What is it the Universal does BETTER than Disney?

[Buried20KLeague]

WDW is an aesthetically and naturally beautiful place, which Universal is not.This is why I derive pleasure from simply being there. Also, I'm sorry, but I think the idea that Disney sit on their laurels because they think they have a captive audience is just plain wrong.

I've visited WDW every year since '92 (just about the time US opened, I believe, or was it '93?) and have seen major development and renovation on virtually every trip.
Perhaps we take for granted what's been done-new parks, new water parks, new hotels, new stores, Cirque Du Soleil, Disney Quest, the Vacation Club-the list goes on and on and that's before we even begin to think about the replacement of rides and attractions and the upgrading of the old.It's constantly being refurbished for our future enjoyment.

As for culinary options, in '92 it was basically burgers, pizza and pasta-now WDW has some of the finest restaurants in Florida.

In the same time frame Universal has built one new park, a few hotels, City Walk and a parking garage. I don't mean to be as 'down' on Universal as I may sound-I used to enjoy it when it first opened and I did have a bad time there about three years ago and haven't been back since- but the two just don't compare in my book.

WOW, are we seeing two different resorts when we're at WDW.

I agree that WDW was doing very well till the past, say, 8 or 9 years. At that point:

1. Maintenance fell below Disney's usual standards (AA's broke, visable damage all over the place that used to be addressed right away, things that used to cause ride shutdowns allowed, and of course the famous "lightbulb crew" disbanded, just to name a few).

2. Attractions have been shuttered with no replacement. Restaurants shuttered with no replacement. Shows shuttered with no replacement. Sure, they've opened some new things along the way. But they've also let what they have decay. This was never the case before.

3. I agree that food options were GREAT in the mid and late 90's. But NOW??? All menus are virtually the same, with a few sauce changes and sides changed. Dining at Disney used to be great fun. Now... Not so much. And to say it's got some of the best restaurants in Fla... Hoo boy. Unless you're eating at Victoria and Albert's on each trip, that's a stretch.

My beef with WDW is just the past 8 or 9 years. And maybe that's changing, I don't know. We've seen a few more refurbs and rumors of expansion. But I don't see how an objective onlooker couldn't criticize some of the things above.

Uni has its problems too, to be sure. But man... It's got a LOT to offer, too.

 

[Skip]

WOW, are we seeing two different resorts when we're at WDW.

I agree that WDW was doing very well till the past, say, 8 or 9 years. At that point:

1. Maintenance fell below Disney's usual standards (AA's broke, visable damage all over the place that used to be addressed right away, things that used to cause ride shutdowns allowed, and of course the famous "lightbulb crew" disbanded, just to name a few).

2. Attractions have been shuttered with no replacement. Restaurants shuttered with no replacement. Shows shuttered with no replacement. Sure, they've opened some new things along the way. But they've also let what they have decay. This was never the case before.

3. I agree that food options were GREAT in the mid and late 90's. But NOW??? All menus are virtually the same, with a few sauce changes and sides changed. Dining at Disney used to be great fun. Now... Not so much. And to say it's got some of the best restaurants in Fla... Hoo boy. Unless you're eating at Victoria and Albert's on each trip, that's a stretch.

My beef with WDW is just the past 8 or 9 years. And maybe that's changing, I don't know. We've seen a few more refurbs and rumors of expansion. But I don't see how an objective onlooker couldn't criticize some of the things above.

Uni has its problems too, to be sure. But man... It's got a LOT to offer, too.

Thank you for writing this very good post. This fall in Disney's standards is what caused me to not renew my Annual Pass a year ago - and I refuse to return to their parks until I feel that the parks have improved enough to their old standards.

