• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Unpopular WDW Opinions

ScorpionX

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
We're all bound to have some unpopular opinions regarding the Walt Disney World Resort.

To start, here's a few of mine...
  • there's too much Star Wars at Hollywood Studios
  • Disney should have built all-encompassing Pixar Land and Lucasfilm Land instead of Toy Story Land and Galaxy's Edge, respectively
  • Downtown Disney is a more exciting name than Disney Springs
  • Pop Century Legendary Years would've been better than Art of Animation
  • paper FPs were a better system than FP+
  • Hollywood Studios should've stayed a working film studio
  • Disney should have built Beastly Kingdom instead of Pandora
  • putting Frozen and Guardians of the Galaxy in Epcot are terrible ideas
  • I liked the Millionaire show at Hollywood Studios
  • the Pixar Short Film Festival is a lame excuse for a Captain EO replacement. Disney should've just brought back HISTA instead.
 

CaptainAmerica

Well-Known Member
We're all bound to have some unpopular opinions regarding the Walt Disney World Resort.

To start, here's a few of mine...
  • there's too much Star Wars at Hollywood Studios
  • Disney should have built all-encompassing Pixar Land and Lucasfilm Land instead of Toy Story Land and Galaxy's Edge, respectively
  • Downtown Disney is a more exciting name than Disney Springs
  • Pop Century Legendary Years would've been better than Art of Animation
  • paper FPs were a better system than FP+
  • Hollywood Studios should've stayed a working film studio
  • Disney should have built Beastly Kingdom instead of Pandora
  • putting Frozen and Guardians of the Galaxy in Epcot are terrible ideas
  • I liked the Millionaire show at Hollywood Studios
  • the Pixar Short Film Festival is a lame excuse for a Captain EO replacement. Disney should've just brought back HISTA instead.
None of those are unpopular opinions. I'd say you'd probably get 70% to 80% agreement on every single one of them.

Actual unpopular opinions would be:
  • Maelstrom kind of sucked and Frozen is a major upgrade.
  • Disney should significantly raise prices to combat overcrowding.
  • There's nothing wrong with charging for parking.
  • Unless you're a registered guest or have a dining reservation, you shouldn't be allowed to visit resorts.
  • The Magic Kingdom is more pleasant in the evenings without a nighttime parade.
 
Last edited:

CaptainAmerica

Well-Known Member
Strollers should be limited to single-seat umbrella-style.
Do you really believe that part, or are you just being controversial for the sake of the thread?

With few (very expensive) exceptions, umbrella strollers are extremely unsafe for infants. In fact, I'd go the opposite direction. If you have a baby, bring a stroller that's appropriate for a baby. If you have a bigger kid, you're not allowed to use a stroller at all no matter the type.
 

larryz

Well-Worn Member
Premium Member
Do you really believe that part, or are you just being controversial for the sake of the thread?

With few (very expensive) exceptions, umbrella strollers are extremely unsafe for infants. In fact, I'd go the opposite direction. If you have a baby, bring a stroller that's appropriate for a baby. If you have a bigger kid, you're not allowed to use a stroller at all no matter the type.
Perhaps infants shouldn't be going to WDW... with crowds, germs, heat, tropical critters and the like, it's hardly a hospitable environment for them.

And as for the older kid restrictions... if they can keep kids under 40" off rides, maybe they can keep kids OVER 40" out of strollers.
 
Last edited:

CaptainAmerica

Well-Known Member
Perhaps infants shouldn't be going to WDW... with crowds, germs, heat, tropical critters and the like, it's hardly a hospitable environment for them.
You seem to be talking about a newborn, not an infant. Newborn? Totally agree. But most kids are sufficiently vaccinated to fly and travel by a few months old.

And as for the older kid restrictions... if they can keep kids under 40" off rides, maybe they can keep kids OVER 40" out of strollers.


I have a three year old who's right around 40 inches and she'll be out of her stroller for our trip in June. She can ride on her dad's "cholders" (as she calls them) when she gets tired. Actually, the six month old will be in a baby carrier so I'll be there with two kids under four and no stroller.
 

jloucks

Well-Known Member
Oh, this should be fun....

  • Scooters should be banned
  • All forms of admission should be doubled in price (and then tripled if crowds don't diminish)
  • Buses should be upgraded to coaches and a fee could charged to keep lines down
  • If you have kids, you are not allowed to come to the park without (unless they insist)
  • Adults at MK without kids is weird (there are very rare exceptions)
  • Dole Whips are meh
  • Children should not be allowed to board parents shoulders right before a parade starts
  • Pirates of the Caribbean ride should change with the times to be less offensive to people
  • Soarin is meh
  • Universal is just as good as WDW, overall.
  • I have no problem with strollers
 

DarthVader

Sith Lord
Perhaps infants shouldn't be going to WDW
I have to disagree with you on this. I know a number of families that took their infants, it wasn't for the baby's benefit but for the family's. Many parents have more then one child and why deprive a family of their visit because they have a baby.

And as for the older kid restrictions... if they can keep kids under 40" off rides, maybe they can keep kids OVER 40" out of strollers.
Being a parent, I totally get why they do this, and again I don't knock it. You're asking a lot of young kids, and sometimes having them in a stroller for the parks is a win-win decision, even for people around them. I'd much rather see an older kid in a stroller then having to deal with him melting down near me.

