Harry potter ride not for large riders

[donaldduck352]

Especially when you have no idea if there even is a reason to get pissy in the first place.

You know what I new this was gonna happen 6months ago,I even posted this:Get ready for some hostile posting with WWoHP comming.

I hate bieng right.

I'm done with this till it gets back on-track!!!

 

[damo]

Harry Potter books are not geared to young children. 48 inches is the average size for a 9 year old --- a great age for the ride creators to have as their bottom limit. There will always be people that a ride doesn't suit whether they are too large, too small, have motion sickness, scared of spiders, snakes, going upside down, getting wet, etc. The idea is to try to appeal to norm that the books were targetting.

One thing I really like about Universal is that they try to make the ride itself fun. You don't just sit in a vehicle and watch the action...you become part of the action. Many people will probably say that is exactly what they don't like about Universal.

 

[nhrenee]

Although I'm not overweight, I still would like a hover chair and a robot to wipe my butt.

 

[phamton]

I just want to comment on the statement that Universal is an upstart and thus can't compete with Disney.

Universal's rich entertainment legacy can be traced back to 1906, when 39 year-old Bavarian immigrant Carl Laemmle opened his first nickelodeon theater in Chicago. From exhibiting short silent movies in one theater, Laemmle later moved to movie distribution and production.

On June 8, 1912, Laemmle first incorporated the name "Universal" when he formed the Universal Film Manufacturing Company in New York. In March 1914, [Laemmle purchased] a 230-acre ranch [in the Los Angeles area]. This site was to become "the entertainment center of the world" - Universal City.

On March 15, 1915 Carl Laemmle officially opened the gates of Universal City, the world's first self-contained community dedicated to making movies. Laemmle also began inviting visitors to Universal City to observe his movie making, establishing Universal's long-standing tradition of welcoming guests to enjoy the behind-the-scenes magic.”

Universal is responsible for some of the most memorable and iconic characters and films of the last 100 years of cinema. Carl Laemmle welcomed the first guest into Universal Studios a full 40 years before Disneyland. When the Universal Tour was reinstated in the mid 60s, it featured new immersive attractions that were obviously inspired by the Disney theme park philosophy. Much like Walt wanted Disneyland guests to enter his animated fairytales, Universal was allowing people to both experiences their favorite films and witness the process behind creating them. Still today this is the main difference between the two – different sides of the same coin.

So if this thread is to continue, please stick to the discussion of height/weight restrictions not Disney versus Universal and please no judgmental statements about being overweight. Just the facts, please.

 

[ntikos]

OK - so how big is too big?


I'm 6'0 and 230 pounds. Somewhat muscular but have a stubborn love handle I'm working on.

Is that too big?

 

[Dollyrar]

OK - so how big is too big?


I'm 6'0 and 230 pounds. Somewhat muscular but have a stubborn love handle I'm working on.

Is that too big?

In the words of Christina Aguelira:

"You are beautiful..."

Seriously though, it seems that 'certain' people have misunderstood the issue raised with the original post. People on this forum have a problem with trolling, not overweight people... x

 

[Disneyhappy]

I just want to comment on the statement that Universal is an upstart and thus can't compete with Disney.

Universal's rich entertainment legacy can be traced back to 1906, when 39 year-old Bavarian immigrant Carl Laemmle opened his first nickelodeon theater in Chicago. From exhibiting short silent movies in one theater, Laemmle later moved to movie distribution and production.

On June 8, 1912, Laemmle first incorporated the name "Universal" when he formed the Universal Film Manufacturing Company in New York. In March 1914, [Laemmle purchased] a 230-acre ranch [in the Los Angeles area]. This site was to become "the entertainment center of the world" - Universal City.

On March 15, 1915 Carl Laemmle officially opened the gates of Universal City, the world's first self-contained community dedicated to making movies. Laemmle also began inviting visitors to Universal City to observe his movie making, establishing Universal's long-standing tradition of welcoming guests to enjoy the behind-the-scenes magic.”

Universal is responsible for some of the most memorable and iconic characters and films of the last 100 years of cinema. Carl Laemmle welcomed the first guest into Universal Studios a full 40 years before Disneyland. When the Universal Tour was reinstated in the mid 60s, it featured new immersive attractions that were obviously inspired by the Disney theme park philosophy. Much like Walt wanted Disneyland guests to enter his animated fairytales, Universal was allowing people to both experiences their favorite films and witness the process behind creating them. Still today this is the main difference between the two – different sides of the same coin.

So if this thread is to continue, please stick to the discussion of height/weight restrictions not Disney versus Universal and please no judgmental statements about being overweight. Just the facts, please.

Phantom-
This is an objective and appropriate response to the OP. There will always be disagreements in opinions and your post was mature and stated the facts. I have issues with posters making it personal and insulting - very immature.

