The Current State and Future of Universal Studios Florida

[OrlandoGuy]

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.

That’s a really good point. There’s a reason a ride like Peter Pan (emphasis on re-telling a story) has outlived a ride like Soarin’ (emphasis on showing off Imax) in terms of popularity. Outside the Potter attractions, USF’s attraction mission statements are too often “Look at this cool tech” or “Look at this hot IP with merch you can buy afterward.” That doesn’t lend itself to longevity.

 

[MLevell]

Thinking about it more I think part of the problem is just that the park doesn't have enough rides, and because of that any repeating element (and there always will be repeats be it fire, water spray, screens or roller coasters) feel more overwhelming to some guests because it is hard to have a full day and avoid it. But then I firmly believe that none of the big Orlando parks have enough quality rides considering their fame, attendance and ticket prices.

 

[OrlLover]

Thinking about it more I think part of the problem is just that the park doesn't have enough rides, and because of that any repeating element (and there always will be repeats be it fire, water spray, screens or roller coasters) feel more overwhelming to some guests because it is hard to have a full day and avoid it. But then I firmly believe that none of the big Orlando parks have enough quality rides considering their fame, attendance and ticket prices.

While do agree with you that every park needs more rides let’s not stray too far from the subject of this thread. I whether we not start comparing and throw this discussion off track.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

IOA and USF have shifted time and time again as "who's the best park". Right now IOA has gotten several kick-ass additions in the past half-decade that I think totally make it the best UOR park. But I don't think USF has any foundational problems or issues, just nit-picks and some "I don't prefer this" situations.

What I interpret is a lot of is USF isn't "nostalgic" enough. This thought then manifests in other ways, like how there are too many screens or such. Instead, I think there's a bigger core issue at play: 30+-year-olds realizing the media they consumed when they were younger is no longer primary pop culture and are trying to work through these feelings publicly.

Here are some fun facts with USF's opening in 1991:

• BTTF was six years old (BTTF 3 was a year old)
• Ghostbusters 1 was seven years old, 2 was two years old
• Murder She Wrote was seven and ran for another five years
• King Kong was based on the 15-year-old 1976 movie not the "classic" movie
• Jaws was 16 years old
• Earthquake was 17 and no one thought it was a classic

What we consider "classics" here are NOW classics, but at the time of park open were still fresh and full of doubt. Hell, Hogsmeade opened 9 years after the first movie putting it in the middle of the age range of attractions and assholes still thought Potter was a fad! I think these properties could be featured in the parks but the parks have to move on to new classics. They must move on and keep moving, but mistakes will be made.

Is there a central crisis for USF or is it...

F&F is a failure of yes men and before the pandemic hit was on the road to a re-do, Fallon is very popular with guests but in my mind it's fine, Bourne is a hit. There are many parks that wish they got this level of attention and investment the past five years. That being said there are still issues just like there are issues in all the parks: KidZone, a MiB that needs a proper refurb, and the Simpsons Ride. But it's still a damn good park and can hold its own against DHS which has rocketed up my WDW favorite list.

I keep coming back to what @Legacy said about HHN a few weeks ago and earlier in this thread: if this isn't hitting your fancy anymore that's ok but it's not necessarily the issue of the park/event. The park has been operating on its main MO the whole time: rides based on modern properties. That'll refelct in ways people want the rides to be at the time of development.

 

[OhHaiInternet95]

IOA and USF have shifted time and time again as "who's the best park". Right now IOA has gotten several kick-ass additions in the past half-decade that I think totally make it the best UOR park. But I don't think USF has any foundational problems or issues, just nit-picks and some "I don't prefer this" situations.

What I interpret is a lot of is USF isn't "nostalgic" enough. This thought then manifests in other ways, like how there are too many screens or such. Instead, I think there's a bigger core issue at play: 30+-year-olds realizing the media they consumed when they were younger is no longer primary pop culture and are trying to work through these feelings publicly.

