The Current State and Future of Universal Studios Florida

[OhHaiInternet95]

*Stream of consciousness thoughts*

I too want the parks to stay feeling like different experiences, and I completely agree with 87 that since 2012 USF has gone way downhill in that regard.

If they absolutely have to cram more screen rides, best to do it in the park that already has that problem and keep Islands and soon to be Epic well balanced.

At very least, Villain Con is replacing what was a screen attraction to begin with.

 

[belloq87]

If they absolutely have to cram more screen rides

To pose a mostly rhetorical question that only Universal Creative themselves could answer, why do they "have to cram more screen rides" in anywhere, though? As evidenced by the well-received SLOP ride at Hollywood, other types of attraction concepts exist that can fit into small footprints!

 

[Disneyhead]

I belive the theme of the park is still "projection tech". They are just trying to get away from the 3D rides with the same tropes, ie: falling from high places and being caught.

 

[belloq87]

I belive the theme of the park is still "projection tech". They are just trying to get away from the 3D rides with the same tropes, ie: falling from high places and being caught.

You mean internally, that's how they look at the park? Bone-chilling, if true.

But then how do we account for the original plan to place Super Nintendo World in there, which would have done some heavy lifting to move the park back to a more balanced state?

 

[OhHaiInternet95]

To pose a mostly rhetorical question that only Universal Creative themselves could answer, why do they "have to cram more screen rides" in anywhere, though? As evidenced by the well-received SLOP ride at Hollywood, other types of attraction concepts exist that can fit into small footprints!

You mean internally, that's how they look at the park? Bone-chilling, if true.

But then how do we account for the original plan to place Super Nintendo World in there, which would have done some heavy lifting to move the park back to a more balanced state?

I don't like it either but if it's what the bean counters want, best to do the theme park equivalent of gerrymandering.

 

[Disneyhead]

You mean internally, that's how they look at the park? Bone-chilling, if true.

But then how do we account for the original plan to place Super Nintendo World in there, which would have done some heavy lifting to move the park back to a more balanced state?

Universal Studios, at it's heart, is a film/media company. The idea is for the "Universal Studios" parks to reflect that.

 

[belloq87]

Universal Studios, at it's heart, is a film/media company. The idea is for the "Universal Studios" parks to reflect that.

And yet, somehow, they were able to reflect that perfectly well with dark rides until recent history!

 

[Brian G.]

And yet, somehow, they were able to reflect that perfectly well with dark rides until recent history!

Well, no. You’re arguing different points. It still reflects the film/media studio - it just doesn’t feature your preferred medium of delivery of said franchises.

 

[Legacy]

And yet, somehow, they were able to reflect that perfectly well with dark rides until recent history!

We’re assuming that was a feature of the park’s original design and not a bug. A lot of the original park was, intentionally, expansions of the Hollywood tram tour. That tour was developed before projection technology (in the way used by theme parks) was ever a thing. Once Universal started creating new stuff for Orlando, it was predominantly screen-based or screen-heavy (BttF, Hanna Barbara, Murder She Wrote, Hitchcock, T2). MiB was an outlier because it was a shooting gallery, and screen-based shooting tech was still being developed. IoA wasn’t as screen heavy because it was an attempt to not be a “movie park.”

For me, it was never about the medium but about the story. The failure is in the repetition of gags. Every screen-based ride follows similar beats: some sort of chase, something thrown at you that stops close, falling from heights. That’s actually why they all feel “samey.” Which is why a Villain-Con walk-through and Potter VR attraction work fine. They will provide different experiences.

EDIT - For reference, here’s a good example of how “screen heavy” the early years of the Studios were. The bold led rides were screen-heavy. Ghostbusters is a weird category as it was Pepper’s Ghost-heavy; a projection effect that involves watch a screen of sorts.


