Wizarding World of Harry Potter - Ministry of Magic - General Discussion Thread

[Brian G.]

They’re wonderfully designed lands. Utter masterpieces of theming. Potter Paris looks like more of the same high quality.

The ride selection in the lands reflects Universal’s profoundly misguided reluctance to build family-friendly attractions, even as the resort’s identity is tied more and more closely to family-friendly franchises and the resort competes for a wider range of guests. It’s a stubborn remnant of an earlier, very different era in the resort’s history.

Both true.

But that's not their MO... It's not misguided or reluctant if that's not what they aim for. Sorry to sound like a broken record, but they aren't Disney - and that's ok! It should be worth mentioning that we also don't know the parameters of the Ministry attraction.

Furthermore, while there are family-friendly elements in the series, there's no way any child under 5 should be watching the story of, ultimately, a grown-ass man trying to kill children. Potter aims for an older kids crowd; so Universal SHOULD market their E-ticket rides to that demo.

And for the younger tykes, Universal offers rides like Hyppogriff and Hogwarts Express, or experiences like the magical wands and Ollivander's.

Now, that's not to say I'd LOVE to see a dark ride like what @belloq87 mentioned, but that doesn't mean it's any type of failure or misguidance.

How are Gringotts or the Hogwarts Express not family friendly dark rides?

They are - but the caveat is they do have height restrictions so there is that asterisk.

 

[Casper Gutman]

But that's not their MO... It's not misguided or reluctant if that's not what they aim for. Sorry to sound like a broken record, but they aren't Disney - and that's ok! It should be worth mentioning that we also don't know the parameters of the Ministry attraction.

It is entirely possible for a company's "aim" to be misguided. It happens all the time. When your core properties are King Kong, Jaws, Psycho, Back to the Future, and Ghostbusters and you are an upstart competing against an established player that dominates the families-with-young-children market,, targeting teens and thrill-seekers makes sense. When your core properties are Super Mario, How to Train Your Dragon, and Harry Potter and you are competing directly for all market segments, not building significant numbers of family-friendly rides is counterintuitive. Subject matter and age level should be coherent. You don't make a PG-13 rated Minions movie.

Universal isn't Disney, but they sure would like to be making Disney cash from their parks - and they're investing a lot to do so.

Furthermore, while there are family-friendly elements in the series, there's no way any child under 5 should be watching the story of, ultimately, a grown-ass man trying to kill children. Potter aims for an older kids crowd; so Universal SHOULD market their E-ticket rides to that demo.

Little Red Riding Hood. Hansel and Gretel. Pinocchio. Dumbo. All sorts of fairy tales and children's media features adults threatening to kill or harm children. The early Potter books and movies are absolutely aimed at younger children.

For a franchise with such a wide range of appeal, building some rides with height restrictions is absolutely justifiable. When you've built six rides based on the franchise and only ONE lacks a height limit (the one that requires the purchase of a more expensive ticket to ride), its fair to note the mismatch between IP and rides.

And for the younger tykes, Universal offers rides like Hyppogriff and Hogwarts Express, or experiences like the magical wands and Ollivander's.

Now, that's not to say I'd LOVE to see a dark ride like what @belloq87 mentioned, but that doesn't mean it's any type of failure or misguidance.

 

[saint.piss]

 

[Brian G.]

Little Red Riding Hood. Hansel and Gretel. Pinocchio. Dumbo. All sorts of fairy tales and children's media features adults threatening to kill or harm children. The early Potter books and movies are absolutely aimed at younger children.

And point to me which E-Ticket family-friendly dark ride with no restriction in Disney features those properties? Let's also call a spade a spade because the Disney versions of those stories are extremely different than the source material. I would also be remiss to mention that Disney changed their Snow White attraction because it was "too scary"...

As far as Potter goes - last I checked, toddlers/Pre-K kids generally aren't fond of big scary trolls or snakes. The parts that appeal to the young ages of Potter are represented.

For a franchise with such a wide range of appeal, building some rides with height restrictions is absolutely justifiable. When you've built six rides based on the franchise and only ONE lacks a height limit (the one that requires the purchase of a more expensive ticket to ride), its fair to note the mismatch between IP and rides.

Sure. But that's your personal preference. That does not equate to dysfunction.

