CLICHE 1 - Universal has NO theming!
REALITY - No seeing person who has been to IOA can say this without it being a major lie. Even Marvel Super Hero Island, which is the least themed of the six, is far more themed than some areas of WDW, like Mickey Ave in Disney/MGM or Future World in Epcot. As for USF, some areas are clearly themed, namely Hollywood, New York and SF/Amity. All three compare to similar theming at Disney/MGM. The likely culprits for some of this cliche are Production Central and World Expo. Well, PC is themed as a bunch of soundstages, which is the EXACT same theme that Mickey Ave has. And WE is themed as a bunch of World's Fair pavilions, which is the EXACT same theme as Future World. So put a fork in this cliche.
CLICHE 2 - Universal's attractions aren't as innovative as Disney's.
REALITY - Considering Universal Creative is loaded with a bunch of ex-Imagineers, this cliche is hilarious. Besides, anyone who has been on Spider-Man or Men in Black or T2:3-D or Dueling Dragons KNOWS this cliche to be dead in the water.
CLICHE 3 - Universal doesn't have the "magic" Disney does.
REALITY - I think this cliche should really say "Universal doesn't have the nostalgia factor that Disney does." I, personally, find Seuss Landing the most "magical" place in any theme park anywhere. There hasn't been a Disney character yet who can stand up to the likes of the Cat in the Hat or the Grinch. But people find magic in different places. Some people find Fantasyland in MK to be the most magical place in WDW. Well, many other people avoid Fantasyland like the plague. I find the most magical place in WDW to be the Maharajah Jungle Trek. I am surely not in the majority there. So I think in this particular case, this cliche says more about the person spouting it than it says about either company. When a child looks at something, they aren't seeing the invisible stamps of Disney or Universal upon it. They are seeing what is actually there. Why can't everyone else?
CLICHE 4 - Universal's employees are rude, while Disney's go that extra step.
REALITY - If you have a bad experience or two with any employee, it doesn't logically follow that EVERY EMPLOYEE THAT WORKS FOR THAT COMPANY IS THE SAME. My own experiences have found employees at both companies to be either cordial, friendly or super-friendly. I have had ONE bad experience at any Orlando park and it was at Animal Kingdom. That doesn't make Disney CMs a bunch of jerkwads, does it? With the thousands of experiences I have had with park employees, I think one awful experience is a spectacular ratio to receive on my vacations. Plus, why would someone want to insult a bunch of mostly hardworking people just because they have a rabid obsession with one brand name? I don't get it.
CLICHE 5 - Universal isn't for kids.
REALITY - While USH isn't the most toddler-friendly park on the planet, both UO parks have plenty of attractions focused at kids. USF's KidZone has millions of things for kids all in one area. IOA has FOUR play areas alone, not to mention an Island devoted to them. IOA is far more kiddie-centric than Animal Kingdom and both Universal parks focus on the little ones more than Disney/MGM or Epcot does. In fact, Epcot is the most kid-unfriendly park in Orlando, yet no one ever whines about that! Furthermore, this complaint tends to refer to the 6-and-under set. As if those are the only kids on the planet. Why is it so horrible to actually acknowledge that all families don't require naps for some of its members?
I know there are other cliches out there, but I think these are the biggies. If people could delete these from their arguments, then maybe we could keep the Disney VS Universal debates at a higher level than the usually tedious Magic Mountain VS Cedar Point debates.
Any other cliches out there?
Disney & its staunch defenders will continue to scream "UNIVERSAL WILL NEVER BE AS BIG AS DISNEY!", all while the "Steamboat Willie" and its bean counting skipper Capt. Eisner continue to take on more & more water! Universal will simply steam on!
(forgive the naval analogies, I couldn't think of anything else...except for the Eisner/Darth Vader - Disney/Death Star comparisons!)
Such a strategy works in the short term. But in time, backfires when visitors decided that no park at your complex has enough "there" there to justify an additional, future visit. Especially if the hassle in jumping from park to park means that those customers must spend a significant part of any paid admission day driving or busing.
Universal offers the advantage of having its two parks within steps of each other (as is the case with Disneyland and California Adventure.) And while Universal offers the additional advantage of two top-quality parks (unlike Disneyland and DCA), it must continue to ensure that both remain top-quality parks over the years.
Universal should not become so obessed with its convention-driven I-Drive project that it forgets to dance with the parks that brought it this far.
Sure, we back Universal because of it's great job, and the attendance numbers are proof, but now that they're bringing in the crowds, let's hope they don't get TOO proud of their accomplishments that they start to lose sight of how they got to this point. Universal has reached a high standard, and it can't afford to lose any of what they've gained thus far.
