Epic Universe Expansion Speculation

[Casper Gutman]

Perhaps the all-ages franchise that’s very popular with children should have an all-ages dark ride with no height restrictions…

 

[Jake S]

Perhaps the all-ages franchise that’s very popular with children should have an all-ages dark ride with no height restrictions…

You'll take Hogwarts Express and you'll like it!

 

[fryoj]

I'm having trouble imagining how they'd even build a broom ride with no height restriction

 

[Parkscope Joe]

I'm having trouble imagining how they'd even build a broom ride with no height restriction

Not everyone in the wizarding world can ride a broom due to age and height!

 

[RFRees]

Perhaps the all-ages franchise that’s very popular with children should have an all-ages dark ride with no height restrictions…

I know you're talking about Potter, but what Universal Orlando attraction fits this criteria?

It just seems the criticism is not Potter specific but is a general Universal criticism. No one seems to actually delve into why this might be other than it being an 'oversight' and/or 'not within Universal's target demographic.' I'm thinking it's actually safety related.

 

[SkiBum]

I know you're talking about Potter, but what Universal Orlando attraction fits this criteria?

It just seems the criticism is not Potter specific but is a general Universal criticism. No one seems to actually delve into why this might be other than it being an 'oversight' and/or 'not within Universal's target demographic.' I'm thinking it's actually safety related.

To me, it seemed that Universal basically said that they were going to get the pre-teen, teen, and young adult audience and let Disney have the toddlers and young children. However, with three theme parks, it might be time to start having the rides for children of all ages. I thought HTTYD would benefit from a good dark ride instead of the spin and spew. SNW has Mario Cart, which I think is good for all ages. I mean, it has a 40 in height requirement but that is basically a three year old. I always question how much a toddler under three years old can remember or enjoy a ride, aside from funny colors or maybe a character or two.

 

[RFRees]

To me, it seemed that Universal basically said that they were going to get the pre-teen, teen, and young adult audience and let Disney have the toddlers and young children. However, with three theme parks, it might be time to start having the rides for children of all ages. I thought HTTYD would benefit from a good dark ride instead of the spin and spew. SNW has Mario Cart, which I think is good for all ages. I mean, it has a 40 in height requirement but that is basically a three year old. I always question how much a toddler under three years old can remember or enjoy a ride, aside from funny colors or maybe a character or two.

I mean there's Yoshi as well (which is the same ride vehicle as SLoP?) and is essentially a baby ride, but that also has a height requirement. Disney does 'no height requirement,' but as far as I'm aware, Universal does not. (Some exceptions for flats like Constellation Carousel, but the criteria in question is dark rides.)

 

[Andysol]

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.

To me, it seemed that Universal basically said that they were going to get the pre-teen, teen, and young adult audience and let Disney have the toddlers and young children. However, with three theme parks, it might be time to start having the rides for children of all ages.

This keeps getting brought up. As someone who has gone through it personally with different aged kids and my youngest going to universal as early as 2; Universal has always been not good for <40”. Is it better than being at home? Absolutely. They can still enjoy certain things and just the environment, but it’s not built for them. For a fun experience, sesame place or peppa pig is. For a highly themed experience everyone can enjoy, Disney is.

Universal is addressing this gap with Universal Kids Park. They would rather spend $500m on a regional park than $500m on 1 highly themed all-age ride.

Ops are certainly more at the regional park, but they believe the return is worth it. The Orlando parks are the “next step” park for kids. Not the “all ages” park yall are asking for. They made their decision. Regional kids park (if successful, which it should be) + international theme/thrill park. That’s their play to cast the wider net.

If Universal Kids fails spectacularly, yall can say “I told you so”. But until then, talking about them building all-ages rides to cast a wider net in Orlando is talking about what they have clearly decided against.

And, let’s be honest; casting a wider net is exactly what epic universe doesn’t need. Capacity to handle the current audience is what they need.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

I know you're talking about Potter, but what Universal Orlando attraction fits this criteria?