It is entirely possible for a company's "aim" to be misguided. It happens all the time. When your core properties are King Kong, Jaws, Psycho, Back to the Future, and Ghostbusters and you are an upstart competing against an established player that dominates the families-with-young-children market,, targeting teens and thrill-seekers makes sense. When your core properties are Super Mario, How to Train Your Dragon, and Harry Potter and you are competing directly for all market segments, not building significant numbers of family-friendly rides is counterintuitive. Subject matter and age level should be coherent. You don't make a PG-13 rated Minions movie.

There's a fine line between "they aren't building family-friendly rides" and "they aren't building the family-friendly rides that I want". Super Mario and Dragons has an extremely balanced line-up that appeals to all ages.

Universal isn't Disney, but they sure would like to be making Disney cash from their parks - and they're investing a lot to do so.

I guess those "dysfunctional" decisions seem to be doing OK then...

 

[Jake S]

I see no reason for Universal to compete head to head with Disney on the 0-9 year old demographic. There’s plenty of market share to capture that isn’t being catered to at the Disney parks and I don’t see it as a failure, or frankly even a problem, that they’re not trying to go “big tent” on this.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Sure. But that's your personal preference. That does not equate to dysfunction.

If Universal began producing exclusively PG-13 rated Minions, Despicable Me, and Super Mario animated films, would you question the wisdom of the decision makers? Would you strongly suspect that they're excluding large chunks of their potential audience and leaving money on the table?

There's a fine line between "they aren't building family-friendly rides" and "they aren't building the family-friendly rides that I want". Super Mario and Dragons has an extremely balanced line-up that appeals to all ages.

As far as I'm aware, Mario has no rides without a height limit. Which is also very silly.

I guess those "dysfunctional" decisions seem to be doing OK then...

We can't really say that until we see what kind of ROI EU produces. Even then, it won't prove that an approach that appealed to a broader audience wouldn't have worked even better.

If they don't want to compete for the (incredibly lucrative) family-with-young-children market, that's a choice, if an odd one. If that's the case, however, they shouldn't emphasize IPs like Mario, Dragon, and Potter. Build Fast & Furious land or Blumhouse Island.

By the way, are there any quotations from Uni execs about not targeting the family market? I believe there certainly were in the early years of the resort, but is that still an openly stated policy?

 

[Jake S]

If that's the case, however, they shouldn't emphasize IPs like Mario, Dragon, and Potter. Build Fast & Furious land or Blumhouse Island.

Mario, Dragon and Potter are popular with the exact demographic (families with "older" kids) Universal is already targeting. What in the world are you talking about?

 

[Cup_Of_Coffee]

If Universal began producing exclusively PG-13 rated Minions, Despicable Me, and Super Mario animated films, would you question the wisdom of the decision makers? Would you strongly suspect that they're excluding large chunks of their potential audience and leaving money on the table?

As far as I'm aware, Mario has no rides without a height limit. Which is also very silly.

We can't really say that until we see what kind of ROI EU produces. Even then, it won't prove that an approach that appealed to a broader audience wouldn't have worked even better.

If they don't want to compete for the (incredibly lucrative) family-with-young-children market, that's a choice, if an odd one. If that's the case, however, they shouldn't emphasize IPs like Mario, Dragon, and Potter. Build Fast & Furious land or Blumhouse Island.

By the way, are there any quotations from Uni execs about not targeting the family market? I believe there certainly were in the early years of the resort, but is that still an openly stated policy?

They’re literally building a kids only park in Texas.

 

[saint.piss]

 

[kristenabelle]

It sounds more appropriate for like a limited time attraction in a major city.

They had two VR experiences at the store in NYC. I preferred the walkaround/spell attraction (a little lower quality than the VOID, imo) over the broomstick one. I think all of us came off the brooms a bit worse for wear, and less likely to gorge at the butterbeer bar afterwards

 

[krazyhorrorkid]

To pitch in my two sense about VR…

It is great to have it in your homes, but it’s still in its growing years still all this time later…
But mixing it into any theme park at the moment is disastrous. Back when it was around I did experience Kraken VR at Seaworld and while the experience is definitely unique and I did enjoy it, it was craziness trying to dispatch those trains. Lots of accessibility issues, some people can’t breath in them correctly, Ambassadors had to constantly adjust everyone’s headset individually, and some people just don’t find them comfortable and ended up opting out of the experience. It’s not for everyone and until these issues are resolved later in its life cycle, it will be a no go. We can come try again eventually, but not right now.

I know at the end of its life cycle they were doing reservations only to minimize the aftermath of the horrid dispatch times. There may be other reasons I’m not filled in on though.

