Is USF still a 'Studios' Park?

[Jake S]

I feel like any park that essentially looks like this still is a 'Studios' park.

isn't most of this photo focused on areas outside the park?

 

[Nick]

I feel like any park that essentially looks like this still is a 'Studios' park.

What you are essentially looking at in this picture is a bunch of soundstages run by USF Production Group, an entirely separate entity from the theme parks, and then HRRR along with the two Minion show buildings and Fallon on the middle left.

These are occasionally used for actual production, but that has nothing to do with the park. The only time these are used along with the park is during HHN. That's the closest to production that happens here on a regular (i.e. yearly) basis. HHN needs the space, they rent it, rinse, repeat.

But the actual theme park has very little that is for it's original purpose of showing you how film is made which is essentially the definition used to describe any "Studio" themed park, whether it's USF, MGM/DHS, WDSP, or anywhere else. The rides and attractions in USF, with the exception of Horror Makeup and Mummy I guess, could really be put in any park and fit just fine.

To me that's the mark that it no longer is within that original "Studio" theme of the park where there was, as @Casper Gutman said, an intention to teach in a way. If only there was a word for Entertaining while educating....

Now there is still some things that get filmed there in the actual soundstages which is great, so yes, that is a working studio. The working studio is a separate division within the company though. I could make a very similar argument in the same way that, if the Studio Tour ever goes away, that USH is no longer close to being a "Studio" park under my definition. It's located next to a Studio, but it's more of a park themed after Hollywood Entertainment, which is what I think USF's theme is now more than anything.

 

[Michael S]

I’d say this is an interesting discussion, but are we talking more attractions or the actual park as a whole? Attraction wise, the park has gone almost completely away from that style of themed attraction. However, you could still consider, or argue, that the park is a “studio-themed-theme park,” no matter how many changes or immersive lands they create within. The reason being, on the lots we have so many different environments. Yes, for a show, something like Diagon Alley would be built as a set for us to film in. We had some pretty immersive sets on Wakanda forever that, when I was rigging lights in, I thought: oh wow, I could picture this being in a theme park one day. And, on a lot where we’d have, let’s say a dragon alley set, across the property we’d have our stages, a New York street, and, some studios, will even have something like illumination Ave (or whatever the minion branding is; forgive me, I haven’t kept up too much on specifics) where there might be a commissary that’s themed around the minions. On the fox lot I used to eat at Moe’s Cafe on our lunch break, themed around the Simpsons.

So, theoretically it “could” be considered a studio park, in the sense that it’s not wildly different than how some lots are, but the attractions contained within don’t scream “filmmaking” or do they imply that you are in a studio while enjoying them.

Just my little take

Edit: For anyone who believes USF isn’t a studios park anymore 100% though, I do have an honest question. How did the original King Kong or Jaws fit into the “studios” theme? Neither hinted that they were making a movie? In Jaws you were ON the amity boat tour. In King Kong you were ON the tram above New York. Is that any different than being in the world of Harry Potter, or Fast and Furious? What about Back to the Future? Did Doc just open up shop at a movie studio? I think the identity of the park isn’t as different today as some people might think.

 

[Joe]

Why even is a studios park?

No really what is a studio park? Is it a park where movie filming happens? Behind the scenes movie and tv production? Simply celebrating movie culture? What is it?

 

[Casper Gutman]

It should also be noted that the change in direction at Universal didn’t occur in a vacuum but was a reflection of fundamental shifts in the direction of the entertainment industry. In the early- to mid-2000s, the studios’ primary focus shifted from financing and distributing movies to acting as IP silos. Hollywood’s goal changed from the production of successful individual films or even successful franchises to the production and cultivation of immersive narrative universes that could be exploited across multiple platforms and would maintain audience loyalty for decades. This profound shift manifested physically in theme parks like Universal, where the focus shifted from the ”magic of the movies” pseudo-backstage edutainment that highlighted specific creators (Hitchcock, Spielberg, Lansbury, Heston, etc.) to a series of intricately detailed, overwhelmingly immersive “universes” (which one might almost call Epic).