It just seems the criticism is not Potter specific but is a general Universal criticism. No one seems to actually delve into why this might be other than it being an 'oversight' and/or 'not within Universal's target demographic.' I'm thinking it's actually safety related.

Disney's fine with looser guidelines for guests on rides, Universal has a "100% confinement" policy. Some say it's because they self insure the rides, I think it's them having a lot of rides built before the amusement industry insurance purge of the 80s and 90s that Universal was largely born into and it's a cultural thing. Say what you will about Universal's accessability issues and "rides for young kids", but they don't have articles coming out every few weeks about someone jumping out of a ride vehicle like Disney has.

 

[maxairmike]

Disney's fine with looser guidelines for guests on rides, Universal has a "100% confinement" policy. Some say it's because they self insure the rides, I think it's them having a lot of rides built before the amusement industry insurance purge of the 80s and 90s that Universal was largely born into and it's a cultural thing. Say what you will about Universal's accessability issues and "rides for young kids", but they don't have articles coming out every few weeks about someone jumping out of a ride vehicle like Disney has.

My understanding is that (at least on the ops side), it’s a result of specific incidents over time that has really shaped policies and how they view things, with a culture that is now much more…conservative (not sure that’s the best word) regarding risk tolerance in that regard.

But yeah, the 100% confinement policy specifically will restrict the kinds of attractions that many say they would like to see to address that market.

 

[Skold]

My understanding is that (at least on the ops side), it’s a result of specific incidents over time that has really shaped policies and how they view things, with a culture that is now much more…conservative (not sure that’s the best word) regarding risk tolerance in that regard.

But yeah, the 100% confinement policy specifically will restrict the kinds of attractions that many say they would like to see to address that market.

I mean, after this happened, what choice did they have?

 

[SkiBum]

This keeps getting brought up. As someone who has gone through it personally with different aged kids and my youngest going to universal as early as 2; Universal has always been not good for <40”. Is it better than being at home? Absolutely. They can still enjoy certain things and just the environment, but it’s not built for them. For a fun experience, sesame place or peppa pig is. For a highly themed experience everyone can enjoy, Disney is.

Universal is addressing this gap with Universal Kids Park. They would rather spend $500m on a regional park than $500m on 1 highly themed all-age ride.

Ops are certainly more at the regional park, but they believe the return is worth it. The Orlando parks are the “next step” park for kids. Not the “all ages” park yall are asking for. They made their decision. Regional kids park (if successful, which it should be) + international theme/thrill park. That’s their play to cast the wider net.

If Universal Kids fails spectacularly, yall can say “I told you so”. But until then, talking about them building all-ages rides to cast a wider net in Orlando is talking about what they have clearly decided against.

And, let’s be honest; casting a wider net is exactly what epic universe doesn’t need. Capacity to handle the current audience is what they need.

I completely agree. I hope that it didn't sound otherwise. Disney has height requirements on Seven Dwarves Mine Train, Slink Dog, and tower of terror as well. I've always enjoyed the fact that the UNI parks had appeal to older as their rides were a little more thrilling. To make Spiderman rideable for toddlers, they would have had to basically make it an omnimover, which would have defeated the whole purpose and neutered one of the best dark rides ever.

 

[RFRees]

This keeps getting brought up. As someone who has gone through it personally with different aged kids and my youngest going to universal as early as 2; Universal has always been not good for <40”. Is it better than being at home? Absolutely. They can still enjoy certain things and just the environment, but it’s not built for them. For a fun experience, sesame place or peppa pig is. For a highly themed experience everyone can enjoy, Disney is.

Universal is addressing this gap with Universal Kids Park. They would rather spend $500m on a regional park than $500m on 1 highly themed all-age ride.

