Epic Universe Expansion Speculation

[belloq87]

I also will never understand the resistance to the very idea of Universal Orlando -- once in a great, great while -- adding dark rides without height requirements, or that offer a less frantic energy.

As a company, they clearly do want to have stuff that appeals to young(er) kids (as evidenced by the Texas park, Fyre Drill and Dragon Racers Rally at Epic, the DreamWorks land overlay, VillainCon, etc.). Why are those attractions seen as inherently superior to a more classic conception of a dark ride? Especially considering such a thing would appeal to those kids and a larger audience of guests, and are a valuable component of a well-balanced, well-rounded roster of attractions for any theme park.

 

[DrStarlander]

No.

Universal has a market and they're good at it. They have a house style and they're good at it. I don't want Universal to make Disney rides, I want Disney to make them.

Growing market share, if that's their goal, requires diversification of offerings. When a business is trying to generate billions of revenue on tens of millions of people, it's about casting a wider net. Every dollar spent toward appealing to the existing captured market has less ROI than expanding the market. It's just business. Not building a roller coaster will not negatively affect Epic's visitation one bit.

Building a Pirates-killer could.

Imagine you are running a shopping mall and your concern is generating more revenue in the food court. Your mall already has Foot Locker, Lids, Zumiez, Hollister, and Pac Sun. Is it going to drive more sales in the food court to add a Tilly's? No, or like maybe 1%. It would more likely increase unique foot traffic to the mall and sales in the food court by adding a Bath & Body Works. There is diminishing returns in hammering the same market exclusively.

They're clearly not going after families with kids under 40 inches and, frankly, I don't blame 'em.

Why? Getting familes with kids - and the grandparents -- is Universal's biggest untapped opportunity for attendance growth. Not only is it a market right there, arm's reach, that's relatively easy to target, looking for an alternative to Disney, it's a chance to form a lifelong brand relationship rather than waiting until kids are in their teens and totally distracted by real life and maybe not even going on vacation with their parents anymore.

Epic has a capacity issue right now more than any problem with drawing in new guests. A coaster with good capacity would be fantastic right now.

Dark rides, boat rides like Pirates, can have huge throughput. And people love them.

 

[Jake S]

Are they? They shouldn't expect to overtake Disney as king, but at the very least try to offer more experiences? Epic Universe is quite well-rounded. And families with children bring a lot of revenue.

Epic Universe has a grand total of one attraction without a height requirement ... and it doesn't allow lap sitting. There is very little to do at the three parks that does not have a height requirement. That, at least to me, suggests they're not trying to capture the families with kids under five demographic.

Perhaps I'm forgetting something, but I can't think of an example of a god-tier, no height requirement attraction built at a Universal theme park. Disney has tons of them. Should they create more all-ages attractions? Maybe, though I don't think they have much of a shot of taking on Disney in that fight. But it seems pretty clear to me that it's something they have not been doing so far.

 

[Tbad556]

Dark rides, boat rides like Pirates, can have huge throughput. And people love them.

Just to be clear, I adore a good boat ride and agree that it can have good capacity. However, I don't think anyone has really been clamoring for Potter to get a boat ride. Other than the Hogwarts boats, they're not that heavily featured in the universe (I've never seen Fantastic Beasts, so I could be wrong here) and this isn't Hogsmeade. People have been wanting a broom attraction for ages now, though.

A boat ride for Dark Universe on the other hand... massive fan.

 

[belloq87]

That, at least to me, suggests they're not trying to capture the families with kids under five demographic.

The goal doesn’t have to be (nor should it be) to try to “capture” a demographic.

It should be to diversify a park’s attractions lineup. And, frankly, every park in Orlando not called Magic Kingdom or Islands of Adventure could stand for their lineups to be varying degrees of more diversified.

Should they create more all-ages attractions? Maybe, though I don't think they have much of a shot of taking on Disney in that fight. But it seems pretty clear to me that it's something they have not been doing so far.