My DH has siblings that are very large - simply genetics. I can understand the OP's frustration. But, because of safety requirements, engineering limitations and cost, it is not always possible to be inclusive to everyone on thrill attractions. I'm sure they try to be inclusive as possible but they need to draw the line somewhere. People (mostly children) below a certain height are excluded on many thrill rides. I recall a few years ago reading about a very tall basketball player that did not fit on some thrill attraction. (Sorry to be vague but I can't remember the details.) I hope that when the attraction opens that the OP is pleasantly surprised and will be able ride.

 

[Zip-a-dee-dude-da]

I just want to comment on the statement that Universal is an upstart and thus can't compete with Disney.

Universal's rich entertainment legacy can be traced back to 1906, when 39 year-old Bavarian immigrant Carl Laemmle opened his first nickelodeon theater in Chicago. From exhibiting short silent movies in one theater, Laemmle later moved to movie distribution and production.

On June 8, 1912, Laemmle first incorporated the name "Universal" when he formed the Universal Film Manufacturing Company in New York. In March 1914, [Laemmle purchased] a 230-acre ranch [in the Los Angeles area]. This site was to become "the entertainment center of the world" - Universal City.

On March 15, 1915 Carl Laemmle officially opened the gates of Universal City, the world's first self-contained community dedicated to making movies. Laemmle also began inviting visitors to Universal City to observe his movie making, establishing Universal's long-standing tradition of welcoming guests to enjoy the behind-the-scenes magic.”

Universal is responsible for some of the most memorable and iconic characters and films of the last 100 years of cinema. Carl Laemmle welcomed the first guest into Universal Studios a full 40 years before Disneyland. When the Universal Tour was reinstated in the mid 60s, it featured new immersive attractions that were obviously inspired by the Disney theme park philosophy. Much like Walt wanted Disneyland guests to enter his animated fairytales, Universal was allowing people to both experiences their favorite films and witness the process behind creating them. Still today this is the main difference between the two – different sides of the same coin.

So if this thread is to continue, please stick to the discussion of height/weight restrictions not Disney versus Universal and please no judgmental statements about being overweight. Just the facts, please.

I appreciate you have a love for this company and that can be commended. But if you want facts you must understand the Universal of today is not the Universal started in 1912....as a matter of fact the company has been through a huge list of owners in the past years that i know of.. GE/NBC, Vivendi, MCA, Seagram, a japanese company now Merlin? Each ownership change brings with it shifting values and goals.

 

[phamton]

I appreciate you have a love for this company and that can be commended. But if you want facts you must understand the Universal of today is not the Universal started in 1912....as a matter of fact the company has been through a huge list of owners in the past years that i know of.. GE/NBC, Vivendi, MCA, Seagram, a japanese company now Merlin? Each ownership change brings with it shifting values and goals.

Oh, I do understand that the Universal of today is not the same as 1912. Most businesses will change in one hundred years. The Disney corp. of Eisner , in my opinion, had vastly different values and goals from what Walt originally invisioned. I went to Disneyland in 1957 and every year after that for 20 years. I love the Disney parks also but Disneyland of 1957 is nothing close to WDW of today. My issue with your original post was calling Universal an "upstart" which it most assuredly is not.

 

[StitchandPooh'sMom]

Harry Potter books are not geared to young children. 48 inches is the average size for a 9 year old --- a great age for the ride creators to have as their bottom limit.

Exactly. My DD7 is 52 inches tall - she has no interest in HP. I hope she will walk through the queue, but she has no interest in the ride even though she is tall enough. DD10 started reading HP when she was 7 (and was over 48 inches tall - I have tall kids ), but the later books are definitely not geared to younger elementary school kids. Someone is sure to post how their four year old has seen all the movies (some of which are PG-13, BTW), but the themes in HP are not geared to 7 year olds. As an adult who is a huge fan of HP for the themes, fantasy and character development, I am very glad Universal has not chosen to make HP and the FJ a dumbed down version of a ride to appeal to a 5-year old. That's not to say some 5-year olds couldn't handle it, but the majority of 5-year olds are not HP fans and can't comprehend the themes of the books.

I do hope Universal is able to accommodate as many people as possible who are interested in the ride and hope young adult and adult fans are not turned away due to size, but I'm glad it has not been developed as a kiddie ride - it would be a disservice to the books.

 

[nerdboyrockstar]

I just want to comment on the statement that Universal is an upstart and thus can't compete with Disney.

Universal's rich entertainment legacy can be traced back to 1906, when 39 year-old Bavarian immigrant Carl Laemmle opened his first nickelodeon theater in Chicago. From exhibiting short silent movies in one theater, Laemmle later moved to movie distribution and production.

On June 8, 1912, Laemmle first incorporated the name "Universal" when he formed the Universal Film Manufacturing Company in New York. In March 1914, [Laemmle purchased] a 230-acre ranch [in the Los Angeles area]. This site was to become "the entertainment center of the world" - Universal City.

