Fast & Furious: Supercharged (Closing August 2026)

[Brian G.]

After a pre-requisite "I acknowledge that Hollywood Drift exists.", I'll just ask this: When do we think USF will get a big high-budget new redevelopment? Something at the scale of a Hagrids, Unchained, Velocicoaster, Diagon, or Rise?

Will it be another five years, ten years from now? Even the big new Epic and IoA additions seem nearly half a decade away at this point. "This just means that Simpsons is next on the docket!" I thought Simpsons would've been gone by now! Obviously, COVID impacted them real hard, and "world events" are getting in the way now. They banked on certain ideas working out that didn't. It all makes sense, but I can't act excited about any of this.

I think your last sentence kinda gets glanced over a bit. It's acknowledged, but I don't think it's really being considered, sorta.

COVID happened, so things had to get shuffled. In some ways, that probably worked out for the better, and in others... not so much. If we're just counting USF right now, we have the Finn's redo, HMU redo, a big HHN 35 event, the coaster, and whatever replaces FF.

But at some point, everything Universal has done - and is doing - across the resort has to count when we're asking what they're doing and why the timeline looks the way it does.

I know we'd all love to know when USF gets its next Diagon-level project ASAP. I just don't think "I thought it would've happened by now" necessarily means Universal is doing something wrong, per se.

I think my ultimate point is that, at USF, we’re still in that era. The balance has not shifted away from that stuff in any way yet.

And I think the fact that Superchaged used screens is at least the third biggest problem with it!

1. IP is a bad fit for the ride experience.
2. 360 tunnel a redundant gimmick with (the highly superior) Skull Island a short walk away.
3. One more simulator in a park becoming oversatured with screen stuff.
4. Lost two (physical) attractions for one (simulator) attraction.
5. It's just... not good! Even on its own terms.

(I am genuinely curious what your rankings of its problems would be!)


I think we can all take it as a given at this point that when anybody talks about wanting SLOP (or something like SLOP), they also mean something with more accommodating ride vehicles. It's been caveated plenty in conversations about it.

I'd say 1 & 2 kinda piggyback off each other, but:

1. Not Fast or Furious
2. Ride system is a terrible fit for the IP
3. Bad story/graphics
4. Screens

And I could easily see an argument for moving screens up to #3.

I guess my bigger point is that if the ride were better in almost every other way, the screens would certainly still be criticized, but I don't think they'd be nearly as much of a point of contention.

Kong is probably the easiest comparison. People can criticize the 360 portion, but the attraction around it gives you a lot more to chew on. Supercharged just... doesn't.

So if a rumored Twisters can do something more akin to Kong, I personally think it's OK.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

Lots of totally fair points. I've got a good bit of disagreement as well, but mostly within the realm of contentious personal taste.

I was going to cut this section from my post, cause I know a lot of people will disagree and argue about it, and I really don't care to defend it. But since the points keep being brought up - here's my broad opinion on UDX's output, including Epic, if anyone is genuinely interested and not just going for Gotcha's. Read at your own discretion.

Spoiler: Personal Taste - UOR VS. WDW

I believe that even with all of the cut projects or whiffed executions - your Kitetails, Starcruisers, Poppins, or what have you - the Disney parks have largely gone in a direction that I personally find to be strictly superior to UDX's Orlando output - and that includes the bulk of Epic Universe.

I've not been ignoring the new park. I was largely let down by a number of Epic's heavy hitters and smaller offerings. Untrainable Dragon, Racer Rally, Mario Kart, Yoshi, Werewolf, Ministry, Carousel, the Power-Up Challenges; none of these have challenged my beliefs regarding UDX's lack of consistently quality output. They're not all "bad", but they underdeliver hard, and each have their own set of issues; operational, developmental, budgetary, or otherwise.

Stardust, Mine Cart, Hiccups, Unchained, Cirque; they are actually really well-done and I do enjoy them quite a bit, but Stardust and Velocicoaster are largely equivalent to each other. Same with Hagrid's and Hiccup's, Forbidden Journey and Unchained. So even within the peak of UDX's output, there exists a very similar issue to their screen-based valleys - lack of variety.

Cirque and Mine Cart are different! but I've only ridden Mine Cart maybe three times ever because of its' astronomical wait times, operational issues, and horrible queue; and you can only burden Le Cirque Arcanus with so much before the cracks start showing there too, and for me, they have.

I would take Smuggler's Run, Journey of Water, Runaway Railway, Tiana, Flight of Passage, Slinky Dog Dash, new Test Track, Soarin, Country Bears, Star Tours, Muppets RNRC, or most any other contentious Disney attraction over the bulk of Epic's lineup any day.

