I think water world still has a contract to be there for a few years though and I would assume that if they were to tear it down for Wizarding World, it would be torn down at the same time as everything else.
Placement of Wizarding World Of Harry Potter?
- Thread starter BernardMesa
- Start date
-
Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
It very well might. I don't know their contract situation, but contracts can always be bought out.
Waterworld's current performer contract is through 2015. And this current contract is non-negotiable now that it's signed as far as I know.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's a relief 
I hope that doesn't change! Universal needs to keep at least one exciting show since T2 left.
I hope that doesn't change! Universal needs to keep at least one exciting show since T2 left.
Jon Fu
Editor-in-Chief Emeritus
Funny thing is, if the potential for a contract buy-out did exist, Universal would be too cheap to exercise on it.
If the contract is non-negotiable, that is horrible on Universal's part. In a contract you always want to leave a little wiggle room for yourself.
I agree, it will be the same size and layout. I do believe, however, that we will have a couple of different things than IOA.
I realize everyone says USH is cheap. I agree that they were cheap. They are spending quite of bit of cash to transform this park into a viable vacation destination. King Kong 360, Transformers, Despicable Me, the new central park, Shrek queue. Plus according to the people you have been talking to an attraction every year till Potter. Even if its a small little somthing. They are investing some serious cash. Not DCA cash or even USO, but for USH, I believe they are doing what should have been done years and years ago.
Last edited by a moderator:
The contract is between the company that the actors belong to and universal, and i think universal is for sure the one at the disadvantage, because the union for the actors negotiated it. Pretty sure that's part of why T2 had to wait till grinchmas was over to close, because of the contract they had. The actors from T2 work for the same group as the waterworld actors.
I totally get that most companies are always at the disadvantage when it comes to negotiating with Unions.
Yup. I dunno how i feel about them though...from one end they're good for wages and employee rights, but on the other hand they can be stubborn, not work with compromise and ruin things, like the hockey lockout.
I could imagine USH in the future, they have to keep WaterWorld, it already is the only movie-based show in the park besides Shrek.
They can definitely replace it eventually with something great. I would hope it would be an actual UNIVERSAL property though...Disney and Universal have been way too busy pumping out rides based on things they had to acquire or pay a license fee for :/
Jon Fu
Editor-in-Chief Emeritus
In my opinion, they're still cheap. We haven't truly seen an attraction from Universal that matches the scale of WaterWorld, Jurassic Park or Back to the Future. Transformers was a step in the right direction - don't get me wrong - but we still haven't seen anything earth shattering. Jurassic Park was earth shattering, and so were WaterWorld and Back to the Future. All three were major innovations in the theme park industry. Not to discredit Transformers, but it's using the same underlying technology as Spiderman - and that was introduced in 1999.
Until Universal makes another monumental leap (like what they did with Potter), I'll still remain skeptical with Comcast's involvement with the park. Until then, management appears to run on the same motive as they have in the past decade or so: spend enough to get the crowds in, but don't go beyond that.
...and the rumors that you've pointed must be taken as that - rumors. While we're confident about the "attraction every year" notion, we've clearly noted that the word "attraction" encompasses many meanings to Universal, and shouldn't be taken as gospel for anything major. Central Park and everything else are pure hearsay, and we have no confirmation on either two.
Long story short: the potential's there. We just haven't seen it realized yet.
Also keep in mind that King Kong and Transformers were all done under General Electric and under the park's old regime. There hasn't been a change in park-level management for many years, and for all we know, things won't change with the parks unless the current management can clearly demonstrate that they're committed. That, or a drastic change in management structure could and should occur.
As it stands, Despicable Me does not appear to be the step in the right direction. From what we hear, expect another Back to the Future rehash. That - to me - doesn't inspire confidence.
Last edited by a moderator:
^ I completely agree with you. The golden age of Universal attractions was the early to mid 90s. They made INNOVATIONS, and they were ground breaking to this day.
And were Kong and Transformers really under GE? When did Comcast exactly take over? Do you mean planning/budgeting was done under GE? Interesting, didn't know.
Honestly though, the one positive about Despicable Me from the looks of it is an immersive queue. It looks detailed and feels like you're in Gru's house, etc. The RIDE leaves something to be desired.
Also, one thing that we need to remember, is that a lot of the old "amazing" attractions were actually completely designed by Gary Goddard's theme park group. There wasn't much of a Universal Creative before. Jurassic Park, T2 and Spiderman were all Goddard. My hopes are that Universal designs more in house.
The one gleam of amazing innovation i see coming up that's on the scale of Spiderman and Forbidden Journey, is the upcoming Gringotts thrill ride in Florida. It's supposed to be a hybrid roller coaster AND simulator. If it turns out to be what i expect it to be, Universal will give Disney a run for it's money (which oddly enough also hasn't made any major innovation since Indiana Jones...)