I do understand the frustration, of seeing a sea of strollers at MK, it does seem much, but that's the price of success. Disney is marketing itself as a family vacation, and families have little ones some of which need strollers

As for the ECVs, I think those a little out of control, but again that goes along with, should we deprive someone having issues with walking to not attend?
 

CaptainAmerica

Well-Known Member
I'd much rather see an older kid in a stroller then having to deal with him melting down near me.
That's a parenting issue. If your kid is melting down, they're either 1) spoiled, 2) poorly disciplined, or 3) poorly rested. Families run their kids ragged trying to squeeze every last bit of "fun" out of their vacation dollars, completely ignoring the fact that nobody is having fun and everyone is on edge because they're dehydrated and not sleeping nearly enough. I'm convinced that 90% of Disney meltdowns from parents and children alike would be solved if everyone would just go to bed at 9:00.
 

jloucks

Well-Known Member
"Overall" is the only way in which Universal isn't as good as WDW. Rides? As good. Resorts? As good. Shopping? As good. Dining? As good. "Overall," not as good.
It does depend on your rating system. For us...

--Universal Studios--
  • Teen Appeal - Superior - My teens now prefer Uni over WDW
  • Adult Appeal - Better - Not counting nostalgia factor
  • Immersion - Better - Harry Potter setup is just out of this world amazing
  • Transportation - Far Superior - Can walk to both parks from hotel - this is a huge one for me
  • Lodging - slightly inferior - Because of a lack of luxury tier lodgings - not counting perfect walking distance proximity to the parks.
  • Rides - slightly better - not considering WDW superior kids rides (see point #1)
  • Nostalgia - inferior
  • Shopping - inferior
  • Park Variety - inferior - and this is a big one. Scale tipper. If WDW was only 2 parks, Uni would be a strong win.
  • Price - slightly better
  • Crowds - slightly better/lower
  • Dining - slightly inferior - only because of variety limitations - Uni has some amazing sit downs.
Now that you have me really thinking about it, sheesh, Uni might be a bit better, overall. ...to me anyway.
 

jloucks

Well-Known Member
That's a parenting issue. If your kid is melting down, they're either 1) spoiled, 2) poorly disciplined, or 3) poorly rested. Families run their kids ragged trying to squeeze every last bit of "fun" out of their vacation dollars, completely ignoring the fact that nobody is having fun and everyone is on edge because they're dehydrated and not sleeping nearly enough. I'm convinced that 90% of Disney meltdowns from parents and children alike would be solved if everyone would just go to bed at 9:00.
Id say it is almost entirely #3. 95%
 

CaptainAmerica

Well-Known Member
It does depend on your rating system. For us...

--Universal Studios--
  • Teen Appeal - Superior - My teens now prefer Uni over WDW
  • Adult Appeal - Better - Not counting nostalgia factor
  • Immersion - Better - Harry Potter setup is just out of this world amazing
  • Transportation - Far Superior - Can walk to both parks from hotel - this is a huge one for me
  • Lodging - slightly inferior - Because of a lack of luxury tier lodgings - not counting perfect walking distance proximity to the parks.
  • Rides - slightly better - not considering WDW superior kids rides (see point #1)
  • Nostalgia - inferior
  • Shopping - inferior
  • Park Variety - inferior - and this is a big one. Scale tipper. If WDW was only 2 parks, Uni would be a strong win.
  • Price - slightly better
  • Crowds - slightly better/lower
  • Dining - slightly inferior - only because of variety limitations - Uni has some amazing sit downs.
Now that you have me really thinking about it, sheesh, Uni might be a bit better, overall. ...to me anyway.
You give the immersion advantage to Universal based on one land? I agree that WWoHP is the best themed land in Orlando, but the rankings go something like this:

1. WWoHP
2. Literally everything at WDW besides Dinoland.
3. Everything non-Potter at Universal
4. Dinoland

Also, I think it's a bit silly to say that Universal's transportation situation is "superior" based on walk-ability. That's like saying my basement has better transportation than New York City because I can walk from one end to the other in five seconds.

The biggest thing that you excluded is scale. Four parks is better than two parks, even if the two parks are slightly better (not that I agree that they are). Twenty hotels is better than six hotels, even if the six hotels are slightly better (not that I agree that they are).
 

jloucks

Well-Known Member
Also, I think it's a bit silly to say that Universal's transportation situation is "superior" based on walk-ability. That's like saying my basement has better transportation than New York City because I can walk from one end to the other in five seconds.

The biggest thing that you excluded is scale. Four parks is better than two parks, even if the two parks are slightly better (not that I agree that they are). Twenty hotels is better than six hotels, even if the six hotels are slightly better (not that I agree that they are).
Walking is a form of transportation. Universal was smart and integrated both lodging and parks, making walking a viable form of transport. This is far from silly. It is excellent planning, cost saving, and customer satisfaction.

I mentioned scale in multiple areas (lodging, food, and gates). I hope I conveyed the advantage it provided.
 
Top Bottom