Wet n Wild will close at the end of 2016

[jsutherin1]

I remember going to wet n wild as a kid when it was the only thing around in that whole area.

 

[luisov]

Disney seems to be trying to limit how much time their guests spend in their parks. (Maybe... another discussion.) Sea World may or may not be losing visitors. Busch Gardens is a fairly long trip and probably relies more on locals. LEGOLAND is more for small fry. Water parks? Not really so many considering the number of tourists. Golf courses and outlets I'll give you but would that many tourists visit the zoo?

Anyway, how many people Universal can attract to a new venture depends on topic and execution. So far they've done an amazing job with those IMO.

By the way is the Orlando Zoo any good? I do like zoos.

They are minor attractions indeed, but they still consume at least one day in most tourists' vacations, if not two. If Disney is not losing clients, and given that most tourists will spend about 4 days at Disney anyway, we can assume that a third Universal gate would have to compete with all the other non-Disney attractions for a space in most tourists' limited schedule.

If Universal decides to open a third gate I'm sure it will be great. They've proven to have some talented people over there.

There have been 'David and Goliath' matches in the business world before and the one who sits idle (usually Goliath) while the other takes risks (usually David) can sometimes loose out. I'm not saying that Disney is in any jeopardy, far from it, but it doesn't mean that Comcast can't take a bigger bite out of their pie.

Take a look back to 1997 when Blockbuster Video was king of the hill and a little startup called Netflix decided to change the rental game. At first Blockbuster laughed at them, but we all know what the landscape looks like now.

It is fair to say that one day Universal might become Orlando's leading force in theme park entertainment. But in the meantime, Disney's numbers are going up as well. It all depends on Avatarland and Star Wars land, really. If they are bad, people will start shifting automatically to Universal for a lack of a worthy addition in over a decade. If they are great, Disney's attendance will probably remain steady for quite a while and they won't resent Universal's growth as much. After all, WDW has managed to remain popular even when the IP has been bad (80's, 2000's) or the investment on the parks has been poor (2010's).

As you say, anything could happen, really. If Disney is not careful, they might lose more than just one day in their guests' schedule. Still, I do wonder if Universal could justify a third gate in the foreseeable future. It just depends on so many factors.

 

[minnie-apple-mouse]

Universal is already making a risky decision by aiming to steal one more day from the standard ''We are going to Disney World... oh, and to Universal Studios as well'' tourist. Universal's strategy right now is to create as many new and exciting attractions as possible in order to ensure that their guests will choose to stay that extra day with them instead of giving it to Disney or some other theme park around. Still, based on the recent attendance numbers, although Universal is clearly gaining guests, so is Disney, showing that Universal is not stealing Disney's clients, but is rather bringing new tourists to the Orlando area.

Disney seems to be trying to limit how much time their guests spend in their parks.

I think FP+ has been bringing a lot of guests back to WDW for the evenings on days they go and visit UNI/IOA. It did for us anyway.

You can have a pretty good evening schedule now with FP+ IMO. Maybe not worth $100, but certainly an AP visit or $10 add on day.

Prior to FP+, it was fairly pointless to come back from UNI/IOA for a WDW park visit. Maybe a parade and/or fireworks, but now as many as 3 major attractions scheduled as well. I also suspect most come back to the MK on a Universal day for more choices and activities.

That way Universal gets a guest visit, and WDW gets a guest visit on the same day.

Is that what WDW really wants overall? Doubtful. But if FP+ brings guests back to WDW that evening, they may make park purchases, dinner purchases, and even keep them in the WDW hotels-not the worst counter measure.

 

[wallrock]

They are minor attractions indeed, but they still consume at least one day in most tourists' vacations, if not two. If Disney is not losing clients, and given that most tourists will spend about 4 days at Disney anyway, we can assume that a third Universal gate would have to compete with all the other non-Disney attractions for a space in most tourists' limited schedule.

If Universal decides to open a third gate I'm sure it will be great. They've proven to have some talented people over there.



It is fair to say that one day Universal might become Orlando's leading force in theme park entertainment. But in the meantime, Disney's numbers are going up as well. It all depends on Avatarland and Star Wars land, really. If they are bad, people will start shifting automatically to Universal for a lack of a worthy addition in over a decade. If they are great, Disney's attendance will probably remain steady for quite a while and they won't resent Universal's growth as much. After all, WDW has managed to remain popular even when the IP has been bad (80's, 2000's) or the investment on the parks has been poor (2010's).