I’d put Secret Life of Pets in Hollywood* up against any Disney attraction of similar scale built in this century.

Universal can absolutely build high-quality attractions on that level.

* Yes, it has the limiting ride vehicle; I assume that wouldn't have to be the case in every instance.

 

[DrStarlander]

I don't think they have much of a shot of taking on Disney in that fight.

Piraten in Batavia at Europa-Park is a rip-off of Disney's Pirates but arguable better, more impressive. If Mack can do it, I'm sure Universal can. I think Disney is leaving the gate wide open on these types of rides actually, some relatively recent entries have been lackluster (could Universal do better than MMRR or Little Mermaid, for example? Absolutely). I think Universal could come in with some creativity and blow Disney away in this genre.

Just to be clear, I adore a good boat ride and agree that it can have good capacity. However, I don't think anyone has really been clamoring for Potter to get a boat ride. People have been wanting a broom attraction for ages now, though.

Granted, some IPs have certain elements and scenes that fans want to experience (like riding a broom in Potter or riding a speeder-bike in Star Wars). Indeed, that's ripe fruit. So take my comment about doing an all-ages boat ride instead of a coaster as a more generic comment. Though with a 150,000 show building they could fit both Europa-Park's Arthur (broom ride) and a boat ride.

 

[Clive]

I will take any well-executed, highly themed, and reasonably high capacity ride that is indoors and not an inversion-heavy coaster, period.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

Growing market share, if that's their goal, requires diversification of offerings.

Which they do with IP. We’re not asking Disney to make X2, why are we asking Universal to make the Jungle Cruise?

 

[Jake S]

I’d put Secret Life of Pets in Hollywood* up against any Disney attraction of similar scale built in this century.

Eh, I think it's a nice ride but I don't think it's great. It also has a height requirement, which is part of my whole point.

Piraten in Batavia at Europa-Park is a rip-off of Disney's Pirates but arguable better, more impressive. If Mack can do it, I'm sure Universal can. I think Disney is leaving the gate wide open on these types of rides actually, some relatively recent entries have been lackluster (could Universal do better than MMRR or Little Mermaid, for example? Absolutely). I think Universal could come in with some creativity and blow Disney away in this genre.

To clarify, I'm saying they don't have a shot at winning the battle for families with kids under five. That said, I also don't see any evidence of them actually building the type of ride you're talking about. Where is the no height requirement attraction built by Universal that's better than Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railroad? I'm not saying they "can't" do it, but ... they've been making theme park rides a long time and haven't done it.

And my original point isn't that building a coaster is better than building an all-ages dark ride. My point is that building a most-ages, low-thrill roller coaster is not a bad move.

 

[Mike S]

I also think it depends on what kind of coaster it is. Gringotts is a [not very good] roller coaster that absolutely appeals to people who aren't interested in Hulk or Velocicoaster. I think something on the (thrill) level of Cosmic Rewind, Big Thunder or Space Mountain would strengthen Universal's appeal with the Families With Kids demographic. They're clearly not going after families with kids under 40 inches and, frankly, I don't blame 'em.

My vote for a coaster on that level goes to Super Mario Galaxy which I know is likely a pipe dream but also maybe not if the movie is super successful.

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

Which they do with IP. We’re not asking Disney to make X2, why are we asking Universal to make the Jungle Cruise?

Neither company would ever make anything like either of these attractions?

Let's also not pretend like IP is a zero sum process for expanding the market. Usually parks make rides that correspond with the demographics for the IP itself. You could say Fast and Furious Supercharged expanded the market, but it didn't because the ride system did not match the IP.

 

[belloq87]

Which they do with IP. We’re not asking Disney to make X2, why are we asking Universal to make the Jungle Cruise?

Why wouldn't everyone want to see what Universal Creative of the 2020s could do with a highly-themed boat ride? It sounds awesome to me.

