Wow...just wow...500 million a year for the foreseeable future...

[Californian Elitist]

Look, I am one of those people who loves Universal Studios and Disney. Obviously Disney is #1 here for me, but I'm not one to ever bash Universal. They do a great park. That being said, I didn't think Transformers (in Universal Hollywood) was better than Spiderman at all. The whole movement towards simulator rides means the character can be taken out of an attraction. Jaws had character. E.T. has character. Jurassic Park has character to it. So if they add these new rides I hope at the very least that they don't continue to cut into the heart of what once made the park special. Because what makes Disney special is that there are attractions that are 40 years old that your parents rode at the same age. Universal is missing out on that piece of nostalgia. But its good they maintain some competition for Disney. It reminds me of political parties and the other one always trying to make the other party honest and on their toes (lol, somewhat). But right now Universal has a long ways to go in order to be the #1 attraction in Orlando. I don't think it happens in our lifetime at all, if ever. Here are the attendance figures for 2012:

Magic Kingdom - 17.5 million
Disneyland - 15.9
Epcot - 11.0
Animal Kingdom - 9.9
DHS - 9.9
Islands of Adventure - 7.9
Universal Orlando - 6.1
Sea World 5.3

So in all fairness, Universal - either park in Orlando - isn't even close to the least attended WDW park let alone Magic Kingdom. MK triples the attendance of Universal Studios and has well more than double the attendance of Islands of Adventure. Sea World is comparable to Universal Studios right now. Sometimes instead of going big and pouring a ton of money into things you have to ensure that the experience is worth it. No one does this better than Disney when it comes to the experience of a park.

Universal is nostalgic for some people, including me.

Attendance numbers don't matter, in this situation. The fact is, Disney isn't building new rides and Universal is. Simple and factual. One is trying harder than the other.

 

[BaconPancakes]

Why do people always bring up attendance numbers to somehow prove that Disney is better than Universal? You tried it...

 

[culturenthrills]

Universal is nostalgic for some people, including me.

Attendance numbers don't matter, in this situation. The fact is, Disney isn't building new rides and Universal is. Simple and factual. One is trying harder than the other.

Per guest spending. That is where Universal is kicking WDW butt. That and bang for the buck. In this day and age people are really looking for the best deal and UNI has WDW beat by a mile.

 

[Walt Disney1955]

Universal is nostalgic for some people, including me.

Attendance numbers don't matter, in this situation. The fact is, Disney isn't building new rides and Universal is. Simple and factual. One is trying harder than the other.

Yes it is nostalgic but they are cutting into the heart of it by removing a lot of the classics. I don't think Simpsons is a better ride than Back to the Future for example. And Jaws? That is a 40 year old movie that is still popular. Why get rid of that? Build around it. This is what Disney usually does and does very well.

For some reason you sound upset people have a much better theme park experience at Universal than Disney. I know I do.

I love Universal, it is a wonderful experience and without Disney is the best park in the world in my opinion. However they have got to find a way to build around their classics. They made this mistake with Jaws and I hope they don't with E.T. either. When you combine both worlds that makes a better park in my opinion.

I brought up attendance figures because the original poster was worried that someday Universal was going to overtake WDW as the #1 attraction in Orlando. Those numbers show that this will never happen.

 

[Skip]

Yes it is nostalgic but they are cutting into the heart of it by removing a lot of the classics. I don't think Simpsons is a better ride than Back to the Future for example. And Jaws? That is a 40 year old movie that is still popular. Why get rid of that? Build around it. This is what Disney usually does and does very well.



I love Universal, it is a wonderful experience and without Disney is the best park in the world in my opinion. However they have got to find a way to build around their classics. They made this mistake with Jaws and I hope they don't with E.T. either. When you combine both worlds that makes a better park in my opinion.

I brought up attendance figures because the original poster was worried that someday Universal was going to overtake WDW as the #1 attraction in Orlando. Those numbers show that this will never happen.

Their line of thinking is that they want to make "new" classics. Comcast is trying to completely transform the parks, even remarking (reportedly) that we won't even recognize the parks in a few years.

JAWS got removed not due to its lack of popularity but due to its insane operational cost. I hate the reasoning, I hate the result, JAWS is one of my favorite films and the ride was a masterpiece of showmanship - but it and KONG got killed for financial reasons (both in operations and taking up a huge amount of space). Back to the Future is less excusable, but Universal has done well with transforming the previously modular Simpsons area into a fully-fledged Springfield. That's a place to create memories.

 

[Walt Disney1955]

Their line of thinking is that they want to make "new" classics. Comcast is trying to completely transform the parks, even remarking (reportedly) that we won't even recognize the parks in a few years.

JAWS got removed not due to its lack of popularity but due to its insane operational cost. I hate the reasoning, I hate the result, JAWS is one of my favorite films and the ride was a masterpiece of showmanship - but it and KONG got killed for financial reasons (both in operations and taking up a huge amount of space). Back to the Future is less excusable, but Universal has done well with transforming the previously modular Simpsons area into a fully-fledged Springfield. That's a place to create memories.