As you say, anything could happen, really. If Disney is not careful, they might lose more than just one day in their guests' schedule. Still, I do wonder if Universal could justify a third gate in the foreseeable future. It just depends on so many factors.

I'm not so sure that they would go the route of a third theme park just yet. It may be on their horizon and I do think they're willing to take risks, but the Wet N Wild footprint doesn't look large enough to hold a theme park. It might be possible if the parking lot across the street would become part of that park, thereby forcing Universal to bus folks in. Looking at Google Maps, I wonder if that vacant lot just south of the parking lot is owned by Comcast or someone else. That area combined with the parking lot would suffice as a third park footprint.

 

[DBDiz]

With Universal having landed the Nintendo license, I can certainly see a smaller third park being built rather than trying to cram all that IP into existing areas.

Even if WDW is able to obtain park rights to Marvel, Nintendo deserves better than re-skinning existing rides.

 

[rteetz]

Spirit says a new hotel is planned for this site

 

[JRennie]

You're correct, but right now the time split is probably 70-30 (just a guess) in favor of Disney for guests who visit both Universal and Disney while on vacation. Universal knows you don't have more vacation days, but they do want more of those limited days to be spent at their park instead of the competition.

I agree. We usually go for 9 days and only spend 1 or 2 at universal, if they had another park then I would totally spend more time there.

 

[luisov]

With Universal having landed the Nintendo license, I can certainly see a smaller third park being built rather than trying to cram all that IP into existing areas.

Even if WDW is able to obtain park rights to Marvel, Nintendo deserves better than re-skinning existing rides.

I read that they were getting rid of Toon Lagoon to make some space for Nintendo. Not sure if just a rumor though.

 

[larandtra1990]

Comparing the WDW/Universal to BB/Netflix is apples and oranges. Netflix didnt run BB out of business. Technology changes did. Sort of like do you see any record stores around anymore? Target and Walmart didnt run them out of business. technology changes. Nonsense to compare the two because it is vastly different. There isnt a technology that is going to run WDW out of business. If anything they create most of the technology other parks mimic. Disney Seas is a prime example. Again, Universal is a one trick pony. Harry Potter is not well planned and is a miserable time in small spaces, their rides consistently have flaws and the theming is below average. Its more like a glorified Six Flags, vs the actual theming and effort put into things at WDW when they take the time to do them right and not try to overreact to Universal and just throw something together.

 

[Darkwing981]

Comparing the WDW/Universal to BB/Netflix is apples and oranges. Netflix didnt run BB out of business. Technology changes did. Sort of like do you see any record stores around anymore? Target and Walmart didnt run them out of business. technology changes. Nonsense to compare the two because it is vastly different. There isnt a technology that is going to run WDW out of business. If anything they create most of the technology other parks mimic. Disney Seas is a prime example. Again, Universal is a one trick pony. Harry Potter is not well planned and is a miserable time in small spaces, their rides consistently have flaws and the theming is below average. Its more like a glorified Six Flags, vs the actual theming and effort put into things at WDW when they take the time to do them right and not try to overreact to Universal and just throw something together.

I can't speak on that as I've never been to Universal (still planning to go one day). Yes Disney still rules the roost as far as theming and creating unforgettable moments, but Disney also runs the risk of alienating long-time patrons with continual price gouges and dragging their feet with implementing new attractions (mostly E-ticket rides). WDW is far from trouble, but Universal has been making an ambitious effort as of late and could pose a serious challenge down the line.

I love Disney.... but competition is a good thing. It'll force them to raise their game and at the same time, cater to their loyal fan base.

 

[mcjaco]

You have 4 Disney theme parks, 2 Universal parks, Sea World, Legoland, Busch Gardens, lots of water parks, golf courses, outlets, zoos... It is a pretty saturated market and there's a limited number of days a family can spend on their vacation.

Legoland and Busch Gardens are an hour away....I wouldn't put them in the same market.

 

[rteetz]

Legoland and Busch Gardens are an hour away....I wouldn't put them in the same market.

Most do put Legoland in the same market but not Busch gardens. But with that said a lot of people do go to those before or after disney.

 

[Stinky Sullivan]

This competition will be good for all of us Disney fans! It will not affect Disney, theyll always remain at the top, however they will definitely have to respond to this adequately. That might mean a fifth gate, but Avatar Land wont cut it. Star Wars land is going to be amazing also.

