Was it a good idea for Comcast to build Epic Universe?

Yes.

All very interesting and vaild points made by TH.
I wonder if crowd density plays a part ?
Factor in the increased number of guests staying at the new Resorts and maybe Studios & I.O.A may have become over saturated.

I think the singular motivation for Epic Universe was to make Universal a full-vacation experience. Most people that travel to Orlando spend a week or more in the area, so Universal Orlando, as good as it is, has always been a second tier destination compared to WDW, which has plenty of attractions and things to fill a full week. That's why Universal is always offering free days to their multi-day tickets as a way to encourage guests to spend their entire vacation at Universal Orlando knowing that even if those guests don't use every admission day, they're likely to extend their hotel stays (likely in UO resorts) an extra day or 2 and eat meals at UO restaurants.

By building Epic, and more or less forcing guests to buy admissions to the other UO parks to get into the new theme park, Universal is reducing the number of days in a guest's vacation to spend at other Orlando attractions. If they had just added the Epic Universe attractions to the existing UO parks, most guests would probably still split their time between the Universal parks, maybe spending 2-3 days at UO, and the rest of the week at WDW (and other Orlando attractions). Building an entirely new theme park, and making it distinctly different from anything else in the world, particularly in how it's operated and managed, is attention grabbing, and forces everyone planning a trip to Orlando to take notice and carve out a day or 2 to experience it in addition to the time spent seeing long-time favorites (including legacy UO parks). While building Epic is coming with massive risks, especially if their crowd management strategies end up backfiring, the rewards are massive compared to adding each of the individual lands and attractions to the legacy UO parks.

There’s a real reason why Epic Universe was a necessity: hotels. That’s where major money is. Ten years ago, Universal had four on-site hotels. Now they have double that amount with three more on the way. Just like Disney, Universal wants to keep expanding their room count and at a certain point, there gets to be too many hotel guests at the existing parks before any benefits they offer start losing value.

Maybe. What I think the big problem is that it is down the road. They lose the convenience in having it close to the other parks. To take it closer would likely have cost the horror nights and soundstage spacing.

Let’s be honest. It will be very hard if not impossible to have the vacation destination appeal that is Disney. Most people do not have extensive theme park knowledge. They think Harry Potter is at Disney. Orlando is Disney the way sodas are ‘cokes’.

I think it is great that they are making another gate, although it may make the original parks less desirable with EU being down the road. We shall see…

The other thing is that any gains Universal makes is a gain for Disney as well. People want to come to see the new Universal attraction they also do a few days at Disney. For me Disney is just too damn complicated and difficult. This will mean instead of doing six days at Disney I now will do three or four.

Obviously yes! Sure they could have updated the 2 parks but nothing beats a brand new park with tons of space. Adding Epic's attractions to the 2 parks would not have been anywhere near as good!

@Franis24: Um, "tons of space"? Have you seen the concept videos? With the portals? Those lands are going to be packed. Also, my post targets unused areas that were formerly attraction locations.

I agree i've been saying Epic Universe was a cash grab from the moment it was announced. Nintendo and Potter could have been built in the existing parks and the rest of the park wasn't necessary, everyone is going to go for those two things and they know it so they want to be able to charge for another admission/day at UO for it. Like Russell said make their onsite resorts more appealing.

Although I will say they put a lot more major attractions into the park than I originally anticipated. But an entire theme park based off IP lands just isn't appealing to me at all, 10-15 years ago it would have been but now its just played out. And the name "Epic Universe" lol.

The D23 announcements add emphasis to the question posed at the top of this thread. By adding new attractions across their existing parks, Disney prevents one gate from stealing guests from their own businesses. If Comcast had added attractions to USF and IOA, instead of putting all of its eggs in the EU basket, they would be waist deep in black ink. Heck, some of those attractions might have already been up and running.

By the way, the D23 announcements already make Epic seem like old news.

Again...more hotels coming...need somewhere to dump all those extra guests...

Excited for EU but Disney has definitely done themselves a real solid here by rounding out and improving their existing parks. Hollywood has a stellar collection of attractions but the park is still lacking for more distinct areas and I think the surprise announcement of a Monsters Inc. land will immediately be a huge step forward to help rectify that issue. The same with DAK. While I love, love, love Dinosaur and will lament its removal, the Americas expansion with elevate that park to the next level IMO. So answer TH’s above query: I don’t know that EU is or isn’t the right way to go for Universal vs the expansion of their current parks, but I do think that WDW has wisely done what they’ve needed to do pad their parks’ future offerings rather than rashly announcing a fifth gate as a counter to Universal. No matter what, as a theme park fan, I’m thrilled to be here for the competition of these two titans.

