-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks
- Thread starter hpyhnt 1000
- Start date
- Status
EPCOTPluto
Well-Known Member
Looks nice! Interesting in how they document the changes of the future past for the coming tomorrow.
^That sounded like something from you-know-where....
whylightbulb
Well-Known Member
In my opinion Horizons should have been the focus of Future World, not Spaceship Earth. Horizons centered around "us", our humanity and lifestyle in the future, in contrast with the relatively abstruse subject of communications. I always felt separated from Spaceship Earth's story as opposed to Horizons where everything was relatable. In my opinion pavillions such as Motion, Horizons and the original Imagination were successfull at tapping into our emotions in terms of nastalgia, family, inspiration, hope and the human condition. Test Track, Mission Space and Journey into Anti-Imagination, ironically replacing the three pavillions I believe to have been the "heart" of Future World, leaves me very cold and aloof. The vision of Future World has most definitely lost its way.
Horizons' presentation was warm and still relevant as it was cognate to our every day lives. It centered around a family, unique for any ride-through attraction, offering that "human touch" Epcot now lacks. Some of the sets were vast, namely space, future from the 50's and the Imax sequence, in comparison to Spaceship Earth for example. Many of the scenes had height and the vehicle framing was used quite nicely to give the illusion of large spaces. While other sequences came off as cramped and mashed up, their placement and design fit in quite well with the overall theme and story. The daughter talking with her boyfriend via videophone (a video and animatronic of Tom Fitzgerald for anyone who didn't know) from her bedroom transitioning to his location "there on the floating city" for the next scene is an example that works quite well despite their close physical proximity.
The Wilkins score and each scenes' version is wonderful. The script was well written, surprisingly supervised by Fitzgerald, embodying mildly humorous and touching moments that you would expect from a typical family placed in environments such as these. The little boy and his mischievous operation of the voice activated pantry, the little boy floating in space and his inquisitive nature, and the holographic birthday party all serve to allow riders to connect with the story and how they might experience the future.
There were also the less obvious authentic and research-driven touches that would require subsequent ride-throughs or study to appreciate. The music coming from the garden in front of the parents' apartment wasn't supposed to be outdoor speakers. Researchers believe that through genetic engineering they would be able to allow plant life to "sing" beautiful music. The parents looking so young due to advances in health care, the farming technologies...all add to the educational value as well as the authenticity.
The interactive finale sequence may not have been executed as well as it could have been with today's technology, but for 1983 it was quite spectacular. The edge blending software utilizing stationary video projectors while the screens rotated was revolutionary for the time. The fact that they used scale models for the fly-throughs worked pretty well also.
In my opinion we had never seen a ride like Horizons before and we probably won't see one like it again. It had all the elements of a perfect dark ride: lavish scenery; a large number of animatronics; a spectacular large-format film sequence; a unique finale; a long ride time; a great score; a warm and engaging story...and so on. What would Horizons' impact be if it had today's animatronics, video and effects technologies? I would venture to say that it would inspire more, entertain more and impact more than Mission Space or Test Track.
I don't blame you for how Mission Space turned out. After all, if Fitzgerald can work on a great attraction like Horizons but also duds like we've seen recently, you are entitled to things like MS:lol:. I certainly am not proud of everything i've worked on. Sometimes by the time everybody gets their hands on a good concept it turns into a dud.
EPCOT Explorer
New Member
SO, so true about the Horizons and SSE aspect.
It's a shame they didn't re do SSE07 to still have the History slant, but use the Horizons concepts in the finale like everyone thought they would.
Great post.
jt04
Well-Known Member
Not trying to be argumentative but Horizons did not stand up well to repeated visits IMO. Plus the reasons ES adds above. (I love his JII idea!!!!!)
The first time you experience Horizons you were certainly amazed. In that respect it was the best dark ride ever. But there was just something cold about the way it depicted the future that I think became more and more disconcerting to people as they rode repeatedly. It desperately needed the humor of WoM. Now there is an original EC ride I miss.
whylightbulb
Well-Known Member
It's amazing how I feel exactly the opposite in terms of the emotional aspect related to Horizons. I think it presented a positive and warm vision of life in the future. As far as humor, Horizons had it for sure. It wasn't laugh out loud humor but more subtle and cute.
