View Single Post
 
Old 03-25-2013, 08:50 PM
nickolai's Avatar
nickolai nickolai is offline
Senior Member
Posting Always
 
Join Date: 29 Aug 2006
Gender: male
Posts: 2,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supersonic View Post
Aloha !



The Harry Potter ride is hands down one of the, if not the most amazing ride I've ever been on, so yes it's worth it. The combination of visuals with the whole technical aspect of it is insane, and this is coming from someone who never really cared for Harry Potter.

Some words of advice; you can do both of the Universal Parks in 1 day, just as long as you buy a fast pass, which is a pass that makes you able to skip the waiting queues. I went to the park on January 3 though, which is essentially low season for the park so I've no idea how busy the park is in the summer, but it'll obviously more crowded. The longest I've had to wait for a ride was about 20 minutes I guess, where normal waiting lines were all going well over 1 hour. It's expensive (I think it was about 35 dollars per person for one park) but well worth it considering how much you save on waiting. It made the experience a lot more enjoyable.

The pass doesn't grant fast access to every attraction though, the Harry Potter ride was excluded. So go to that one first, make sure you're there when the doors of the park open. I was able to go in 1 hour before general opening times, but once I left the attraction there was a que of 100 minutes already. Half the day we checked to see if we could ride it again and the waiting time was over 3 hours. I've no idea what it's like now though, when I went the attraction had only been open for a couple of months I think, so the place was packed with Harry Potter geeks.

Like I said, I've never been a fan of Harry Potter but in regards to building Hogwarts and that attraction they really got it right. It's been 3 years now since I rode it and I still remember how excited I was once I walked out of it.



Yeah, maybe to you there is. Honestly, no offence, but of all the things you mentioned none of them are particular reasons as to why I'd go see a city. Certainly not a big guitar shop where Jon and Richie buy their guitars, I've never been one to care for places where "that artist used to eat or buy his clothes". (No idea if you meant it like that). Back then I was asked as to if I'd like to see where Jon used to live and all that, and I really don't care for it.

It's the same with those views. I've never been on top of any of the buildings you mentioned because it's "just" a high building to me. I don't need to be on top of them, but if that's your thing then yeah, New York is the city for you. I really loved seeing the skyline from Hoboken though, but that's about it. I'd always wanted to go to New York but once I'd been on Times Square and had walked through the city it really was a "been there done that" kind of thing where as with London and Paris I always quite enjoy a stay there and once I leave really can't wait to go back.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan
Yeah i get where you're coming from. I suppose its each to their own. Everyone's totally different. For instance I had no intention of visiting the Louvre in Paris a few years ago and people were, like, "are you insane". But one of my highlights in Paris was getting totally lost in the tiny cobbled streets in Monmartre and stumbling across tiny bars where we'd go to get out of the tourist trap. Me and the missus hate doing the big tourist things and have no interest in museums. Seen them once, you've seen them all.

But I agree with you. Times Square is Times Square. It is what it is. THere were no surprises. I forgot to mention we went to a Knicks game too. I just really liked NYC. It just had a proper "in your face" vibe to it. Was so far from being pretentious. My advice is for people to explore the streets past Times Square.

Anyone else been to Rome and been thoroughly underwhelmed?
Reply With Quote