M:S worth the destruction of Horizons?

[NemoRocks78]

How do you feel on this subject? Is MISSION: Space so good, was it worth the fact that Horizons had to be destroyed? Yes, M:S is a spectacular ride, and of course i'll try riding at least once every time i'm at Epcot. But did Horizons deserve to leave in its place? I do not believe so. It's not as good as Horizons. I'm sure WDI could have done a extraordinary job on M:S, making it a ride so good not another theme park company could make an attraction comparable, but they did not. So was it worth the demise of Horizons?

 

[matt88mph]

I think M:S and Horizons both should be in Epcot now. That's how I also feel about Test Track and World of Motion.

 

[DigitalDisney]

While we had great memories of Horizons, it really had to go. Slow moving rides such as that don't attract people like they used to.

Mission Space, obviously, is more thrilling than Horizons ever dreamed it could be. While it is true that the audience is more limited than the audience of Horizons, the daily attendance at Mission Space is nuch higher than it was for Horizons.

Let's face it. Theme parks are businesses. Their goal is, of course, to make a profit. Sometimes they make poor decisions to help attain their goal. However, I think MS was a wise investment. It's bringing people into the park, and it is thrilling yet still has educational value. It's not a mindless thrill. It's not as effective as Test Track (as far as bringing people into the park), but it's doing a better job than Horizons did.

Mission Space is also a major link in the chain of improving Future World. Even though most of Future World closes early every night, Test Track was the first attraction to stay open for extended hours, and now Mission Space is on that list. I imagine that Soarin will keep The Land open until park closing as well.

 

[matt88mph]

I think of one thing when I think of Horizons,

"You never really know what you have till it's gone."

Well, now it's gone and I realize what it had.

 

[dxwwf3]

I definately do not think Mission Space was worth losing Horizons over. But I also think Disney DEFINATELY made the a better business decision by replacing it with M:S.

Horizons was my all time favorite slow ride Disney has ever done. I would probably like Mission Space alot better if it weren't such a tame thrill ride. If they crank it up and really put the g-forces on you I might think differently about the replacement. But as is, I still really like M:S I just don't think it can hold a candle to Horizons.

 

[Testtrack321]

The destruction of Horizons in it's PREVIOUS condition of not operational is worth M:s, but comparing the Horizon's experence to M:S is not possable. They try to accomplish two different things, and simply put, you can't form a basis of comparision. Now, Food Rocks vs. KK, comparing all the JII incarnations, and other things like that are possable. The theme has remained the same, along with the general ride experence.

 

[markc]

Originally posted by dxwwf3
I definately do not think Mission Space was worth losing Horizons over. But I also think Disney DEFINATELY made the a better business decision by replacing it with M:S.

I agree completely; however I think Disney's business decision was made with the short run in mind rather than the long run. Mission Space, IMO, has a small re-ride value. I mean, lets face it, the ride is simplistic in design and consists of just a small screen that shows off computer graphics. Nothing ever changes, nor is there much to observe (and it's not even interactive despite it's deceptive "control panel". After 3 times on Mission Space, I can say that I was done with it for awhile. Horizons, on the other hand, had so much that you were able to see, experience, and just take in. It was truly an experience that you could take in again and again, without getting bored, while discovering new things you might have missed the first time, or seeing a new ending.

The way I see it, Mission Space has a very short shelf life. I'd like to think that most people, like me, will get bored with this ride after awhile. In 3 years time, the ride is still going to be the same, with the same programming and the same ride motions (Yes, TOT was like that for awhile too, but at least that actually involved some physical props and moving around an entire building..MS just revolves around a small centrifuge with a tiny video screen as it's backdrop). Then Disney will be stuck with a tired ride, and realize that getting rid of Horizons (or at least replacing it completely), might not have been such a good idea...oh well, it's probably just wishful thinking on my part.

 

[markc]

Originally posted by Testtrack321
The destruction of Horizons in it's PREVIOUS condition of not operational is worth M:s,

Horizons was completely operational until it's last day of operations (in Jan of 99). With the exception of the occasional breakdown, Horizons was still up and kicking until it's last day of being opened.

but comparing the Horizon's experence to M:S is not possable. They try to accomplish two different things, and simply put, you can't form a basis of comparision.

It's quite possible to compare the two. There are general factors to compare the two, such as overall enjoyment, re-ride value..etc. I think many people realize that what they got out of Horizons was NOT what they're getting out of MS (well at least those who remember what Horizons was about..).