 

[Chumpieboy]

They could be educational or they could’ve just evoked the aesthetics of a real backlot (which I’d argue, even with the advent of the behind-the-scenes DVD featurette, is a cool setting).

In addition to the DVD behind the scenes stuff, studios are publicizing these aspects in real time as the movie is being made (not just documenting things for the eventual DVD release) as part of a larger marketing effort for the film. On-set photos posted to the studio's Insta, "exclusive first looks" in Entertainment Weekly, controlled plot "leaks", etc. The marketing for the films shows a lot of backstage sausage being made. There's nothing new about the moviemaking magic to show to the audience now, and the tech has been commoditized enough that we have HD cameras in our pockets and decent consumer video editing tools for amateur filmmakers. You can make a video of yourself with a CGI animal overlay on your face that looks more real than Jim Carrey's Mask or the animals in the Robin Williams Jumanji .

Also, the tech used to make the movies really hasn't changed over the last few decades. Actors in mocap suits on partial sets against green screens with everything added in post via CGI. The scale and believability of the finished product has grown. The complexity of the CGI has grown. Both in incremental changes over the decades, and specific milestones of photo realism (Avatar), full CGI characters (Jar Jar and Gollum), specific physics (Sully's fur in Monsters Inc) etc. But it's still actors in mocap suits on partial sets against green screens. That tech doesn't lend itself to an informative "behind the movies" theme park experience.

It makes sense that the "studio" parks have moved to recreate these incredible worlds and bring you further into the fictional world instead of showing you the actors/mocap/green screen. The same tech that is used to create these worlds on screen can be repurposed to bring the audience inside the worlds without the boring details of how it's done. The Bourne stunt show uses the same tech as the 360 soundstage that LucasFilm uses to film The Mandalorian.

All of this to say - USF (and DHS) are still studios parks. They still celebrate the magic of movies -they just move the focus of the moviemaking magic.

I think the identity of the park isn’t as different today as some people might think.

Exactly. The parks have always had a mix of "this is how movie magic is made!" and "we're repurposing movie technology to bring the guests into the world of this movie" attractions. The attraction mix has skewed towards the latter as there is less magic to show about the former.

 

[Joe]

All of this to say - USF (and DHS) are still studios parks. They still celebrate the magic of movies -they just move the focus of the moviemaking magic.

Ding ding ding! (Also fantastic post overall)

 

[OrlandoGuy]

All of this to say - USF (and DHS) are still studios parks. They still celebrate the magic of movies -they just move the focus of the moviemaking magic.

I agree 100% with everything you said. But when you narrow it down to this quote, what makes USF different from IOA, California Adventure, Disneyland, Epcot, the Six Flags DC areas, etc.? The major theme park chains are all in on incorporating movie IP in “immersive” ways (as in, putting the guest into the world of the IP), so does that make every park with movie-based attractions a studio park?

 

[Chumpieboy]

I agree 100% with everything you said. But when you narrow it down to this quote, what makes USF different from IOA, California Adventure, Disneyland, Epcot, the Six Flags DC areas, etc.? The major theme park chains are all in on incorporating movie IP in “immersive” ways (as in, putting the guest into the world of the IP), so does that make every park with movie-based attractions a studio park?

Good question - I've not been to a SF park in decades but from what I remember the Batman/Superman rides were either surface overlays on the ride type (wasn't there a Superman ride where the riders lay horizontally and fly like superman? Otherwise it was a normal mostly-unthemed coaster. Same with the batman coasters? Paint the cars black and have pics of the joker in the queue but there was no attempt to tell a story. I'm probably not remembering things correctly. The Hulk coaster in IOA could be considered the same?

IPs are where the stories are, and theme park rides tell stories - seems like good synergy for storytelling. Maybe it's the original theme of the park that puts it in the Studios/non-studios category? The number of non-IPs that are represented? EPCOT and California adventure and IOA were never (originally?) planned as studios parks, despite the use of IPs. These parks are supposed to bring you into the world of the various IPs but never mention crossing the threshold of a film or worrying about the mechanics of how you entered that IP world. You just walk into Sleeping Beauty's castle. You just turn a corner and you're in this amazing city where all of the Marvel super heroes are.