@Trex: There is no need for for the hotels to be located close to the original parks. They could still build hotels

TH, I'm not sure I understand your rebuttal? Regardless of where the hotels are located, there are many paying guests who are expecting some sort of extra amenity. Whether it be Unlimited Express or Early Park Access, Universal has to send all those visitors somewhere and it's gotten to the point where two parks just isn't enough to cover all those rooms.

If hotels are a good source of revenue, Comcast could build them in the same location and they could be successful without the theme park. There is also the draw of the convention center and their proximity to (not only the Comcast parks) but SeaWorld and Disney. The only hotel that would be a bit over the top would be the the Helios Grand Hotel. But if they scaled that down a bit it would've cost less to build.

Adding to existing Universal parks will have limited attendance impact, adding a state of the art third park will have massive attendance impact.

I agree with Russell that part of Universal's strategy is to have exclusivity of some guests visiting Orlando and going nowhere near WDW. How much EU will cannibalise US & IOA remains to be seen.

WDW will be impacted. The Disney faithful will continue to prioritise WDW as will families with young children but for the teenagers and above, it will be Universal first, second and third.

The statistics I would like to know when Epic Universe & WDW additions are in full swing are:
What are the age demographics of the two destinations?
How many first timers and infrequent visitors choose Disney or Universal and why?
How many commit to one or the other or continue to mix and match and which parks do they mix and match?
How many stay at Disney resorts v Universal resorts?

With the new Lightning Lane it guarantees my group to stand in several standby lines due to tiers and the one ride per day limitations. The unlimited express pass does not (for the most part). I could definitely do more with Genie+ than the new system and can do much, much more with unlimited express pass. This fact will have me prioritize Universal, but I still doubt that WDW will take a hit, but, goodness, I wish they would add another gate and try to do something about their wait times.

Rent free, man... rent free.

Ultimately, if Universal Orlando really wants to compete with WDW, they needed a third park (and no, Volcano Bay doesn't count as a theme park despite what Universal's marketing team wants you to believe).

Even if they jam packed the amount of attractions in the two existing parks and the number of attractions in two parks equaled or exceeded how many attractions Disney has in their 4 parks, to the average guest all they will care about is Disney has 4 parks and Universal has 2. So the perception would be that Disney has twice as much to do and is therefore more worth the majority of my time on vacation. But 3 parks compared to 4 makes the competition seem closer to equal.

The success of this park depends on perceived value and continuous expansion. Comcast's failure to add any substantial new attractions to its existing Orlando parks (save big steel coasters which play to a narrow demographic) should be regarded a a mistake. I think it may have been a wiser, long term play to take advantage of the dead space in USF and IOA and then pursue a 2027 or 2028 opening for the third park.

THs greatest hits... you couldn't go a day without mentioning the "failure to add any substantial blah blah blah". The fact that you even start threads like this shows they are on your head 24/7.

Why would anyone want to push the new park opening 2 to 3 more years? Oh, wait... fear. Siphoning more Disney guests just like HP.

Am inclined to agree with TH on this.

I would also somewhat agree with TH, but I think there's more to it than the linear relationship suggested. Let's not forget, Epic was probably supposed to open 2 years ago, and the costs to build it have likely increased pretty significantly because of the pandemic. I have no doubt that the original plan was to open Epic and also have new attractions for IOA and USF ready to go either just before or shortly after the opening of the new park. However, the timelines were all screwed up and the increased costs to build Epic have undoubtedly impacted resources available to enhance the legacy parks. I think that's why Dreamworks Land is just a mediocre reskinning, and little has been done to add attractions to IOA to maintain that park's momentum. I would not be surprised if the costs to build Epic are hundreds of millions of dollars more than originally estimated. We also have to consider that if Universal had originally planned for a 2023-24 opening, that a full year or 2 of projected revenue that's now not coming in to support projected capital budgets on the following years. When all is said and done, Universal could be facing a half a BILLION dollar shortfall in projected profits by the time the new park opens its gates.

The delays and increased costs to build Epic have had a massive impact that had to be mitigated in some way. It looks like Universal is covering some if it by making shrewd decisions regarding how guests will visit the new parks, but also in cutting back other areas, like new attractions and offerings. Nothing occurs in a vacuum.

Also, let's not forget that Universal has a lot of partners on this project, most notably Loews, and the new hotels that were strategically positioned near the new theme park. Universal couldn't just delay those because Loews was expecting those properties to start generating revenue by a certain date (a date that was already being push back because of the Pandemic), and since the advantage of those hotels over others in the area would be their proximity to the new theme park. Honestly, I think it's crazy that they're going to open Stella Nova and Terra Luna months ahead of Epic's opening, but imagine if that was years ahead of the theme park opening.