I still think that if Universal were to concentrate on their parks, revamping and constantly improving their attractions, their quality will outshine Disney's quantity. And there's a LOT that can still be improved on, even on some of the greatest Universal attractions. The little things can sometimes make a big difference.
As for Disney, I hope visitors to this site will understand that we don't 'hate' Disney through and through, although it appears that we do. I was raised on Disney--it's movies, characters, and parks. And I have a lot of love in the nostalgia (or magic) that the parks have. Current trends, however, just show us that Disney is getting 'too big for its britches', taking the Disney fan for granted while trying to cater to the lowest common denominator.
I'd love to see Disney do a 180 and start on its way back up, but change won't happen the way things are now, which is why a lot of us want to see Eisner sent packing. A new president means new ideas, and we're willing to take the risk in hope we'll see bigger, better things.
Dude, if you are as bitter and profane as you made yourself appear in that post, why, then, I'm glad Universal canned you.
Some might try to include Popeye, Dudley and JPRA in with this mix, but those are no scarier than Splash Mountain. Well, Dudley is a little scarier, but not by much. (I have to admit that as a kid, I would have been afraid to ride a lot of this stuff. But that would have been about ME and not about IOA.) The biggest wuss I know won't ride the coasters or Dr Doom, and this is still her favorite park. So there must be SOMETHING there for her, wouldn't you think?
I am happy to see so many Disney diehards recognizing Universal here. Not that I am anti-Disney (I repeat!) but I honestly feel that if the Universal parks pass up a couple of the Disney parks in attendance then Disney might actually wake up and get to work! Then we ALL win!
Incidentally, my favourite Disney Park is MGM studios for exactly the same reason with the added nostalgia of the early black and white movies.
On the other hand, Universal has Jaws, which was a major character back in our day. And King Kong, who will be a classic forever. Or even Hitchcock. And we won't even get into the Marvel and Dr Seuss characters, who have both been around for decades and decades and have retained their popularity (unlike certain cartoon characters over THERE!)
On top of that, Universal seems more interested in creating great rides than in the movie they represent. Otherwise, why are there so many NON-Universal movies represented here?
But beyond that, what more do you want? You're talking about scenary and theming? I couldn't tell you where I'm at anywhere in Disney Studios--but things are slightly more uniform at Universal--and only an idiot would not know what island they're in at IOA. Granted, the Magic Kingdom was the 'original theme park', but Islands of Adventure is just so much more so themed in every area, it's impossible to look around and NOT know which island you're on. As a young kid, I never saw much difference in Adventureland, Frontierland, and Liberty Square except they were colored different on the guidemap.
Is every free-fall tower like that?
I'd vote Animal Kingdom as the least toddler-friendly park in Orlando, due to its lack of rides and playgrounds for little kids and rough pathways, which make pushing a stroller difficult.
Talking about free fall tower rides, there is a one in Flamingoland in the UK called Cliffhanger that shoots straight up, bounces you around a bit then takes you to the top and then drops you. It's also the tallest in the UK.
I've found all the tower rides I've been on quite sedate, I wouldn't expect to come to a sudden stop at the stop or you'd probably compress your spine quite horribly. ;-)
As for Anonymous... didn't anyone think it was hilarious that A used Cliche #1 to make his/her argument? Oh, wait a second! ToT was mentioned! Well, yes ToT is a good, extremely themed ride. But one ride does not tell the whole picture, does it? This argument wants to make us all believe that there is no such thing as the Primeval Whirl or Rock 'n' Roller Coaster or all that crap in DCA. And, most ironic, this argument also completely ignores the Maliboomer, which looks to me like a freefall ride with ABSOLUTELY NO THEMING! Amateurs!
One definitely says Disney and one is most definitely Universal. On one side we've got the in your face excitement and interactivity, and on the other we've got a simple point and shoot. One isn't scary at all.
One thing--Disney SHOULD NOT build another theme park--they should use that money to improve their current attractions.
1) Pro-disney comments are not sneered at
2) Pro-disney commentators are not referred to as "Disney dorks"
3)Disney fans are the only fans that are biased
4) News about Disney is approached without skepticism or snide remarks
5) Disney is always portrayed in a fair unbiased light at this site
6) This is not an IOA adoration site
There, I've put myself on a limb and allied myself with the Disney dorks who I find short-sighted and fanatical. But it was the lesser of the two evils.
Yes, there are rides that are far more intense than this at IOA, but that doesn't make the park unfriendly towards little kids. There is a ton of stuff for them to do. Kids don't need to be able to ride every single little thing in the park for it to be friendly to kids.