The lines are definitely blurred and an argument could be made that all of these parks that use IPs are studio parks if we define it as I did earlier, but the question here is if the parks that originally exclusively defined their themes as studio parks could still be considered as such.

 

[Joe]

Good question - I've not been to a SF park in decades but from what I remember the Batman/Superman rides were either surface overlays on the ride type (wasn't there a Superman ride where the riders lay horizontally and fly like superman? Otherwise it was a normal mostly-unthemed coaster. Same with the batman coasters? Paint the cars black and have pics of the joker in the queue but there was no attempt to tell a story. I'm probably not remembering things correctly. The Hulk coaster in IOA could be considered the same?

IPs are where the stories are, and theme park rides tell stories - seems like good synergy for storytelling. Maybe it's the original theme of the park that puts it in the Studios/non-studios category? The number of non-IPs that are represented? EPCOT and California adventure and IOA were never (originally?) planned as studios parks, despite the use of IPs. These parks are supposed to bring you into the world of the various IPs but never mention crossing the threshold of a film or worrying about the mechanics of how you entered that IP world. You just walk into Sleeping Beauty's castle. You just turn a corner and you're in this amazing city where all of the Marvel super heroes are.

The lines are definitely blurred and an argument could be made that all of these parks that use IPs are studio parks if we define it as I did earlier, but the question here is if the parks that originally exclusively defined their themes as studio parks could still be considered as such.

I mean, the park dedication plaques help!

Look at something like MMRR, at a studio park it's a celebration of movies and animated shorts that harken back to the days of Mickey shorts. In DL it's a Toon-ified theater that exists in the Toontown story.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

Good question - I've not been to a SF park in decades but from what I remember the Batman/Superman rides were either surface overlays on the ride type (wasn't there a Superman ride where the riders lay horizontally and fly like superman? Otherwise it was a normal mostly-unthemed coaster. Same with the batman coasters? Paint the cars black and have pics of the joker in the queue but there was no attempt to tell a story. I'm probably not remembering things correctly. The Hulk coaster in IOA could be considered the same?

IPs are where the stories are, and theme park rides tell stories - seems like good synergy for storytelling. Maybe it's the original theme of the park that puts it in the Studios/non-studios category? The number of non-IPs that are represented? EPCOT and California adventure and IOA were never (originally?) planned as studios parks, despite the use of IPs. These parks are supposed to bring you into the world of the various IPs but never mention crossing the threshold of a film or worrying about the mechanics of how you entered that IP world. You just walk into Sleeping Beauty's castle. You just turn a corner and you're in this amazing city where all of the Marvel super heroes are.

The lines are definitely blurred and an argument could be made that all of these parks that use IPs are studio parks if we define it as I did earlier, but the question here is if the parks that originally exclusively defined their themes as studio parks could still be considered as such.

And that’s where I have the issue with USF. If the place where the line is drawn is the original intent, then it gives a place like USF and Hollywood Studios an out to only commit halfway to the new conceit of IP attractions (an immersive experience that strips down the meta-referential concept of “making movies”).

The bare soundstages of Minion Land get written off as being part of “the studio park,” but the experience of the attraction (in Minion Mayhem and presumably the Villain Con thing) is trying to sell you on actually being in the environment of the IP. Everything about Minion Land would fit fine in a traditional “theme park” like IOA (as we’ve seen in Japan) with the exception of the exterior presentation, which would cause mass hysteria if they were done that way in IOA, Magic Kingdom, etc.

I actually do think, even with the growing prevalence of behind the scenes media and computer-based “movie magic,” a studio park could be done well today. It would require a revamp of the park’s original intent though, maybe a reinvention of the park as a nostalgic glimpse of Golden Age Hollywood or a commitment to a more postmodern approach to the attractions…but the “Studios parks” (including those overseas and at Disney) haven’t done that. Which means that, right now, the only thing that separates one of those parks from any other IP-driven theme park, is the guest-facing exposure of rigging, show buildings, etc. in a place that is otherwise trying to sell you on the real deal.

I mean, the park dedication plaques help!