I hope you're right, I really do, but I cannot share your optimism as long as Disney's attendance numbers remain sky high. Why would they bother investing into the parks when they have gotten away with no ramifications whatsoever for keeping their product old, stale, and stagnant, along with skyrocketing their hotel and admission prices? They have actually been rewarded for their behavior, which is really baffling. I think even Iger and company must shake their heads in wonder on this because it defies all logic of supply and demand.

 

[luisov]

Legoland and Busch Gardens are an hour away....I wouldn't put them in the same market.

That's true. However, it's important to say that both Busch Gardens and Universal attract more thrill seekers than Disney, for example. If you're looking for big thrills and big coasters, you may as well go to Busch Gardens if you're in the area anyways. Big factors or not, they are still important to consider.

At the end of the day Universal is making clever decisions and they seem determined. Still, a third Universal gate sounds like a risky decision to me. At least for the next couple of years.

 

[ChipnDale79]

That's true. However, it's important to say that both Busch Gardens and Universal attract more thrill seekers than Disney, for example. If you're looking for big thrills and big coasters, you may as well go to Busch Gardens if you're in the area anyways. Big factors or not, they are still important to consider.

At the end of the day Universal is making clever decisions and they seem determined. Still, a third Universal gate sounds like a risky decision to me. At least for the next couple of years.

If Universal wants to become a serious contender to WDW, a third park is going to have to happen.

And they are going to have to find a way to connect with young children.

Maybe I have this view because I only have young children, but the biggest draw back that Universal has is it doesn't have something like Mickey Mouse. My kids watch both Nick jr and Disney Jr, but to them, there's just something about Mickey Mouse, they both just love him.

Looney Tunes I think has made a big mistake over the last 20 years or so of not pushing Bugs Bunny and his gang. I think that gang is the only gang that could ever rival the Mickey Mouse gang over a long period of time. I think because that hasn't been done in years, it can't happen anymore.

Imagine if Universal had the rights to Bugs Bunny and were able to recreate the same level of magic with Bugs Bunny as Disney has with Mickey Mouse. There's your real competition.

For competitions sake, Universals third park has to be a "magic kingdom" type of park, they've got to create magical moments. If they do that, Disney has some real competition.

Wow, I really rambled on that one.

 

[circus4u]

That's true. However, it's important to say that both Busch Gardens and Universal attract more thrill seekers than Disney, for example. If you're looking for big thrills and big coasters, you may as well go to Busch Gardens if you're in the area anyways. Big factors or not, they are still important to consider.

At the end of the day Universal is making clever decisions and they seem determined. Still, a third Universal gate sounds like a risky decision to me. At least for the next couple of years.

I think the key phrase is "big thrills and big coasters." People looking mainly for those things shouldn't really consider WDW or criticize it for not having them; it's 2 different types of entertainment. Last time we went to California, 3 of us went to Disneyland and five went up the coast to Six Flags. Each entertainment venue has its fans, one is not better than the other, and one type of entertainment establishment cannot really try to be both and do them both justice.

 

[ChipnDale79]

I think the key phrase is "big thrills and big coasters." People looking mainly for those things shouldn't really consider WDW or criticize it for not having them; it's 2 different types of entertainment. Last time we went to California, 3 of us went to Disneyland and five went up the coast to Six Flags. Each entertainment venue has its fans, one is not better than the other, and one type of entertainment establishment cannot really try to be both and do them both justice.

These resorts can do that though, it makes a lot of sense for Disney to have the stuff they have and then have a park that's dedicated to thrill rides. It keeps you on their property, so instead of your group splitting up and going to different theme parks on different resorts, you split up and take a different bus from your hotel to different theme parks on the same resort.

 

[wallrock]

Comparing the WDW/Universal to BB/Netflix is apples and oranges. Netflix didnt run BB out of business. Technology changes did. Sort of like do you see any record stores around anymore? Target and Walmart didnt run them out of business. technology changes. Nonsense to compare the two because it is vastly different. There isnt a technology that is going to run WDW out of business. If anything they create most of the technology other parks mimic. Disney Seas is a prime example. Again, Universal is a one trick pony. Harry Potter is not well planned and is a miserable time in small spaces, their rides consistently have flaws and the theming is below average. Its more like a glorified Six Flags, vs the actual theming and effort put into things at WDW when they take the time to do them right and not try to overreact to Universal and just throw something together.

