Alternative version of M:S

[dopey]

http://www.jimhillmedia.com/nav4/index.htm?../articles/archive.0009-1.1.htm~contentFrame

 

[dreamer]

I'm sure the list of what-might-have-beens is long. And growing longer now that Disney is using park revenue to support other ventures.

 

[SirNim]

I'm sure the original version would have a.) tied-in more to Epcot, and the purpose of Epcot, instead of being just one high-thrill ride and b.) offered more to the guest: more quality, more quantity, more knowledge, more entertainment.

It's a shame all these propsed, rumored attractions, and M:S, have to be cut back on scale in order to meet approval from Disney execs. Money, however, rules each and every one of us, nd if the cards aren't right, the money won't be there. I only hope the quality and meaning of attractions aren't cut down too much when these cutbacks are made, either on M:S, or the proposed Forbidden Mtn. in AK, or in rumored Epcot pavilions, both new and rehabbed, etc.

 

[WDWGarden]

"..."...why would Disney want to build its fantastic new "Space" show inside the old "Horizons" show building? Two reasons, actually.


2) It would have also allowed Disney to skirt recent changes in the Americans with Disabilities act. Strange but true, kids. But if the Imagineers had built their new "Mission: Space" attraction inside the old "Horizons" show building, technically that would have made -- at least in a legal sense -- this all new attraction just a rehab of a pre-existing structure. Which would have meant that the Walt Disney Company was under no obligation to bring this particular pavilion up to current code. Which would have saved the corporation millions in construction costs...."

This argument is weak at best and very likely incorrect. ADA laws require for a structure to be ADA accessible if it is "altered" i.e. remodeling, renovation, rehabilitation... If the old Horizons building were used, the entire inside of the building would more than likely be at least "remodeled" requiring full ADA accessibility.

The only area they *may* have had a savings with is the entrance to the pavillion not having to be changed (Horizons did not meet the 1 inch per 1 foot of rise for the entrance ramp up to the doors). This would only be true if they did no modification to the front of the building...which seems highly unlikely.

I mention this only to point out that half of what Jim Hill writes is the drivel of an idiot and should not be believed in most cases.

 

[burbur]

Originally posted by WDWGarden
I mention this only to point out that half of what Jim Hill writes is the drivel of an idiot and should not be believed in most cases.

the other half, though, usually makes for a good read... even if he is very biased against the current company, he still knows a great deal of history about the parks and disney overall.