Kong - From Hollywood Tram
Earthquake - From Hollywood Tram
Jaws - From Hollywood Tram
Hitchcock - Screen-heavy
Murder She Wrote - Screen-heavy
Hanna Barbara- Screen ride
T2:3D - Screen-heavy
BttF - Screen-ride
Ghostbusters - Projection/Pepper’s Ghost heavy
ET - Classic dark ride
Nickelodeon Tour - Screen-heavy (it was mostly watching TVs until you got to the Game Lab)
Production Tour - Nothing happened

 

[ThemeParks4Life]

Every screen-based ride follows similar beats: some sort of chase, something thrown at you that stops close, falling from heights. That’s actually why they all feel “samey.” Which is why a Villain-Con walk-through and Potter VR attraction work fine. They will provide different experiences.

This is exactly why Flight of Passage has been popular over at Disney. Sure, there's a brief chase, but compared to other theater simulators, it's committed to the idea of a scenic flight through Pandora. The 20-30 second break after the chase reinforces that concept too. I'd like to see the Potter VR ride emulate some model of that on a more action-packed level given the medium its using.

 

[Legacy]

This is exactly why Flight of Passage has been popular over at Disney. Sure, there's a brief chase, but compared to other theater simulators, it's committed to the idea of a scenic flight through Pandora. The 20-30 second break after the chase reinforces that concept too. I'd like to see the Potter VR ride emulate some model of that on a more action-packed level given the medium its using.

If the Potter VR is a “Battle of the Seven Potters” based attraction, I imagine it will be. Essentially, your goal will just be getting from Privot Drive to the Weasleys. While Deatheaters would be “chasing” guests, the guests would have “full” control in how they get there.

It would be unlike any theme park attraction, and can ONLY be achieved virtually.

 

[belloq87]

Well, no. You’re arguing different points. It still reflects the film/media studio - it just doesn’t feature your preferred medium of delivery of said franchises.

I was responding to a post that seemed to be implying that because USF is deemed by the company to be the "studio" park, it must therefore emphasize screens and projection by pointing out that it used to be able to achieve that same goal ("Ride the Movies") without having to rely so heavily on that technology.

But it's also not about a preferred medium so much as a frustration that a particular type of attraction has been pretty consistently ignored by the park since Men in Black opened. Now, obviously, if I didn't care about dark rides, that probably wouldn't bother me, granted.

And if others aren't particularly impressed with the traditional dark ride medium, I'm not going to be changing any minds about current USF, I imagine. Not that I'm trying to do that in the first place.

We’re assuming that was a feature of the park’s original design and not a bug. A lot of the original park was, intentionally, expansions of the Hollywood tram tour. That tour was developed before projection technology (in the way used by theme parks) was ever a thing. Once Universal started creating new stuff for Orlando, it was predominantly screen-based or screen-heavy (BttF, Hanna Barbara, Murder She Wrote, Hitchcock, T2). MiB was an outlier because it was a shooting gallery, and screen-based shooting tech was still being developed. IoA wasn’t as screen heavy because it was an attempt to not be a “movie park.”

For me, it was never about the medium but about the story. The failure is in the repetition of gags. Every screen-based ride follows similar beats: some sort of chase, something thrown at you that stops close, falling from heights. That’s actually why they all feel “samey.” Which is why a Villain-Con walk-through and Potter VR attraction work fine. They will provide different experiences.

EDIT - For reference, here’s a good example of how “screen heavy” the early years of the Studios were. The bold led rides were screen-heavy. Ghostbusters is a weird category as it was Pepper’s Ghost-heavy; a projection effect that involves watch a screen of sorts.


Kong - From Hollywood Tram
Earthquake - From Hollywood Tram
Jaws - From Hollywood Tram
Hitchcock - Screen-heavy
Murder She Wrote - Screen-heavy
Hanna Barbara- Screen ride
T2:3D - Screen-heavy
BttF - Screen-ride
Ghostbusters - Projection/Pepper’s Ghost heavy
ET - Classic dark ride
Nickelodeon Tour - Screen-heavy (it was mostly watching TVs until you got to the Game Lab)
Production Tour - Nothing happened

There was also the Wild West Stunt Show, Beetlejuice, Animal Actors, and Horror Makeup in that lineup, too. Hitchcock and Murder, She Wrote also had significant portions that were taking place "live" in front of the audience. When you factor that all in, I maintain the park was extremely well-balanced with a nice amount of stuff for everyone (except coaster fans).