Right, but they can't keep doing this to every ride or there won't be any "classics" left. That is something that can tie family members together at Disney that Universal is unable or unwilling to do. Walt Disney rode a lot of rides at Disneyland that are still there. To me, that means something just like the rides I grew up loving that I can pass onto my son.

At what point will the Simpsons all of the sudden become less relevant? In my opinion, stuff like this is timeless regardless. And sure, don't stop making new things because that is what it is all about, but find a way to preserve your core at the same time.

 

[HTF]

Why do people always bring up attendance numbers to somehow prove that Disney is better than Universal? You tried it...

Because thats all they can talk about!! I mean what else can they talk about? A kiddie ride, maybe a M&G, a jog, or maybe even another restaurant at Epcot?? There running on empty so all they can do is bring this up over and over and over...

Universal will not pass Disney in total attendance numbers but some of its parks are in Universal's crosshairs and Comcast is preparing an all out military strike...

 

[danpam1024]

Because thats all they can talk about!! I mean what else can they talk about? A kiddie ride, maybe a M&G, a jog, or maybe even another restaurant at Epcot?? There running on empty so all they can do is bring this up over and over and over...

Universal will not pass Disney in total attendance numbers but some of its parks are in Universal's crosshairs and Comcast is preparing an all out military strike...

you forgot a new bathroom! LOL

 

[TubaGeek]

Right, but they can't keep doing this to every ride or there won't be any "classics" left.

I'd say the only true classic left is ET. I pray that they'll keep it around, preferably with a MAJOR refurb.

 

[CJR]

From what I've heard, ET isn't going anywhere anytime soon, despite rumors. Universal also has the horror make-up show that is an original attraction.

However, I do want to note that I believe it is more important to be relevant than it is to be classic. While we, as adults, tend to love museums, our kids don't. Classic attractions can be kept relevant, but things like Kong and Jaws were at a point where they were too expensive and brought in too little. The fact Universal is seeing record growth without them is enough evidence to prove the point.

Most original attractions at Disneyland are indeed gone (the park opened in 1955, to be fair). A lot of the rides we love today came well after that 1955 date. Remember, PotC wasn't part of Disneyland's original line up. Things have changed over the years to make Disneyland what it is today. Universal will eventually find its own PotC over time (It opened in 1990 vs Disneyland's 1955).

Now, MK has a lot of its original attractions still, but it had Disneyland's experience to mold it. IMO, Universal Orlando has influenced the original CA park more than the other way around (think about it, the CA park really didn't start picking up until after USF opened in 1990). IMO, USF's 1990 opening is the birth of what we know today as a full Universal theme park, before that point, it was just a movie studio with a few stage shows and tour. So, for comparison's sake, let's compare USF to the original Disney park, Disneyland.

I'm going to say Universal has lost original attractions at a faster rate than Disneyland, but Universal's park IMO also wasn't as good (as Disneyland was) when it opened. The attractions I have seen Universal put in over the last few years will be there for a good while (I mean, The Mummy is still one of USO's more popular rides despite being almost 10 years old). I have come to trust Universal in that if something does go, it'll be because it was time for it to. So far, every replacement they have made has been a huge plus, IMO.

 

[Skunk]

From what I've heard, ET isn't going anywhere anytime soon, despite rumors. Universal also has the horror make-up show that is an original attraction.

However, I do want to note that I believe it is more important to be relevant than it is to be classic. While we, as adults, tend to love museums, our kids don't. Classic attractions can be kept relevant, but things like Kong and Jaws were at a point where they were too expensive and brought in too little. The fact Universal is seeing record growth without them is enough evidence to prove the point.

Most original attractions at Disneyland are indeed gone (the park opened in 1955, to be fair). A lot of the rides we love today came well after that 1955 date. Remember, PotC wasn't part of Disneyland's original line up. Things have changed over the years to make Disneyland what it is today. Universal will eventually find its own PotC over time (It opened in 1990 vs Disneyland's 1955).

Now, MK has a lot of its original attractions still, but it had Disneyland's experience to mold it. IMO, Universal Orlando has influenced the original CA park more than the other way around (think about it, the CA park really didn't start picking up until after USF opened in 1990). IMO, USF's 1990 opening is the birth of what we know today as a full Universal theme park, before that point, it was just a movie studio with a few stage shows and tour. So, for comparison's sake, let's compare USF to the original Disney park, Disneyland.

I'm going to say Universal has lost original attractions at a faster rate than Disneyland, but Universal's park IMO also wasn't as good (as Disneyland was) when it opened. The attractions I have seen Universal put in over the last few years will be there for a good while (I mean, The Mummy is still one of USO's more popular rides despite being almost 10 years old). I have come to trust Universal in that if something does go, it'll be because it was time for it to. So far, every replacement they have made has been a huge plus, IMO.

Well said. To add, the risk is banking on a franchise that fails to stay relevant; as Universal has done before with Waterworld in CA, and Twister here. I'd be the first to volunteer ET for the axe, but fwiw, I still see it packing in the crowds on busy days. Don't know if that's always the case, though. The question then is, assuming operational costs aren't an issue, is it better to replace a "classic" that pulls modest attendance as a sure thing, for a hot franchise that might be lukewarm in a few years; especially given the expense of dropping the typically large amount of cash for an AAA attraction (whether it be an E-ticket or not).