Ops are certainly more at the regional park, but they believe the return is worth it. The Orlando parks are the “next step” park for kids. Not the “all ages” park yall are asking for. They made their decision. Regional kids park (if successful, which it should be) + international theme/thrill park. That’s their play to cast the wider net.

If Universal Kids fails spectacularly, yall can say “I told you so”. But until then, talking about them building all-ages rides to cast a wider net in Orlando is talking about what they have clearly decided against.

And, let’s be honest; casting a wider net is exactly what epic universe doesn’t need. Capacity to handle the current audience is what they need.

I mostly agree. However, they could add all the rides at Universal Kids to USF, IOA, and Epic, and still the criticism will remain. No matter how many baby rides you add, it's not an *indoor darkride with no height requirement.*

As others (and I) have addressed; this is likely about safety and not about target demographics. Even Yoshi or SLoP have height requirements.

This ask from some in the the community will (likely) never happen.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

My understanding is that (at least on the ops side), it’s a result of specific incidents over time that has really shaped policies and how they view things, with a culture that is now much more…conservative (not sure that’s the best word) regarding risk tolerance in that regard.

But yeah, the 100% confinement policy specifically will restrict the kinds of attractions that many say they would like to see to address that market.

I dont know if this is something I had heard once or if it’s a complete assumption on my part, but doesn’t insurance have a lot to do with it as well? When Disney’s developing a ride, you always hear it in the context of internal development teams. Meanwhile, for Universal you hear about specific manufacturers (Sally, Oceaneering, etc.).

I’d always figured that meant while Disney can set their own regulations and safety standards, Universal has to follow the guidelines set by the third parties they’re working with or else face humongous insurance premiums.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

However, they could add all the rides at Universal Kids to USF, IOA, and Epic, and still the criticism will remain. No matter how many baby rides you add, it's not an *indoor darkride with no height requirement.*

(Because it’s not about rides for kids that’s always been a smoke screen.)

 

[Jake S]

(Because it’s not about rides for kids that’s always been a smoke screen.)

I think this is pretty unfair. I think there are two strains of criticism that get lumped together:

• Universal doesn't build as many non-thrill dark rides as some fans want
• Universal doesn't build many attractions that the entire family can enjoy together

I think the people who want more dark rides built are pretty explicit that they want them to be built because they enjoy them. And I'm not even sure my second point is even a criticism so much as it is a statement of fact. I've done multiple trips to Orlando in the past few years with young kids or people who were pregnant at the time and there was tons to do at Disney World compared to Universal Orlando.

At this point, do I think it's reasonable to expect Universal will do either of these things? Not really. But I don't think it's a problem that some people want to see what Universal could do if they built more Secret Life of Pets and fewer screen-based, thrilling dark rides.

 

[RFRees]

But I don't think it's a problem that some people want to see what Universal could do if they built more Secret Life of Pets and fewer screen-based, thrilling dark rides.

I'm going to keep saying this: even SLoP doesn't comply with their request.

 

[Andysol]

I mostly agree. However, they could add all the rides at Universal Kids to USF, IOA, and Epic, and still the criticism will remain. No matter how many baby rides you add, it's not an *indoor darkride with no height requirement.*

Well, several of those baby rides at Universal Kids will have no height requirement. They could easily do others that have none as well. But that isn’t the point, the point is they don’t want their Orlando parks to be for toddlers or babies. That’s what universal kids is for. That’s their answer.

Time will tell if it’s the correct answer and if there is more than one way to bring a more broad age group under their umbrella.

 

[Jake S]

I'm going to keep saying this: even SLoP doesn't comply with their request.

...with whose request? People asking for more non-thrilling dark rides? Yes, it absolutely does.

 

[Cup_Of_Coffee]

...with whose request? People asking for more non-thrilling dark rides? Yes, it absolutely does.

I think they’re talking about the ride vehicle not being compromising to most people who ride it. A ride vehicle can be fixed though, it’s about the ride experience with SLOP. 1 of in each park would be my dream. I don’t expect UOR to be Disney.