I agree. I`d like to see some too.
My 1990 trip had the outside ropeline in use, in `93 the line was frequently upto the doors and out of the Futureport. Omnimover = poeple eater.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
How did Universe of Energy survive but not Horizons and WOM?
- Thread starter drossjr
- Start date
My 1990 trip had the outside ropeline in use, in `93 the line was frequently upto the doors and out of the Futureport. Omnimover = poeple eater.
Figment632
New Member
The last Disney trip I did with my parents was in 1984 or 1985 over Thanksgiving weekend. One thing I will never forget was how deserted FW was. Horizons was walk on and I felt like the only person in the building. One image that was burned into my brain was the upward spiral of empty ride cars on WoM.
Figment632
New Member
It could have been a slow day, I remeber longer (in length but not time) for Horizons up through the mid 90's :shrug:
It was Thanksgiving weekend. MK was a oo, Epcot was a vacant lot nad DHS and AK did not even exist.
Figment632
New Member
Yes it was slow at EC :shrug:
misterID
Well-Known Member
That kind of goes back to EPCOT having the bad grades as a whole back then. It wasn't just a single attraction, or 2...
I remember EPCOT being like that, too.
Just a thought, perhaps the same company that paid for the PotC and HM refurbs? It was a good valuable asset. Disney got rid of it because they couldn't talk some other sucker into paying for it. Terrible long term thinking and something they'd never even consider with attractions in any other park.
Wakkie Nu Nu
New Member
The first part of your claim that "pretty much anyone" knows the story is questionable at best, given that there's significant debate in this thread alone. Secondly, why were those two rides so much more susceptible to loss of sponsorship than anything else on property? Were they really that much more expensive to operate than anything before, during, or since that doesn't have sponsorship (the majority of rides at WDW)?? Two omnimovers just couldn't exist without sponsorship?? If they were popular enough, they wouldn't have been shut down. They weren't untouchables. Their popularity didn't justify their cost. Period. Whether it was 90% sponsorship based or 10%, Disney determined that the crowds ($$$) these two rides brought in didn't justify their mere existence, plain and simple. If these rides were these beloved iconic moneymakers we wish they were, they'd have lived longer. I experienced walk-ons a plenty at these two rides at the end.. whatever was or wasn't going on at UoE or elsewhere in the park, they lost their appeal considerably from their peak.... which isn't a criticism of the rides themselves.... IaSW doesn't draw big crowds anymore, but it's still a legend that would be missed, for example.
As for your second claim, that's just quite difficult to swallow. The lovefest for Horizons and WoM has "ZERO" to do with their being gone? ZERO?!? So by your logic, Horizons would stir up just as much passion and attention if it were still sitting there and if M:S had replaced UoE before the Ellen refurb there wouldn't be any people with the UoE icon as their avatar, UoE tribute sites, and people clamoring that M:S was a failed replacement for the classic UoE and TDO blew it again!?!?
Of course there would be. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. Who knows to what extent, but there isn't any debate that it has far more than "ZERO" to do with it. Speaking in absolutes is often fallacy.
With all due respect, everyone who has any kind of contemporaneous inside information has been stating for years that it was sponsorship issues.
Everyone who thinks there's another reason (the ride wasn't good, attendance issues, etc, there was a sinkhole) appear to have zero inside information.
It's a discussion between informed people and people using anecdotes and you're acting as though there's a real debate going on.
Of course people would be mad if the ride through the dinosaurs disappeared; it's a fun experience you can't get anywhere else. But it's not gone. So there's no reason to complain. If Ellen was removed, no one (outside of her immediately family) would care. But how does that somehow prove nobody would be passionate about Horizons? Or WoM? The fact is, all of the original EPCOT Center Future World pavilions have a fanbase because that entire era of the park has a fanbase. It's not going to go away; there's a sizable portion of the avid fans that think it was better than what we have now. Remove or significantly change a portion of it and people will be mad.