I love WOM as well. The problem I had with it though is how the space was laid out. It always seemed as though you were riding through a building with blank wall being visible. At least in Horizons, due to the lateral motion plan and vehicle frame, you only saw themed show elements as opposed to facility walls and ceiling in WOM.
jt04
Well-Known Member
Good point. I once had an idea (I know would never happen) that they could gut Energy and put an updated version of Horizons in there. The "sound stages" are certainly big enough. I'm not talking about with suspended ride vehicles but rather the trackless vehicle technology. SSE fails in trying to be the new Horizons IMO. It would have been so easy (they are so close!) to have it carry the Horizons message in an appealing way. It is the source of so much frustration that they get so close to really creating great shows and they fall just millimeters short over and over. It's mind boggling.
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
I think you are right, in that Horizons was a big budget dark ride that was designed to tell nothing but story and does that well. Space and Test Track were story driven "thrill rides" and the thrill is central to the narrative. It would be like comparing a thrill ride like Big Thunder to POTC. However, Horizons, as good as it may be and no matter how much we love it, evidently did not "entertain more" as it's demise was determined by it's lack of eventual support by guests, and no matter how much manipulation is claimed with exit surveys, in the end, it was just not well enough attended even for the sponsor to stick with it. If it really was the heart of EPCOT and GE thought people were walking out singing GE's praises (like COP once was "that GE thing you gotta see") and telling their friends to run out there, GE may have stayed on. Believe me, no one wants to see a huge line and great "word of mouth" more than the parks. It's not like they want shows to fail. They only start whining when something isn't a hit.
Not all great movies like "Citizen Kane" are "blockbusters" like "Gone with the Wind", they just leave the theater because the theater owner can't run films no one comes to no matter how great they are. It does not make them less important. In the case of Horizons, you want it to stay no matter what because it embodies Future World and pays off the area. When I first rode it, I enjoyed it very much and thought it was a good show. It truly was the "theme show" of the park and I rode it several times, so it got my vote. SSE has always had to carry the expectation of being that "theme show" and that makes it tough for it to pay off big enough as the facility limits its potential. Ideally, there is room for a show like Horizons and Space. Horizons shows the fun and promise of the future, Mission:Space represents the adventure to achieve it.
Back to reality, in the early 90's the positioning of EPCOT was examined, and the parks felt that the mix of rides (kids dubbed it boring, fought going) was unbalanced and dated, and there were no thrill attractions. So that was a driver. I think the content of Horizons will return someday in a fresher form as it's story was central to the mission of Future World. The ending of SSE seemed to be heading in that direction in that you were "choosing a future" so it's not forgotten as a story element. So it's not like the content is seen as irrelevant, it just needs a bigger stage.
I quit WDI 3 years before it opened. I gave birth to the concept and Tom Fitzgerald was responsible for the story and media on MS as well as Horizons (he is one of the AAs). I think MS does what it sets out to do, although some think it sets out to do too little. That's fair. Would I have done some things differently, yes, (but that doesn't mean my version would be any better and maybe far worse!). It did win the prestigious IDEA award for it's innovative design, something no Disney attraction has ever won. I'm proud of that and the team we had working on it. But as they say, "one man's dirt is another's uranium", so thank goodness there are lots of people that love it and go on it again and again.
HMF
Well-Known Member
Eddie' Have you seen the new ending of Spaceship Earth?
HMF
Well-Known Member
Fitzgerald can write a good script. He just can't design a ride unless it is video screen based.
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
HMF
Well-Known Member
I don't want to spoil it for you but it is not one of WDI's better ideas.
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
HMF
Well-Known Member
The idea is good. the execution is terrible.
