Horizons....

[kaos]

I think I swallowed the worm.. more tequila please!

 

[ChrisFL]

Wow that's not what I said at all.

I never said everyone who road it was bored or angry. I said many were, in agreement with another poster who said people don't choose to learn.

I am also not the only one to contend that Horizons was a learning and enlightening experience. It has been stated many times on this thread and through out these forums, usually by it's most ardent supporters.

The biggest criticism of EPCOT center in its early years was it was more museum than an amusement park. That it wasn't about thrills and entertainment, but about exploring and expanding your outlook. This is what lead to low attendance and eventual overhaul. It is also what the posters on these boards who lament the loss of the original spirit of EPCOT miss.

I also do not appreciate being called a liar.

So you mention "low attendance", where's the facts about attendance problems. Epcot has never had lower attendance than any park besides MK.

 

[misterID]

I have to admit, all the "learning" parts of Horizons freaked me out... The crystals... And flying through the city... Trippy stuff... :lookaroun

 

[raven]

Just the Facts:

Horizons - Involved showcasing several technologies and visions of the past and future, under the sea, in the desert and in space
Mission:Space - Involves only one technology, space flight

Horizons - Had 2 massive Omnimax style screens that were several stories tall
Mission:Space - Has a small screen about 12 inches tall

Horizons - Could be ridden by the whole family
Mission:Space - Is not designed to be made for children or elderly

Horizons - Had no fatalities associated with it
Mission:Space - Had 3 fatalities associated with it

Horizons - Never had to be altered or toned down for more guests to enjoy it
Mission:Space - Did have to be altered for more guests to enjoy it

Horizons- Envisioned the far future with whole space stations, undersea cities and reclaimed desert to make farm land
Mission:Space- Is a vision of the near future with a simulation of a space shuttle-ish mission to Mars

Horizons - Had very unique concepts not seen anywhere else
Mission:Space - Derivative theme based loosely on the "Mission to Mars" movie

Horizons - Focused on the family being central to the theme, the way Walt Disney did.
Mission:Space - Is more sterile and focused on giving commands





Now, just opinions:

Horizons - Had very good music
Mission:Space - Has decent music

Horizons - Featured a feeling of awe and wonder when you got off
Mission:Space - Features a feeling of queasiness, but you get a souvenir barf bag

One major problem with this: Mission:Space wasn't built to be a new Horizons. It's a completely different idea and theme. You might as well be comparing Hall of Presidents to Soarin'.

 

[misterID]

One major problem with this: Mission:Space wasn't built to be a new Horizons. It's a completely different idea and theme. You might as well be comparing Hall of Presidents to Soarin'.

It's not even about that. I think we all know a simulator thrill ride cannot be compared with a dark ride... Which I've repeated over and over in this thread before... But I'm not sure M:S has ever remotely come close to achieving the level of success it was supposed achieve. And I really don't see the proof that it was all that big of an improvement over Horizons, considering it was over a 100 million dollar replacement/investment. The big upside is that M:S has a sponsor. That's like gold in WDW. No denying that. And its good to have a thrill ride in the park, no doubt.

I think Horizons could have co-existed with M:S.

And I know the M:S fans love to point out that Horizons fans are a small rabid following (which is actually kind of funny when you think about the number of fans, threads, polls that want Horizons back, and the tribute websites, compared to that of M:S and its fanbase, which Horizons constantly leaves in the dust... but I digress) but I was very, very excited for M:S, even though it took the place of Horizons. But then I rode it.... And not only did I come away with a Meh/let down feeling, I couldn't believe this was what took the place of Horizons. I really, really wanted to like M:S.

For the record, when people state they love Horizons and then in the next sentence procede to rip it as an awful, boring, outdated, no amount of refurb could save it, and being inferior to M:S in every way... I don't think they're being honest about loving Horizons... But that's just me.

 

[Thrill Seeker]

It's not even about that. I think we all know a simulator thrill ride cannot be compared with a dark ride... Which I've repeated over and over in this thread before... But I'm not sure M:S has ever remotely come close to achieving the level of success it was supposed achieve. And I really don't see the proof that it was all that big of an improvement over Horizons, considering it was over a 100 million dollar replacement/investment. The big upside is that M:S has a sponsor. That's like gold in WDW. No denying that. And its good to have a thrill ride in the park, no doubt.

I think Horizons could have co-existed with M:S.

And I know the M:S fans love to point out that Horizons fans are a small rabid following (which is actually kind of funny when you think about the number of fans, threads, polls that want Horizons back, and the tribute websites, compared to that of M:S and its fanbase, which Horizons constantly leaves in the dust... but I digress) but I was very, very excited for M:S, even though it took the place of Horizons. But then I rode it.... And not only did I come away with a Meh/let down feeling, I couldn't believe this was what took the place of Horizons. I really, really wanted to like M:S.

