Guardians of the Galaxy Mission Breakout announced for Disney California Adventure

[mickEblu]

If you did market research in 1985, long before the Tower of Terror was constructed, and in a survey listed dozens of random words underneath the name twilight zone and asked survey-goers to identify which words the Title reminds them of, there would be no statistical significance to the frequency with which Haunted +/or Elevator are selected.

What does this have to do with anything? I'm pretty sure the idea of a drop ride / haunted hotel preceded the Twilight Zone IP. The IP was added after in the PLANNING (key word) process in an effort to strengthen the experience. There is the difference. It's wasn't shoehorned in. With GOTG, they are trying to make the IP fit into/ around the existing infrastructure and ride mechanism.

How anyone can argue that the exterior at least isn't an obvious step down when they are literally just painting over windows is beyond me.

And if we are willing to overlook that, then I would argue that many have forgotten why they are Disney fans in the first place.

 

[October82]

But we are talking about the development and fit of the concept in DCA are we not?

That isn't the entirety of the conversation. Much of it has been about the development of the attraction concept from its origins (for Disneyland Paris or earlier) to DHS, then DCA/Paris and Tokyo. In the last couple pages, several posters were discussing how the notion of a "haunted elevator" became tied to the Twilight Zone. As far as the basic concept of the attraction is concerned, remarking that the DCA version moves backwards into the shaft isn't relevant. The choice to do that was primarily driven by engineering concerns, and led something akin to a show scene in the DHS version appearing at DCA. That latter observation might be relevant.

Moving backwards is unique to the second generation towers and is an oddity that may be thematically rectified in the new iteration.

This is akin to arguing that Space Mountain should receive a retheme since it's quite odd that a rocket would have a chain lift hill. There's an obvious reason why a supernatural elevator might not be confined to move only vertically, but ignoring that, we allow every attraction some leeway to deal with the facts of engineering. Rollercoasters have chain lift hills, dark rides have lap bars, and splash mountain logs aren't made out of wood.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Some of the arguments against MB seem more rooted in bias against Marvel than disappointment that the haunted hotel has gone away.

With GOTG, they are trying to make the IP fit into/ around the existing infrastructure and ride mechanism.

I still don't get why this is bad. The TDS Tower uses the same DCA/DSP infrastructure with a completely different story overlay unrelated to Twilight Zone and apparently is the best of the three. Monster's Inc was built using the exact same track layout, ride vehicles, and building as Superstar Limo and most people agree that it's a better ride than its predecessor. Nemo's Subs are another example, and there's plenty more.

 

[October82]

Yes, this may not be Disney putting their best foot forward. But if all you do is put your best foot forward, you eventually fall down. Not everything has to be a budget buster and synergy is far from the worst thing they can push for.

How attractions are budgeted is a well documented issue on this forum - but as a theme park (and Disney) fan, it's certainly concerning to see missteps being made. If the best we can say about the choices that are being made is that they aren't "the worst that could be", that's saying something important about where we're at.

 

[October82]

I still don't get why this is bad. The TDS Tower uses the same DCA/DSP infrastructure with a completely different story overlay unrelated to Twilight Zone and apparently is the best of the three.

This is a misleading argument. The concern with ToT isn't exclusively that the Twilight Zone is being abandoned but that the replacement property presents significant thematic and design problems. TDS ToT is an example of how design changes could have been made to DCA's tower that would have significantly improved the attraction.

Monster's Inc was built using the exact same track layout, ride vehicles, and building as Superstar Limo and most people agree that it's a better ride than its predecessor. Nemo's Subs are another example, and there's plenty more.

As far as Monster's Inc is concerned, we're comparing to Superstar Limo. I don't think much more needs to be said. The claim that Nemo's subs are an improvement is a controversial one, as are most other examples that you might bring up. The bottomline is not that all change is bad, but that some changes are bad and some are worse than others.

 

[mickEblu]

Some of the arguments against MB seem more rooted in bias against Marvel than disappointment that the haunted hotel has gone away.



I still don't get why this is bad. The TDS Tower uses the same DCA/DSP infrastructure with a completely different story overlay unrelated to Twilight Zone and apparently is the best of the three. Monster's Inc was built using the exact same track layout, ride vehicles, and building as Superstar Limo and most people agree that it's a better ride than its predecessor. Nemo's Subs are another example, and there's plenty more.

It's not bad in and of itself. To me, in concept, it's a downgrade from a specifically designed and solid concept. Had they announced an original GOTG drop ride I think most of us would of been confused but not dismayed.

Personally, I don't have any bias against Marvel. Would I have rather seen it in a third gate with Star Wars? Sure. But being that that wasn't realistic, I would be very much looking forward to a new GOTG E ticket in any park, as long as it wasn't destroying a solid attraction that didn't need fixing.

Well yes Super Star limo was one of the worst things Disney has ever created so anything would of made that better including but not limited to a walk through in the dark.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Well yes Super Star limo was one of the worst things Disney has ever created so anything would of made that better including but not limited to a walk through in the dark.

You never experienced The Motor Boat Cruise, did you?

 

[October82]

It's not bad in and of itself. To me, in concept, it's a downgrade from a specifically designed and solid concept. Had they announced an original GOTG drop ride I think most of us would of been confused but not dismayed.

If certain posters on this forum are to be believed, we will shortly find out exactly what an original GotG E-ticket looks like - and it doesn't resemble Mission:Breakout.

 

[mickEblu]

You never experienced The Motor Boat Cruise, did you?