You missed the point of the example. It has nothing to do with the industry the companies are in, but rather the position each holds in that industry. No company, regardless of size, is immune from failure or being pushed out of the way by smaller competition.

And no, technology didn't kill Blockbuster. Netflix's new business model for movie rentals forced a change in the game that Blockbuster ignored until it was too late. They were shortsighted to think that customers actually preferred to make last minute, late night trips up to the video store to return a rental and avoid a late charge instead of paying a flat rate per month and receive and return rentals by mail. They were living off of brand name and their domination in the field. A dangerous thing to do if you're not careful.

 

[Quellman]

It is fair to say that one day Universal might become Orlando's leading force in theme park entertainment. But in the meantime, Disney's numbers are going up as well. It all depends on Avatarland and Star Wars land, really. If they are bad, people will start shifting automatically to Universal for a lack of a worthy addition in over a decade. If they are great, Disney's attendance will probably remain steady for quite a while and they won't resent Universal's growth as much. After all, WDW has managed to remain popular even when the IP has been bad (80's, 2000's) or the investment on the parks has been poor (2010's).

I think you nailed it, theme park entertainment. Their stable of new attractions certainly provides a punch for a demographic that isn't necessarily under 10. The properties that they have been adding, Harry Potter, Simpsons, King Kong, are not the latest Intellectual properties in their stable. Hits for sure, but they tore down old and put in new. Disney seems to be more content on creating lasting timeless attractions that they don't have to do much for 20 years. Jaws and Back to the Future while still cult favorites, were dated in terms of technology and film eras. The ride innovation at Universal is also really stepping the game up. I haven't been to the newest expansion yet, but they are creating new types of attractions. Maybe a bit ambitious, but because of it are drawing first time visitors. The train ride is particularly interesting, as it takes an idea that Disney used on their ships (magic portholes) and made an attraction out of it. Disney instead is porting attractions from DLR with the same ride mechanisms. How cool would it be to see a dark ride using the technology from Poohs Honey Hunt here in the US? It would step up Disney's game some. I think people were expecting a bit more from 7DMT. Yes the cars swing, but all that really does is lessen the horizontal g-forces to the rider.

 

[DDLand]

To understand Universal's ambitions, we can look at a couple clues they've left us.

The thing that I found most stricking from the whole volcano bay reveal was their choice to call it the third park. Not a new option or water park, but the third. Comparable to US and IOA. This is not just an extra experience, but a real draw. Now as rumors continue to swirl about yet another park opening, Universal is setting themselves up so they have 4 Parks. Sound familiar? Not just any old 4 parks, but ones that have brand new attractions and that have a strong roster of rides that are from this decade (as opposed to MK's roster which is primarily composed of rides decades old). So in short they're creating quality parks worth visting, and it can't be done all in one day. Or even two. Before long three days will seem short too.

At the same time they're expanding their parks in both footprint and quality, they're also building hotels at a strong clip. New resorts are being announced at consistent rate, and it doesn't seem like that's going to stop anytime soon. Also integration with the parks is also being stressed while doing this too. I've seen 15 thousand rooms as their longterm target. So in short they're adding thousands of hotel rooms in close proximity to their parks, and they're giving compelling reasons to stay in them.

Finally they're focused on upgrading and enhancing CityWalk. Anything dated or less popular is being removed to make it a place worthy of being a companion to their parks. It's also a place that people want to stay and hang out in. In short, they're building a fun shopping experience that people will want to spend time in.

Put this together. 4 quality parks that will take days to explore. Thousands of hotel rooms with strong integration with the 4 parks, and keeping them on property. An enhanced shopping district that makes leaving property seem even more unnecessary.

Universal wants to be a legitimate force in the theme park realm. However even more than that, they want to be a legitimate force in the Resort Destination realm. That's something totally different, and something only WDW had truly ever succeeded in. This will mark a significant change if they succeed. Imagine a world where hundreds of thousands of families each year stay at Universal and spend 5 days there, and then take a token trip to MK. That's it. Not that I see it happening in the near future (or ever in my opinion), but I think some Universal executives must see that potential. Especially because the other three parks haven't recieved new options recently, it will leave them especially vulnerable. Many only know about MK, and that could lead to the majority of the Resort's demise. Not that I'm in this camp, but it sure is an interesting possibility.

I know that Uni executives have said they don't have to be number 1, but the more they build and expand the less I believe that's what they really think. They're playing for number 1. They also happen to be playing a good game.