 

[OrlandoGuy]

I suppose this discussion could have gone in a revived SCREENZ thread, but that thread’s been somewhat stigmatized, so I’ve made this one to approach a related subject from a different angle.

With the apparently certain arrival of two more screen-based/simulator attractions coming to USF (one a replacement for a 3D show, the other a replacement for a mostly-defunct stunt show), how do people feel about the direction of the park?

Keep in mind, these new attractions will be coming after a decade of USF adding virtually nothing but screen-heavy attractions or full-on simulators. In 2011, the park still had Jaws, Twister, and Disaster; in 2021, all of those have been replaced by simulators/simulator-hybrids, PLUS Transformers was added, too, which was essentially a true expansion. Plus the “one for one” simulator swap with Minion Mayhem.

Yes, we know COVID threw a wrench into the construction timeline for Epic Universe, thereby making Universal feel they need to “quickly” get something into USF to fill the additional year(s) before EU opens. But we can also surmise that, at very best, it would likely be 2026 or 2027 before Uni’s attention returns to USF again, and the park will be further in the hole then (in terms of having a diverse attraction line-up) than it is today. And even in that case, non-screen-heavy dark rides do not appear to be anywhere on the management’s priority list for the park (because if they were, surely the park would have received even just one new ride of that sort since... checks records... the year 2000).

So I’d like to have a good faith discussion about this. If you think the current course for the park is all good, I’d genuinely be interested in hearing why. Yes, really! If you (like me) think the park could use a forceful shift away from what it’s been doing over the last decade to re-balance the attraction variety scales, maybe we can try to ascertain why the company obviously sees it quite differently. And whether or not you think the company's moves with USF have been (and are) justifiable in a purely business sense, what would you personally like to see done in the park over the remainder of this decade if you had some say?

I love this park (or, perhaps more accurately, I have a huge amount of residual affection for what it used to be), and I just want to see it be the best that it can possibly be.

Let’s keep it friendly, and acknowledge that our personal tastes are all subjective.

I think the problem isn’t necessarily screens. I DO think there are too many simulators (and so do the majority of guests that take their surveys), but I don’t think it’s necessarily about screens. I think the problem is USF lacks rides that offer a more visceral or physical thrill. Even if USF wants to be the park themed to projection technology (not really a theme but let’s roll with it for now), they can do that while still offering a better lineup of attractions.

If you were to take the film for the Simpsons and put it on Fallon or Minions, nobody would notice outside a few out-of-sync movements. If you put the Transformers film on Gringotts, you’d still have a passable ride. The only thing that stands out as unique between all those simulator rides is the Gringotts drop and that’s what…12% of the whole experience?

The old classics weren’t necessarily better than what’s there now (strip them of their nostalgia value and BttF, Kong, Earthquake, etc. were kind of boring). What they did better wasn’t not have screens…they just offered something unique. Kong had the dropping element. Jaws had the novelty of being on the water. MIB came along and added spinning. Now, a lot of what’s there can be amounted to “get shaken around in a box.”

If they were to build rides that expanded on the drop/speed sections of Gringotts, for example, then screens/projection tech/etc. would be a non-issue. I don’t think making people stand up or strapping a helmet to your face does enough to change the dynamics of what’s already so saturated in the park.

 

[OrlLover]

I’ve never had issues with screen based attractions at USF. I always enjoy them every time I visit the park. However I understand the need for a dark ride to switch it up a little. In my opinion Uni Creative probably does have some ideas to re introduce that type of attraction into the line up.

 

[belloq87]

I think the problem isn’t necessarily screens. I DO think there are too many simulators (and so do the majority of guests that take their surveys), but I don’t think it’s necessarily about screens. I think the problem is USF lacks rides that offer a more visceral or physical thrill. Even if USF wants to be the park themed to projection technology (not really a theme but let’s roll with it for now), they can do that while still offering a better lineup of attractions.