Here are some fun facts with USF's opening in 1991:

• BTTF was six years old (BTTF 3 was a year old)
• Ghostbusters 1 was seven years old, 2 was two years old
• Murder She Wrote was seven and ran for another five years
• King Kong was based on the 15-year-old 1976 movie not the "classic" movie
• Jaws was 16 years old
• Earthquake was 17 and no one thought it was a classic

What we consider "classics" here are NOW classics, but at the time of park open were still fresh and full of doubt. Hell, Hogsmeade opened 9 years after the first movie putting it in the middle of the age range of attractions and assholes still thought Potter was a fad! I think these properties could be featured in the parks but the parks have to move on to new classics. They must move on and keep moving, but mistakes will be made.

Is there a central crisis for USF or is it...

F&F is a failure of yes men and before the pandemic hit was on the road to a re-do, Fallon is very popular with guests but in my mind it's fine, Bourne is a hit. There are many parks that wish they got this level of attention and investment the past five years. That being said there are still issues just like there are issues in all the parks: KidZone, a MiB that needs a proper refurb, and the Simpsons Ride. But it's still a damn good park and can hold its own against DHS which has rocketed up my WDW favorite list.

I keep coming back to what @Legacy said about HHN a few weeks ago and earlier in this thread: if this isn't hitting your fancy anymore that's ok but it's not necessarily the issue of the park/event. The park has been operating on its main MO the whole time: rides based on modern properties. That'll refelct in ways people want the rides to be at the time of development.

My issue with USF has been balance and variety. And contrary to what certain people on sites like Magic said back in the day, USF was an extremely well balanced park prior to Jaws's demise. Islands has stayed well balanced while incorporating properties with staying power (Toon aside). EU, despite some pet peeves, overall should be pretty well balanced while also incorporating properties with staying power.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

IOA and USF have shifted time and time again as "who's the best park". Right now IOA has gotten several kick-ass additions in the past half-decade that I think totally make it the best UOR park. But I don't think USF has any foundational problems or issues, just nit-picks and some "I don't prefer this" situations.

What I interpret is a lot of is USF isn't "nostalgic" enough. This thought then manifests in other ways, like how there are too many screens or such. Instead, I think there's a bigger core issue at play: 30+-year-olds realizing the media they consumed when they were younger is no longer primary pop culture and are trying to work through these feelings publicly.

Here are some fun facts with USF's opening in 1991:

• BTTF was six years old (BTTF 3 was a year old)
• Ghostbusters 1 was seven years old, 2 was two years old
• Murder She Wrote was seven and ran for another five years
• King Kong was based on the 15-year-old 1976 movie not the "classic" movie
• Jaws was 16 years old
• Earthquake was 17 and no one thought it was a classic

What we consider "classics" here are NOW classics, but at the time of park open were still fresh and full of doubt. Hell, Hogsmeade opened 9 years after the first movie putting it in the middle of the age range of attractions and assholes still thought Potter was a fad! I think these properties could be featured in the parks but the parks have to move on to new classics. They must move on and keep moving, but mistakes will be made.

Is there a central crisis for USF or is it...

F&F is a failure of yes men and before the pandemic hit was on the road to a re-do, Fallon is very popular with guests but in my mind it's fine, Bourne is a hit. There are many parks that wish they got this level of attention and investment the past five years. That being said there are still issues just like there are issues in all the parks: KidZone, a MiB that needs a proper refurb, and the Simpsons Ride. But it's still a damn good park and can hold its own against DHS which has rocketed up my WDW favorite list.

I keep coming back to what @Legacy said about HHN a few weeks ago and earlier in this thread: if this isn't hitting your fancy anymore that's ok but it's not necessarily the issue of the park/event. The park has been operating on its main MO the whole time: rides based on modern properties. That'll refelct in ways people want the rides to be at the time of development.

Nah, I’m in my mid-to-late 20’s. Never saw the original King Kong (either of them) or Earthquake. Didn’t see Terminator, Jaws, or MIB until after I rode the rides as a kid. BttF was probably the only movie I was familiar with when I first rode the ride (the only one to “resonate” with me I guess) by the time I first visited the park. For reference, the Mummy movies are what I’d consider “old.” Plus Harry Potter is a bigger zeitgeist juggernaut than anything either park had pre-2010.

I think what you’re saying has merit in some (a lot of) pockets of the fandom, but USF has bigger issues beyond nostalgia. Stick BttF, Kong, or Earthquake themes into the current screen rides and they’re still not any better. It’s the fundamentals of the rides themselves.

 

[Palutena]

Nah, I’m in my mid-to-late 20’s. Never saw the original King Kong (either of them) or Earthquake. Didn’t see Terminator, Jaws, or MIB until after I rode the rides as a kid. BttF was probably the only movie I was familiar with when I first rode the ride (the only one to “resonate” with me I guess) by the time I first visited the park. For reference, the Mummy movies are what I’d consider “old.” Plus Harry Potter is a bigger zeitgeist juggernaut than anything either park had pre-2010.

I think what you’re saying has merit in some (a lot of) pockets of the fandom, but USF has bigger issues beyond nostalgia. Stick BttF, Kong, or Earthquake themes into the current screen rides and they’re still not any better. It’s the fundamentals of the rides themselves.

I pretty much concur with this and my experience is more or less the same, I went to USF exactly once before my trips in 2019 and 2021. It was when I was around 6-8 circa 1998-2000 and the trip is basically a fever dream to me , I only vaguely remember Barney, reluctantly taking a picture with Jaws, and leaving the Kongfrontation queue cause it was too scary for me or something. Suffice to say any opinions I have of the park are entirely just based on my recent experiences of it . That said yes, I have been on these forums (and the wider theme park community) long enough to understand some of the sentiment expressed with regards to nostalgia, but it certainly doesn't change the park has some glaring problems that hopefully get fixed. Also as already brought up in this thread, there are things Universal could do with the park, even focusing on modern IPs, and even with a seeming "movie projection"/tech focus that could be better balanced and provide unique experiences compared to what seems to be there now.

I can also add that yes I think maybe there is a narrative right now around USF (at the very least amongst enthusiast circles) due to the events of the past five-ish years that does it less justice as a park than what's actually there, that a combination of F&F being a huge dud and net negative, IoA getting two new pretty well acclaimed attractions, and the announcement of a whole new theme park that may further make USF seem to others as the "red haired step-child" of the group is muddying perception. But that despite that it's gotten far more attention and will get more attention than certain other parks could hope for, heck this thread was spurred by rumors of two new attractions coming to it. Ultimately, all that can be said is I hope things can be done that can satisfy folks and also swing the pendulum away from the perception USF is being "neglected" and is "unbalanced"

 

[belloq87]

The park has been operating on its main MO the whole time: rides based on modern properties. That'll refelct in ways people want the rides to be at the time of development.

I disagree with some of the characterizations in your broader post (this thread is not about me or anyone else being grumpy that classic IPs aren't as prevalent in USF anymore, and I believe we have an entire "Should Universal Be More Nostalgic?" thread around here someplace), but let's drill down specifically into the above points:

1. Rides based on "modern" properties don't need to be screen-dependent. As evidenced by Hagrid's, VelociCoaster, and SLOP out in Hollywood.
2. Who are the "people" and how do we really know what sort of rides they want? SLOP seems to be quite well-liked, and we know Hagird's and VelociCoaster are very popular.

Fundamentally, to me, it comes down to this: do you (the royal you) want a little more variety in USF, or not? I very much do.

 

[OhHaiInternet95]

I disagree with some of the characterizations in your broader post (this thread is not about me or anyone else being grumpy that classic IPs aren't as prevalent in USF anymore, and I believe we have an entire "Should Universal Be More Nostalgic?" thread around here someplace), but let's drill down specifically into the above points:

1. Rides based on "modern" properties don't need to be screen-dependent. As evidenced by Hagrid's, VelociCoaster, and SLOP out in Hollywood.
2. Who are the "people" and how do we really know what sort of rides they want? SLOP seems to be quite well-liked, and we know Hagird's and VelociCoaster are very popular.

Fundamentally, to me, it comes down to this: do you (the royal you) want a little more variety in USF, or not? I very much do.

Unfortunately all the screen attractions besides F&F get extremely high GSATs. But you hit the nail on the head on everything else.

 

[belloq87]

Unfortunately all the screen attractions besides F&F get extremely high GSATs.

Are these publicly available anywhere? Because they get talked about on here (I'm not singling you out!) as if we all have access to them. And even if they do get good marks from guests, there's no data to prove the validity of any alternative approach in that park... because Universal hasn't put any non-screen dark rides or coasters in there in a long time.

I would love to be asked to take a survey, by the way.

 

[Legacy]

I think what you’re saying has merit in some (a lot of) pockets of the fandom, but USF has bigger issues beyond nostalgia. Stick BttF, Kong, or Earthquake themes into the current screen rides and they’re still not any better. It’s the fundamentals of the rides themselves.

I think the three rides you mention (and Jaws) are viewed through rose-colored glasses, especially when we discuss park “balance.” The “big three” we’re variations of the same “shaking platform” concept used in Calamity Canyon. The only real variation was air (Kong), land (Earthquake), and water (Jaws). They weren’t even the most “immersive” rides in the park, as the scene structure was very much going past dioramas on one side of the RV. BttF was a simulator. Viscerally, more happens in Gringotts than what happened in any of those rides, screens or not.

This isn’t to dismiss the overall quality of those rides. They were fun and I miss them, but if we’re going to talk about those “classics” we need to be honest about them: they were slow, fairly passive, and, apart from a little shaking, fire and loud noises, weren’t all that “thrilling.” Screens can and will always be far more capable and reliable than practical effects in theme parks.

 

[Brian G.]

Are these publicly available anywhere? Because they get talked about on here (I'm not singling you out!) as if we all have access to them.

No. It's definitely proprietary. Some just get lucky enough to hear a thing or two.

 

[Tbad556]

I agree with both sides of the coin in this argument in different regards, but the one thing that bothers me the most about the shift away from attractions like Jaws & OG Kong is the missing human element. The rides themselves may have been slow and not that thrilling, but the skippers/tour guides could really make the attraction special, similar to Jungle Cruise.

Getting a modern Kong with a fake guide is almost a slap in the face in that regard. I think the human element is really undervalued when it comes to theme park entertainment. Obviously, that comes with spiel pay and other hurdles, but it's a challenge that I think is worth it when it comes to rounding a park out.

 

[belloq87]

Viscerally, more happens in Gringotts than what happened in any of those rides, screens or not.

This isn’t to dismiss the overall quality of those rides. They were fun and I miss them, but if we’re going to talk about those “classics” we need to be honest about them: they were slow, fairly passive, and, apart from a little shaking, fire and loud noises, weren’t all that “thrilling.” Screens can and will always be far more capable and reliable than practical effects in theme parks.

More may happen "viscerally" in Gringotts, but that doesn't make it a better ride. Being impressed by the scale of a physical experience/setpiece/effect can be "thrilling" and "immersive" in its own way. Nobody's saying the attempted thrill-level of all these rides were equivalent, but thrill-level isn't the only determinant of a ride's success.

As for screens being more "capable and reliable," that sounds like a bit of a crutch to me. Just because you can use a technique doesn't mean you need to. It is possible to design great rides that aren't dependent on it.

I think we're just looking for very different things in theme park attractions. Which is fine!

 

[UniversalRBLX]

USF is a great park, but it definitely has issues that are easily remedied.

1. "Lack" of children's attractions - USF doesn't lack in attractions for children, it falters in the IP relevancy of those attractions. There's no reason why Fievel should have a playground in 2021 when Universal has a library of Illuminations/Dreamworks to choose from. (A proper retheme of the existing kidzone areas would do a lot for the stroller crowd.)
2. Relaxing rides - the big draw of 'Classic Disney rides" is that you have an assortment of rides where you can just sit and see stuff for a solid 8-15 minutes (Pirates, Haunted, etc.) This is a point where Universal in general falters in.
3. IP relevancy in general - Universal isn't the same as Disney. There are Disney fans that don't necessarily care for their content, they just like Disney itself. You can't say the same for Universal. Universal isn't a lifestyle or a brand, people don't know that Universal owns Dreamworks, Minions, Classic Monsters, Fast and Furious. (They've been improving on this area with marketing the classic monsters with the Universal name, etc.)

Point 3 is why Universal "lacks" nostalgia, they have to rely on modern IPs to market themselves.


