Horizons questions.

[imagineer99]

First off, I would just like to say that Horizons is one of the best Disney attractions ever created. It was educational and very entertaining. In fact, it is the only EPCOT attraction that I vividly remember riding when I was really young. It was a tradition in my family to always ride Horizons at least once on every trip.

However, when I last rode it in 1998, Horizons was starting to show its age. I remember that the ride constantly referenced the 21st century has some kind of distant date, when it was only two years away! In order to keep attendance, Disney either had to redo the entire attraction or build something else. That something else became Misision: Space.

Sorry if I'm being longwinded, but I'm just trying to impress the fact that Horizons was simply not what the average theme park attender wanted. Sadly, EPCOT's got to ingest some thrills in order to keep it as a competitive attraction, instead of a graveyard of nostaligia.

In turn, I believe Mission:Space is a fine successor to my beloved Horizons.

P.S. How could anyone not think that Mission: Space's building is majestic? In my opinion, it is only topped by the Tower of Terror in terms of awesome visuals.

 

[daksimba]

Originally posted by markc
That's more of a rumor than it is fact. I had the opportunity to be able to tour the Horizons building quite extensively up until it closed. I had been on the roof a lot (if you were able to go up there, you could see a great view of WDW, and on top of that, the roof housed one of the most powerful cameras known-to-man (at the time that it was installed) and was able to zoom in on almost any park guest in any area of Epcot..even allthe way to World Showcase! Anyway, on my times on the roof, I didn't notice the damage being in a state of dis-repair, nor were there ever complaint. Granted, the roof wasn't in excellent condition, but it was in far better condition than the roofs on most buildings in the Magic Kingdom.

Basically the only problem with the building was that it was going to hold the then un-named Space attraction adequately. It would've cost more to totally re-fit the building than it would just to demolish it and build a completely new building. It's sort of sad, because the Horizons building is far more majestic and interesting looking than Mission Space.

Umm, trust me on this, the roof was in serious need of replacing. I was on the closing crew there. :animwink:

 

[daksimba]

Originally posted by imagineer99

P.S. How could anyone not think that Mission: Space's building is majestic? In my opinion, it is only topped by the Tower of Terror in terms of awesome visuals.

You know, the building is very nice looking, but it completely destroys the entire theme and concept over the design of Future World.

Future World was designed like your brain. On the left side (UoE, WoL, TT, Horizons) everything is hard-edge, and geometric. All the sidewalks are straight, and the buildings are based of geometry.

UoE: Trapizoidal
WoL: Sphereical
Horizons: A combination of shapes, but mostly Trapizoids
Test Track/Motion: Cylinder

Plus, the east side also has a theme. How man affects nature.

The right/west side is the dead opposite. All the sidewalks are curved, and the buildings are based of varitey of shapes, with no basic geometric pattern. Plus, its theme was how nature affects man.


Mission: Space doesn't follow this themeing. The building, while beautiful, doesn't have that basic geometric shape to it. Its design is clearly more suited for the west side of park (one of the possible locations for it to be built.) As for the "affect" part, you could really go either way on that. It is really a combination of the two, but I feel it does lean more towards nature affecting man.


Before we closed Horizons, they presented several possible plans to us. One was the one they used, to close Horizons and build the new attraction on its spot.

The one I liked: Rehab Horizons, and build Mission: Space in that spot between Land and Living Seas. That would have been the best, but also the most expensive.

The third idea was to gut the inside of Horizons, repair the building, and use it as a convention space, and build Mission: Space over by Land/Seas. (Boring idea)

Disney, of course, followed the cheapest route. :fork:

 

[markc]

Horizon's simplicity in it's building is what made it (to me) far better looking. I remember during it's first five years how impressed I was with it especially with it lit up at night. Mission Space, on the other hand, depends on the decorative features to make the building look interesting. As somebody else said, the current building also doesn't fit in with the rest of Epcot. The only place where I think Mission Space would've fit in would've been on the other side.

Originally posted by imagineer99
P.S. How could anyone not think that Mission: Space's building is majestic? In my opinion, it is only topped by the Tower of Terror in terms of awesome visuals.