Epcot may not have anything that would truly terrify kids, except for maybe Test Track, but that doesn't mean it is friendly towards kids. Just because they can do everything there doesn't mean they will ENJOY it. Kids can also attend physics lectures. That doesn't mean they are kid-friendly lectures. There is a difference.
I am hurt, however, that after years of devotion to the company, going to their movies, buying their products, and going to their theme parks and becoming so accustomed to the high quality and the 'magic' that Disney advertises they would stoop so low to some current business practices and cheapen the Disney brand altogether.
For example, ABC being added to the parks. That seems so cheap and commercialized. Disney becomes a giant advertisement for shows people really don't seem interested in.
Look at DCA. What could potentially have been a stellar theme park turned out to be a second-rate attraction hardly worth the admission price (ticket sales proved that fact). Animal Kingdom suffered the same fate, except while the quality is there in its small little ways, the quantity isn't--you could spend a whole day at AK, but you'd probably get bored before you went home.
And then look at the attractions Disney has decided to do away with. Remember the fuss raised over Journey Into Imagination? Then there's The Carousel of Progress, one of Walt's original works, which the park clearly really wants to close, but keeps opening back up in hopes the public won't take notice when they gut it. And all the resorts--so MANY resorts! The All-Star Sports resort was alright, with their oversized sports equipment, but Pop Century? My God in Heaven, why?
So don't get ME wrong. I love Disney--I was raised on Disney--I'd like to see Disney do a 180 and head back to becoming the great theme park it once was--it'd give Universal excellent competition. But--y'know, I can't remember how many times I've said this--how many times other TPI regulars have said this--so please LISTEN! Until Disney changes their current trend of business practices, the parks WILL suffer and they will be less than what they could potentially be. PLEASE, die-hard Disney fans, try to understand! Heaven forbid you have your hopes drown on the sinking ship that is Disney's theme parks. Do we want positive change? Yes. But it's Disney's fault that Disney is not getting those results.
I don't disagree with you at all; I, too, am concerned at the future of themeparks (Disney, in particular, because I am of the theory that if Disney falls [in quality, etc.] then all themeparks will fall--ask me about my theory sometime--yeah, I know it sounds quacky).
But even you observed, "I hope visitors to this site will understand that we don't 'hate' Disney through and through." To some extent, you too recognize that something's amiss with the objectivity of the comments here because you echo my same fears. You see that?...
That's the price we pay for the freedom of speech on this site. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions and comments, but if the majority says one thing, then visitors will assume majority rules and the site will be tagged in such a manner.
On that note, there's no stopping people from ragging on Disney's quality--and their shouldn't be. I do feel it's a nice change of pace compared to some sites who paint over the bleak points of Disney's current status and smile and nod and pretend nothing's wrong...
I just hope that my admitting that some comments against Disney made by people here are sometimes slanderous will help you and others to realize that I'm not close minded on the topic. On the other side of the coin, I do hope people realize that Universal faces false negetive criticisms at the hands of those who would craft lies just to support an unsteady company. Those are the super-fanatics that were jokingly referred to as the 'Disney Dorks', a term which does not reflect on not just anybody who is in favor of Disney, but the radical extremist Disney fans that make false accusations against Universal.
I think it says a whole lot more about the person who calls anyone like us "anti-Disney" than it does about us. The majority of the anti-Universal comments tend to be one of those lies that started this thread while the anti-Disney comments tend to be a whole lot closer to the unvarnished truth. And most of the anti-Disney comments are coming from people who didn't just DECIDE to hate Disney one day, but from people who used to LOVE it and are being driven away. The anti-Universal comments usually come from people who, for some strange reason, have DECIDED to hate Universal simply because it isn't Disney.
The fact of the matter is, there are a whole bunch of sites out there for people who want to hide their heads in the sand about what Disney is doing lately. If they want opinions from people who want nothing more than their money's worth out of a theme park, then they can come here. It isn't our fault that Universal has been doing things right for the past few years. And it isn't our fault that Disney hasn't been. We aren't some cult that can't think for ourselves, so don't shoot the messengers just because you don't like the message.
Fair points--there ARE a lot of pro-Disney sites which do not offer fair, unbiased observations. There IS a need for sites which offer more objective and productive commentary to counter fanatic pro-Disney rantings. You do agree, however, that there are two sides to fanaticism--the right wing can be just as blind as the left, or vice versa. Correct? You agree that a person who believes that all anti-Universal comments are lies whilst all anti-Disney tend to be closer to the unvarnished truth is dangerously close to being as close-minded and biased as the worst Disney fanatics, yes?