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
If you mean "interactive" as in making a difference in how the show turns out, yes that would be great. We started out in that direction, but as time goes on some of it falls by the wayside. The button pushing is good for kids as they do light and respond as they should on a real spacecraft, like releasing the tanks, etc. The only cheat to that is if you don't do it you don't wreck the mission for the other guests. Landing is another issue entirely. The good news is that all the tools are there, so doing that is a matter of software and media programming. What i have found in the "multiple scenario or ending" interactive ride designs, is that it's hard enough to get one good show paid for let alone four, let alone fifty iterations. And given that most guests ride once, you face the choice of less money to work with overall for the whole show to pay for lots of scenarios and options. I'm not defending the status quo, but this is what you face economically from the corporate side. Until you do one and see how many AP's come back again and again it's tough. Indy at DL has 3 choices and most guests don't notice. Star Tours may have this kind of multiple ending show in development, so hopefully they are moving in that direction. I think you are right that the interactivity, given today's technology would a be great enhancement.
HMF
Well-Known Member
Why is it that I seem to be the only die-hard Epcot enthusiast here who likes Mission Space?
Horizonsfan
Well-Known Member
Hey I said I like it too. I would love it if it was executed better; it was part of a pavilion complex similar to The Land and TLS (sorry Mr. Sotto!); and if I had no idea of what it replaced .
.
whylightbulb
Well-Known Member
I think a better comparison would be Splash Mountain or Temple of the Forbidden Eye or JTTCE to POTC. Splash, JTTCE and Indy have enough thrills to satisfy the thrill seeker, yet they also deliver an engaging and intelligible narrative. In my opinion Mission Space and Test Track fall short of that goal. I think the problem lies more in execution rather than concept with respect to Test Track, but Mission Space is flawed from concept to execution in my humble opinion. Just so you know however, I think Pooh's Honey Hunt and Disneyland Paris Main Street are both masterful works. Nobody but Lasseter can hit a home run with every project :lookaroun.
The concept of inviting guests to try a space simulator offers very little opportunity to craft an interesting story. There is no protagonist or antagonist for example. In some cases this is okay if you can place the guest in one of those roles, but in MS there is no occasion to do this. One can argue that by the guests braving the challenge of the thrill they are the protagonist - but I would say to what end? If this is the extent of desire for the "protagonist" than how is that different from any other thrill ride, themed or not? I certainly can't point to any plot, inciting incident or climax. Within the context of the simulation there is danger but since we know it's only a simulation and is sold as such in the setup we are robbed of the opportunity to suspend disbelief. The poor graphics don't help in that department either. It almost comes across as a ride that doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it simply a thrill ride where we get to try out the lastest in space program simulation technology, or are we supposed to believe we are about to fall off a cliff on Mars?
Some would argue, "lighten up man...it's just a thrill ride." Okay I can go for that. If that's the case then build it somewhere else and don't try to sell it as a story-driven themed adventure. I would say it's a level above Six Flags but certainly below Disney standards in terms of story and theme. If there is no basic story structure, like Haunted Mansion for example, then at least give us some amazing environments to enjoy. In MS and Test Track we are treated to mostly a warehouse environment instead. On the positive side I do like the holding area before entering the circular load platform. Of course Gary S. almost ruins it for me though.
the bottom line is they replaced a high quality, family-friendly attraction with one that excludes many in the Epcot demographic. Not a wise move in my opinion. Also as pointed out above, a thrill attraction can still deliver on an emotional story level and leave its visitors feeling "warm and fuzzy". Unfortunately I don't think MS or Test Track does this at all.
That is why I mentioned the need to upgrade the AA, efx and media. Horizons just needed a boost. It ran over its shelf life and just needed an upgrade that would have cost half of the MS budget. The "Tomorrow's Windows" sequence in Horizons could have been updated from the 21st century to the 22nd. This would have had marketing appeal and could have injected another 12 years of life into the attraction. So with new content, new show technology and upgrades, we could have had a better attraction that maintained the Future World message that would have also cost less. I can't speak to the rumured structural problems they might have had but that possibility notwithstanding I think this would have been a much better option.
- Status