 

[TURKEY]

Originally posted by markc
I agree completely; however I think Disney's business decision was made with the short run in mind rather than the long run. Mission Space, IMO, has a small re-ride value. I mean, lets face it, the ride is simplistic in design and consists of just a small screen that shows off computer graphics. Nothing ever changes, nor is there much to observe (and it's not even interactive despite it's deceptive "control panel". After 3 times on Mission Space, I can say that I was done with it for awhile. Horizons, on the other hand, had so much that you were able to see, experience, and just take in. It was truly an experience that you could take in again and again, without getting bored, while discovering new things you might have missed the first time, or seeing a new ending.

The way I see it, Mission Space has a very short shelf life. I'd like to think that most people, like me, will get bored with this ride after awhile. In 3 years time, the ride is still going to be the same, with the same programming and the same ride motions (Yes, TOT was like that for awhile too, but at least that actually involved some physical props and moving around an entire building..MS just revolves around a small centrifuge with a tiny video screen as it's backdrop). Then Disney will be stuck with a tired ride, and realize that getting rid of Horizons (or at least replacing it completely), might not have been such a good idea...oh well, it's probably just wishful thinking on my part.

I do think that MS will lose its re-ride value to frequent visitors. For those that visit, once a year or less, I think the ride will keep its re-ride value.

I think that eventually, MS will have new programs/versions developed and it will evolve over time like TOT.


While asking this about Disney is tough due to its extensive themeing in most attractions, how many rides keep their re-ride value over time?

 

[CTXRover]

Originally posted by markc
The way I see it, Mission Space has a very short shelf life. I'd like to think that most people, like me, will get bored with this ride after awhile. In 3 years time, the ride is still going to be the same, with the same programming and the same ride motions

How many people who actually come to Disney World ever get to do any of the rides more than once in a lifetime, in some cases, or possibly more than once every 4 or 5 years? Although I can see the re-ride issue for someone who lives in Florida, this really isn't a problem for many of WDW's guests. Even I, who is fortunate enough to get to the world every year (sometimes twice), don't see myself getting tired of it very fast. Especially since each time I'm there I will be lucky to ride it twice as I must see the other parks and rides, etc.

I can see a re-ride issue compared to Horizons, less to actually look at each time. However, still on my fourth and fifth trips on it (thanks to the AP preview in August) I was seeing new stuff and hearing new things. The "thrill" aspect alone gives this ride a lot of repeat value for many guests, including myself, yet a lot of people guage re-ride value it seems on what you see (ala Horizons) than what you feel (a major selling point to MS).

How many rides out there actually have re-ride ability like true Disney classics (which is probably why they are classics, but that's another story ? Take a simple coaster, for instance, The Hulk at IOA or any other local amusement park coaster (Disney doesn't make simple coasters ) These rides have a lot of repeat value just on what you "feel", not what you see as there is no themeing. MS combines great themeing and visuals with some very unique sensations, and that is why I think it does have a lot of repeat value.

As for the poll, I voted for Mission:Space over Horizons. Not because I didn't love Horizons or wish that I could ride it again, which I do, but because of the energy rush and new flavor I think it provided to Epcot. Although different in design and execution, SE, WOM and Horizons were very similar: Omnimover rides through beautiful scenes. For the ever-increasing audience that wants to be "wowed", there came a time when having three pretty similar rides with different themes just wasn't going to cut it for Epcot. MS provides a unique experience you cannot get anywhere else and has fulfilled my dream of getting that ability to feel like I'm launching into space. And for me and a lot of my friends, that makes this one cool ride.

 

[CTXRover]

Originally posted by markc
I I mean, lets face it, the ride is simplistic in design and consists of just a small screen that shows off computer graphics.

You probably just gave the Imagineers who devoted their lives for nearly 5 years to see this ride come alive a heart attack :lol:

No offense, but the ride system used in MS is far from simplistic. I think it comes across as "simplistic" because it works so smoothly and the pre-shows give off an impression that it "just spins you", but I guarentee there is a lot more involved engineering wise. Otherwise I'm sure something like this would have been done somewhere before, including Disney themselves who had always wanted a way to blast people into Space realistically, but could never "imagineer" a way, until now. I'll give you the fact that what you see is simplistic since it is just a small screen. But that screen uses High-definition plasma screens not yet available anywhere else and designed specifically for this setting and a lot of research and time went into making those graphics, including NASA's help with making the surface of Mars look as realistic as possible. It would have been just as easy to make the surface look like a red grand canyon, which I think in some aspects it does, but what makes it special is that it isn't. Rather it is modeled after real photos from Mars surfaces.

 

[Dr Albert Falls]

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD--- ITS UNBELIEVABLE HOW MISINFORMED EVERYONE IS!

Horizons was NOT closed to make way for Mission:Space.

I repeat...

Horizons was NOT closed to make way for Mission:Space.

Disney decided the fate of Horizons FOUR YEARS before Mission:Space was even dreamed up!

According to court records in the Mission:Space lawsuit, the idea for a centrifuge ride was first discussed in August 1998.

