Universal vs. Disney

TubaGeek

God bless the "Ignore" button.
I know this is regarding the parks, but I find their films to be a good topic as well. While Disney has always had the upper hand in animated films, Universal has a long established legacy for making well-known, classic live-action films.
Disney has stupidly popular IPs, but I think Universal is doing better than ever in terms of competing with themselves. The Despicable franchise, Jurassic World, and the Furious series have made record amounts of money. They may not have Marvel and Star Wars, but they're not hurting at all.
 

Californian Elitist

Well-Known Member
Disney has stupidly popular IPs, but I think Universal is doing better than ever in terms of competing with themselves. The Despicable franchise, Jurassic World, and the Furious series have made record amounts of money. They may not have Marvel and Star Wars, but they're not hurting at all.

Exactly! Universal's been making films since 1914, they're definitely not hurting. Disney has a few live-action classics, but there's really no comparison to Universal.
 

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
The one thing I just don't see Uni ever being able to match (with the exemption of Potter and maybe Jurassic Park) is how beloved Disney's stories and characters are. Call it pixie dust, magic, nostalgia or what have you. Disney punches you in the stomach with emotion and feelings that you can't replicate by simply building "the biggest and baddest". Uni is probably going to need a generation or two to develop the warm and fuzzies from kids who grew up to have their own families. That's one obvious area where Uni as of right now cannot compete.

I like the biggest and baddest. I regularly frequent "Roller Coaster" parks and I've been to Uni on both coasts in the last couple years. But in my opinion, there's nothing at those parks like a Big Thunder, Tiki Room, or Space Ship Earth. Uni obviously has the tech to replicate and surpass the attractions I just mentioned. But they'll never get you to feel like you do when you ride the Disney versions. Disney's still got it when it comes to new attractions as we can see from what they've done around the world in their parks as of late. I'm hoping all the new stuff were speculating about lives up to or gets very close to what we're expecting for WDW and even DL.

I pay money to go to Uni and other parks so don't get me wrong. They've made huge strides and they're going in the right direction. Especially when they begin building attractions without so many screens. I agree with most folks who have said that competition is good for both sides. It means more fun for everybody.
But, the two biggest IPs that have emotional relevance to me is Harry Potter and Star Wars. One property is exploiting them beautifully. The other isn't. So yes, "pixie dust" is accurate.
 

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
I think if you throw in Marvel I think Disney has pulled close by...you may say we'll that shouldn't count but a kid born today in 20 years will see Marvel as Disney the way we do with Pixar now
Why would you count Marvel? Iron Man to the Avengers were distributed via Paramount Pictures, with one via Universal Pictures.
 

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
I was speaking about the Future Disney Branded Star Wars films that will be pretty massive...

We can agree to disagree but time will tell how Disney (Pixar, Marvel, Lucas Film) live action holds up to Universal ones

Universal isn't going to stop making live-action films.
 

rioriz

Well-Known Member
Why would you count Marvel? Iron Man to the Avengers were distributed via Paramount Pictures, with one via Universal Pictures.
So there have been no Disney-MARVEL films afterwards...one of the biggest films of the past few years GotG goes straight to the Mouse's pockets. Anyways my statement was tended towards the future...meaning down the road the Disney Umbrella of Live Actions will begin to catch up to Universals....
 

MichWolv

Born Modest. Wore Off.
Premium Member
Why would you count Marvel? Iron Man to the Avengers were distributed via Paramount Pictures, with one via Universal Pictures.
Actually, Disney bought back the distribution rights to Avengers and Iron Man 3 and handled distribution themselves, although Paramount was still credited. So Disney has handled distribution of the past 7 MCU movies.
 

JT3000

Well-Known Member
So there have been no Disney-MARVEL films afterwards...one of the biggest films of the past few years GotG goes straight to the Mouse's pockets. Anyways my statement was tended towards the future...meaning down the road the Disney Umbrella of Live Actions will begin to catch up to Universals....

Catch up to Universal's? How in the world is that going to happen? Do you expect Universal to go bankrupt and close up shop soon or something? After Furious 7 and Jurassic World, I would be surprised if the studio head doesn't spend most of his days rolling around naked in money.
 