For the record, when people state they love Horizons and then in the next sentence procede to rip it as an awful, boring, outdated, no amount of refurb could save it, and being inferior to M:S in every way... I don't think they're being honest about loving Horizons... But that's just me.

If I was working for Imagineering back in 2000, I would have demolished Universe of Energy and replaced it with Mission: SPACE... It could have easily fit in that spot and Horizons would have continued to exist.

 

[Ziffman]

If I was working for Imagineering back in 2000, I would have demolished Universe of Energy and replaced it with Mission: SPACE... It could have easily fit in that spot and Horizons would have continued to exist.

Somebody who simply "works for Imagineering" has the authority to make that kind of decision?? Wow, who would have guessed? :hammer::lol:

 

[raven]

It's not even about that. I think we all know a simulator thrill ride cannot be compared with a dark ride... Which I've repeated over and over in this thread before... But I'm not sure M:S has ever remotely come close to achieving the level of success it was supposed achieve. And I really don't see the proof that it was all that big of an improvement over Horizons, considering it was over a 100 million dollar replacement/investment. The big upside is that M:S has a sponsor. That's like gold in WDW. No denying that. And its good to have a thrill ride in the park, no doubt.

I think Horizons could have co-existed with M:S.

And I know the M:S fans love to point out that Horizons fans are a small rabid following (which is actually kind of funny when you think about the number of fans, threads, polls that want Horizons back, and the tribute websites, compared to that of M:S and its fanbase, which Horizons constantly leaves in the dust... but I digress) but I was very, very excited for M:S, even though it took the place of Horizons. But then I rode it.... And not only did I come away with a Meh/let down feeling, I couldn't believe this was what took the place of Horizons. I really, really wanted to like M:S.

For the record, when people state they love Horizons and then in the next sentence procede to rip it as an awful, boring, outdated, no amount of refurb could save it, and being inferior to M:S in every way... I don't think they're being honest about loving Horizons... But that's just me.

I loved Horizons. I love the M:S building, not the ride. But I also think M:S could've went somewhere else. I didn't want Horizons to go either. But the decision was made by the CEO to get rid of it, not me.

 

[Epcotian]

deleted

 

[misterID]

I loved Horizons. I love the M:S building, not the ride. But I also think M:S could've went somewhere else. I didn't want Horizons to go either. But the decision was made by the CEO to get rid of it, not me.

Oh, I'm not blaming you, Raven. I know it was Eisner's call, and that if Horizons would have kept its sponsorship and UOE didn't, this probably would have worked out very well for EPCOT.

But I agree with everything in your post.

Just wondering, did WOL still have a sponsor when the decision was made to replace Horizons with M:S? That's the kicker... A pavilion is sitting empty right now that could have been a good place for a SPACE pavilion. Eh...

 

[DisneyLuver91]

I loved Horizons. I love the M:S building, not the ride. But I also think M:S could've went somewhere else. I didn't want Horizons to go either. But the decision was made by the CEO to get rid of it, not me.

Haha, I'm opposite. I like the ride just fine, but don't like the building. I guess its just too different from the rest of Epcot's architecture for me. And the fact that the red paint was $8,000 a gallon... :zipit:

 

[DisneyLuver91]

Just wondering, did WOL have still have a sponsor when the decision was made to replace Horizons with M:S? That's the kicker... A pavilion is sitting empty right now that could have been a good place for a SPACE pavilion. Eh...

I believe that it was without sponsor when it was replaced. I honestly don't think that Disney would have demolished Horizons if it had a sponsor.

Anywho, if I recall correctly, it was without GE for about five years when it was decided to replace it. I'm sure someone else will be more accurate. :wave:

 

[Ziffman]

deleted

:veryconfu

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

Haha, I'm opposite. I like the ride just fine, but don't like the building. I guess its just too different from the rest of Epcot's architecture for me. And the fact that the red paint was $8,000 a gallon... :zipit:

I'm about the same way. First, while it's a nice facade, that's all it is, a facade with a small box of a building behind it. Every other pavilion is an interesting and unique architectural and structural design to it. Secondly, it looks so small compared to every other pavilion. Horizons had the perfect strong, solid presence as the anchor of Future World East, like The Land does on the West side. Thirdly, while the facade is lovely, it is of the type of free-flowing form that belongs in Future World West, to correspond with the appropriate side of the brain. East is supposed to be all symmetrical, hard geometry.


Those factors really diminish the balance and flow of Future World East.

 

[misterID]

Okay, I looked it up:

Met Lifes sponsorship of Wonders Of Life ended on January 4, 2005

Horizons closed in 1999.

Why did Met Life have to hang around so long

And I have to say, I like M:S facade better than Horizon's building shape.