To quote a brilliant TPI regular: I live "Rent free" NB ... "rent free" ... In your head.

(Chuckle)

Wow! Joker 2 falls off a cliff at the box office. I guess it isn't just Disney after all.

(Chuckle)

No, it isn't just Disney who makes dumb decisions. I've seen a lot of comic book/super hero movies, and I can honestly say I've never needed a comic book musical. Judging by the box office, I am not alone. Unsurprisingly, moviegoers are not happy when the marketing of a movie tricks them, as is evidenced by the "D" grade moviegoers gave Joker: Follies a Duex.

And hey... Disney execs actually made a smart decision for a change: https://www.indiewire.com/news/general-news/pixar-wanted-riley-inside-out-2-less-gay-report-1235049147/

It seems they may be learning that it doesn't make sense to piss off parents and potential customers.

@MLB (From your link): "In the film, what you saw, nothing about Riley says that she is gay, but it is kind of inferred ..."

So only one of ten anonymous sources claimed that something is "kind of inferred".

That's not much of a bold, courageous claim, is it?

(Chuckle)

You missed the point (chuckle). First, it it doesn't say one out of ten. They talked with ten, they also say: --- The sources told IGN the edits involved “just doing a lot of extra work to make sure that no one would potentially see them as not straight.”

If the movie had controversy, it would not have been a HUGE hit. Disney/Pixar removed any inference that could cause controversy. Instead of taking a portion of a quote, below are the first 2 paragraphs in their entirety.

Former Pixar staffers who worked on “Inside Out 2” claimed they received continuous notes to make the film‘s main character, Riley, come across as “less gay,” according to a report in IGN about the film and animation studio.

Among 10 former Pixar employees who spoke to IGN, all whom remained anonymous, one said edits ramped up to “Inside Out 2” after the conclusion of the WGA strike last fall, with special attention given to removing any traces of “romantic chemistry” in the relationship between Riley and supporting character Val. The sources told IGN the edits involved “just doing a lot of extra work to make sure that no one would potentially see them as not straight.”

@MLB: And where do they say this was under the direction of (your words) "Disney execs"?

MLB: "You missed the point (chuckle). First, it it doesn't say one out of ten."

Me: From the article "Among 10 former Pixar employees who spoke to IGN, all whom remained anonymous, ONE SAID edits ramped up to “Inside Out 2” after the conclusion of the WGA strike last fall, with special attention given to removing any traces of “romantic chemistry” in the relationship between Riley and supporting character Val."

"ONE SAID".

Please correct me.

Good grief... OK, here goes.

Former Pixar staffers (Staffers would be plural) who worked on “Inside Out 2” claimed they received continuous notes to make the film‘s main character, Riley, come across as “less gay,” according to a report in IGN about the film and animation studio.

Among 10 former Pixar employees who spoke to IGN, all whom remained anonymous, one said edits ramped up to “Inside Out 2” after the conclusion of the WGA strike last fall, with special attention given to removing any traces of “romantic chemistry” in the relationship between Riley and supporting character Val. The sources (AGAIN THIS IS PLURAL) told IGN the edits involved “just doing a lot of extra work to make sure that no one would potentially see them as not straight.”

Multiple people are confirming the story.

Continuing on: Another said leadership allegedly felt “uncomfortable” about queer themes in the film, and the thwarting of such was “a big thing throughout” development. -- Who would leadership be, if not Disney Execs? The president of the US? The Governor? It certainly would not have been producers of the film that would have waited until the last minute to make significant edits!

"However, the IGN article attests that the supposed edits to “Inside Out 2” were a reaction to the box office flop of “Lightyear,” which included a same-sex kiss. Disney originally edited out the kiss for international markets after it was banned in Saudi Arabia, but restored it after public and internal uproar."

“It is, as far as I know, still a thing, where leadership, they’ll bring up ‘Lightyear’ specifically and say, ‘Oh, ‘Lightyear’ was a financial failure because it had a queer kiss in it,’” one source said. “That’s not the reason the movie failed.” -- Again, WHO would leadership be, if not Disney Execs?? WHO could make the Director make changes/edits at the last minute if not Disney Exec... you know, the parent company of Pixar. The ones who write the checks!!!

MLB: "Who would leadership be, if not Disney Execs?"

Me: We don't know because those courageous anonymous sources -- whose credibility and level of access are unknown -- do not say "Disney execs".

NEXT!

There are many reasons why Lightyear deserved to flop. The same-sex kiss ain't one of them.

We were sitting at our local yesterday. And EU came up. And the bartender said he had rejected the idea of working at the park because he feared the traffic snarl related to his commute would be nightmarish.