On March 15, 1915 Carl Laemmle officially opened the gates of Universal City, the world's first self-contained community dedicated to making movies. Laemmle also began inviting visitors to Universal City to observe his movie making, establishing Universal's long-standing tradition of welcoming guests to enjoy the behind-the-scenes magic.”

Universal is responsible for some of the most memorable and iconic characters and films of the last 100 years of cinema. Carl Laemmle welcomed the first guest into Universal Studios a full 40 years before Disneyland. When the Universal Tour was reinstated in the mid 60s, it featured new immersive attractions that were obviously inspired by the Disney theme park philosophy. Much like Walt wanted Disneyland guests to enter his animated fairytales, Universal was allowing people to both experiences their favorite films and witness the process behind creating them. Still today this is the main difference between the two – different sides of the same coin.

So if this thread is to continue, please stick to the discussion of height/weight restrictions not Disney versus Universal and please no judgmental statements about being overweight. Just the facts, please.

Great post. I actually think Universal Studios Hollywood does a great job of touching on its legacy on the Studio Tour and the museum open there. I wish we'd at least get the museum.

 

[Magpie]

Exactly. My DD7 is 52 inches tall - she has no interest in HP. I hope she will walk through the queue, but she has no interest in the ride even though she is tall enough. DD10 started reading HP when she was 7 (and was over 48 inches tall - I have tall kids ), but the later books are definitely not geared to younger elementary school kids. Someone is sure to post how their four year old has seen all the movies (some of which are PG-13, BTW), but the themes in HP are not geared to 7 year olds. As an adult who is a huge fan of HP for the themes, fantasy and character development, I am very glad Universal has not chosen to make HP and the FJ a dumbed down version of a ride to appeal to a 5-year old. That's not to say some 5-year olds couldn't handle it, but the majority of 5-year olds are not HP fans and can't comprehend the themes of the books.

I do hope Universal is able to accommodate as many people as possible who are interested in the ride and hope young adult and adult fans are not turned away due to size, but I'm glad it has not been developed as a kiddie ride - it would be a disservice to the books.

I agree completely! My 14yo daughter is one of those exceptions - she read the Philosopher's Stone by herself when she was four. She's smarter and more mature than anyone needs to be, and according the pencil marks on our wall, she hit 4 feet (48 inches) when she was 7.

But she wouldn't have been crushed to be too short for this ride! What she wants most is just to *see* Hogwarts and walk the streets of Hogsmead. Even now as a teenager she's not convinced she wants to ride the thrill portion of the ride, and she definitely won't ride it if reports come back saying that it goes upside down. She says she just wants to poke around in Dumbledore's office.

It's good to research restrictions (height, size, weight, medical conditions...) so you know what to expect, but I don't see any reason to complain just because you won't be able to do absolutely everything. My daughter barfs when she gets turned upside down. Does that mean all theme parks everywhere should accommodate her personal issue, by making their rides my-kid-friendly? I think there'd be a lot of disappointed people, if they did!

The world often isn't fair to obese people. It also isn't fair to left-handed people, color-blind people and people with heart conditions. There's lots of things in life that aren't fair. But I don't think this is one of them.

 

[Lucky4me]

That is exactly why I will not go to Universal. That and they don't have any good rides that are fun. Going upside down and not having your feet on the ground is not fun, it is torture.

So, I'm curious. If you have no plans to go to Universal, what brings you here to this board?
There are so many fun and exciting family rides at Universal where your feet stay right on the ground. Or in the vehicle. Or whatever. Really there are. Look it up. I'm not lying. Really. There are. I promise.

OP, don't worry, be happy and have a fantastic time at WDW.
I'll be squeezing my fat you know what onto the Harry Potter ride this year.

 

[freediverdude]

Is the Op able to ride Rock n' Rollercoaster at the Disney Studios? I believe that ride has over the shoulder restraints as well. If the Op can ride that, I bet he/she will be able to ride Harry Potter as well.

 

[MaleficentandGoons]

Forgive me if i sound rude, but why should US accommodate me because I make unhealthy life choices. I'm overweight size 16 at only 5'7and while obviously I'm not ashamed of it I see no reason to be accommodated for it. I need to lose the weight and if not being able to fit onto a ride that I have been excited for for the last year is what encourages me SO BE IT!

Also I don't understand why people feel this need to CONSTANTLY compare US and Disney. It really is apples to oranges. I love Disney. It's nostalgic and family fun. I love Universal because it's exciting and thrilling. I happen to be someone who likes BOTH of those things. Some people don't and that's fine. Doesn't make either better than the other.

Universal is getting my money this year because I want to see HP but in a few years Disney will get my money when it opens it's expansion of Fantasyland.

