Universal Studios Florida: What Do We Think About It?

[belloq87]

Despite its shortcomings USF can afford to be put on the back burner for now.

The problem is that I would argue USF has already been on the back burner (certainly quality-wise) for a decade.

IOA, even with a dead Lost Continent, is still the vastly superior park in terms of what's on offer. And it was ten years ago, yet in that decade, it has received three good-to-great attractions (Skull Island, Hagrid's, and VelociCoaster*), with Pokemon on the way.

Compare that to USF, which I'd argue has only added one truly good thing in that span (Bourne), and it's a stark contrast.

* Two of which were also additions, compared to all of USF's stuff being replacements.

 

[Brian G.]

The problem is that I would argue USF has already been on the back burner (certainly quality-wise) for a decade.

IOA, even with a dead Lost Continent, is still the vastly superior park in terms of what's on offer. And it was ten years ago, yet in that decade, it has received three good-to-great attractions (Skull Island, Hagrid's, and VelociCoaster*), with Pokemon on the way.

Compare that to USF, which I'd argue has only added one truly good thing in that span (Bourne), and it's a stark contrast.

* Two of which were also additions, compared to all of USF's stuff being replacements.

Belloq, we've had this convo before. Playing Monday Morning QB, yes - the attractions USF has added didn't land as they had hoped, but they still DID invest in the park in the last decade. Now they're going to have to reinvest quicker than they originally had planned. It's not going to be as quick as you want it to be; and because of the events that do make a lot of money, it's something they do have to seriously consider.

 

[OrlLover]

The problem is that I would argue USF has already been on the back burner (certainly quality-wise) for a decade.

IOA, even with a dead Lost Continent, is still the vastly superior park in terms of what's on offer. And it was ten years ago, yet in that decade, it has received three good-to-great attractions (Skull Island, Hagrid's, and VelociCoaster*), with Pokemon on the way.

Compare that to USF, which I'd argue has only added one truly good thing in that span (Bourne), and it's a stark contrast.

* Two of which were also additions, compared to all of USF's stuff being replacements.

You certainly have the right to question the quality of attractions they did over the years.

However I believe we are forgetting some of the smaller offerings that were recently added and I believe to be successes such as Dreamworks Land, Today’s Cafe and the Minion Land rebranding.

These are incremental changes that don’t typically make a lot of noise but shows Universal caring to invest a little in the park.

 

[Jake S]

Islands of Adventure is (IMO) one of the best theme parks on earth and is significantly better than either of the other two parks on property. That's not just about attractions for me; I just don't like the vibe at the Studios park as much as at Islands. Obviously, other opinions are available.

Like @Mad Dog said earlier, most visitors have park hoppers, so this isn't exactly existential IMO. I go to the Studios park for the few rides I enjoy (and Diagon Alley, which is incredible) and then bop back to Islands. Studios having the night time show is a big deal, but it's also not run as frequently as I think it should.

But if Universal wants me and my family to spend more time at Universal Studios (and not Islands or Volcano Bay)... they've got a lot of work to do. I don't think it's about whose "turn" it is to get investment, but more about trying to bring about a greater balance between the parks at the resort.

 

[belloq87]

Belloq, we've had this convo before. Playing Monday Morning QB, yes - the attractions USF has added didn't land as they had hoped, but they still DID invest in the park in the last decade. Now they're going to have to reinvest quicker than they originally had planned. It's not going to be as quick as you want it to be; and because of the events that do make a lot of money, it's something they do have to seriously consider.

I don't think it's just Monday Morning QBing, as I was concerned about the park roster getting thrown out of whack contemporaneously with all those projects happening.

In hindsight, did I know for certain that Supercharged, Race Through New York, and VillainCon were going to be (in my opinion) subpar? No. But I did know they were pushing the park further down the screens overload path that had already begun with the loss of Jaws and addition of Transformers. The fact that they (the above three) didn't end up being very good (in my opinion) exacerbated the issue.

However I believe we are forgetting some of the smaller offerings that were recently added and I believe to be successes such as Dreamworks Land, Today’s Cafe and the Minion Land rebranding.

I think DreamWorks was a big missed opportunity, and has elements that seem pretty chintzy (I haven't seen it in person).

 

[Brian G.]

I don't think it's just Monday Morning QBing, as I was concerned about the park roster getting thrown out of whack contemporaneously with all those projects happening.

In hindsight, did I know for certain that Supercharged, Race Through New York, and VillainCon were going to be (in my opinion) subpar? No. But I did know they were pushing the park further down the screens overload path that had already begun with the loss of Jaws and addition of Transformers. The fact that they (the above three) didn't end up being very good (in my opinion) exacerbated the issue.

I mean, I think you kind of just proved the point there.

