Discussion in 'Universal Orlando' started by Mike C, May 28, 2015.
Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Your insightful commentary provided an interesting perspective to consider.
So... I make an argument and people ask for sourcing. I provide such documentation and that's your response. Noted.
@rushtest4echo post the pictures from the other thread showing other parks with themed support structures that aren't a mountain.
It would be nice if the Universal fanboy response to criticism wasn't to suggest that caring strongly about theming, immersion and detail means you're a Disney pixie-duster and real theme park fans only care about how thrilling the attractions are.
Eh, I'm not really going to take a side "against" Universal. There are just as many Disney people who look at a ride like Rock'n Rollercoaster and conclude that it's a superior experience to the Mummy because the Mummy doesn't go upside down. I had a hardcore Disney/Coaster nerd friend who said Primeval Whirl was the best ride in Animal Kingdom because everything else wasn't out of control like a proper thrill ride should feel. And there are plenty of Disney people who like to think that Toy Story Mania is an acceptable attraction theming wise (it's not). It's kind of why I concluded that people who feel this park is either the greatest water park, or the most innovative one in the world are one of the following:
Haven't taken a look around the industry
Looking for anything to substantiate their notion that Disney is now 'behind Universal'
And if they're merely comparing stuff in Orlando- yes VB sets the standard for many aspects here in Orlando.
But you're correct that I've seen lots of people touting the slide collection as superior to Disney (which it is). But Cedar Point has a better coaster collection than Universal and that means very little to most people who largely find Universal to be a superior destination to Cedar Point.
The correlation is that you're purposely being dishonest and veering the discussion away from what's relevant. I don't know about some Middle Eastern water park because, like nearly everyone else who might visit Volcano Bay, I simply don't care. It's completely irrelevant to me. You've said we should compare VB's offerings to the parks at WDW, but based on your previous post, that seems to be exactly what you don't want to do. Instead you're comparing it to everything else under the sun, seemingly in a badly camouflaged attempt to make WDW look good by convincing us that Volcano Bay isn't innovative enough. And I quote,
(emphasis is mine)
You took a swipe at Universal's position within the market and then compared it to everything BUT its actual competitors. That makes perfect sense. You can flip-flop and say it's "ahead" of the WDW parks, whatever that means, but you're still not making any relevant comparisons.
And it's nice to see people are once again latching onto marketing hyperbole and making a big deal out of it, despite everyone here already having a good idea of what the product is and what it isn't. It's a good thing you weren't here for the "park within a park" nonsense. We already had enough people repeating themselves ad-nauseam.
It would also be nice if the Disney fanboy response weren't to ask for comparison pictures of parks that aren't even owned by Disney.
A lot of the problem here is tone. His post outlining the use of tech in foreign parks is fascinating and he's not a troll but he certainly could dial back the arrogance.
In any case, he acknowledges that most of this tech is unique in relation to American parks and that it hasn't been linked together in a single spot. In addition, he brings up only two examples of bands that interact with the surroundings, and the Great Wolf one doesn't really fit very well. Because of this, it still seems that calling VB "innovative" is well within the accepted parameters of exaggeration that defines PR/ fan speak. If Disney bought a trackless E-ticket in the style of Mystic Manor or Pooh's Hunny Hunt to an American park, I wouldn't be upset at ads calling it innovative, even given the existence of those rides and smaller examples like Sea World's Penguin thingy.
I asked for them because Universal is marketing this as a game changer, immersive, etc. They aren't suggesting its merely better than Disney's water parks, but better and more immersive than all water parks. So its nice to point out that is a dishonest marketing claim when equally impressive or more immersive water parks already exist.
Unlike local parks, people from all over the globe travel to Orlando to experience Disney and Universal, so I think its warranted to compare Volcano Bay to more than Disney's offerings.
So you feel Uni should advertise it as "a decent water park?" Have you ever seen an advertisement before?
Shall we go through all of Disney's advertising for the last decade with the same nitpicking attitude and see how they hold up? For instance, let's all run up to a Disney Princess in front of the castle and frolic with her without a mob of toddlers and handlers. I have a sneaking suspicion you might be a little less strict regarding Mouse House PR.
Seriously, Disney is actually adding meaningful attractions for the first time in a decade and SWL looks awesome. You don't have to lash out at Uni. Enjoy the competition.