You really have to start getting into the dredges of those parks' recent output like Navi River Journey, Awesome Planet, Toy Story Land's ASS, or the Beauty and the Beast Sing-Along before I start prefering waiting 55 minutes for Dragon Racer Rally or Yoshi's Adventure.

---

I acknowledge that Disney has a tremendous foundation to work off of, and that's why even larger whiffs don't impact my enjoyment all too much. There is so much to enjoy in those parks already, that if something doesn't work out, that's okay.

The fifth or sixth whiff at USF, though? It's like jumping into a foam pit with only a few cubes in it. There's no foundation to land on so you just end up hitting the pavement real hard. MiB, Diagon, E.T. are solid, and I know a lot of you like Mummy too. But that park needed help back in 2017, and each addition that goes by without that status-quo changing is just maddening.

After a pre-requisite "I acknowledge that Hollywood Drift exists.", I'll just ask this: When do we think USF will get a big high-budget new redevelopment? Something at the scale of a Hagrids, Unchained, Velocicoaster, Diagon, or Rise?

Will it be another five years, ten years from now? Even the big new Epic and IoA additions seem nearly half a decade away at this point. "This just means that Simpsons is next on the docket!" I thought Simpsons would've been gone by now! Obviously, COVID impacted them real hard, and "world events" are getting in the way now. They banked on certain ideas working out that didn't. It all makes sense, but I can't act excited about any of this.

I agree with you, and the crazy thing is I think most FL theme park fans do as well, even if it’s subconscious. It’s telling that for the last 10 years, the biggest criticism levied against most new Disney attraction are about how much they cost or how long they took to build…factors that are inconsequential to the quality of the experiences themselves. Are VillainCon, Mario Kart, Supercharged, Fallon, etc. really better than the stuff Disney has added in the same timeframe because they were (allegedly) cheaper?

 

[MAC]

I think your last sentence kinda gets glanced over a bit. It's acknowledged, but I don't think it's really being considered, sorta.

COVID happened, so things had to get shuffled. In some ways, that probably worked out for the better, and in others... not so much. If we're just counting USF right now, we have the Finn's redo, HMU redo, a big HHN 35 event, the coaster, and whatever replaces FF.

I highlighted two items that are probably pretty important. Both of those buildings are original buildings (pretty sure on that) and I'm not intimately aware of what has been done to those buildings in the past, what state they're currently in, and what the re-dos are intended to do, but my gut would say there's some structural/internal items that need to be completed for the safety of guests/workers. I'm sure they will have some new-ness attached to it so the closure is also a positive for future guests (revamped show, new food items and maybe refreshed decor), but sometimes you do these things and they're less sexy, but are a higher priority because there are some items that just have to get done from time to time.

Edit: I'm sure CapEx budget that may have been earmarked for something else had to be re-directed to these two projects, thus delaying something else we may want.

 

[Brian G.]

I highlighted two items that are probably pretty important. Both of those buildings are original buildings (pretty sure on that) and I'm not intimately aware of what has been done to those buildings in the past, what state they're currently in, and what the re-dos are intended to do, but my gut would say there's some structural/internal items that need to be completed for the safety of guests/workers. I'm sure they will have some new-ness attached to it so the closure is also a positive for future guests (revamped show, new food items and maybe refreshed decor), but sometimes you do these things and they're less sexy, but are a higher priority because there are some items that just have to get done from time to time.

Edit: I'm sure CapEx budget that may have been earmarked for something else had to be re-directed to these two projects, thus delaying something else we may want.

I do know the chandelier in the HMU lobby was from the original version so...

 

[Andysol]

Will it be another five years, ten years from now? Even the big new Epic and IoA additions seem nearly half a decade away at this point. "This just means that Simpsons is next on the docket!" I thought Simpsons would've been gone by now!

This is the principal issue. Even if lost continent didn’t get built nor the dark universe or potter expansion and instead, USF redid Springfield and FFL areas… it would still be the worst park of the three. It’s now going to be even worse in comparison.

Contrast that to WDW, and their oldest park is also the most attended and is having a massive overhaul to boot.

Yeah if you remove the largest expansion on property in the past 25 years with over a dozen new attractions it does make your argument look better! What some people in this thread want are the sensations and feelings of their childhood recreated now. It's impossible to do that. Wheter this is wanting the 90s USF to come back or remembering what Disney was to them, the complaint is the same: why isn't [Insert Universal Park Here] more like [insert my memory or another park].

Again- it’s that USF is by far the worst park more than people clamoring for Jaws or BTTF. Sure, there are those people; but they aren’t the majority guest opinion. If SLoP vs Villain Con, original plans of SNW and potter expansion happened here, the complaints would be significantly more muted; if they were to exist at all. And none of those are old IPs.

