Universal's Epic Universe Wish List & Speculation

[belloq87]

Universal just is not, nor will it probably ever be the "we're here for everyone!" theme park. They have their house style, and it is an incredibly popular one for their guests. That's focusing on mildly-to-high thrilling attractions with a "ride the movies!" theme, with some token kiddie rides thrown in for good measure. They're not going to shift focus to build 4-5 POTC/HM dark rides. It's just not what they do. Heck, look at the family areas of the new park. They have 2 launched coasters, an AR dark ride that has a high probability of inducing motion sickness in some groups, and a very thrilling flat ride. Then they have minor rides like Yoshi and the splash battle as the "family" rides. This is just who Universal is, and I don't think it's going to change.

Some of us just think this is a rather short-sighted and odd limitation to put on yourself as a company. It also doesn't square with building Secret Life of Pets in Hollywood, either.

Nobody is seriously asking for Universal to immediately build five E-ticket-level family dark rides all in a row (Would I love it? Of course. But I know that's incredibly unrealistic, even at WDW these days.). But adding one or two SLOP-type attractions at USF (and/or IOA... but USF needs a wider range of offerings more urgently than IOA does) over the next five to ten years seems incredibly reasonable, and it does not require Universal to move away from their primary focus on thrill rides, either.

 

[Nick]

Some of us just think this is a rather short-sighted and odd limitation to put on yourself as a company. It also doesn't square with building Secret Life of Pets in Hollywood, either.

Nobody is seriously asking for Universal to immediately build five E-ticket-level family dark rides all in a row (Would I love it? Of course. But I know that's incredibly unrealistic, even at WDW these days.). But adding one or two SLOP-type attractions at USF (and/or IOA... but USF needs a wider range of offerings more urgently than IOA does) over the next five to ten years seems incredibly reasonable, and it does not require Universal to move away from their primary focus on thrill rides, either.

Yeah, I am not asking Universal to change from their primary focus of thrill attractions.

However, I know quite a few teens and 20-somethings that can't handle Universal's constant barrage of 3D and coasters. That's an issue. It doesn't mean you build a Pirates or HM, but maybe something like Runaway Railway. That's exactly in their wheelhouse of screen attractions, except it's meant for the whole family to be able to enjoy it. I'm not saying to build an insane amount per park either. I'm just saying build ONE Family E-ticket per park. I'll give them one across the parks right now in Hogwarts Express, although I consider that a form of transportation and not really a ride as much.

 

[Loki]

Yeah, I am not asking Universal to change from their primary focus of thrill attractions.

However, I know quite a few teens and 20-somethings that can't handle Universal's constant barrage of 3D and coasters. That's an issue. It doesn't mean you build a Pirates or HM, but maybe something like Runaway Railway. That's exactly in their wheelhouse of screen attractions, except it's meant for the whole family to be able to enjoy it. I'm not saying to build an insane amount per park either. I'm just saying build ONE Family E-ticket per park. I'll give them one across the parks right now in Hogwarts Express, although I consider that a form of transportation and not really a ride as much.

Does Kong count?

 

[Nick]

Does Kong count?

It's about as close as IOA gets to having a big attraction with a low height restriction. Just to be consistent with what i've been saying, i'll say no, and that i'd prefer there be an E-ticket attraction that doesn't have a height requirement. The reason for that is so that whether you are 9 months old or 90 years old as i've said, you can ride with no issues.

I think every park needs at least a few of those kinds of rides, but especially a theme park operator that sees as many guests per year as Universal does.

 

[DodgsonHere]

Don’t know if this has been mentioned but Screamscape claims to have attraction names for Monsters. I like “The Curse of The Werewolf” fine enough but “Monsters Unchained: The Frankenstein Experiment” seems a little wordy for me, would rather them go with just “Monsters Unchained”. Village name also sounds interesting, is the Frankenstein village ever named in the movies?

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

Don’t know if this has been mentioned but Screamscape claims to have attraction names for Monsters. I like “The Curse of The Werewolf” fine enough but “Monsters Unchained: The Frankenstein Experiment” seems a little wordy for me, would rather them go with just “Monsters Unchained”. Village name also sounds interesting, is the Frankenstein village ever named in the movies?

Should be called Wolfman: Curse of the Werewolf for maximum word usage.

Would slightly alter the main ride to Universal's Monsters Unchained, which could work as either a ride or land name.