TubaGeek

God bless the "Ignore" button.
Catch up to Universal's? How in the world is that going to happen? Do you expect Universal to go bankrupt and close up shop soon or something? After Furious 7 and Jurassic World, I would be surprised if the studio head doesn't spend most of his days rolling around naked in money.
On one hand, I agree. Star Wars and Marvel are the two biggest live action families out there right now, but Universal has their own tent poles, and more than enough smaller hits to beat Disney.
However, what if we include subsidiaries?
 

JT3000

Well-Known Member
On one hand, I agree. Star Wars and Marvel are the two biggest live action families out there right now, but Universal has their own tent poles, and more than enough smaller hits to beat Disney.
However, what if we include subsidiaries?

What if we did? You're still comparing their output to over 100 years worth of live-action films. Universal could stop making films this instant and it would still take Disney ages to catch up, the same as if someone wanted to match their animated library.
 

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
So there have been no Disney-MARVEL films afterwards...one of the biggest films of the past few years GotG goes straight to the Mouse's pockets. Anyways my statement was tended towards the future...meaning down the road the Disney Umbrella of Live Actions will begin to catch up to Universals....
This argument completely collapses because you're assuming that Universal stops making live action films, thus giving Disney the opportunity to "catch up". That's not happening. That's like saying because Universal releases animation hits from Illumination Entertainment (the production company behind Despicable Me and Minions), they're catching up to Disney animation.
 

jensenrick

Well-Known Member
As someone who currently favors Universal, I can see why a vacationer would want to stay at Disney. If you're spending one day at each park of Disney AND Uni, you're gonna have four days of provided transportation instead of two.
Obviously, I feel you get more bang for your buck at Uni's hotels, generally, but for those who are concerned moresoe about convenient transportation and don't want to move halfway through your trip, I'd suggest a Disney hotel.

Since I find the wonderful boat and bus transportation at UOR to be MUCH more convenient than those crowded buses at Disney - I would have suggested just the opposite.
 

jensenrick

Well-Known Member
Universal could make a rule that anyone over the age of 7 is forbidden from wearing a costume into the parks, except for Halloween.

That would take care of the 'creepy' aspect of the Bronies.

What Bronies? I've never seen a "creepy" Bronie at UOR, (although I've seen some creepy Disney folk) so I hardly think this is an "issue" that needs addressing.
Although, I admit, I did notice that one of the kiosks at CityWalk was selling an "I'm a Brony" t-shirt, and it gave me a good laugh.
 

Mike S

Well-Known Member
What Bronies? I've never seen a "creepy" Bronie at UOR, (although I've seen some creepy Disney folk) so I hardly think this is an "issue" that needs addressing.
Although, I admit, I did notice that one of the kiosks at CityWalk was selling an "I'm a Brony" t-shirt, and it gave me a good laugh.
He was talking about if Uni made attractions based on My Little Pony. Not that Uni has Bronies now.
 

jensenrick

Well-Known Member
He was talking about if Uni made attractions based on My Little Pony. Not that Uni has Bronies now.

Well I still contend, even with a MLP attraction, any visiting Bronies would be no "creepier" than grown men who stand in line to take pictures with Tinkerbell.
 

Californian Elitist

Well-Known Member
Personally I could care less if an attraction is based on a movie.

A good attraction is a good attraction whether it's based on anything you have seen. I like splash mountain and hardly anyone has seen the film it is based on. The Hulk roller coaster could be anything you wanted to call it, doesn't matter. The potter stuff is dependent on the movies but you could have made some sort of wizarding world if Harry didn't exist. That wouldn't have brought in the people like Potter but it could have been a a collections of nice attractions.

Kind of silly arguing over which studio has done what in the past.

Why do you think it's silly?
 

TubaGeek

God bless the "Ignore" button.
Well I still contend, even with a MLP attraction, any visiting Bronies would be no "creepier" than grown men who stand in line to take pictures with Tinkerbell.
So are you saying that people are too harsh on Bronies or that people aren't harsh enough on men meeting Tinkerbell?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom