The “not for you” rhetoric that comes up here frequently is occasionally valid but is often used in a condescending and even derogatory manner to dismiss opposing arguments without engaging them. We are all thinking adults capable of evaluating things critically, even if our personal preferences inevitably color those evaluations. I am not a thrill coaster fan, but I feel Velocicoaster is a spectacular addition to the park. I do not enjoy the films of Stanley Kubrick, but I acknowledge that he is one of the absolute geniuses of film. We make these distinctions all the time, and it is constructive to discuss the basis on which we make such judgements and to account for any biases that might effect them.
To be, perhaps, a bit more controversial, I think we can be too quick to lump all childhood enjoyment into one category, to dismiss the fact that children can have discerning taste even if they can’t fully articulate it. Speaking only from my childhood memories, I enjoyed both McDonalds play lands and the EPCOT dark rides, but the quality and degree of that enjoyment was wholly different, as were its long term ramifications.
Finally, I think there are two major issues here: the first is whether parks like Universal should feature large sections aimed only at children or whether they should strive to create “family” attractions that can be enjoyed by multiple age groups. Unlike Skip, I don’t think the latter opinion is the result of gaslighting but is rather a perfectly valid, if debatable, position. The second issue is not whether DreamWorks Lands ends are valid, but rather how well it achieves those ends. That’s an important question and one we can’t answer until the land opens.