Universal Studios Florida: What Do We Think About It?

[Mad Dog]

Fallon is my wife's favorite ride in all three of Universal's parks. I can't keep her off of it....Never under estimate the tastes of the general public. They are often quite different than the hardcore fans.

 

[OrlLover]

Well Uni is gonna have no choice but to circle around to USF again for The Simpsons and Supercharged replacements.

So I would imagine the projects being very ambitious since they are in prime real estate.

 

[Brian G.]

Never opened today and according to replies, been closed since Friday.

It was open today. I was inside.

 

[belloq87]

But I also think Web Slingers is just fine, which I realize is *looks around* not a popular opinion.

The highlight of the ride is brief trip through a concrete hallway!

Inexcusable work that seems to have been thrown together in a panic upon realization that Avengers Campus needed something new when it was christened.

A much better version of the ride exists in the very same park!

Yeah USF invested during the same years IOA did. But it’s tough to make a favorable comparison between two elite roller coasters and a smattering of screen rides/a playground.

Especially when you compare the two direct analogs from this period (Skull Island and Supercharged), the contrast is really striking. One is so much more fleshed-out and impressive in every aspect.

The other is Supercharged.

Also.. I think we need to move past the "Fallon was a failure" argument. It wasn't.
You may not like it.. but it gets good GSATs, it's fun and it probably moves a decent bit of merch.

Can you square that with the data in the chart shared above that shows it ranked in the very bottom tier (as a measure of wait time factoring in capacity)?

And also, as I've said since it opened, Race Through New York's problem is that it was the third pure simulator in the park (and is the umpteenth heavily screen-based ride), replacing a physical effects showcase. If Minion Mayhem and/or Simpsons Ride were gone, I'd feel a lot more charitable towards it. The park just should not have all of those.

 

[TheCodeMan95]

Can you square that with the data in the chart shared above that shows it ranked in the very bottom tier (as a measure of wait time factoring in capacity)?

And also, as I've said since it opened, Race Through New York's problem is that it was the third pure simulator in the park (and is the umpteenth heavily screen-based ride), replacing a physical effects showcase. If Minion Mayhem and/or Simpsons Ride were gone, I'd feel a lot more charitable towards it. The park just should not have all of those.

I'm at work so I can't see the chart - but does it factor in that Race Through New York functioned off of a virtual queue for a long time?

 

[Mad Dog]

Yes, not so much that the simulators are bad, I actually like all except the terrible horrible Supercharged.... but the park is unbalanced due to the number. Supercharged is the main culprit in all of this. If this version wasn't forced on Creative by the Universal film executives, and a good E ticket instead in that huge center park spot, we probably wouldn't be having this debate.

Charts are, unfortunately, usually made up of the more fervent fans/park goers. Universal guest satisfaction charts that are not public are probably more representative of the general public.

 

[Brian G.]

Reminder that wait times isn’t always the greatest indication of a ride’s popularity. Are we gonna say Monsters Unchained isn’t received well?

(On cell, so being short)

 

[Clive]

I'd need to take another look at the data set being cited here, but I'm not convinced Race Against New York really has low ridership. It has a healthy capacity and an unusual queuing configuration that no doubt affects reported wait times. (But also, to Brian's point, a ride doesn't regularly need to have 45-minute queues to "prove" it's pulling its weight.)

 

[OrlandoGuy]

Also.. I think we need to move past the "Fallon was a failure" argument. It wasn't.
You may not like it.. but it gets good GSATs, it's fun and it probably moves a decent bit of merch.

Ehhhhh not really. Relative to what it is (what it cost to built, the tier of IP tied to it, etc.) it scores okay but it’s firmly in the bottom of the middle/top of the bottom tier of rides at the resort.

It’s the fraternity that gives you a bid night 1 so you hype it up in your brain but then you look around and you go, “oh…”

 

[Brian G.]

Ehhhhh not really. Relative to what it is (what it cost to built, the tier of IP tied to it, etc.) it scores okay but it’s firmly in the bottom of the middle/top of the bottom tier of rides at the resort.

Idk if I’d go that far. It’s def received better than what fans rate it.

I definitely am not a fan but it’s generally well-liked.

 

[HHN Maddux]

Race Through New York is an inoffensive and fun simulator with a great queue, it just opened at a really bad time.