If you were to take the film for the Simpsons and put it on Fallon or Minions, nobody would notice outside a few out-of-sync movements. If you put the Transformers film on Gringotts, you’d still have a passable ride. The only thing that stands out as unique between all those simulator rides is the Gringotts drop and that’s what…12% of the whole experience?

The old classics weren’t necessarily better than what’s there now (strip them of their nostalgia value and BttF, Kong, Earthquake, etc. were kind of boring). What they did better wasn’t not have screens…they just offered something unique. Kong had the dropping element. Jaws had the novelty of being on the water. MIB came along and added spinning. Now, a lot of what’s there can be amounted to “get shaken around in a box.”

If they were to build rides that expanded on the drop/speed sections of Gringotts, for example, then screens/projection tech/etc. would be a non-issue. I don’t think making people stand up or strapping a helmet to your face does enough to change the dynamics of what’s already so saturated in the park.

I think you make many good points here (except the one about BTTF, Kongfrontation, and Earthquake being boring!)

In terms of implementing projection tech, I'd be interested to see Universal attempt their version of Mystic Manor, for example, which is a ride that heavily features projections, but never just plunks you down in front of screens in order to carry scenes. Using projected media/mapping in a physical environment would be the sort of attraction that could feel new and unique in USF while still leaning on the tech that the park's overseers seem to love so much.

In my opinion Uni Creative probably does have some ideas to re introduce that type of attraction into the line up.

One can certainly hope.

 

[Jwhee]

We’re assuming that was a feature of the park’s original design and not a bug. A lot of the original park was, intentionally, expansions of the Hollywood tram tour. That tour was developed before projection technology (in the way used by theme parks) was ever a thing. Once Universal started creating new stuff for Orlando, it was predominantly screen-based or screen-heavy (BttF, Hanna Barbara, Murder She Wrote, Hitchcock, T2). MiB was an outlier because it was a shooting gallery, and screen-based shooting tech was still being developed. IoA wasn’t as screen heavy because it was an attempt to not be a “movie park.”

For me, it was never about the medium but about the story. The failure is in the repetition of gags. Every screen-based ride follows similar beats: some sort of chase, something thrown at you that stops close, falling from heights. That’s actually why they all feel “samey.” Which is why a Villain-Con walk-through and Potter VR attraction work fine. They will provide different experiences.

EDIT - For reference, here’s a good example of how “screen heavy” the early years of the Studios were. The bold led rides were screen-heavy. Ghostbusters is a weird category as it was Pepper’s Ghost-heavy; a projection effect that involves watch a screen of sorts.


Kong - From Hollywood Tram
Earthquake - From Hollywood Tram
Jaws - From Hollywood Tram
Hitchcock - Screen-heavy
Murder She Wrote - Screen-heavy
Hanna Barbara- Screen ride
T2:3D - Screen-heavy
BttF - Screen-ride
Ghostbusters - Projection/Pepper’s Ghost heavy
ET - Classic dark ride
Nickelodeon Tour - Screen-heavy (it was mostly watching TVs until you got to the Game Lab)
Production Tour - Nothing happened

Ill give you Barbara, BTTF and T2:3D. Calling the others screen heavy is a stretch. I get you’re trying to make a point but a walking tour of a studio where you looked at some screens to show sizzle reels etc.. a theater with a live actor sound artist creating audio for a movie on a screen above. Hitchcock had a movie portion of an attraction that had HUGE physical set pieces and an amazing interactive post show and photo Ops.

Sure they may have used screens but the entire (or majority) substance of the attraction wasn’t presented through video. The purpose of the videos were to assist the practical stuff around you

 

[BigHouseFootball]

A lot of my thoughts have already been expressed in this thread. Mainly that it feels like every simulator ride is the same in that the same things happen. And that’s not just a Universal thing. It feels like since the invention of simulator rides it’s the same script every time.

I really enjoy the simulator rides mixed with physical sets ala Gringrotts. There you have a physical drop element and physical sets/scenery throughout. That’s what made Spider Man such an amazing experience-it broke the script and did things a simulator ride had never done before. That’s what we need again. Now, what that looks like I’m not sure.

