Universal Studios Florida: What Do We Think About It?

[belloq87]

Despite its shortcomings USF can afford to be put on the back burner for now.

The problem is that I would argue USF has already been on the back burner (certainly quality-wise) for a decade.

IOA, even with a dead Lost Continent, is still the vastly superior park in terms of what's on offer. And it was ten years ago, yet in that decade, it has received three good-to-great attractions (Skull Island, Hagrid's, and VelociCoaster*), with Pokemon on the way.

Compare that to USF, which I'd argue has only added one truly good thing in that span (Bourne), and it's a stark contrast.

* Two of which were also additions, compared to all of USF's stuff being replacements.

 

[Brian G.]

The problem is that I would argue USF has already been on the back burner (certainly quality-wise) for a decade.

IOA, even with a dead Lost Continent, is still the vastly superior park in terms of what's on offer. And it was ten years ago, yet in that decade, it has received three good-to-great attractions (Skull Island, Hagrid's, and VelociCoaster*), with Pokemon on the way.

Compare that to USF, which I'd argue has only added one truly good thing in that span (Bourne), and it's a stark contrast.

* Two of which were also additions, compared to all of USF's stuff being replacements.

Belloq, we've had this convo before. Playing Monday Morning QB, yes - the attractions USF has added didn't land as they had hoped, but they still DID invest in the park in the last decade. Now they're going to have to reinvest quicker than they originally had planned. It's not going to be as quick as you want it to be; and because of the events that do make a lot of money, it's something they do have to seriously consider.

 

[OrlLover]

The problem is that I would argue USF has already been on the back burner (certainly quality-wise) for a decade.

IOA, even with a dead Lost Continent, is still the vastly superior park in terms of what's on offer. And it was ten years ago, yet in that decade, it has received three good-to-great attractions (Skull Island, Hagrid's, and VelociCoaster*), with Pokemon on the way.

Compare that to USF, which I'd argue has only added one truly good thing in that span (Bourne), and it's a stark contrast.

* Two of which were also additions, compared to all of USF's stuff being replacements.

You certainly have the right to question the quality of attractions they did over the years.

However I believe we are forgetting some of the smaller offerings that were recently added and I believe to be successes such as Dreamworks Land, Today’s Cafe and the Minion Land rebranding.

These are incremental changes that don’t typically make a lot of noise but shows Universal caring to invest a little in the park.

 

[Jake S]

Islands of Adventure is (IMO) one of the best theme parks on earth and is significantly better than either of the other two parks on property. That's not just about attractions for me; I just don't like the vibe at the Studios park as much as at Islands. Obviously, other opinions are available.

Like @Mad Dog said earlier, most visitors have park hoppers, so this isn't exactly existential IMO. I go to the Studios park for the few rides I enjoy (and Diagon Alley, which is incredible) and then bop back to Islands. Studios having the night time show is a big deal, but it's also not run as frequently as I think it should.

But if Universal wants me and my family to spend more time at Universal Studios (and not Islands or Volcano Bay)... they've got a lot of work to do. I don't think it's about whose "turn" it is to get investment, but more about trying to bring about a greater balance between the parks at the resort.