I happen to believe the attractions with many AAs and pervasive music - SSE, Horizons, JII and WoM (and to a lesser extent UoE's dinos) - will have a more passionate fanbase than the others (Living Seas, Listen to the Land, Body Wars), but I admit it's debatable. Regardless, if you're argument is that people don't really like the original EPCOT CENTER, you're fighting a losing battle, imo.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Was it really? Without attendance or operating costs figures I wouldn't make an assumption like that.
Wakkie Nu Nu
New Member
Okay. so "pretty much anyone" knows that Horizons is gone entirely due to sponsorship issues? That implies an awfully high percentage, and I'm sticking with the fact that it's clearly not the case. A large number of posters probably don't care or aren't familiar with the situation at all. Maybe they're young or new Disney fans. Maybe they don't pay attention to behind the scenes corporate machinations.
Respected posters with plenty of knowledge (like MasterYoda, for instance) find the claim that Horizons is gone exclusively due to sponsorship failure a topic worth debating. The audacity to propose that Horizons as a ride suffered a decline in popularity and might have survived if it was as popular as some believe it was is completely legitimate and sufficient to qualify as debate on a message board, I'm afraid.
so with all due respect, it is not fair to say those who feel there may have been some other reason in addition to sponsorship issues that felled Horizons are simply "uninformed". Not in the least.
Not to mention, that implies that "pretty much anyone" on the "informed" side of this so-called non-debate agrees with the sentiments laid out that Horizons and WoM being gone have ZERO to do with their popularity, and that UoE would have NO more iconic status and those who appreciate it were it axed... and as i said before, that's obviously incorrect... What I'm saying there is not meant to say that NOBODY would be into Horizons or WoM - of course they would be. But if UoE had been axed to allow for M:S or TT, it would have a similar nostalgia and fanboy spirit club attached to it. I think we agreed on that one... The initial claim was that the respective popularity of Horizons/WoM vs. UoE had ZERO to do with their still existing, and we obviously both agree with that.. only the poster who made the claim originally seems to feel otherwise.
and there's that "zero" word again... anyone who entertains that just MAYBE there was another reason that Horizons couldn't survive the lack of sponsorship that so many other attractions have has "zero" inside information that "pretty much anyone" apparently has access to? really??? And NOWHERE have I said I didn't love original EPCOT Center. I did. It was my favorite park. Horizons was my favorite ride growing up. I LOVE the kind of ride you're describing, they're my absolute favorite.... I'm just arguing the point that rides get a spike of nostalgia and good feelings when they're gone, and that just MAYBE Horizons and WoM had an issue or two beyond sponsorship as to why they were axed. That is literally the crux of my entire argument in one sentence.
Wakkie Nu Nu
New Member
Such an assumption based on zero evidence also assumes that Disney willingly destroyed and rid themselves of two very valuable assets, which seems to be a giant coincidental reach.
Let me propose a question to the board:
Is there anyone with contemporaneous inside (however you define it) information that Horizons and the World of Motion (not to mention the original JII) were axed because of any reason other than issues with the sponsor? If so, I would like to hear your information, please post it here.
Is there anyone with contemporaneous inside (however you define it) information that Horizons and the World of Motion (not to mention the original JII) were axed because of any reason other than issues with the sponsor? If so, I would like to hear your information, please post it here.
Wakkie Nu Nu
New Member
All I've ever done is challenged your contention that it is unworthy of even message board debate that MAYBE some other LITTLE element was POSSIBLY considered in regards to the closings. So far, I've just seen you insist it was 100% sponsorship, nothing else played even a tiny role, and anyone who would even dare discuss an alternative is "uninformed". Of course there's no actual inside information that anything closed for almost any reason.. that's how it works, that's why there are message boards. Everyone is guessing to an extent, and everyone has the right to the debate.
