Poseidon Quest
Well-Known Member
HoP has an extended queue? Is that where the market is currently?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Universal Epic Universe (South Expansion Complex) - Now Open!
- Thread starter Bob Harlem
- Start date
HoP has an extended queue? Is that where the market is currently?
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Yes. It was built to be the queue when the line used to go out the door (really!)
I think the posts still have the hooks on them where you would link the chains to form the line
Here's what the area looked like before it was built. There was a patch of grass where the Market's seating area is
Poseidon Quest
Well-Known Member
Yes. It was built to be the queue when the line used to go out the door (really!)
I think the posts still have the hooks on them where you would link the chains to form the line
Here's what the area looked like before it was built
It never occurred to me that queue space was the intended purpose, but that's interesting to learn.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The two big attractions that were cut made it all the way to permitting. Budgets had long been allocated for them. It’s unusual for something to get that far and still be cut. Broom was also reworked for a good while for Universal Studios Florida before finally dying.
There was also an interim period where Curse of the Werewolf was smaller and the Dark Universe theater was smaller and indoors.
Purduevian
Well-Known Member
Why did they get cut if not for budget?
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
So much of The Magic Kingdom has been the way it is for so long now that the original purpose of buildings and spaces is long forgotten and taken for granted as just being there.
Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
And frankly it was my chief complaint about IOA back when I was an AP in 2013, during my summer ICP.
I loved IOA, but man that park SUCKED when lightning was in the area, or a storm rolled through. So many times I would get stuck in the Hulk queue just as you were about to board. And this is before adding two very high demand outdoor coasters, which can shut down throughout the summer...
And now you have a new park that loses almost its entire ride roster during a summer storm or lightning event.
It's certainly a bizarre choice.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Broom was moved to Universal Studios Florida because they weren’t sure how long the park would be paused. They eventually decided it wasn’t worked as they wanted, and similar experiences opened elsewhere, and resumed the park. This ended up being more of a true cut to costs.
Curse of the Werewolf originally replaced the small outdoor walkthrough space. It was a way to get another ride in relatively cheaply. The show had its own creative issues and when it died the coaster was enlarged. This was less a complete cut because money moved from one concept to another.
TalkToEthan
Well-Known Member
Yes, yes Universal could have——-if it chose to do it.
More money of course but each ‘portaled’ land could have been independently domed, EASILY……if Universal prioritized it.
70,000 person indoor stadiums have been around for 6 decades! Of course protection from the elements could have been done if Universal wanted to do it.
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
Just a reminder there aren't enough people who've yet left reviews for them to be statically of any value.
The Google reviews have 3.9 out of 5 with a total of 1,989 reviews. That's not a quarter of a single day's attendance.
The far worse Trip Advisor at 2.1 is based on ONLY 304 FRIGGIN' REVIEWS. There are like three to four times as many people in line for the Potter ride at any given moment than have left a review there at Trip Advisor.
If people don't like the park, the OVERWHELMING majority are not bothering to leave a review saying so which could very well be true but these kinds of posts do nothing but create the illusion of being useful.
Last edited:
Rich Brownn
Well-Known Member
The tea cups were not covered in 1971. It, along with poor drainage and uncovered queues outdoors (Mansion, HoP, Country Bears) were quickly modified as best as they could be.
I'm not saying they wanted the park to be poorly built. There's also no indication that they consider the park poorly built. This is a subjective take, after all. Do you think they considered IOA poorly built? Because it took them over a decade to add another indoor attraction, which would seem to indicate they didn't see a problem. It's still the only entirely indoors attraction built there in the past 26 years.
Yes, they could have made Epic an indoor or 'domed' park if they wanted to, but in addition to such a plan eating heavily into the park's budget, I'm also confident that most people wouldn't actually want that. I'm not seeing the Hollywood street with a ceiling in Japan or Singapore and thinking, "Yeah, let's build that here." Thanks, but no thanks.
Last edited:
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
DarkMetroid567
Well-Known Member
That’s not how stats works. Obviously you’re not going to be able to get reviews from everyone, that’s why having a good n size matters (and 2000 probably could be!) There are other reasons why just deferring to Google Reviews is not a truly representative sample, but not with this argument.
Just a reminder there aren't enough people who've yet left reviews for them to be statically of any value.
The Google reviews have 3.9 out of 5 with a total of 1,989 reviews. That's not a quarter of a single day's attendance.
The far worse Trip Advisor at 2.1 is based on ONLY 304 FRIGGIN' REVIEWS. There are like three to four times as many people in line for the Potter ride at any given moment than have left a review there at Trip Advisor.
If people don't like the park, the OVERWHELMING majority are not bothering to leave a review saying so which could very well be true but these kinds of posts do nothing but create the illusion of being useful.
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
I guess I could have tossed "self selecting representation" in there but I don't see you make mention of my primary point which was the gap between Google and TripAdvisor (where I did the crazy all caps thing) which comes in with an average roughly 50% lower and 85% fewer reviews to base that on.
What do you feel is the appropriate takeaway? That Google reviewers are less biased against the park than TripAdvisor or more biased for it? That the more reviews it gets, the higher the average climbs? That a single day of operational issues or rain could skew things with either set of numbers in a meaningful way?
I mean, these aren't polling numbers so I don't see how they can be looked at as such. Lacking any control, I don't see how much can be gleaned from such a small percentage.
Personally, the 4.9 actually seems good to me, all things considered but I still don't see how it can be trusted by anyone to accurately represent a consensus, especially when half of that could have been from preview visits and with numbers low enough that crazy Disney and Universal fans that haven't even been can review bomb in both directions enough to meaningfully affect the average.
Last edited:
TalkingHead
Well-Known Member
And yet Universal has someone pasting boilerplate (AI?) responses to acknowledge poor reviews so somebody in corporate doesn’t think it’s a good look. Which is the whole point of mentioning the reviews in the first place. It’s bad for the brand.
Just a reminder there aren't enough people who've yet left reviews for them to be statically of any value.
The Google reviews have 3.9 out of 5 with a total of 1,989 reviews. That's not a quarter of a single day's attendance.
The far worse Trip Advisor at 2.1 is based on ONLY 304 FRIGGIN' REVIEWS. There are like three to four times as many people in line for the Potter ride at any given moment than have left a review there at Trip Advisor.
If people don't like the park, the OVERWHELMING majority are not bothering to leave a review saying so which could very well be true but these kinds of posts do nothing but create the illusion of being useful.
DarkMetroid567
Well-Known Member
I don’t really disagree with any of this, which is why I didn’t respond re: the TripAdvisor rating, I think 304 probably isn’t enough. But you said “there aren't enough people who've yet left reviews for them to be statically of any value”, and that’s just not really true.
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
If we were talking scientific polling with representative samples, I'd agree - just a thousand would be plenty - but that's not what this is so I don't understand how it possibly could be.
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
Yes, I'm sure it's a full time job. They do it for the other two parks that both have over 100k Google reviews, too asking for people with negative reviews there to reach out to customer service so they can try to "make it right". Both of those have averages of 4.7 stars so it's not like they're treating the Epic reviews any differently.
Funny enough, Disney, approaching almost 250k reviews with a 4.6 average for the MK does not appear to respond like this to any of their negatives.
For what it's worth, the first (most recent) one star review I came across for MK started with "Oh my gosh, there is nothing good to say about magic kingdom" which I mean, how does anyone take that seriously? but with enough reviews, outliers like this with a clear ax to grind get watered down, significantly.
TalkToEthan
Well-Known Member
If(—-a huge if indeed—- )that pool of 2k is a proper mix of population then it should easily be statistically reliable.