Most of these issues were planned to be fixed, but it seems as if the park suffers from bad timing.

 

[OhHaiInternet95]

3. IP relevancy in general - Universal isn't the same as Disney. There are Disney fans that don't necessarily care for their content, they just like Disney itself. You can't say the same for Universal. Universal isn't a lifestyle or a brand, people don't know that Universal owns Dreamworks, Minions, Classic Monsters, Fast and Furious. (They've been improving on this area with marketing the classic monsters with the Universal name, etc.)

Point 3 is why Universal "lacks" nostalgia, they have to rely on modern IPs to market themselves.


Most of these issues were planned to be fixed, but it seems as if the park suffers from bad timing.

Universal for *me* has at least almost as much nostalgia as Disney (lost attractions: Jaws, Dragons, BTTF, Disaster, Terminator; current attractions: HMUS, ET, MIB, Mummy, Spidey, JPRA, Popeye, Poseidon) but yeah, it just isn't a brand like Disney. The same is true for every other park chain and studio/media company out there (it's telling that the most famous thing at Universal at this point isn't even owned by Universal). This is why I think the talk of Universal "overtaking" Disney with EU is a bit premature.

 

[OrlLover]

Universal for *me* has at least almost as much nostalgia as Disney (lost attractions: Jaws, Dragons, BTTF, Disaster, Terminator, Poseidon; current attractions: HMUS, ET, MIB, Mummy, Spidey, JPRA, Popeye) but yeah, it just isn't a brand like Disney. The same is true for every other park chain and studio/media company out there (it's telling that the most famous thing at Universal at this point isn't even owned by Universal). This is why I think the talk of Universal "overtaking" Disney with EU is a bit premature.

Frustrated Disney fans were probably the main culprit of this talk about “overtaking”. Because they felt like Dis weren’t investing enough in their Orlando parks. Having EU built will definitely help make USO a more complete resort.

 

[OhHaiInternet95]

Frustrated Disney fans were probably the main culprit of this talk about “overtaking”. Because they felt like Dis weren’t investing enough in their Orlando parks. Having EU built will definitely help make USO a more complete resort.

Oh it will be very beneficial for Universal, don't get me wrong. But Disney will always be the Marcia of the entire theme park industry off of its branding power alone.

 

[Nick]

USF is a great park, but it definitely has issues that are easily remedied.

1. "Lack" of children's attractions - USF doesn't lack in attractions for children, it falters in the IP relevancy of those attractions. There's no reason why Fievel should have a playground in 2021 when Universal has a library of Illuminations/Dreamworks to choose from. (A proper retheme of the existing kidzone areas would do a lot for the stroller crowd.)

I'd argue they do lack in attractions for children. All of their rides aimed at kids (DM, ET, Woody) have a height requirement except for K&K. There's been many times where guests complained to me when I worked there that there was nothing for their child to do in the park aside from shows, which also means one parent has to stay behind in a family of four or more to watch the child at each ride they aren't tall enough for.

That doesn't mean rides have to be aimed at children, either. Think of MMRR or GMR before it which both are/were attractions without a height requirement and appeal to people of all ages. Screens are not the issues in this park. It's more the sameness of all of the attractions that I think needs to be corrected.

 

[shiekra38]

Jumping in late here, but I feel the screen debate is often misguided

Studios is not "screen heavy" but simulator heavy - Fallon, DM, Simpsons, and (it can be argued) Shrek all do kind of the same trick. Fallon is the superior of all of them and showcases the simulator aspect much better. I get that HB and BTTF existed together at some point, but they were across the park from one another (yes that matters). Hitchcock and HB were not even close to the same in terms of tricks. I'm ok with screens at long as they are diversified in their presentation.

Also Studios seems to get the B or C version of IOA's rides

Kong is a far better use of the tech than F&F
Spiderman is far superior to Transformers
Rockit doesn't even hold a candle to Veloci or Hagrid...and has never been anywhere near Hulk

Also, IOA doesn't really have any "simulators" and has held on to its walkthrough for quite some time and feels more diverse


All that being said. Studios has far better street entertainment, far better shows, and all around seems like it has more room to grow in the future