't writing these stories to make US look ridiculous. If he did, I'd have to commend him. He genuinely thought that if we believed he kicked a visiting relative out of his house for wanting a fullscreen DVD over a widescreen one, that we'd think he was more "one of us." That sort of behavior was one of the reasons I stopped visiting that site with any regularity. I like OAR too, but I'm not gonna, you know, KILL someone because they don't.
And that's how I feel about the whole Disney vs. anyone else who dares to own and operate a theme park mentality. I prefer WDW to any other park I've ever gone to as well. I'm an hour away from a Six Flags park, and I consider it so poorly run, especially when it comes to crowds, if I go there at all, it's on a weekday when school is in session. I take a sick day, hit all the coasters that don't give me whiplash or spine ailments, the water rides if it's warm enough, and then I'm good for a couple of years. I haven't gone since 2002, and that was with a single mom I was dating so her 2-year old could do all the kid things. I haven't ridden a ride there since 2000. I tried going once in 2003 and the line to get INTO the park, at 11 in the morning, was over a half-hour long, and I gave up.
But both WDW & USF are light-years beyond what regional parks have to offer, and we all know that (or at least, we're all willing to admit that WDW is that good and some of us refuse to believe US has anything to offer). It just boggles my mind that some people talk about one park or another as some sort of cesspool, when most theme parks couldn't hold a candle to any of the 6 parks between the two companies on the best of days.
As has been mentioned before, Walt Disney himself wasn't always innovative, but he was ALWAYS improving. And it stands to reason that other people and other companies will do the same. Hell, I just a drank a Diet Coke Zero for the first time today, which seems to be an attempt to take business away from Pepsi One, and I didn't even think Pepsi One generated enough sales to warrant Coke making a comparable product, but there you are.
I know I'm rambling. Damn sugar lows.
I guess I'm saying that, when it comes to just about any kind of product or experience, including theme parks, there's only SO much innovention out there. Disney takes things other people do and makes them better (or tries, when they're not being too cheap), and other theme parks do the same. It's the way of the world. Disney will probably always have an advantage because a: They do invest so much in theming (in my local Six Flags, their idea of making interesting queues is to throw up a couple of televisions to show old Bugs Bunny cartoons, R&B music videos and eleventy kajillion commercials).
b: Its sheer size allows visitors to have more than a "theme park" experience. Again, by example, the hotels around my local Six Flags park seem to be mostly standard no-frills motels, some clean national chains, some rat traps. And Disneyland has some similar problems right outside the property's borders (which is why Walt bought so much Florida land to make WDW, so that wouldn't happen again) USF is making the effort to also be a destination and more power to them, but WDW, by virtue of its size, its longevity & the iconic images of the characters, draws people in. Most people here were either babies or not even born yet when WDW opened, and it's just as much of our collective consciousness as Sesame Street (or for the much younger board members, MTV). You can't remember, or imagine, a time when it wasn't around, when you didn't know WDW existed. And its distance, the fact that most of us just can't get in the car and go when the mood strikes, adds to that allure.
Maybe one day people will feel the same way about USF-it's just too soon to make that call yet, but the whole argument over whose copying who just masks what most people in this thread are really saying: "I love WDW more than Universal." GO back (if you have the time, haha) and read some of the posts in this thread. It often veers away from the concept of copying to what people prefer more, which park or ride they love more.
To make a long post short (I know, too late) everyone copies everybody and that includes WDW as a copier and a copy-ee. There are few truly original innovations, just improvements on what came before. Pleasure Island is Disney's Church Street. Space Mountain is an indoor Wild Mouse coaster with a theme. Everyone copies everybody elsse. And it's just not that big of a deal. When USF "invents" a ride called Space Mountain, than we can talk about copying.
MKCustodial
Well-Known Member
Great post, Magoo! :wave:
Julius & Boobah
Member
MKCustodial said:Instead of being a so-called "purist", you should learn to enjoy what both resorts have to offer. I don't see it as "copying", I see it as competition. Because if you think along the lines of copying, then Walt was copying every little county fair there was when he came up with his "amusement park". In the same vein, Downtown DIsney is just a copycat of any huge mall.
Think about it.
Exactly...
isn't it better for us as the consumer to have healthy competition and have variety and choice. C'mon like every ride, movie or idea Disney have had has been completely original has it? Pffftt an "Original" idea is incredibly hard to come buy these days.
And I always thought MIB came before BLSRS
Julius & Boobah
Member
snoopi_grl said:
wdwishes2005 said:
LOL isn't that an exact line from the song! :lol:
1disneydood
Active Member
I just USE all the theme parks for what they have to offer ME. More theme parks like Universal gives me more CHOICES on what to do in Orlando. I won't stand in line for a attraction wondering which ride was built first. It dosen't matter. I don't care if Jacko the Wacko builds a killer themepark attraction. I'd still try it no matter what name is stamped on it. Nobody gets any points in life for sticking to a single name brand. :hammer:
Ralph Wiggum
Account Suspended
the whole "my favorite park is better than your favorite park" is infantile. no one wins the debate. WDW has 4 parks, UO has 2, AB has 3. that's a total of 9 different feelings I get at 9 different gates. not to mention downtown disney, citywalk, wet n wild and adventure island. I hug my daugter when we enter the MK, and I throw her towards the thrills at IOA. life's good.