As for what happens with Supercharged... remember, there are 3 very large rooms before you even get to the 360 scene. If they end up reusing the 360 tech, that doesn't mean they can't get creative with the ride experience and blend physical and screen elements, even within that room. But again, we really can't say much beyond hypotheticals right now.

Put on your universal creative hat for Twisters and give me the elevator pitch. Curious what you think could be done.

Hell, when it opened, I even said Supercharged would mark the end of the "screen era."

That was 2018. And 5 years later we got villain con.

So you may think this time they’re finally going to learn their lesson; but it looks a lot more like Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football. So color me skeptical. And that’s as someone who wants Twisters and not a tear down.

 

[Brian G.]

So you may think this time they’re finally going to learn their lesson; but it looks a lot more like Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football. So color me skeptical. And that’s as someone who wants Twisters and not a tear down.

But that ignores everything else they've done since. You're taking the one example and treating it like it's still representative of their creative direction.

The problem with that era was sitting in front of a screen, putting on 3D glasses, and calling it a ride. You know good and well they've moved away from that. Even VC, despite its reliance on screens, offers a fundamentally different ride experience.

Put on your universal creative hat for Twisters and give me the elevator pitch. Curious what you think could be done.

More Paxton. More Denim.

On a serious note, I think going back to the well wouldn't be such a bad idea here. Borrow from the OG Twister and Earthquake and go back to the magic of special effects in movie-making. Put us in the action of filming the next scene for Twisters. That way, you can get away from having to explain Twisters in a rural setting in the middle of urban San Fran. Use the 360 screen as an extension of the scene and not the focus. They can simulate the tornado effect practically; just use the background to show the damage being done around them.

 

[Andysol]

But that ignores everything else they've done since. You're taking the one example and treating it like it's still representative of their creative direction.

Am I though? Bourne (screens), villain con (screens), kid area redo which removed a physical curious George play area and replaced it with… a screen in Po Live!. That’s our decade.

So forgive me if the (albeit badass) coaster replacing an end of life coaster doesn’t make me think they’ve turned a corner.

As I said earlier, once a wrecking ball is swinging at a screen, I’ll finally attempt to kick that football. And I don’t mean the wrecking ball on The Simpsons ride, for the smartasses amongst us

I think going back to the well wouldn't be such a bad idea here. Borrow from the OG Twister and Earthquake and go back to the magic of special effects in movie-making. Put us in the action of filming the next scene for Twisters. That way, you can get away from having to explain Twisters in a rural setting in the middle of urban San Fran. Use the 360 screen as an extension of the scene and not the focus. They can simulate the tornado effect practically; just use the background to show the damage being done around them.

Makes sense. I like it.

I didn’t even consider they’d need to drive the tornado party bus from San Fran to Kansas.

 

[Brian G.]

Am I though? Bourne (screens), villain con (screens), kid area redo which removed a physical curious George play area and replaced it with… a screen in Po Live!. That’s our decade.

So forgive me if the (albeit badass) coaster replacing an end of life coaster doesn’t make me think they’ve turned a corner.

Monsters? MoM? Hagrid’s? VC? I’m not arguing Universal stopped using screens. I’m saying they’ve clearly moved away from the creative philosophy of “sit in front of a screen, put on 3D glasses, and get shaken around.”

 

[Legacy]

But the ACTUAL *core* issue is a narrow target demographic that leans toward an adrenaline-locked ride experience in a infrastructure and geographically constrained park. All of the rides designed for the Studios have tried to straddle that line. Their design philosophy is tied those realities.

Universal fans (and the bulk of their guests) gravitate towards coasters or coaster-like experiences. They have always been a “more adult” Disney, so it’s self-inflicted, but it’s still what they build to. If there was a bigger appetite for accessible, practical-heavy dark rides, then CitH, MiB, SLoP, Seuss Monorail would pull from the coasters/thrill rides because those are the only options. But even as the only options - and all perfectly enjoyable practical dark rides - they barely have lines (Kart being an exception largely due to its IP). The majority of people who go to Universal want coasters (or coaster-like thrills). That means Universal is stuck trying to create variations of the same visceral experience.

That’s a significant challenge in the Studios, as they can’t really expand “out.” The parks don’t “own” the soundstages, so they can’t expand south. The majority of their backstage infrastructure for the north campus is entitlely west of the Studios. The space behind Simpsons is critical infrastructure for the one thing that consistently dominates in market share… Halloween. So the space you have is the space you have. That’s really it. And they can’t all be actually coasters.

But let’s take a further look at screens.

Hitchcock - Long pre-show screen, passive live action show (that involved looking at screens) -> Shrek - Screen ride with height requirement -> Villain-Con - interactive screen experience with no height requirement. That’s actually progressive movement for that spot.

