Epic Universe Expansion Speculation

[kingcooger]

Not picking on you specifically, you were just the last comment. So using your comment as an example- How do they have catching up to do? MIB is superior to midway mania and Spider-Man is vastly superior to either Ratatouille or Runaway Railway. They just appeal to different crowds. And here is the key part- Intentionally.

I don’t feel picked on at all as I may have not quite communicated what I meant clearly

What I was trying to convey is that Disney probably has so many no height limit dark rides because their rides are so old, the safety restrictions don’t actually apply. To please those wanting this style of ride in the same number of offerings Disney has, Universal would definitely (by comparison) have catching up to do

I honestly think if they built at least one highly themed no height requirement dark ride per park, that would probably be the extent of what they need to “catch up”

As a parent with young children I can understand the frustration from parents who are on their “once in a life” trip to Orlando. I am fortunate enough to get to visit once a year so have the privilege of getting to watch my kids unlock a new ride (or two) with each visit

 

[Andysol]

This is cute, but there are a ton of people Universal will apparently “never be for,” that you don’t mention, including older guests, handicapped guests, guests with certain fairly common medical conditions, guests traveling with any of the above mentioned individuals …

I mean, maybe Uni is happy with the kind of hand-waving you’re doing, but it’s not clear exactly what advantage they reap from excluding reasonably large groups of paying customers.

Cool virtue signal- it will do well here.

Meanwhile, in the real world, there’s an iFly, Andretti Racing and a ropes obstacle course just up the street. Turns out a large plurality of elderly folks can’t do those either. They have a ropes course at Shanghai disney also, turns out. Kind of fun. Medical restrictions also keep loads of people off loads of rides- both at universal and disney. That’s why they have those nice little signs outside every attraction.

And that’s A-ok. With me, and more importantly, with Universal. They, like iFly or even any television show, have a demographic they want to target and are quite successful at it. I assure you that you don’t know better than them which market share they want to go after and how to best get it.

PS: It’s endlessly funny to me that the resort that is heavily reliant on Harry Potter, Despicable Me, Dr Seuss, Shrek, How to Train your Dragon, Mario, and soon Pokémon supposedly doesn’t want to cater to children. If every ride at Uni was based on Fast and Furious or the Monsters, maybe that argument would hold more water.

If we’re assuming bad faith

Ah yes, the irony of claiming something no one ever claimed; that universal doesn’t cater to children, while accusing others of bad faith. Nice.

For the record, infants and toddlers were mentioned. Quite literally no one mentioned “children”.

 

[mccgavin]

This is cute, but there are a ton of people Universal will apparently “never be for,” that you don’t mention, including older guests, handicapped guests, guests with certain fairly common medical conditions, guests traveling with any of the above mentioned individuals …

I mean, maybe Uni is happy with the kind of hand-waving you’re doing, but it’s not clear exactly what advantage they reap from excluding reasonably large groups of paying customers.

PS: It’s endlessly funny to me that the resort that is heavily reliant on Harry Potter, Despicable Me, Dr Seuss, Shrek, How to Train your Dragon, Mario, and soon Pokémon supposedly doesn’t want to cater to children. If every ride at Uni was based on Fast and Furious or the Monsters, maybe that argument would hold more water.

Yeah, it's not just about children. Even for people who meet the height requirements, there are some guests who are not comfortable with rides that throw you around a lot, whether that is a preference, or because of a disability or medical condition like you mentioned.

There's some theme park fans I know who love all the properties that are featured at Epic, but it's difficult to convince them to come back because there's only so many rides in the park that they are willing to do. Even one additional ride that is more accessible would make for a big difference.

 

[Jake S]

Cool virtue signal- it will do well here.

I have to politely request that you chill out. There's just no need for this kind of attitude.

I also think it would be helpful, and I'm saying this to the broader group, actually respond to the people who are making the points you disagree with. It's not productive to have multiple posts claiming people are saying things without actually quoting the person or people you're referring to. Otherwise we're more likely to talk past one another, having an argument about something nobody involved in the discussion is actually saying. It also allows people to clarify their positions, which keeps us from going 10 rounds without ever resolving anything.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Cool virtue signal- it will do well here.

None of this. “Virtue signaling,” is a garbage concept perpetuated by people who don’t actually believe in the concept of virtue at all, and I don’t believe you fall into that category.

Meanwhile, in the real world, there’s an iFly, Andretti Racing and a ropes obstacle course just up the street. Turns out a large plurality of elderly folks can’t do those either.

Those aren’t sprawling resorts with hotels, restaurants, and stores that they need to fill and multiday tickets they need to sell. It isn’t remotely the same thing.

They have a ropes course at Shanghai disney also, turns out. Kind of fun. Medical restrictions also keep loads of people off loads of rides- both at universal and disney. That’s why they have those nice little signs outside every attraction.

Yes, some guests will always be excluded from some rides. The problem comes when you build entire parks full of rides that many guests can’t ride and don’t offer alternatives. I don’t love Disney’s turn to thrill rides, but those parks generally offer copious alternatives. Uni doesn’t.

And that’s A-ok. With me, and more importantly, with Universal. They, like iFly or even any television show, have a demographic they want to target and are quite successful at it. I assure you that you don’t know better than them which market share they want to go after and how to best get it.

It’s so odd that corporate executives are the only group for whom Americans regularly demonstrate this kind of deference - denigrating the expertise of everyone else, from professors to doctors, has become a national pastime. Yes, Uni execs have a great deal more info then we do, but like any human they are driven by bias and ego and blind spots and groupthink in the collection and interpretation of that data and in the actions they take based on it. Politicians have a great deal more information on any given topic then we do but no one would credibly urge people to defer to their wisdom this way. Sometimes executives are wrong.

Ah yes, the irony of claiming something no one ever claimed; that universal doesn’t cater to children, while accusing others of bad faith. Nice.

As has been pointed out, you’re the one who has repeatedly accused other posters of bad faith.

For the record, infants and toddlers were mentioned. Quite literally no one mentioned “children”.

We’re each carefully choosing our terms to advance our arguments here. The fact is (and the statement that began this discussion addressed this very thing) that Universal suffers from a split personality, heavily favoring family IPs while filling the lands based on those IPs with rides many families can’t ride.

 

[OrlLover]

Exactly this. And as a reminder, a coaster ride system can do a lot that isn’t a pure coaster: see Gringotts.

I’m all for a new updated Gringotts 2.0 experience.

The Mummy is actually the only true indoor coaster Universal has built. So if they did decide on that I wouldn’t be totally against it.

 

[Andysol]

We’re each carefully choosing our terms to advance our arguments here.

17 year olds are children. 12 year olds are children. 2 year olds are children.

Distinguishing which children Universal has chosen to not target are obviously terms that need to be set. You lumping them in together in an attempt to validate your chastising point is bad faith. Which is why toddlers and infants was said, and not "children", as you incorrectly tried to claim.

PSS: I find it hilarious that you're talking about the potential of Universal not knowing what they're doing regarding how wide a net they want to cast for their Universal parks in a thread regarding how they desperately need capacity to fill their current "catch".

 

[Parkscope Joe]

I’m all for a new updated Gringotts 2.0 experience.

The Mummy is actually the only true indoor coaster Universal has built. So if they did decide on that I wouldn’t be totally against it.

Just to clarify, I mean that just because it's a coaster ride system doesn't mean it's a coaster sensation. SSE was classified as a coaster for a bit, for example.