But, to your question, in addition to all the points I've already made on this thread:
- Horizons' closing is one of the most debated in WDW history. Widespread rumors of sponsorship, sinkholes, and dwindling attendance have swirled about for years. Many WDW die hards confirm seeing a decline in ridership, while others claim the ride was as popular in 1996 as it was in 1985. It was operated for 10 years with a sponsor and for 5 without. Yes, there is definitely debate surrounding Horizons, regardless of what is true.
- World of Motion never lost its sponsor. If it had been an incredibly popular, iconic ride with big crowds and buzz, GM and/or Disney would have probably been at least a teensy bit less likely to axe it, don't ya think that could be considered just a wee bit?
- JII, likewise, was sponsored by Kodak, as was its successors. While I don't know anyone who likes the new versions more than the original (though I'm sure some do), Kodak and Disney made a decision to spend significant cash to overhaul it. They may be a wee bit less likely to do that if it's just killing it.
misterID
Well-Known Member
This debate has gone on many, many times, and it pops up from posters like you every few months. The people who know would say: Do a search.
GM was having financial trouble, only being able to sponsor WOM 1 year at a time. EPCOT was graded poorly as a whole. They needed thrill rides. Disney gave GM an opportunity. They took it. Horizons had no sponsor at the time. They got the ax. Yes its debated, but its generally been cleared up by people who know in this forum.
And yes, AA heavy omnimovers cost a lot to maintain. Imagination was one of them. Imagination was the most visited attraction in EPCOT. It still got changed.
You should really do some research on your own.
GM was having financial trouble, only being able to sponsor WOM 1 year at a time. EPCOT was graded poorly as a whole. They needed thrill rides. Disney gave GM an opportunity. They took it. Horizons had no sponsor at the time. They got the ax. Yes its debated, but its generally been cleared up by people who know in this forum.
And yes, AA heavy omnimovers cost a lot to maintain. Imagination was one of them. Imagination was the most visited attraction in EPCOT. It still got changed.
You should really do some research on your own.
PurpleDragon
Well-Known Member
There have been a number of people on this forum, myself included, who specifically remember Horizons and WoM being walk on attractions during their last few years. While Epcot having low turnstile numbers played a part, the dated themeing of those 2 attractions caused their overall popularity to decline. I remember the same image that Master Yoda does of all the empty cars spiraling up WoM, I also remember walking into Horizons and the CM's being extremely happy to see guests inside the attraction.
I used to visit during the peak times in summer and while SSE would have a line, Horizons and WoM were often empty walk ons. JII was often a walk on as well but I think TDO played a roll in that because they downplayed the attraction due to its constant operating problems. Disney and Kodak both wanted to overhaul the attraction due to the numerous problems that plagued it. For JII the malfunctioning ride vehicles I think were the final nail in the coffin, but for Horizons and WoM the lack of guests were the final nail. As SSE has proven, a lack of sponsorship is not necessarily a cause for closing an attraction. Due to SSE being the icon of the park it always peaked interest in first time visitors so it often had a steady stream of guests, hence why it remained open for a few years without a sponsor and was able to pick up a new one shortly thereafter.
I used to visit during the peak times in summer and while SSE would have a line, Horizons and WoM were often empty walk ons. JII was often a walk on as well but I think TDO played a roll in that because they downplayed the attraction due to its constant operating problems. Disney and Kodak both wanted to overhaul the attraction due to the numerous problems that plagued it. For JII the malfunctioning ride vehicles I think were the final nail in the coffin, but for Horizons and WoM the lack of guests were the final nail. As SSE has proven, a lack of sponsorship is not necessarily a cause for closing an attraction. Due to SSE being the icon of the park it always peaked interest in first time visitors so it often had a steady stream of guests, hence why it remained open for a few years without a sponsor and was able to pick up a new one shortly thereafter.
Figment632
New Member
None of this would have happened if it had received its over haul in 94 :shrug:
PurpleDragon
Well-Known Member
If they had more guests visit the attraction prior to 94, the overhaul may have been justified.
That is an opinion not a fact. For all we know a big refurb would have created an 18-24 month attendance spike and then it would have been back to business as usual. (ie POTC)