 

[belloq87]

Don’t know if this has been mentioned but Screamscape claims to have attraction names for Monsters. I like “The Curse of The Werewolf” fine enough but “Monsters Unchained: The Frankenstein Experiment” seems a little wordy for me, would rather them go with just “Monsters Unchained”. Village name also sounds interesting, is the Frankenstein village ever named in the movies?

I'm highly skeptical of "The Curse of the Werewolf" as the name of an attraction, since that's the title of a different werewolf movie from 1961 that Universal also owns, but isn't connected to the Classic Monsters. I would also think Universal would prefer to use "Wolf Man" or "Wolfman" instead of the generic "werewolf."

As for the name of the village in the movies, it's Frankenstein (or Frankenstein Village) in FRANKENSTEIN, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, and SON OF FRANKENSTEIN. Then the subsequent films in the series (GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN, FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN, HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, HOUSE OF DRACULA) are set in Visaria/Vasaria (spelling changes from movie to movie), a neighboring town to Frankenstein Village.

So what Screamscape posits as the name of the town in the land has no connection to the movies. It's also very heavy-handed. I hope it's incorrect.

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

As for the name of the village in the movies, it's Frankenstein (or Frankenstein Village) in FRANKENSTEIN, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, and SON OF FRANKENSTEIN. Then the subsequent films in the series (GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN, FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN, HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, HOUSE OF DRACULA) are set in Visaria/Vasaria (spelling changes from movie to movie), a neighboring town to Frankenstein Village.

Can't believe there's a "well, actually" for both the name of Frankenstein's Monster and the name of Frankenstein's village.

 

[quinnmac000]

Also naming a village Darkmoor doesn't fit the location they are trying to say the village is unless now this is placing place in Scotland. I hope that news is not accurate.

 

[mainejeff]

Let's talk DK food....chocolate covered bananas and banana smoothies are on my wishlist. I think that a well done frozen banana smoothie/drink could be Universals version of Disney's Dole Whip.

 

[JungleSkip]

If a noteworthy amount of people can't even handle most of Universal's ride lineup, then there's your answer for how Disney can get away with the prices charged and lose minimal attendance--because seriously, that rules out roughly 95% of parks in the country (incl. every non-Disney park in Florida besides Legoland).

I truly do not care what Disney can get away with anymore. If people want to go there and have a miserable time at poorly run parks, that's on them.

They obviously know how to make a good family dark ride, and they keep making them, too, just not consistently. Now that Comcast is looking to expand their resort, and by extension their offerings, that means that they're targeting a wider pool of vistors and will take steps to accommodate them.

Correct, they don't build them consistently because that is not their target demographic. And again, if they were looking to target a wider pool of visitors, they would have a significantly different design philosophy for the "family" lands they're putting in this park. It's very clear they are not. They're looking to continue to service their target demographics and get them to extend their vacations on their resort.

Some of us just think this is a rather short-sighted and odd limitation to put on yourself as a company. It also doesn't square with building Secret Life of Pets in Hollywood, either.

SLOP was *one* family ride. A single one. As I said, they're going to throw out one now and again. It's just never going to be a focus. And now they're going to build a huge launched roller coaster.

UOR also just had its best quarter in its history. If their approach to parks is limiting, it's not showing up in the data.

 

[OrlLover]

Look Universal is not dumb and they know what they are doing for the most part. Some of you guys are trying yet again to include Disney to make a point but it’s not working at least for me.

Like it has been stated multiple times they cater to two totally different audiences and always will. With all that being said I think we will see more SLOP type additions the next couple of years.

 

[belloq87]

Also naming a village Darkmoor doesn't fit the location they are trying to say the village is unless now this is placing place in Scotland. I hope that news is not accurate.

The original FRANKENSTEIN movies never make it quite clear exactly where the Frankenstein/Visaria towns are located, but it's definitely kind of an all-purpose Germany/Austria/Switzerland area.

 

[quinnmac000]

The original FRANKENSTEIN movies never make it quite clear exactly where the Frankenstein/Visaria towns are located, but it's definitely kind of an all-purpose Germany/Austria/Switzerland area.

actually in house of Frankenstein it states it’s near a town in Switzerland…I just remember it started with an R

 

[belloq87]

actually in house of Frankenstein it states it’s near a town in Switzerland…I just remember it started with an R

The first act of the movie takes place somewhere else before the characters show up in Visaria.