And before you all go accuse me of Universal-dust-snorting or whatever, I'll have you know that I was born and raised a Disney fanboy - my mother obsessed over The World and planned semi-annual vacations... back then Disney World was my haven, a place I always looked forward to visiting and cherished whenever I was within its territory. But then back in 2004, we were planning our trip and - upon seeing a commercial - decided maybe we should make a change and try Universal, which I'd only just heard of. We went and had a blast. We returned the following year and the year after that - and then my family moved to Florida in 2007. We got annual passes to Disney World as well as Universal... and upon making a trip to Disney, boy was I dissappointed. My childhood haven now seemed far more empty and desolate, the whole place seeming like it was falling apart... The Haunted Mansion was an abomination, Everest was a disappointment, the Country Bears were falling apart, and Space Mountain shocked our entire family and how much less fun it seemed. And yet, Universal seemed to do a decent job of maintaining its parks. Thus, when the time came to decide whether or not to renew our passes, we chose to renew Universal but forgo Disney. It was sad, but I'm speaking with my wallet - I'd love for Disney to improve, but until it does, I view Universal Orlando as the better resort and more worthy and deserving of my vacation dollars.

 

[ChrisFL]

WOW, are we seeing two different resorts when we're at WDW.

I agree that WDW was doing very well till the past, say, 8 or 9 years. At that point:

1. Maintenance fell below Disney's usual standards (AA's broke, visable damage all over the place that used to be addressed right away, things that used to cause ride shutdowns allowed, and of course the famous "lightbulb crew" disbanded, just to name a few).

2. Attractions have been shuttered with no replacement. Restaurants shuttered with no replacement. Shows shuttered with no replacement. Sure, they've opened some new things along the way. But they've also let what they have decay. This was never the case before.

3. I agree that food options were GREAT in the mid and late 90's. But NOW??? All menus are virtually the same, with a few sauce changes and sides changed. Dining at Disney used to be great fun. Now... Not so much. And to say it's got some of the best restaurants in Fla... Hoo boy. Unless you're eating at Victoria and Albert's on each trip, that's a stretch.

My beef with WDW is just the past 8 or 9 years. And maybe that's changing, I don't know. We've seen a few more refurbs and rumors of expansion. But I don't see how an objective onlooker couldn't criticize some of the things above.

Uni has its problems too, to be sure. But man... It's got a LOT to offer, too.

Let's not forget all of the attractions they actually DOWNgraded vs. upgraded over the years.

Theming...that High School Musical stage right in the middle of Tomorrowland for a year seemed to really fit to me

Food at Disney, sure, if you want to eat at a nice restaurant you can, if you book 6 months in advance....sorry, that's just insane.

Disney Dining Plan is killing anything unique or good in most of the restaurants....all part of the "Wal-Mart"-ization of WDW.

 

[marihalfen]

The funny thing here is that we can see people with pictures of them on Disney parks on their profiles, discussing at a disney forum wich park they preferred and defending that Universal is better... It's just makes me laught a little bit!
I think that, being a Disney fan, I could never prefer Universal. Uni is a great park, don't get me wrong, but it's just not immersive, not magical.
Of course it's worth a visit, specially with them making new aditions now.
To me, personally, the only thing that's really relevant so far is the new Potterland on the way, and that's because I am a Potter fan and I would get crazy for it anyways.
Rollercoasters can be found everywhere, and as far as thrills goes, Busch Gardens is also a nice, fun park to go to.

 

[ChrisFL]

The funny thing here is that we can see people with pictures of them on Disney parks on their profiles, discussing at a disney forum wich park they preferred and defending that Universal is better... It's just makes me laught a little bit!

Erm, you did read the title of this thread didn't you?

Clearly there are a lot of things that Universal does better, and that Disney does better...but some people just choose to ignore that fact, no matter how bad some things get at Disney.

Disney has been higher in ways, and much lower in ways than Universal has. Sadly, the "much lower" has been very recent.

 

[MagliteL13]

Alright, I can't resist.

As someone who doesn't have the nostalgia of Disney (and wasn't raised on it-- my first time in the MK was 5 years ago). Universal was the same way. I also have a "good friend" who has worked at both companies for sometime.

CM/TM's-- I think that the CM's are more trained in controlled enviroments (if everything runs according to plan, it's all good, but when something happens that's when TM's excell). I can think of numerous examples, but none I can actually post. Overall there's bad apples at both.