Lol no. Tell me about it.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

This is a misleading argument. The concern with ToT isn't exclusively that the Twilight Zone is being abandoned but that the replacement property presents significant thematic and design problems.

And TOT didn't? Again, to me this debate is not solely based on the merits of one story design over the other. It has an undeniable anti-Marvel slant to it, and that's OK. Rather than pretending that isn't a factor just own it and stop trying to rationalize how the premise of TOT made sense, when in fact it wasn't any more logical than being zapped into the Twilight Zone in a haunted elevator.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Lol no. Tell me about it.

Imagine riding in a tiny little motor boat that moves at about 2 miles per hour down a narrow waterway. You can't steer and there's literally nothing to look at in the water or on the shoreline. No AAs, no props, no nothing. You're just plodding along sitting for about 10 minutes bored because you had to spend your B coupon on something.

 

[mickEblu]

Imagine riding in a tiny little motor boat that moves at about 2 miles per hour down a narrow waterway. You can't steer and there's literally nothing to look at in the water or on the shoreline. No AAs, no props, no nothing. You're just plodding along sitting for about 10 minutes bored because you had to spend your B coupon on something.

Lol. Nuff said. So basically, Tuck and Roll on water?

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Lol. Nuff said. So basically, Tuck and Roll on water?

Yes! At least Tuck and Roll is a cleverly designed ride. The Motor Boat Cruise experience was as generic and dull as it looks in this video.

 

[sedati]

As far as the basic concept of the attraction is concerned, remarking that the DCA version moves backwards into the shaft isn't relevant. The choice to do that was primarily driven by engineering concerns, and led something akin to a show scene in the DHS version appearing at DCA. That latter observation might be relevant.

This is akin to arguing that Space Mountain should receive a retheme since it's quite odd that a rocket would have a chain lift hill. There's an obvious reason why a supernatural elevator might not be confined to move only vertically, but ignoring that, we allow every attraction some leeway to deal with the facts of engineering. Rollercoasters have chain lift hills, dark rides have lap bars, and splash mountain logs aren't made out of wood.

Part of the argument has been how the Hotel theme is a perfect fit and the MIssion Breakout is being shoehorned. I'm saying the existing ride mechanism may better serve the new theme over the previous, in part due to such engineering concerns. Certainly I know there are things that we overlook when riding a theme park ride. No where has anyone said the Tower needed a re-theme because of the elevator sliding backward. But if the new concept is to be picked apart, then I see no reason why the old one can't be as well.

 

[Curious Constance]

What does this have to do with anything? I'm pretty sure the idea of a drop ride / haunted hotel preceded the Twilight Zone IP. The IP was added after in the PLANNING (key word) process in an effort to strengthen the experience. There is the difference. It's wasn't shoehorned in. With GOTG, they are trying to make the IP fit into/ around the existing infrastructure and ride mechanism.

How anyone can argue that the exterior at least isn't an obvious step down when they are literally just painting over windows is beyond me.

And if we are willing to overlook that, then I would argue that many have forgotten why they are Disney fans in the first place.

I wouldn't think that the exterior could be anymore of a step down than it was before. Even if red and orange aren't your favorite colors, at least there is something to look at on the building now and break up the blandness of before.

 

[mickEblu]

Yes! At least Tuck and Roll is a cleverly designed ride. The Motor Boat Cruise experience was as generic and dull as it looks in this video.

Lol wow. When did this close?

 

[Phroobar]

I miss the motor boats. As a kid that was one of my favorites. Did you see that kid standing up in his boat and splashing water at other boats? He even jumped out before the boat stopped at the dock! Its kids like that are the reason we can't have nice things.

 

[Practical Pig]

Lol wow. When did this close?

Both the Motor Boat Cruise and I launched in 1957, and the MBC was finally put out of our misery in 1993. You may well know this part, but in 1991, they tried to invigorate the thing with overlayed synerginess by tossing in some painted plywood characters from their Gummi Bear franchise. Unfortunately, they didn't toss them in where they would sink. The ride was cheap filler in the early park, and I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did.

I will say, in spite of the distain I expressed above, when I first (and last) went on the MBC as a young child, I had never been on a boat before, so the novelty of that did provide a little interest for me, at least.

BTW, another thing that launched in 1957 was Sputnik 1, within 24 hours of my birth, making me a true space-age baby. Apropos to nothing in this thread.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Did you see that kid standing up in his boat and splashing water at other boats? He even jumped out before the boat stopped at the dock! Its kids like that are the reason we can't have nice things.

He was bored, and The Moter Boat Cruise wasn't nice.

 

[mickEblu]

Both the Motor Boat Cruise and I launched in 1957, and the MBC was finally put out of our misery in 1993. You may well know this part, but in 1991, they tried to invigorate the thing with overlayed synerginess by tossing in some painted plywood characters from their Gummi Bear franchise. Unfortunately, they didn't toss them in where they would sink. The ride was cheap filler in the early park, and I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did.

I will say, in spite of the distain I expressed above, when I first (and last) went on the MBC as a young child, I had never been on a boat before, so the novelty of that did provide a little interest for me, at least.

BTW, another thing that launched in 1957 was Sputnik 1, within 24 hours of my birth, making me a true space-age baby. Apropos to nothing in this thread.

I vaguely remember the Gummi Glen stuff in the surrounding area but never rode the MBC. Or is it the Disney afternoon stuff I'm remembering? Talespin etc.

I always get annoyed when I realize their are closed Disneyland attractions that I could of rode but my parents never took me on for some reason. ATIS being the best example. I guess after seeing the video that @Dr. Hans Reinhardt posted I can forgive them for not taking me on MBC.