 

[belloq87]

I'm at work so I can't see the chart - but does it factor in that Race Through New York functioned off of a virtual queue for a long time?

It was compiled using 2024/2025 data.

Reminder that wait times isn’t always the greatest indication of a ride’s popularity. Are we gonna say Monsters Unchained isn’t received well?

(On cell, so being short)

I'd need to take another look at the data set being cited here, but I'm not convinced Race Against New York really has low ridership. It has a healthy capacity and an unusual queuing configuration that no doubt affects reported wait times. (But also, to Brian's point, a ride doesn't regularly need to have 45-minute queues to "prove" it's pulling its weight.)

It is my interpretation that the chart in question is taking into account the ride's available capacity and synthesizing its ranking based on that (i.e. the ride doesn't pull nearly what it could/should in terms of throughput).

I also said that I'm sure there are caveats, and I don't know the methodology behind how they arrived at the calculations (perhaps @UniversalRBLX has a greater understanding, though I don't mean to summon you to the front of the class to explain it!).

But it seems evident to me that it is not in the highest tiers of demand. And I'm sure the rejoinder might me "Hey, Twister wasn't in the highest of demand, either." That's true. But it was a singular experience without anything else comparable in the park, while there are several comps for what Race Through New York offers.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

Idk if I’d go that far. It’s def received better than what fans rate it.

I definitely am not a fan but it’s generally well-liked.

I’m just going off the gsat numbers. I used to see a little color-coded sheet each week with each ride’s score and Fallon was always a really moderate yellow on a scale of green to red.

 

[TheCodeMan95]

I'd need to take another look at the data set being cited here, but I'm not convinced Race Against New York really has low ridership. It has a healthy capacity and an unusual queuing configuration that no doubt affects reported wait times. (But also, to Brian's point, a ride doesn't regularly need to have 45-minute queues to "prove" it's pulling its weight.)

Piggy backing off of this - how exactly are the wait times calculated for this? Considering people can enter the attraction, sit and play games/watch the entertainment for 30 minutes before even actually getting into line.

 

[Brian G.]

I’m just going off the gsat numbers. I used to see a little color-coded sheet each week with each ride’s score and Fallon was always a really moderate yellow on a scale of green to red.

Yeah - I'm not saying it's the upper echelon of UO's attractions. Just that the online hate doesn't match the GP. Everything that has been conveyed to me suggests that it's generally liked, which is all I've said.

It was compiled using 2024/2025 data.



It is my interpretation that the chart in question is taking into account the ride's available capacity and synthesizing its ranking based on that (i.e. the ride doesn't pull nearly what it could/should in terms of throughput).

I also said that I'm sure there are caveats, and I don't know the methodology behind how they arrived at the calculations (perhaps @UniversalRBLX has a greater understanding, though I don't mean to summon you to the front of the class to explain it!).

But it seems evident to me that it is not in the highest tiers of demand. And I'm sure the rejoinder might me "Hey, Twister wasn't in the highest of demand, either." That's true. But it was a singular experience without anything else comparable in the park, while there are several comps for what Race Through New York offers.

I think at this point we’re kind of shifting the goalposts a bit. We started with whether USF was on the “back burner,” and now we’re getting into ride demand, capacity models, etc. We’ve moved pretty far away from the original discussion.

If the takeaway is just that you think the park is in a worse place now than it was before, fine! Again, no one argued that, but that doesn’t mean Universal can just accelerate the timeline overnight, which is what it seems most of us were trying to point out.

Any course correction is going to happen in phases, not all at once. The fact that Universal was willing to eat crow and move on from Supercharged quickly should be a pretty big win.

 

[Andysol]

Hard disagree the other way — VillainCon is one of the worst attractions I've ever experienced and is absolutely a one and done for me. The animation looks terrible, there's way too much going on and the game play is mind-bogglingly bad. But I also think Web Slingers is just fine, which I realize is *looks around* not a popular opinion.

It’s an unpopular opinion on theme park forums. In the parks it’s highly popular; especially for locals.

Take 2 minutes, watch people get off the ride, and watch how much they smile and are arguing about their scores happily with each other.

Except @belloq87 ‘s group. They’ll all have their arms crossed and stomping away. J/k Love you boo