If you had an issue with the direction, even if those attractions were successful, then this isn’t really about whether USF was on the “back burner” or not. It’s about you not liking the direction they chose, period, and that's fine! Different strokes and all!

But that’s different from saying the park wasn’t being invested in, which is what I'm getting at. Universal made multiple major additions over that span, but they just weren’t aligned with your preferences, and they ultimately didn't resonate with guests.

You may not like that direction, but it was the direction they took, but that still means the park was invested in.

 

[Jake S]

To mix analogies, I don't think Universal Studios was on the back burner so much as they burned their aromatics and screwed up the emulsion on the front burner. So, now they gotta throw that crap out and get a new soup going.

 

[Brian G.]

To mix analogies, I don't think Universal Studios was on the back burner so much as they burned their aromatics and screwed up the emulsion on the front burner. So, now they gotta throw that crap out and get a new soup going.

And the specials for the day (i.e. HHN, Mardi Gras) are keeping guests happy, so they gotta make sure they serve that, too.

 

[OrlLover]

certain that Supercharged, Race Through New York, and VillainCon were going to be (in my opinion) subpar?

Supercharged was a complete failure and they admitted as such.

Doesn’t Fallon supposedly get good GSAT’s?

VillainCon is sort of a mixed bag neither positive or negative in my opinion.

 

[belloq87]

Supercharged was a complete failure and they admitted as such.

Doesn’t Fallon supposedly get good GSAT’s?

VillainCon is sort of a mixed bag neither positive or negative in my opinion.

If you look at the chart in @UniversalRBLX's post below, which was shared in this thread a while back and tracks wait time and accounts for potential/available capacity, Fallon is not well-attended at all relative to what it could/should be drawing.

I'm sure there are some caveats there, but it does give us a rough idea of its (lack of) popularity.

As for VillainCon, I haven't experienced it in-person (and I don't really plan on it) but I think it looks like the laziest (significant) attraction Universal has built in decades. Possibly ever. It's Universal's WEB Slingers.

Does UOR consider Transformers a D-Ticket internally? It's the park's 3rd most popular attraction based on wait-time & capacity data. Everything else I agree on, but I'm a bit shocked by Transformers being classified as a D-ticket.

View attachment 28832
Based on 2024 & 2025, the attraction ranks 3rd (including when Rockit was online).

*Data according to Touring Plans.

I mean, I think you kind of just proved the point there.

If you had an issue with the direction, even if those attractions were successful, then this isn’t really about whether USF was on the “back burner” or not. It’s about you not liking the direction they chose, period, and that's fine! Different strokes and all!

But that’s different from saying the park wasn’t being invested in, which is what I'm getting at. Universal made multiple major additions over that span, but they just weren’t aligned with your preferences, and they ultimately didn't resonate with guests.

You may not like that direction, but it was the direction they took, but that still means the park was invested in.

Again, I haven't claimed money wasn't spent, but I won't continue to take us in circles, because I'm really not trying to be argumentative.

Bottom line, I guess what I'm saying is this: it's not really relevant to me how much Universal has allocated to the park in terms of resources over the last ten years, because the result is still a park that (I think) is much worse as an experience than it was in 2015. Money was spent, and that's nice; it was spent poorly, so now they need to spend more. And at a quicker pace.

 

[Andysol]

As for VillainCon, I haven't experienced it in-person (and I don't really plan on it) but I think it looks like the laziest (significant) attraction Universal has built in decades. Possibly ever. It's Universal's WEB Slingers.

WEB Slingers is significantly better than VillainCon. It isnt even close. Villain Con is essentially a walk thru shooter. It eats people and its a B at best. It's ok to have a B.

Fallon is also fine.

They just forking shirtballsed the bed with F&F by not going physical and making it a badass coaster over the water. They knock that out of the park and we're all singing a different tune.

 

[belloq87]

WEB Slingers is significantly better than VillainCon. It isnt even close. Villain Con is essentially a walk thru shooter. It eats people and its a B at best. It's ok to have a B.

The important context to my statement is that I think WEB Slingers is absolutely atrocious, insulting garbage. So if VillainCon is worse... you're not exactly selling me on its virtue!

B-tickets are fine, but a screen-based shooter is the absolute last thing USF needed at that time (even replacing a 3D show as it was).

 

[Brian G.]

Again, I haven't claimed money wasn't spent, but I won't continue to take us in circles, because I'm really not trying to be argumentative.

Bottom line, I guess what I'm saying is this: it's not really relevant to me how much Universal has allocated to the park in terms of resources over the last ten years, because the result is still a park that (I think) is much worse as an experience than it was in 2015. Money was spent, and that's nice; it was spent poorly, so now they need to spend more. And at a quicker pace.

That’s fair if your point is just that the park feels worse to you now, but that’s kind of a different argument than where this started.