LOL!! Okay, point taken.
All of you seem to forget, all water parks work on gravity and water.
There is only so much you can do ride wise. Only so much you can do theme wise as well because you are going to end up with plastic slides of different configurations for the most part.
A water park is really just a water park, it's the thrills that make them different. You theme people will most likely be disappointed with Universal's new water park.
Water parks can only do so much until it gets just stupid. I could take places I have been in the world and build a water park but it would be to dangerous for the theme park crowd. You got the stones to dive off a 30-40 ft cliff? Can you use a Trazan rope to swing out a 100 feet to jump of into water 20-30 feet below you? Been there done that but that's not the typical theme park customer.
This is what you and that other poster don't get. In order to be a game changer in the eyes of its clientele, that's all Volcano Bay needs to be.
The average visitor to Orlando's parks doesn't have any particularly impressive water parks near their home. They simply aren't that common. Most water parks are still on par with what a Six Flags or Cedair Fair can offer and nothing more.
Completely agreed. I don't believe myself or Tom or a few of the other have ever claimed any different. It is a game changer for most people visiting. But it's not a completely unique concept that is so different from all water parks before it that it deserves to be in a separate category. I'm not sure any other arguments have really been made over the last 10-20 pages dating back to the other thread as well. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. One side feels that Universal's marketing dept and the general, uninformed public may consider this park on a totally different plane from all other water parks. The other side sees that as either marketing hyperbole or a lack of information. It's equivalent to people saying that Rip Ride Rocket is an entirely different ride not even worthy of being called a roller coaster. Instead it's a multi-sensory coasting experience that is far more revolutionary than your standard coaster fare. Plenty of people would believe that too, but people who have done X-coasters, vertical lifts, onboard selectable audio would probably consider it not that revolutionary.
Absolutely agree. It'll be a top water park in the country for sure. But as Corey made the point: in the end a water park is just a water park. Volcano Bay is going to be an excellent water park. Is it going to be a water "theme" park? Sure, that's fine, but it's not the only one.
It is Universal who is calling it a water theme park. That was not made up by others to make Universal look bad. It is how Universal has chosen to describe their work.
And Animal Kingdom is "Nahtazu" - PR guys come up with slogans that might not correlate directly to reality. It's a themed water park, just like Typhoon Lagoon and Blizzard Beach.
Sometimes I wish Universal fandom had higher expectations than merely being better than Disney. It doesn't even need to be good anymore, just better than Disney.
The constant comparisons need to be put to rest. Criticisms don't need to revert back into this perceived us vs them war. It's starting to turn into the 14 year olds bickering about their preferred video game platform.
Here's the closes one to me.
Here's the next closes.
So there is the local comps in the south by me. I would say if you live up north I doubt you have any local comps.
For just about everyone the Orlando water parks are the best they will ever see. I know everyone wants to see the best but there is only so much you can do with a water park. Within reason. It does have to make a profit. We will see how well done Universals new park is when it opens. I bet it is better then WnW and I liked that place.
You must have a pretty low opinion of Disney. Regardless, I'm not traveling halfway across the world to visit a water park, so yes, I'm only concerned with whether or not a new Orlando offering can top the older ones. The countless tourists who only experience these sorts of things while in Orlando will likely feel the same way. That was pretty much the entire point of my post(s).
I can't speak for others, but my posts are never "us vs them." I don't receive a paycheck from either company, they both take from it. You can't really expect people to not compare two direct competitors in any medium though. It beats comparing a video game platform to a calculator. Speaking of which, most of those prepubescents with brand loyalty issues argue over the Internet because mommy could only afford one console. The only people who shouldn't be allowed to make any comparisons are those who lack the necessary experience with each product. Regrettably, we've certainly had our share of those here.
This was the origin of this conversation...
I think there is general agreement though that the park in some ways certainly looks better than the other local competition. But in no way is it a classification of its own. This whole marketing shenanigans will provide years of fun debate, I'm sure.
That's not why people are currently comparing VB to other parks. I posted that weeks ago. I still stand by that statement though. A number of people on this forum (and others) apply different standards and formulate their verdict on a new park/attraction/etc based merely on where it's located.
Separate names with a comma.