I feel like with Star Wars and Avatar taken by the Mouse, and Universal rocking Potter and JP, that the list of quantifiably timeless existing licensable franchises is waning thin; and I will add that Avatar isn't necessarily a sure bet yet, though I think it is a lot more than the bulk of this forum. Short of Tolkien, I can't think of a lot of franchises that are guaranteed long term. That said, if an attraction is good enough, the franchise matters less; Disaster is still a good time, despite essentially being 25 years old, AND still tangentially tied to a film that is almost 40 years old and largely forgotten. T2:3D still gets ovations at the close of the show despite being old, having a dated preshow, and being based on a film that supposedly has had further canon sequels (though I've never seen any evidence of such sequels existing, I think people are just making it up lol). As long as parks focus on making attractions that are fun on their own, and are unique and entertaining experiences, the attraction may long outlast the franchise, it's just that y'know... Twister doesn't.

 

[StageFrenzy]

I didn't even know Disaster came from a movie???? Was it one of those movies back in 70's with a bunch of old actors like the boat movie where the boat gets hit by a wave and turns over?? I can't remember the name of that either.

You are on the right track, Disaster the ride isn't based on a movie. However the ride before: Earthquake was.

 

[tissandtully]

Well said. To add, the risk is banking on a franchise that fails to stay relevant; as Universal has done before with Waterworld in CA, and Twister here. I'd be the first to volunteer ET for the axe, but fwiw, I still see it packing in the crowds on busy days. Don't know if that's always the case, though. The question then is, assuming operational costs aren't an issue, is it better to replace a "classic" that pulls modest attendance as a sure thing, for a hot franchise that might be lukewarm in a few years; especially given the expense of dropping the typically large amount of cash for an AAA attraction (whether it be an E-ticket or not).

I feel like with Star Wars and Avatar taken by the Mouse, and Universal rocking Potter and JP, that the list of quantifiably timeless existing licensable franchises is waning thin; and I will add that Avatar isn't necessarily a sure bet yet, though I think it is a lot more than the bulk of this forum. Short of Tolkien, I can't think of a lot of franchises that are guaranteed long term. That said, if an attraction is good enough, the franchise matters less; Disaster is still a good time, despite essentially being 25 years old, AND still tangentially tied to a film that is almost 40 years old and largely forgotten. T2:3D still gets ovations at the close of the show despite being old, having a dated preshow, and being based on a film that supposedly has had further canon sequels (though I've never seen any evidence of such sequels existing, I think people are just making it up lol). As long as parks focus on making attractions that are fun on their own, and are unique and entertaining experiences, the attraction may long outlast the franchise, it's just that y'know... Twister doesn't.

Just take Shaq out of the T2 pre-show.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Disaster! is loosely based on the film director Irwin Allen. He was known as the "King of Disaster Films" like Poseidon Adventure and Towering Inferno.

 

[Skunk]

I didn't even know Disaster came from a movie???? Was it one of those movies back in 70's with a bunch of old actors like the boat movie where the boat gets hit by a wave and turns over?? I can't remember the name of that either.

As StageFrenzy mentioned, the ride was previously called Earthquake, and based on the 1974 film. As I mentioned, it was already quite an old property when the ride was new, though the sort of slow advance in special effects from 1974-1990 before CGI gained traction meant it stayed relatively fresh. In 2008 they changed it to the Disaster overlay, which still really retains the majority of the content from Earthquake; the Walken-preshow is totally different, while the show area after it was only tweaked a bit and made to keep the recorded footage for the faux-trailer at the end of the ride, the ride itself is basically unchanged. And like Disneyhead said, the Disaster overlay sort of humorously themes to a genre-studio loosely based on disaster film directors like Irwin Allen and Roland Emmerich.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Just take Shaq out of the T2 pre-show.

Why? T2 3D takes place in the 1990s.

 

[Matt7187]

Really, I don't know why everybody has to fight over which is better. Honestly, we should all be happy with new things being built somewhere, whether it be disney or universal. Personally, I always think that Disney will always be #1 for me since I have so many childhood memories there with friends and family, but for my kids eventually, I can easily see them liking Universal much better.



PS. Don't go full rage on me and saying biased, because I have never had the chance to go to Uiversal yet. But I honestly can not wait to see all the new things in October 2014 (especially Springfield and HHN), and really be able to compare for myself.

 

[Epcot-Rules]

Couldn't agree more- since we started taking DS (now 11) to Universal (about at age 7), all he wants to do is go back- he wants NOTHING to do with Disney. Disney is for little kids and mostly little girls. In addition, he now compares EVERY hotel we stay at to the HRH. Even Boardwalk loses out in his eyes (and he's right-especially when comparing the cost vs room size). DH and I see his point-we grew up Disney because there was nothing else. He had a choice and chose Universal

This sums up my 3 boys. They want Uni and Busch Gardens. Disney is boring.