Horizons was closed in late 1994--- about a year after GE pulled its sponsorship.

The ride remained shut down for an ENTIRE YEAR.

Horizons temporarily re-opened during the construction of Test Track to ease crowd flow (much like how Timekeeper has been re-opened during the Alien Encounter rennovation). But the previous closure in 1994 proves Disney was no longer committed to Horizons--- even though they had NOTHING on the drawing boards yet to replace it.

(For more information, check out http://www.intercot.com/edc/Horizons/index.html )

Blaming the closure of Horizons on Mission:Space is like blaming Timekeeper's closure on whatever future Tomorrowland attraction takes its place. Disney lost its commitment to Timekeeper back in 2001 because of lagging attendance and popularity.... not because of a future attraction yet to be dreamed up. Same with Horizons.

 

[General Grizz]

Albert, I think it's a matter of theory. It's because Mission Space was the attraction that replaced Horizons. . . some prefer Horizons, some prefer Mission Space. It's a fact that M:S stands where Horizons once stood . . . and it was Disney that made both attractions (and hence, these attacks are on Disney's actions, thus comparing the two attractions).

 

[dxwwf3]

Originally posted by grizzlyhall
Albert, I think it's a matter of theory. It's because Mission Space was the attraction that replaced Horizons. . . some prefer Horizons, some prefer Mission Space. It's a fact that M:S stands where Horizons once stood . . . and it was Disney that made both attractions (and hence, these attacks are on Disney's actions, thus comparing the two attractions).

Exactly.

I think anybody that is a frequent visitor knew that Horizons days were numbered when GE dropped sponsorship. And I think that the idea for a Space Pavilion was probably dreamed up when Epcot opened. That's not to say that Mission Space was thought up of just to replace Horizons (because that is not the case). But the idea for a Space pavilion (In some form) had probably been around longer than 1998.

 

[General Grizz]

Originally posted by dxwwf3
Exactly.

I think anybody that is a frequent visitor knew that Horizons days were numbered when GE dropped sponsorship. And I think that the idea for a Space Pavilion was probably dreamed up when Epcot opened. That's not to say that Mission Space was thought up of just to replace Horizons (because that is not the case). But the idea for a Space pavilion (In some form) had probably been around longer than 1998.

Space pavilion was in the works during EPCOT's initial plans. I have a few photos kicking around. . .looks like a big ole ugly red space center. . . but I believe the Space pavilion was going to stand where Living Seas stands today (and vice-versa).

 

[A Kind Of Magic]

Vote Now, Vote Now.....

Is Mission Space by HP worth the destruction of Horizons?

How shall I phrase this?

No!

You are comparing "Space Apples" with "Loragnes".

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

As Horizions had already closed by my first visit in 94 Id have to say yes!!. Otherwise wed end up with another large piece of unused real estate ala Tommorowland.
An average attraction is better than a roped off area. (Im not saying MS is average by the way)

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

Originally posted by Pumbas Nakasak
As Horizions had already closed by my first visit in 94 Id have to say yes!!. Otherwise wed end up with another large piece of unused real estate ala Tommorowland.
An average attraction is better than a roped off area. (Im not saying MS is average by the way)

I agree with you!

What's wrong with you people?
We always complain disney doesn't use the gigantic space they have but when they do everyone argues!

Sure, now you think horizons was a classic that shouldn't leave but that is only because of your memories from rides in the past.... (That is the true definition of a "classic")

New families that will ride M:S only, with out any feelings from before will treat this attraction as a wonderful memory from WDW and a truely unique ride!

This is my opinion....
Please don't shoot me!

 

[General Grizz]

Originally posted by DisneyFan 2000
What's wrong with you people?

This is where someone would shoot you - - because that's an insult...something is WRONG with us Horizons-lovers. Your opinions are fine, but you really don't need to go that far!

Originally posted by DisneyFan 2000
We always complain disney doesn't use the gigantic space they have but when they do everyone argues!

??

This doesn't have to do with nostalgia, per se, OR popularity. . .but the fundamental worth of the attraction.

What's wrong with me?? What's wrong with me??!!

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

Originally posted by grizzlyhall
This is where someone would shoot you - - because that's an insult...something is WRONG with us Horizons-lovers. Your opinions are fine, but you really don't need to go that far!


This doesn't have to do with nostalgia, per se, OR popularity. . .but the fundamental worth of the attraction.

What's wrong with me?? What's wrong with me??!!

Chill grizzlyhall! I wasn't trying to insult you horizon fans! Sorry if I expressed myself badly! What i ment to say is if you look at things from a different angle you will see the situation isn't that bad! The decission was made wisely and when time goes by the attraction will grow on you and you will start having happy memories from this attraction just as you did on horizons (at least I hope you will)... Hope I cleared things up..........