Theming-- I'm giving it a tie. I will say that Disney is a better storyteller but only because their stories have less details that matter. UO is still a good storyteller, but sometimes the stories get sooooo long and elaborate (Mummy)

Attractions--
Jaws> Jungle
After a long conversation with a very respected CM, Jaws offers a good guest experience 100% of the time. Jungle Cruise relys so much on the skipper that it's like playing roulette boarding a boat. (And I'm a former Jungle Skipper)

Splash Mountain> Ripsaw Falls
I've ridden both attractions less than ten times and can tell the story of Splash Mountain, but not Ripsaw.

ET> Peter Pan
ET's ride system is impressive, technically. Peter Pan is a bit outdated and is a capacity nightmare.

Disaster> Backlot Tour
Disaster is a full experience. After I ride Backlot Tour, I feel like I want my time back.

Philhar> Shrek
What can I say, bouncy seats don't do it! That and there are 3 themes in Shrek (Production, Duloc, Torture Chamber)-- Great example of the story not being told! i.e. Why are you in a torture chamber to begin with?

ToT> Doom
I'm a bit biased, but even that aside why do we bother comparing these two? This is the one attraction where their story starts to get complicated with the 5th dimension, a problem fixed in the other towers.

MIB> TSMM/BL
Again, biased, but everytime I walk the track after hours at MIB I always spot at least one new detail.

Upkeep--
Attraction upkeep at Universal is far superior. Case in point, how many hippos do you think the Jungle Cruise is supposed to have? Just ask about the "Attacking Hippos" in terms of animation. The difference is attraction elements at Universal seem to break more often, but are fixed equally as well and often; Disney, they break less often and are fixed just as less often. Universal will take an attraction down for show quality. I've seen Disney do this once (yay for a hitchhiking ghost's head falling off...)

Sidenote--
I fully believe that Disney has attractions that have a flow to them. When you get off of RnR, you know which way to go. Hulk, on the other hand... Disney also designs attractions so they keep you in the park as long as possible (spending as much money as possible). I don't really know how to explain it (without talking numbers and such).

I'm gonna stop for now. Let the criticism commence.

 

[Skip]

^Everything this guy said is accurate, at least in my opinion. Awesome post and thanks for the insight given your past occupations.

 

[Thrill Seeker]

The biggest thing that Universal does that Disney doesn't is cater to the older audiences. Disney is great, but especially at MK, there really isn't much that appeals to older audiences, except for the nostalgic value of many attractions. I'm a Disney nerd, so I can go all the time and never get bored, but many teenagers and young adults find Disney boring because they don't really cater to older audiences. Universal does a very good job of that, as well as excellent theming and revolutionary thrill rides. Disney really hasn't built anything revolutionary since Tower of Terror 15 years ago. Everest is cool, but the technology has been here for a while. Same with TSMM, it's a great ride, but the tech has always been there. Universal has built a very successful and useful new ride system (Cat in the Hat/MIB), one of the best thrill rides in the country (Mummy), one of the most advanced rides in existence (Spider-Man) and is currently building a ride that will blow all of them away (Harry Potter dark ride). I love Disney, but Universal knows how to cater to older audiences better. I just wish Disney could come up with something to counter Islands of Adventure...

 

[captainkidd]

The biggest thing that Universal does that Disney doesn't is cater to the older audiences. Disney is great, but especially at MK, there really isn't much that appeals to older audiences, except for the nostalgic value of many attractions. I'm a Disney nerd, so I can go all the time and never get bored, but many teenagers and young adults find Disney boring because they don't really cater to older audiences. Universal does a very good job of that, as well as excellent theming and revolutionary thrill rides. Disney really hasn't built anything revolutionary since Tower of Terror 15 years ago. Everest is cool, but the technology has been here for a while. Same with TSMM, it's a great ride, but the tech has always been there. Universal has built a very successful and useful new ride system (Cat in the Hat/MIB), one of the best thrill rides in the country (Mummy), one of the most advanced rides in existence (Spider-Man) and is currently building a ride that will blow all of them away (Harry Potter dark ride). I love Disney, but Universal knows how to cater to older audiences better. I just wish Disney could come up with something to counter Islands of Adventure...

