Orlando is a tourist destination. It is a town literally built and dependent on tourism! Walt Disney World is the largest tourist destination in Orlando. Universal Orlando is also a predominantly tourist-driven resort, though it has a larger proportion of locals in its audience mix (thanks in part for its local-friendly pricing structure -- or, put another way, cheaper price).
Two things can be true: Universal Studios Hollywood is primarily a tourist destination (and thus a tourist park), and it also hopes to be more than a one-day excursion someday. Based on what we can infer about their future plans, the short-term goal is to capture one to two night stays at an on-site hotel to collect revenue that's currently going to the nearby Hilton and Sheraton. The long-term goal is to build out the park and even, decades from now, explore a second gate to make the destination an actual resort worthy of multi-day stays by default (making the investment in the hotel a long-term boon).
Somewhere in there, the balance between tourists and locals could shift, but right now, it's predominantly tourists. USH was not a tourist park pre-Potter. I think some of you are too close to this and are engaging in confirmation bias. Like, I don't know how else to explain to you that I have been told repeatedly by folks with firsthand information that corporate and management view USH as a tourist-driven park.
Like I told Jake, it feels like you're just trying to argue semantics, especially the
destination part of tourist destination. Either you're not getting what I'm saying or just completely ignoring it. (Not sure which because you called Orlando a tourist destination, and then said Walt Disney World is the largest tourist destination in Orlando . . . so either you're changing your characterization of
tourist destination mid-sentence or this is some kinda Nolanesque game of destination-ception).
I think you're under the assumption that I don't think USH gets tourists, or that I think the majority of its visitors aren't tourists. I never said either thing. Los Angeles gets many, many foreign tourists every year, so obviously USH is going to have many, many tourists visit the park.
That, in and of itself, does not make USH a
tourist park because those people are making USH one stop as part of their larger trip. If you know enough to know that the majority of visitors are foreign tourists, then you should also know that most of them are doing many other things while visiting LA. Even if you didn't know that firsthand, it's still logical conclusion to draw, because like you said, USH is at most a two-day visit.
You cannot say the same for Disney World, or Disneyland, or the Universal Orlando resort. The people visiting those
tourist destinations, aka
tourist parks, are making them their one and only stop. Orlando is not the draw; Anaheim is not the draw. The parks are the purpose for their visit. If your single criteria for a tourist park is "tourists visit," then
every theme park is a tourist park.
USH is a locals park aspiring to be a tourist park and it's currently caught in limbo, and it's making people like Jerrod mad because they have Veruca Salt energy and they want the park to basically be Disneyland, even though it'll probably never be Disneyland even if/when it's able to finally call itself a tourist park. That's all I have left to say.