 

[IzzyB]

Which part of the idea that a family-friendly franchise should have a family-friendly attraction is nonsense?

My point is simply that a logical future addition to EU’s Potter land would be a family-friendly dark ride.

What about Harry Potter is family friendly to the toddlers that these rides are not aimed at? My 9 and 13 year old (actual target age for the movies with 9 watching the first couple and 13 can watch all of them) ride all the rides in HP lands except the castle one. That even scared my 13 year old. But guess what? The movies also slightly scare them. The rides are absolutely up to par with the movies in terms of target youth age. They are meant to scare you because the movies scare you. Keep in mind several of the movies are PG-13.

I see no reason for Universal to compete head to head with Disney on the 0-9 year old demographic. There’s plenty of market share to capture that isn’t being catered to at the Disney parks and I don’t see it as a failure, or frankly even a problem, that they’re not trying to go “big tent” on this.

I agree they will never SOLELY look for the families with ONLY 0-9. However, they do need to compete for the larger families with older and younger kids. Which I have seen lately that is where they are going. httyd is a perfect example of a well balanced area with play areas, theater show, family coaster, family water ride, and more thrilling flat ride. There truly is something for every age group in that area. Focusing on re-doing the one kids area in Universal also shows me this and that Pokemon is the rumor (widely popular in the 4+ age groups) also shows me this.

If Universal began producing exclusively PG-13 rated Minions, Despicable Me, and Super Mario animated films, would you question the wisdom of the decision makers? Would you strongly suspect that they're excluding large chunks of their potential audience and leaving money on the table?

As far as I'm aware, Mario has no rides without a height limit. Which is also very silly.

Your argument makes no sense. HP is PG-13 for a lot of their movies so it makes sense their rides would be too. Do you even have kids? Because I can tell you HP is not something real young kids are into at all. Sure they like the wands and the magic of it all, but they do not understand it at all. The books were meant for Tweens to read not kids.

I will also say by the time my son liked Mario he was already 40+ inches tall.

 

[Jake S]

I agree they will never SOLELY look for the families with ONLY 0-9. However, they do need to compete for the larger families with older and younger kids. Which I have seen lately that is where they are going. httyd is a perfect example of a well balanced area with play areas, theater show, family coaster, family water ride, and more thrilling flat ride. There truly is something for every age group in that area. Focusing on re-doing the one kids area in Universal also shows me this and that Pokemon is the rumor (widely popular in the 4+ age groups) also shows me this.

Totally agree with this.

 

[seb]

It seems that the streets of Paris will be paved in the style of rue Montorgueil (a street near Porte Saint Denis)




I love the details they're adding to the facades as they go along, the hotel with the snail is funny.



Maybe we'll see a restaurant with a storefront like the one on rue Montorgeuil?

 

[Brian G.]

It seems that the streets of Paris will be paved in the style of rue Montorgueil (a street near Porte Saint Denis)

View attachment 21574
View attachment 21575

I love the details they're adding to the facades as they go along, the hotel with the snail is funny.



Maybe we'll see a restaurant with a storefront like the one on rue Montorgeuil?

View attachment 21576

Good eye!

 

[Alicia]

Aw I missed the discourse, but my niece is 11. She’s old enough for and enjoys some roller coasters—but she is not old enough to watch the Harry Potter films yet.

The ride offerings are not only fine, they’re exactly catered to their target demographics if you ask me.

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

I was born in 99, and mostly watched the movies when they came out starting when I was around 5 or 6, but I get the sense that parents these days are much more protective about what their kids see.

 

[Alicia]

I was born in 99, and mostly watched the movies when they came out starting when I was around 5 or 6, but I get the sense that parents these days are much more protective about what their kids see.

It really depends on the parents, not necessarily these days, but always.

 

[Brian G.]

I was born in 99, and mostly watched the movies when they came out starting when I was around 5 or 6, but I get the sense that parents these days are much more protective about what their kids see.

It’s weird to really say since every kid is different, so there are sure to be exceptions. When I was 5, my mom let me watch Alien. Meanwhile, my (at the time) 5 year old niece was absolutely terrified at the sight of Minions.

 

[Alicia]

It’s weird to really say since every kid is different, so there are sure to be exceptions. When I was 5, my mom let me watch Alien. Meanwhile, my (at the time) 5 year old niece was absolutely terrified at the sight of Minions.

I thought we were all still terrified of the Minions.

They cannot die.