 

[wijkowski]

Is the Op able to ride Rock n' Rollercoaster at the Disney Studios? I believe that ride has over the shoulder restraints as well. If the Op can ride that, I bet he/she will be able to ride Harry Potter as well.

Don't count on it.

I lifted weights for years and as such, my shoulders/upper back/chest are larger than most people. I am also tall at 6'3". I fit on Rock n' Rollercoaster just fine. However, I do not fit on The Hulk or Dueling Dragons. Over the shoulder restraints are not created equal.

I have no issues with lap type restraints or fitting into seats (Mummy, MIB, etc.) as the lower half of my body is not as large as the top half.

Ron

 

[disney-super-mom]

Harry Potter books are not geared to young children. 48 inches is the average size for a 9 year old --- a great age for the ride creators to have as their bottom limit. There will always be people that a ride doesn't suit whether they are too large, too small, have motion sickness, scared of spiders, snakes, going upside down, getting wet, etc. The idea is to try to appeal to norm that the books were targetting.

One thing I really like about Universal is that they try to make the ride itself fun. You don't just sit in a vehicle and watch the action...you become part of the action. Many people will probably say that is exactly what they don't like about Universal.

Exactly. My DD7 is 52 inches tall - she has no interest in HP. I hope she will walk through the queue, but she has no interest in the ride even though she is tall enough. DD10 started reading HP when she was 7 (and was over 48 inches tall - I have tall kids ), but the later books are definitely not geared to younger elementary school kids. Someone is sure to post how their four year old has seen all the movies (some of which are PG-13, BTW), but the themes in HP are not geared to 7 year olds. As an adult who is a huge fan of HP for the themes, fantasy and character development, I am very glad Universal has not chosen to make HP and the FJ a dumbed down version of a ride to appeal to a 5-year old. That's not to say some 5-year olds couldn't handle it, but the majority of 5-year olds are not HP fans and can't comprehend the themes of the books.

I do hope Universal is able to accommodate as many people as possible who are interested in the ride and hope young adult and adult fans are not turned away due to size, but I'm glad it has not been developed as a kiddie ride - it would be a disservice to the books.

I agree with both of you. My DS7 (first grader) is 49 inches tall, and comparing him to the rest of his classmates, he's about average in height for his age/grade. I think a 48" height requirement for the new ride sounds just about right. Not only for the intensity of the ride, but the target audience the books/movies were intended for. I don't see anything wrong with the height requirement at all. Although my almost 11 year old has been into Harry Potter for several years now, my 7 year old has just begun to really get into the movies/books. Now he loves them. So, yeah, I think Universal hit the target pretty darn good.

If my youngest was too short to ride, and I knew that he would be heartbroken over it, I would just wait to go until he was tall enough to ride. It's no big deal to wait another year or two to go. Actually, that may be nice because by then, the hype and crowds over the new WWOHP may have died down somewhat.

Also, personally I don't think "Shrek" size riders will have any problems fitting on the new ride. Seriously, when you hear reports that something like 40%-50% of the population is, well, large, I'm pretty sure Universal wouldn't exclude such a large percentage of customers in their planning. It's not like a few weeks from now when the ride opens they are going to be kicking themselves saying, "Why didn't we think of that?!!! Darn it!"

 

[Jason71]

Over the shoulder restraints are not created equal.

This is very true. RnRC, Dr. Doom and Manta, for example, are far more forgiving than Dragons/Kracken, which are still a bit better than Hulk.

Has anyone had any issues with Sum of All Thrills in EPCOT? Same style system, and I know it has the standard "unusual body dimensions may not fit" disclaimer, I'm wondering how bad it is. Probably the closest thing around to the HP ride.

 

[Metro West]

Has anyone had any issues with Sum of All Thrills in EPCOT? Same style system, and I know it has the standard "unusual body dimensions may not fit" disclaimer, I'm wondering how bad it is. Probably the closest thing around to the HP ride.

I'm wondering that too. The question was brought up on another thread the OP started on this same subject...and no one has answered it yet. Plus I'm curious where all this came from in the first place? It's nothing but rumour until it's confirmed by Universal officially so I really don't know what the problem is right now.

 

[diskids2]

Forgive me if i sound rude, but why should US accommodate me because I make unhealthy life choices. I'm overweight size 16 at only 5'7and while obviously I'm not ashamed of it I see no reason to be accommodated for it. I need to lose the weight and if not being able to fit onto a ride that I have been excited for for the last year is what encourages me SO BE IT!

Also I don't understand why people feel this need to CONSTANTLY compare US and Disney. It really is apples to oranges. I love Disney. It's nostalgic and family fun. I love Universal because it's exciting and thrilling. I happen to be someone who likes BOTH of those things. Some people don't and that's fine. Doesn't make either better than the other.

Universal is getting my money this year because I want to see HP but in a few years Disney will get my money when it opens it's expansion of Fantasyland.