Look at something like MMRR, at a studio park it's a celebration of movies and animated shorts that harken back to the days of Mickey shorts. In DL it's a Toon-ified theater that exists in the Toontown story.

I have this issue with the Disney studio parks too. The real reason that ride is in the Chinese theater is because the structure already existed and it looks good from the outside. Disney didn’t actually do anything to the ride to make that setting make sense, though (they kinda fell ass-backwards into the “celebration of cartoon shorts” thing), which is why it works equally well at Disneyland. Just plopping a ride in a semi-Hollywood facade doesn’t define an entire park’s thematic structure IMO.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I sure do enjoy the studio park EPCOT, which celebrates the movie-making magic of Guardians, Frozen, Nemo, Rattatouie…

If we’re defining things so broadly and loosely that Universal Hollywood in the 80s and IoA today both have claims on the term “studio park,” then the term is useless.

Once again, the changing direction at Universal is a result of a larger shift in the economic logic of the entertainment industry as a whole towards an emphasis on fully controllable narrative universes (the name of the new park is a little hint). It has little if anything to do with a lack of development in the technology of film - after all, many of the elements of filmmaking Universal Orlando originally highlighted had been more or less consistent since the 30s and 40s. If anything, modern computer technology could make “behind-the-scenes” attractions MORE compelling. What changed, and what changed the parks, was a shift in studio focus born of a desire to maximize the efficiency of the economic structure of the studios with their multiple platform pipelines.

 

[GAcoaster]

The overarching theme is studio park and encompasses whatever they want it to mean.

Movie sets can be fully immersive just like theme park lands, except a theme park land completely surrounds you since you are the camera. So much of the park still has the "behind the scenes" elements and touches of "movie magic".

It's still a "Studio Park" much more than DHS is.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

I sure do enjoy the studio park EPCOT, which celebrates the movie-making magic of Guardians, Frozen, Nemo, Rattatouie…

If we’re defining things so broadly and loosely that Universal Hollywood in the 80s and IoA today both have claims on the term “studio park,” then the term is useless.

Lmao, that’s exactly my point. What is a “studio park”? If it’s just a place where rides are based on movies, then you could consider everything is a studio park these days. Nothing at USF is based on the behind-the-scenes part of movies any more than Guardians, Frozen, or Nemo are.

 

[Brian G.]

Lmao, that’s exactly my point. What is a “studio park”? If it’s just a place where rides are based on movies, then you could consider everything is a studio park these days. Nothing at USF is based on the behind-the-scenes part of movies any more than Guardians, Frozen, or Nemo are.

But to @ImaginerdMike and @Chumpieboy points - USF has always been a hodge podge with a Studio Lot aesthetic, which lets them get away with cheating a little bit. They aren't confined to the "Theme Park rules" - which is why you had "Behind-the-scenes" mixed with "in the movies" even during the 90s.

What I don't get is why we're changing the parameters of a "Studio" because it doesn't do it as much as it used to. It still has "behind the scenes" attractions, still has film sets in the park, and still has filming productions. A rose is a rose and all that.

 

[Casper Gutman]

The overarching theme is studio park and encompasses whatever they want it to mean.

Movie sets can be fully immersive just like theme park lands, except a theme park land completely surrounds you since you are the camera. So much of the park still has the "behind the scenes" elements and touches of "movie magic".

It's still a "Studio Park" much more than DHS is.

There is a huge difference between something being presented as “a genuine film set of Hogsmeade” and it being presented as “Hogsmeade.” There’s a difference in how it is constructed and presented, how guests experience and analyze it, how it fits into the corporations larger goals, etc. If we’re not going to make those distinctions, it becomes utterly pointless to try and analyze theme parks as important cultural spaces. And Universal absolutely is not the only stakeholder that gets to define what a “studio park” is - there’s a large body of relevant academic work on tourism in general and theme parks in particular, not to mention the opinions of average guests.

Honestly, it seems like for some posters the priority is making terms and concepts so vague and loose that it becomes impossible to critically engage with the resort.

When was the last time Universal added a straightforward “behind-the-scenes” attraction?