T2:3D - 3D screen-based attraction with five-live performers -> Bourne - screen-based attraction with more moving set-pieces, props, and performers. That’s progressive movement for the spot.

Ghostbusters - a very cool live show with some neat practical effects - Twister: Ride it Out -> A standing only show with some neat practical effects -> a simulator ride but a ride slammed into a small footprint that aligns with the Uni audience’s desire for adrenaline. This is a matter of preference. Twister was cool but passive. What Universal was looking for was a ride and they made it work. While not everyone will like the ride (for various reasons), this is not objectively *bad.* Some have a valid argument it was an improvement because it added a *ride.*

Murder She Wrote - Screen-based attraction where you walked from screen to screen. -> Herc/Xena -> Same thing, different IP -> Transformers - A thrilling ride where you move from screen to screen. This is a clear improvement, but structural little changed in the experience except the ride portion.

KidZone - I remember the “interactive” Tiger during Fievel softs, but he wasn’t that way all the time and was a bigger bear to maintain -> Po is current, interactive and, being on a screen, can actually replicate the visual *speed* of his kung-fu. Preference matters but this is largely progressive in that regard. (I also argue, “if the kids like it, who cares?” But that’s a different thing.)

Jaws - Big practical ride that took up a lot of space but with less ride vehicle mobility-> Gringotts - Screen-based coaster with a lot of vehicle mobility. This is going to be an argument with fans, based on preference. I think Uni’s demo prefers Gringotts to Jaws because there is more to it, but it is lacking the wow factor of Jaws’ practicality. The actual progression for the park though is in Diagon itself, which cannot be ignored. There is now way more to DO with Jaws gone. It’s just not one ride.

Earthquake/Disaster - A practical tour de force with a meandering pre-show and weird shuttle style ride layout -> Supercharged - a tighter (though still bad) experience in a screen-based loop. This is arguably the one, truly, inarguably regressive move they’ve made at the Studios. I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s because of the screens. The screens lose the scale, yes, but the actual ride experience of jostling in a tube was a lateral move.

So basically, if you really look at the history, they’ve really only added THREE screen-based/centered rides (Gringotts, Fallon, Supercharged). The rest always were. And one of those added an actual ride where one wasn’t there.

 

[Andysol]

Monsters? MoM? Hagrid’s? VC? I’m not arguing Universal stopped using screens. I’m saying they’ve clearly moved away from the creative philosophy of “sit in front of a screen, put on 3D glasses, and get shaken around.”

Sorry- I didn’t realize you were talking about the resort as a whole. I’m specifically discussing USF. Which has had directionless creative leadership.

Maybe we’re talking past each other then.

For the resort- I agree with you.

For USF- I stand by my opinion.

 

[belloq87]

So basically, if you really look at the history, they’ve really only added THREE screen-based/centered rides (Gringotts, Fallon, Supercharged). The rest always were. And one of those added an actual ride where one wasn’t there.

I profoundly disagree (putting it mildly) with most of the characterizations in the rest of your post, and to go into elaborate detail would not be productive, but I wanted to point out that Supercharged also took Beetlejuice (a practical show) off the board, so it's really a four attraction swing of the overall balance towards screen-based stuff.

You might say "only" three, or "only" four, but that's actually a pretty giant shift in a park with a fairly finite number of significant attractions.

 

[Jake S]

I don't think it's just that Universal Studios Florida has, in recent years, felt like an overly simulator-heavy park (though, yes). It's that a lot of the attractions are not good and the environment between the attractions is, with one notable attraction, not good.

Now, I say that as a noted disliker of Hollywood Studios over at Disney World for this exact reason (uh, the second reason ... although). I know there are people here who like the vibe of Universal Studios Florida and while I do not understand them, I have no beef with them.

But if I were to rank all the Disney and Universal parks in Orlando from "park I most want to visit" to "park I least want to visit" ... this and Epic Universe are fighting for last place. That's because while there are a couple of attraction at each park that I love, the bulk of the attractions at both parks are ones I'm happy to skip.

So rather than get trapped in a semantics debate over what is a screen ride, or what is an offensive screen ride, I think it's simply that I don't think Universal's had a great batting average with new attractions. I assume Studios taking on the brunt of that is just bad luck or the result of some kind of curse.

They opened Gringotts in 2014, which is (IMO) a pretty so-so attraction that just so happens to be in one of the greatest theme park lands ever built. Honestly, I'd take that trade again. But since then they've built Fallon (I do not care for it), Fast and Furious (right), Villain Blast (an abomination) and Bourne (excellent).

That's tough! And I don't think the problem is that this is a screen heavy lineup. Sure, it's a problem, but I don't think I'd even care about that if all of these attractions hit. Anyway, Universal Studios Florida is a land of contrasts. The "easiest" way to improve the park is to build better stuff.