Saying USF is worse today is about how it turned out in your opinion. Saying it was on the “back burner” means they weren’t really investing in it.

But we both agree they did spend money on it. It’s just that you don’t think what they built worked. Which is totally fine, but it’s not the same thing. I don’t disagree that it puts Universal in a position where they need to course-correct and reinvest.

I get wanting it now, but that’s just not how it works. They already started with F&F. It's just a matter of what's going to happen with Supercharged and Simpsons. A 4-year plan isn't exactly a long-term outlook in the theme park realm.

WEB Slingers is significantly better than VillainCon. It isnt even close. Villain Con is essentially a walk thru shooter. It eats people and its a B at best. It's ok to have a B.

Fallon is also fine.

They just forking shirtballsed the bed with F&F by not going physical and making it a badass coaster over the water. They knock that out of the park and we're all singing a different tune.

I do think USF's issues are a bit overstated, mostly because the other 2 parks are so damn great - so it makes any glaring issue look bigger.

 

[belloq87]

Saying USF is worse today is about how it turned out in your opinion. Saying it was on the “back burner” means they weren’t really investing in it.

I know I said I wasn't going to take us in circles... but bear with me!

I think the “back burner” sentiment would come from the sense that, for whatever money has been spent at USF, Universal has prioritized other places (IOA, Epic) for the ambitious projects, as well as the fact that two huge projects once rumored for USF -- Nintendo and Pokemon -- were/are being shifted to those other parks.

And along the way, there have been a couple other inflection points where they chose a more budget-friendly option instead of trying to get a jump-start on a course-correction (they could have added a dark ride as part of the DreamWorks plan, they could have built a dark ride -- or almost anything else -- instead of VillainCon, etc.).

 

[mccgavin]

WEB Slingers is significantly better than VillainCon. It isnt even close. Villain Con is essentially a walk thru shooter. It eats people and its a B at best. It's ok to have a B.

Hard disagree. Neither is great, but VillainCon is a much more enjoyable experience between the the two. Despite WEB Slingers being more of an actual ride, it has far less going on visually, the gameplay is worse, and the requirement to flail your arms becomes tiring quickly.

I'll usually do VillainCon once per trip (since it is usually a walk-on anyway), but WEB Slingers is one of the few rides in my life that was truly a one-and-done for me.

 

[Cup_Of_Coffee]

I know I said I wasn't going to take us in circles... but bear with me!

I think the “back burner” sentiment would come from the sense that, for whatever money has been spent at USF, Universal has prioritized other places (IOA, Epic) for the ambitious projects, as well as the fact that two huge projects once rumored for USF -- Nintendo and Pokemon -- were/are being shifted to those other parks.

And along the way, there have been a couple other inflection points where they chose a more budget-friendly option instead of trying to get a jump-start on a course-correction (they could have added a dark ride as part of the DreamWorks plan, they could have built a dark ride -- or almost anything else -- instead of VillainCon, etc.).

I totally get your point. The major projects slated for this park always get shifted elsewhere and then by proxy neglect this park, minus its great festival work. I think you gotta reframe your arguments that you don’t like the additions of the last decade and a half more than this park hasn’t gotten investment. It’s had plenty of that, and gets it every year with their new festival and HHN offerings. It is absolutely invested in, whether it’s what we (and you) want.

 

[Jake S]

Hard disagree. Neither is great, but VillainCon is a much more enjoyable experience between the the two. Despite WEB Slingers being more of an actual ride, it has far less going on visually, the gameplay is worse, and the requirement to flail your arms becomes tiring quickly.

I'll usually do VillainCon once per trip (since it is usually a walk-on anyway), but WEB Slingers is one of the few rides in my life that was truly a one-and-done for me.

Hard disagree the other way — VillainCon is one of the worst attractions I've ever experienced and is absolutely a one and done for me. The animation looks terrible, there's way too much going on and the game play is mind-bogglingly bad. But I also think Web Slingers is just fine, which I realize is *looks around* not a popular opinion.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

Money spent =/= effort.

Yeah USF invested during the same years IOA did. But it’s tough to make a favorable comparison between two elite roller coasters and a smattering of screen rides/a playground. I say with confidence that nobody internally thought Supercharged was going to work out…it wasn’t like some swing-and-miss. USF has been knowingly getting the shaft, even if it’s technically getting money.

 

[HHN Maddux]

Irish exit for this spot?

Never opened today and according to replies, been closed since Friday.

 

[TheCodeMan95]

People when half of Hollywood Studios is closed: "this is ridiculous. The park shouldn't even be open!"

The same people: "they need to level half of USF"


Also.. I think we need to move past the "Fallon was a failure" argument. It wasn't.
You may not like it.. but it gets good GSATs, it's fun and it probably moves a decent bit of merch.