 

[OrlandoGuy]

But to @ImaginerdMike and @Chumpieboy points - USF has always been a hodge podge with a Studio Lot aesthetic, which lets them get away with cheating a little bit. They aren't confined to the "Theme Park rules" - which is why you had "Behind-the-scenes" mixed with "in the movies" even during the 90s.

What I don't get is why we're changing the parameters of a "Studio" because it doesn't do it as much as it used to. It still has "behind the scenes" attractions, still has film sets in the park, and still has filming productions. A rose is a rose and all that.

I guess where I’m coming from, the word “studio” is being used as a way to write off lazy placemaking. Without actually differentiating the attractions from what can fit inside of an IOA or an Epcot or an Animal Kingdom, etc. all you’re doing is plopping big empty boxes in your park without actually going the extra mile to justify it. As far as the stuff you mentioned…it’s really just one behind the scenes attraction in Horror Make-Up (hardly the park’s signature experience) and a production studio that operates completely separate from the parks (and sits equally close to IOA).

I say this as someone who actually really enjoys USF. But I also think a studio-style park that doesn’t try to be educational or behind the scenes could be fun (like I said, a postmodern approach to the attraction storytelling or a Golden Age of Hollywood aesthetic are things I could see working and being unique). And instead of that, USF exists in some middle ground between traditionally-themed rides (and a whole land in Diagon) and a lesser aesthetic.

 

[Brian G.]

I guess where I’m coming from, the word “studio” is being used as a way to write off lazy placemaking. Without actually differentiating the attractions from what can fit inside of an IOA or an Epcot or an Animal Kingdom, etc. all you’re doing is plopping big empty boxes in your park without actually going the extra mile to justify it. As far as the stuff you mentioned…it’s really just one behind the scenes attraction in Horror Make-Up (hardly the park’s signature experience) and a production studio that operates completely separate from the parks (and sits equally close to IOA).

I say this as someone who actually really enjoys USF. But I also think a studio-style park that doesn’t try to be educational or behind the scenes could be fun (like I said, a postmodern approach to the attraction storytelling or a Golden Age of Hollywood aesthetic are things I could see working and being unique). And instead of that, USF exists in some middle ground between traditionally-themed rides (and a whole land in Diagon) and a lesser aesthetic.

I would say that it also seems part of the problem is that there is no clear-cut definition of what a "Studio" park.

To present a flipside, no one would argue that USH isn't a Studio park yet they pretty much have the same line-up as USF save for the Studio Tour (which admittedly does a lot of heavy lifting). You enter the world of Hogsmeade, Jurassic World (to a lesser extent), and WaterWorld is presented in the same way as Bourne.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

I would say that it also seems part of the problem is that there is no clear-cut definition of what a "Studio" park.

To present a flipside, no one would argue that USH isn't a Studio park yet they pretty much have the same line-up as USF save for the Studio Tour (which admittedly does a lot of heavy lifting). You enter the world of Hogsmeade, Jurassic World (to a lesser extent), and WaterWorld is presented in the same way as Bourne.

But the appeal of USH is that it actually is a busy studio…when you go to see the ugly show buildings on the Lower Lot, it’s because there are actual shows being produced next door. USF’s production center was manufactured from the get-go as a failed ploy to bring movies to Florida…it was never organic and definitely isn’t now.

Let’s put it this way…if I came here to justify the hodgepodge of themes and IP at Epcot by saying “oh, look at the new parking lot sections…they’re rebranding as a studio park,” people would lose their minds

 

[UniversalRBLX]

It's a studio-themed park, not a studio park. There's a difference between theming and actual studio work/educational behind-the-scenes experiences.

I don't think Horror Makeup on its own can keep the studio park idea afloat. The "studio theme" is only there because Universal is too cheap to actually build facades and improve the park entrance to modernize it when they decided to focus on transporting you into the movies themselves. I'm sure if they can play Roller Coaster Tycoon in real life the entirety of the park entrance would have been redone to be similar to USH's or Beijing's entrances, Fallon would have received a more substantial facade, and Minion Mayhem/Villain Con would get properly themed facades.

When USF first opened, it was a great balance between educational and "real" experiences, justifying the studio backlot idea throughout the park. Now... not so much.