Again, I don't get the perspective (not saying it's necessarily yours, Joe) that souped-up flat rides and kiddie play areas are apparently totally acceptable and great for Universal to build, but non-thrill/tech-heavy dark/boat rides are verboten.

It also has a height requirement, which is part of my whole point.

Which I mentioned via the ride vehicle. It's inexplicable it was designed that way. Presumably an extremely similar ride could exist without a height requirement and with higher capacity.

I also think getting hung up, specifically, on height requirements* is missing a larger point. Even with a height requirement, and even if you don't think it's great, I think SLOP is exactly the type of attraction that both USF and Epic could use (or use more of).

But this discussion is potentially turning into a major digression for the thread. I'd be happy to continue it elsewhere if there's a more appropriate venue. Or not!

* Wanting more attractions with specifically no height requirements is not an inherent ask that I'm making (others might be). If something like SLOP must have a height requirement, then fine. We're using "no height requirement" as a kind of shorthand.

 

[Mike S]

Did Jaws have a height limit?

I can’t remember.

 

[OrlLover]

Indoor coaster/dark ride hybrids are fine. What is not, are pure coasters. Epic is already out of balance with them, just like USF is with simulators. All things in moderation is a good policy.

Exactly I agree.

The last thing Epic needs is another coaster regardless if it’s in a box. If Uni Creative is paying attention they will understand that.

The park is well balanced to an extent but more ride types are needed. Let’s be honest a coaster is a cheap addition and I don’t think they want that for the second major headlining attraction in the land.

rumor has it that the potter expansion will be a flight of passage style simulator

I can actually see this happening if they settle on the Broomstick concept.

 

[Alicia]

Epic Universe has a grand total of one attraction without a height requirement ... and it doesn't allow lap sitting. There is very little to do at the three parks that does not have a height requirement. That, at least to me, suggests they're not trying to capture the families with kids under five demographic.

Epic has two: Constellation Carousel and Fyre Drill technically have no height requirement. But both disallow lap sitting.

Did Jaws have a height limit?

I can’t remember.

No, and no lap sitting. Children had to be able to sit on their own to ride.

The last thing Epic needs is another coaster regardless if it’s in a box.

If it looks like this and doesn't do coaster-y things, I doubt people would think of it as a coaster as much as
the broomstick ride"

 

[Mike S]

No, and no lap sitting. Children had to be able to sit on their own to ride.

Stinks that the best no height ride in Orlando had to close.

 

[Blue]

The irony in not wanting "Disney rides" at Universal is that Disney has been and is building "Universal rides" at their parks for a minute now. RoTR, GoTG, Monsters Inc door coaster, the new Cars ride, etc are all much more thrilling than the typical Disney ride people expect and do a lot to balance the parks and offer something for everyone.

I would love to see Universal add some variety in the attraction lineup. Not everything needs to be a SCOOP or coaster. A boat ride, omnimover, or even a true ToT-style drop tower would go a long way to filling out the park (and resort) lineup imo.

 

[Clive]

Eh, I think it's a nice ride but I don't think it's great. It also has a height requirement, which is part of my whole point.

First of all, how dare you

(I'm fine if the Potter ride is a family-friendly steeplechase coaster, especially if Nintendo gets a boat ride or some other dark ride-like experience for its seemingly inevitable Zelda expansion. Monsters will probably also eventually get another dark ride or boat ride of some kind.)

 

[UniversalRBLX]

Epic Universe has a grand total of one attraction without a height requirement ... and it doesn't allow lap sitting. There is very little to do at the three parks that does not have a height requirement. That, at least to me, suggests they're not trying to capture the families with kids under five demographic.

Epic Universe definitely needs more family-friendly height requirement experiences, but the park was designed with families in mind. HTTYD is obviously targeted at the young childrens demographic, same with SNW.

Overall the park needs more capacity, but it certainly was designed with families in mind.