 

[Casper Gutman]

The idea that Disney and Universal cater to wildly different audiences is a holdover from an era when Universal was counter programming to the mouse, a second-thought park desperate to pick up stragglers for a day. I don’t feel it is borne out by an actual examination of the modern resorts. Yes, there are differences of approach, but these are subtle, slight contrasts in tone rather then massive differences in content.

I don’t think it’s controversial to argue that Magic Kingdom caters most heavily to families with young children of any park in Orlando, so let’s put that to the side for a moment. Put MGM up against Uni Studios - which park skews older? Mummy and RnRC are comparable (the former is clearly better, of course). Less perfectly, Tower of Terror can be matched up to RRR - Tower the much better ride, RRR arguably more thrilling. What are we left with then? Can we credibly argue that Minions, Fallon, and Simpsons skews significantly older then Star Tours and Smugglers Run? That Transformers or Gringotts plays to a more mature audience then Rise of the Resistance? Is Midway Mayhem more geared to children then the upcoming Minion attraction? I don’t really see it. We can do the same by comparing IoA, with Seuss Landing and Toon Lagoon, to EPCOT or AK. Again, I don’t think that older skew is all that evident, if it is at all.

The claim that Uni caters it’s product heavily to thrill seekers seems to rest largely on the three naked coasters. I’ve never minded them, but I’ve also never felt they defined the direction of the resort. Disney fans, seeking to dismiss Uni, often argue that they do. Your mileage may vary, I suppose. Personally, having spent a lot of time at both resorts, the fundamental difference between their approach to guests seems to come down to an issue of flavor, something sprinkled on top of the core product.

 

[JungleSkip]

The idea that Disney and Universal cater to wildly different audiences is a holdover from an era when Universal was counter programming to the mouse, a second-thought park desperate to pick up stragglers for a day.

I mean, Universal executives have literally said they do not aim for the infant-7 year old audiences that Disney does. This is not a perception thing. This is a straight out of the horse's mouth thing.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I mean, Universal executives have literally said they do not aim for the infant-7 year old audiences that Disney does. This is not a perception thing. This is a straight out of the horse's mouth thing.

I believe you, but could you direct me to the quotation your referencing?

That makes Seuss Landing and Toon Lagoon really confusing. And it makes me wonder why they built Cabana Bay, which very clearly caters to families with children in that age range.

 

[JungleSkip]

I believe you, but could you direct me to the quotation your referencing?

That makes Seuss Landing and Toon Lagoon really confusing. And it makes me wonder why they built Cabana Bay, which very clearly caters to families with children in that age range.

Again, not aiming for that age range and having absolutely nothing for that age range is not the same thing. I'm not saying they're out there trying to actively discourage any families with younger kids coming. It's just not what their focus is, while for Disney families with younger kids is their primary aim.

And the lands you mentioned, Toon Lagoon's two rides have height requirements. Heck, one of them has a crazy restraint because its drops are so steep. When it opened, Seuss Landing's main ride spun like a washing machine on steroids. Volcano Bay has two kid areas, but, to be honest, their slides are all pretty intense compared to the local competition (though to be fair it's been like a decade+ since I've been to Aquatica).

Yea, all those lands have some stuff for very little kids. But outside of Seuss, I wouldn't say any of them are focused on little kids.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Again, not aiming for that age range and having absolutely nothing for that age range is not the same thing. I'm not saying they're out there trying to actively discourage any families with younger kids coming. It's just not what their focus is, while for Disney families with younger kids is their primary aim.

And the lands you mentioned, Toon Lagoon's two rides have height requirements. Heck, one of them has a crazy restraint because its drops are so steep. When it opened, Seuss Landing's main ride spun like a washing machine on steroids. Volcano Bay has two kid areas, but, to be honest, their slides are all pretty intense compared to the local competition (though to be fair it's been like a decade+ since I've been to Aquatica).

Yea, all those lands have some stuff for very little kids. But outside of Seuss, I wouldn't say any of them are focused on little kids.

2/5 of the lands in Uni’s second park had a theme designed specifically to appeal to young children. These weren’t afterthoughts or mini-lands. The fact that those areas featured rides young children couldn’t ride was a design problem - unless one wants to argue that Cat in the Hat was aimed at tweens. The other areas in IoA, though broader in thier appeal, also featured themes of particular interest to young children. I just find the idea that IoA skews older then EPCOT or AK or MGM very questionable.