Thanks for the comments, everyone. It's great hearing what you all have to say.
He he, my YouTube comment was used in the article.
This was really well written. It really is a grim reality though. My biggest issue stems from the fact that Uni keeps replacing thrills with spills. Each new attraction is mostly for children and what once was a great place to have a thrill is now becoming child friendly muck. Each new attraction feels very shallow when compared to the older ones. Some show effort (Transformers) and others just show how cheap and lazy Uni can be (Simpsons).
I wouldn't mind if an attraction was replaced as long as it's done up to the quality standard of the last.
I don't think we'll see JP gone anytime soon though. Jurassic Park will always be relevant because Dinosaurs are forever burned into the culture.
Wow, that's a coincidence. Didn't even know! But I definitely understand your point.
I think there are two narratives at play: those that resent the new wave of attractions based off content alone (e.g., not liking Despicable Me because it hasn't become a "Universal classic" in a sense) and those who are frustrated with the park's lackluster replacements - as you've outlined above (e.g., Simpsons replacing Back to the Future). And of course, you have a mix of those in between.
I fall more in the latter, so I guess I was trying to explain of why the studio has resorted to franchises like Shrek, Transformers and Harry Potter more so than to explain the wave of mediocre crap that Universal has been putting out for the better half of five-or-so years (think Simpsons, Fast and Furious and even Mummy - ending with King Kong). Those attractions have lasting footprints, so it's frustrating to see - especially at a park that has a limited selection of attractions.
I think that camp is completely reasonable. On the other hand, you have those who simply dislike Despicable Me for being new. That's the audience I was trying to target. On one hand, you can have a park with the latest and greatest, and on the other a park completely bathed in old, nostalgic stuff. Chris recently went to the Magic Kingdom, and he kept emphasizing the old 1980s feel that was so prevalent in the park. I felt the same way on my visit to Disneyland a year before. It's a great experience, but there doesn't seem to be much new. Just look at Epcot.
Many people probably see Universal suffering from the same feeling, but perhaps even more so with the lack of attractions. That's where the issue of moving on comes into play.
With Back to the Future to Simpsons transition, same thing. We got an amazing ride that was immersive and could have easily been changed (change 2015 to 2050, etc) and what we got in return was an extended April Fools joke of a ride. A cheap overlay. Disney does a better SEASONAL overlay for Haunted Mansion and Space Mountain.
I know that BTTF and ET and Terminator are older properties that don't really bring the crowds, but that could've easily been changed if they were smarter.
But beyond that, the issue for me has been less that they're replacing rides with non Universal properties, but that the new rides are inferior and they didn't try as hard as the ride that it replaced. Does that make sense?
That's part of the battle, I think. I understand that Back to the Future is an immensely popular franchise, but I can see why Universal decided on the Simpsons for the sake of relevancy. It's just a shame they produced what they did. I can't stress this enough: 20 years of material, and the best you can do is a queue video? Give me a break.
But that era's (hopefully) over.