I agree with what you're saying, but I don't think Disney should try and compete with IOA. Why should they? Of the 6 Disney and Universal theme parks in Orlando, Magic Kingdom is #1 in terms of attendance, whereas IOA is #6. If I'm Disney, I just keep doing what I am doing.

 

[jonnyc]

I agree with what you're saying, but I don't think Disney should try and compete with IOA. Why should they? Of the 6 Disney and Universal theme parks in Orlando, Magic Kingdom is #1 in terms of attendance, whereas IOA is #6. If I'm Disney, I just keep doing what I am doing.

True but it would be nice for some additions for the older auidences. I miss AE...

 

[Skip]

If I'm Disney, I just keep doing what I am doing.

Read: Do nothing except build a character meet'n'greet. :brick:

 

[SirGoofy]

Jaws better than Jungle? No way. Jaws is corny in a BAD way.

 

[agent86]

If I'm Disney, I just keep doing what I am doing.

Well there's a phrase that's sure to have Walt spinning in his grave! Walt hated to do the same thing again and again, and he was right because doing something different every time was exactly one of the things that made Disney so special.

 

[captainkidd]

Well there's a phrase that's sure to have Walt spinning in his grave! Walt hated to do the same thing again and again, and he was right because doing something different every time was exactly one of the things that made Disney so special.

Walt was just as concerned about profits. Don't be fooled. As long as Disney's attendance keeps beating Universal, they won't do anything drastic.

 

[Pete C]

I prefer Jaws to Jungle as well.

Let's also not forget that Uni is opening a very technologically advanced coaster as we speak in HRRR. Video cameras on every seat to record your experience, selectable music from dozens of songs which can be changed in the future, flashy lighting on the cars, and a moving loading platform not yet seen on rollercoasters. This seemingly normal looking, unthemed coaster has a lot going on in the guts of it. Universal is always doing that, pushing ride technology. Disney is not. They don't necessarily need to to keep doing what they do best, but its just something that Uni has over Disney and probably always will.

Disney should stick to over the top theming, environments, and storylines.

 

[Fade_to_Blah]

Jaws better than Jungle? No way. Jaws is corny in a BAD way.

I like Jaws quite a bit more than the jungle cruise. For some reason the Jungle Cruise never really interested me

 

[Fade_to_Blah]

Walt was just as concerned about profits. Don't be fooled. As long as Disney's attendance keeps beating Universal, they won't do anything drastic.

Disney is not just competing with universal, they are also competing with themselves. They are a public company. Shareholders are not concerned with Disney beating universal. They want to see disney increase revenue every single year. So really sitting around doing nothing is not a good thing.

 

[agent86]

Walt was just as concerned about profits. Don't be fooled. As long as Disney's attendance keeps beating Universal, they won't do anything drastic.

"Profits" and "beating the competition" are two mutually exclusive things.

Disney is not just competing with universal, they are also competing with themselves. They are a public company. Shareholders are not concerned with Disney beating universal. They want to see disney increase revenue every single year. So really sitting around doing nothing is not a good thing.

Precisely!

 

[Montyboy]

"Profits" and "beating the competition" are two mutually exclusive things.

Could you elaborate on that?

 

[agent86]

Could you elaborate on that?

A company can be profitable, but still not beat the competition.

Example: Burger King is profitable, but it does not outdo McDonald's, which is it's competition. This doesn't impact the fact that Burger King is still profitable.

A company can do better than it's competition, but not necessarily be profitable.

Example: Station Casinos in Las Vegas outperforms and brings in more money than MGM/Mirage and therefore beats it's competition. However, Station Casinos has had much more expenditures in the past three years due to opening two brand new, upscale properties and acquiring several others. Consequently, they have not been profitable in the past few years. This doesn't impact the fact that they still have beaten their competition.