I will say that I much prefer the physical experience. I don’t want to be thrown off a building virtually, I want to actually be thrown off a building!

 

[Palutena]

To comment on the idea of USF as a "Tech/Movie Projection" Park, I think that would be well and good but again the execution is just very off. Similarly while I much much prefer rides with practical sets and effects, it's not like I hate "screen-based" (or 3d glasses based) rides. The issue really becomes when the ride experience is too samey or especially with screen based tech all together dated. I enjoyed Fallon when I rode it, Not so much Simpsons which not only felt like another sim ride but I could feel it was much older, and not in an endearing way. Even though they're in "different parks" transformers being a clone of spider-man more or less hurt it for me especially when I like the transformers theme way less. The less said about F&F the better. Ultimately regardless of this focus I believe they should at least create rides where practical sets/effects can be mixed in with the "projection", that they could do more to make each ride unique (and the problem went beyond use of glasses) and if they want to be a "Tech" park you kinda have to keep up to date tech wise.

 

[belloq87]

Ultimately regardless of this focus I believe they should at least create rides where practical sets/effects can be mixed in with the "projection", that they could do more to make each ride unique (and the problem went beyond use of glasses)

I fully agree, and as I mentioned above, Mystic Manor could be a great template for such an experience (insert your "Universal-controlled/licensed IP" of choice here). Not even Disney has really capitalized on the potential of that kind of ride in Orlando yet, so the door is open for Universal to try it.

The audience for a lavish, E-ticket level dark ride... that is also not really an attempt at a thrill ride... has been underserved by both resorts.

 

[MLevell]

So looking at the current line-up

Love It - Ride It Multiple Times A Trip
Escape From Gringotts
Revenge of The Mummy
Transformers
Men in Black
E.T.

Like It - Feel Some Disappointment If I Don't Hit It At Least Once A Trip
Hogwarts Express
Rip Ride Rockit
Blues Brothers
Fast & Furious
Simpsons
Eating At Mel's Drive In

Enjoy It - Will Do If Lines Not Too Long/Time's Work Out
Animal Actors
Jimmy Fallon
Despicable Me
Horror Make Up

Avoid It - Life Is Short, Once Is Enough
Shrek

Have Yet To Do
Bourne
Kang & Kodos

It's Been So Long I No Longer Have A Valid Opinion
Fear Factor
Woody Woodpecker
Fievel
Curious George

Unless I'm forgetting anything I think that's about it; over all that's not too bad a spread. Yeah generally I prefer rides where you actually move through a real space with actual sets and props over the ones that sit you in some shaky chairs in front of a screen, but I do think that's partially influenced by my affinity for the properties (Back To The Future, and both Hannah Barbara and Jimmy Neutron while effectively being the same ride with different film were in the Love It category for me whereas Fast & Furious while not being especially good returns that space to the Like it category where Earthquake was after Disaster dropped it to the Enjoy It) If rumors are true and they are getting rid of Shrek and Fear Factor soon I think that is probably for the best, in terms of my enjoyment at least, almost regardless of what replaces them.

As to my feelings on those rumors,
Harry Potter is one of my favorite things in the world, and while my feelings of it have become more let's say complicated in light of the terrible Fantastic Beasts movies and more particularly J.K. Rowling deciding to spend the rest of her life as the smiling face of bigotry that her books told me to stand up to, I can't deny my excitement for another Potter ride, especially one that actually attempts to capture flying on a broomstick which was obviously on the top of ever wish list back when the initial Potter/Universal deal was made, I could never figure how you could actually pull that off, and thus we got the flying 'bench', so if Uni thinks they've cracked it I'll be there. As for Villan-Con, I've yet to see any of those Minions movies so it holds little interest and it's always hard to get people overly hyped for a walk-through attraction, but I enjoy the Minion Ride they already have and it's hard to imagine it would be worse than Shrek so bring it on, I would definitely be more excited for that Pets dark ride though.