And were Kong and Transformers really under GE? When did Comcast exactly take over? Do you mean planning/budgeting was done under GE? Interesting, didn't know.
Honestly though, the one positive about Despicable Me from the looks of it is an immersive queue. It looks detailed and feels like you're in Gru's house, etc. The RIDE leaves something to be desired.
Also, one thing that we need to remember, is that a lot of the old "amazing" attractions were actually completely designed by Gary Goddard's theme park group. There wasn't much of a Universal Creative before. Jurassic Park, T2 and Spiderman were all Goddard. My hopes are that Universal designs more in house.
The one gleam of amazing innovation i see coming up that's on the scale of Spiderman and Forbidden Journey, is the upcoming Gringotts thrill ride in Florida. It's supposed to be a hybrid roller coaster AND simulator. If it turns out to be what i expect it to be, Universal will give Disney a run for it's money (which oddly enough also hasn't made any major innovation since Indiana Jones...)
I disagree with you about Transforms. It may use some of the same basic ride system, but Transformers was a big enough deal that Tony Baxter (one of Disneylands head imagineers) made a special visit to USH to ride the ride during the soft openings. I realize that theme parks always send their people to check out their competition, but normally not someone of his stature. Why go check out a rehash of something from 1999 with just a different name. Transformers is probably the best and most impressive rides on the west coast. Including a very well designed queue(on par with something Disney would do).
Since the mid 90's to the early 2000's USH did little to nothing to the park. But to say that Kong, Transformers, plus the coming WWOHP is not a change in direction????
Even if Despicable Me is a BTTF redo...To be honest...who cares!!!! They are spending money. Most theme parks will do this type of turn-a-round. I don't blame them for taking an attraction that was seriously showing its age and adding something that they have never had before, which is a ride for the entire family. Something that kids, teens, and adults can all relate to.
I hope this doesn't come across as me being angry or overly defensive, thats not my intention.
Slowly but surely they are re-doing the park. Over the next decade the whole upper lot is going to look quite different. I have complete faith in Mark Woodbury and Thierry Coupe.
Since the mid 90's to the early 2000's USH did little to nothing to the park. But to say that Kong, Transformers, plus the coming WWOHP is not a change in direction????
Even if Despicable Me is a BTTF redo...To be honest...who cares!!!! They are spending money. Most theme parks will do this type of turn-a-round. I don't blame them for taking an attraction that was seriously showing its age and adding something that they have never had before, which is a ride for the entire family. Something that kids, teens, and adults can all relate to.
I hope this doesn't come across as me being angry or overly defensive, thats not my intention.
Slowly but surely they are re-doing the park. Over the next decade the whole upper lot is going to look quite different. I have complete faith in Mark Woodbury and Thierry Coupe.
Last edited by a moderator:
A couple of notes:
-Transformers does have a "behind the scenes" innovation and that was with the ride lifts. I can only imagine that is what is most impressive to other park designers. I know, that is something I find to be interesting even though its a concealed effect and not relevant to the guest experience.
-I can only imagine we will not get the Gru's House queue from Florida being that out T2 queue is outdoors. Again, I can imagine fire code on top of a parking structure is to blame for this design.
-I do see Waterworld being a place for a future "E ticket" scale of attraction. Gringotts Bank anyone???
Needless to say, USH is now in the followings of Orlando's footsteps instead of in the 90's when Orlando was copying their design from us. Anything innovative will be in Orlando first. Its just a sad reality of money and space.
-Transformers does have a "behind the scenes" innovation and that was with the ride lifts. I can only imagine that is what is most impressive to other park designers. I know, that is something I find to be interesting even though its a concealed effect and not relevant to the guest experience.
-I can only imagine we will not get the Gru's House queue from Florida being that out T2 queue is outdoors. Again, I can imagine fire code on top of a parking structure is to blame for this design.
-I do see Waterworld being a place for a future "E ticket" scale of attraction. Gringotts Bank anyone???
Needless to say, USH is now in the followings of Orlando's footsteps instead of in the 90's when Orlando was copying their design from us. Anything innovative will be in Orlando first. Its just a sad reality of money and space.
My personal issue with this is that i don't care about families with small children. Those families can go to Disneyland. Universal has a vibe for an older crowd that is being changed, that's what i don't like. Older kids can appreciate universal more, and older kids won't be as interested in a despicable me simulator. I think universal is trying to get families with younger kids to go there instead of Disney, and it's stupid of them to try to edge that market, they just won't win.
Book with our Travel Partners
Latest posts
-
Halloween Horror Nights 33 (UOR) - Speculation & Rumors- Latest: HandsomePete
-
-
-
-
