I agree.
What if the majority of the McDonald's menu was variations on fish sandwiches? You might think that was a bit overkill!
I'm 100% not saying get rid of all screen-based attractions*, I'm saying let's rebalance the lineup more, getting it back closer to what it used to be before the company added four consecutive screen rides in about five years between 2013 and 2018 (and losing four physical/practical attractions to do it).
* Let's also not forget, I'm the guy who advocated for a flying simulator in Berk!
I don't know that I've ever said that it doesn't work, though I've certainly said (and continue to believe) it should have gotten at least one significant attraction (particularly given that we know Nintendo was originally intended for the location, and would have added three to the park, two of which would not have been screen-heavy). I do think it seems to be a very budget-conscious, minimum-effort-necessary overlay, which feels like a missed opportunity to use the area to address what I think is the park's primary deficiency.
As for advocating getting rid of it, my position was that if keeping DreamWorks intact was going to make it difficult for a significant land to be added to the park, then I didn't think Universal should see DreamWorks' position as the "kids only" land as a reason to hold back. I think whatever value the general offerings in DW provide could be incorporated into redeveloped areas across the park (replacements for Springfield, Fear Factor theater, etc.) if Universal had a grander concept to go into the plot.
I'm totally fine with it staying of Universal can add some real value back there.
I'll just sum it up in the most direct way possible: some people (not just me, but certainly including me) think USF's primary issue, currently, is the composition of the attraction roster being weighted too much in one direction. That is what needs course-correcting and a shift in philosophy (in my opinion). It's great that Universal has created some very significant attractions at the other two parks that are not driven primarily by screens. Now it's time to see that applied to the original park.
In my opinion!
The fish sandwich analogy still kind of proves my point, though.
If most of the menu suddenly became fish sandwiches, then yes, you could objectively argue the menu became too heavily weighted in one direction - but that’s different from arguing fish sandwiches shouldn’t exist, or that McDonald’s isn’t trying to rebalance the menu once they start adding burgers, chicken, etc.
My point is more that I don’t think DreamWorks should automatically be viewed as just a temporary placeholder for a “real” expansion. DW fills a legitimate role for the park.
When DW was under construction, USF was STRUGGLING with younger kids' offerings. Despite Uni's aim at older families, they also can't just outright ignore young children, either; and while Gotham (since that where the discussion stemmed from) is definitely popular, DW is more popular, more appealing, and more accessible for that audience. You could probably say the same thing for concepts like LOTR, Jaws, BTTF, etc. There are only a handful of major IPs that could realistically rival DreamWorks when it comes to appealing directly to younger kids and young families.
That’s basically where I’m at with USF. I understand the argument that the park became too screen-heavy. I just disagree with acting like Universal hasn’t shown broader signs of righting the ship.
And taking it back to the video’s overall point: I think most people would agree USF is the weakest of the three UOR parks right now but the park still has popular attractions, strong seasonal events, and improved food and entertainment offerings. That’s not usually what a park in serious trouble looks like.
Could the attraction balance improve? Absolutely. Does the park need more variety and a few major wins? I think so. But there’s a big gap between “needs rebalancing” and “the park is fundamentally struggling.”