I never intended to threaten free speech at this site; I never intended to impose censorship rules as to what could be said here--I only wanted to warn against the dangers of losing our objectivity, of losing our ability to make productive comments. I may be the minority in this opinion, but I doubt that ranting fanatically for Disney is any more productive than ranting fanatically against Disney. You agree?
You make some valid points about comments on U.S. Disney practices versus Japanese Disney practices although, inititally, when I made my earlier tirade I only had the U.S. Disney-related comments in mind since, you will agree that while this is an international forum for themepark discussion, the majority of the comments on this site relate to U.S. themeparks.
But, perhaps you're right when mentioning the scarcity of negative comments on Disney's TokyoSea--it does seem to prove your point. But then again, how many comments in general are there about Disney's TokyoSea?
http://www.themeparkinsider.com/news/response.cfm?ID=204
http://www.themeparkinsider.com/news/response.cfm?ID=337
http://www.themeparkinsider.com/news/response.cfm?ID=413
Thank you for providing those Tokyo Disney threads and comments. You do seem to be making Kevin's point for him quite well...but then again, I wonder if that proves the point about there being a lot of comments in general here about Tokyo Disney. I mean, you certainly prove that comments about Tokyo Disney do exist (I never argued that)...but enough to be fair to my line of argument? It's hard to say--how much is enough or not enough?
Perhaps Kevin's comment on the matter is more revealing, "you would have to dig through the archives for [comments on Tokyo Disney]." Hmmm.
But I don't want to belabor this point more than I should--I'm sure it's getting tiresome. Besides, my main point was to express my concern that this site has become a pro-IOA/Disney-bashing site rather than a site which is genuinely objective. I mean, I felt this whole "debunking" thread was rather a bit of a vanity thread for IOA lovers...
But perhaps I'm being paranoid--I, too, am concerned over Disney's deterioration, yet I can't seem to summon up too many anti-Disney dork comments. Perhaps that's my weakness. Perhaps, I am wrong and the posters on this site aren't at war with Disney supporters everywhere. Perhaps I'm paranoid...
But then again, we have comments like this:
"This [debunking thread] needed to be bumped up since we seem to have a few new DDs spouting Universal Cliches on other threads."
and this,
"On The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man (at Islands of Adventure):
Someone right below me gives Spidey a 2? A TWO!!!! Looks like someone can't open his eyes to non-Disney experiences."
I'm forced to wonder--am I really wrong in perceiving that this site might be seen as just a bit hostile to alternate (specifically, Disney-friendly [or, in my case, Disney-hopeful]) comments?
Francois, I don't know why you take everything so personally. Are you Walt Disney? Even Michael Eisner doesn't take this stuff as personally as you seem to be taking it. WHY? Even if we all decided that ToT was the worst ride in the world, what does it matter to you? Would it affect your opinion of it? It sure shouldn't.
Unfortunately there are just too many people out there whose opinions are based on brand names and not on what is actually right there before their eyes. And the vast majority of those people have chosen Disney as their brand name and will accept nothing else. Well, those people are sad.
Also, Francois, your problems with this thread are crossing into a whole different realm of anti-Universalism. Like we aren't allowed to appreciate a park and defend it when so many are trying to knock it down with little or no reasoning behind it.
Since some seem to be missing the point of this article, I ask you this: Are the Five Cliches that started this thread true? NO! So then why are certain people saying them? CUZ DISNEY IS THEIR LORD AND MASTER! If people want to put their heads in the sand about Disney's current business practices, that is fine and dandy. But they don't need to lie about the competition to feel good about themselves. That's totally high school.
I guess the main question is: Have we lost OUR objectivity when it comes to Universal? I would have to that we certainly haven't. There are complaints about them all over these boards if you bothered to notice them while you are noticing all the Disney complaints. If you paid attention, I don't think I have ever seen a response to "IOA doesn't have enough attractions" try to argue that IOA does. And I haven't seen a whole lot of cheerleading for USH for that matter either. I also recall complaints about USF losing the classic characters, about maintenance issues, about Triceratops Encounter, Nick Studios, Pteranodon Flyers, StormForce, Poseidon's Fury's rehab, Hitchcock's removal, Back to the Future's age... and those are all off the top of my head.
In conclusion, FINALLY, if I heard these Cliches on this site only, I wouldn't have bothered to list them and debunk them. But I spent a couple years on PollyannaCot before Robert got his act together and about 50% of the posters over there spout one or more of these Cliches on a regular basis. Yet if someone even tried to mention something bad about Disney, then there was a one-sided flame war like you wouldn't believe. After seeing a few Cliches cluttering up this site recently I decided I had had my fill. You may or may not like it, but this site is supposed to help people get the best out of a theme park trip, and lies and propaganda DO NOT HELP.
