-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Mission:Space update (confirmed)
- Thread starter BEARSHOUSE4
- Start date
INico
New Member
I did not know that it was not a popular ride. No wonder why the lines are ao short. I ride this as many times as I can before closing. One time I was around 20 times in one day. This is how I get my "gs" fix. Again, it is not as intense as I hoped. But since it killed people its probably for the better. The only other comparable ride is dodonpa in Japan that accelerates very VERY quickly. Of course, M:S is much easier and cheaper to access. Probably the closest I will get to a catapult launch l.
You know there's an awful lot more to it than that.
It isn't. It has never hit the targets or the THRC that were expected by Eisner. Even after Green was shoehorned in later.
His idea of it being so successful it would be cloned to DLP and then DL died pretty early on.
INico
New Member
I can see why its not too popular. First, this seems more like Six Flags Magic Mountain type of rides and is out of place and some people get motion sickness or simply can't handle the gs. I can hardly see how some people think this ride is boring though. Its the sole reason I go to EPCOT aside from its fireworks, Spaceship Earth, and WS.
spacemt354
Chili's
Horizons couldn't have been upgraded for a new generation? Plenty of rides see decline in popularity, but then are given face-lifts and upgraded to keep with the times.
I don't buy the over-saturation argument because Six Flags is saturated with coasters, SeaWorld is saturated with water-based attractions, and Universal is saturated with screen-based attractions. If the attraction is good it doesn't really matter what ride system it uses. Epcot used to be known for its deep, rich, and elaborately told edutainment attractions, which with proper guidance and vision, would have lasted into the 21st century no doubt in my mind.
Haymarket2008
Well-Known Member
Any chance this thing gets bulldozed in the next 10 years? Epcot would be better for it.
Daveeeeed
Well-Known Member
There are about half a dozen other attractions that need to be replaced before Mission: Space.
INico
New Member
As much I love it, I now know it is going to be demoed sometime in the future. Before I binge this ride the moment it's announced it'll close, is there any other comparable simulator or ride in the US that has similar intensity? I don't feel like Air Force or Space Academy in the meantime or flying to Japan for Dodonpa. I don't trust the carnival centrifuges and Star Tours, while great, is too tame for me.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
Beyond Soarin' (which has its own problems with the new film) and FEA (which is what it is), there isn't a single attraction in Epcot that doesn't need a lot of work. Still, I'd say the only attraction that needs a remodel before M:S is the embarrassment that is Imagination.
Daveeeeed
Well-Known Member
UoE, Living With the Land, Memo, films throughout world showcase, rides that.need to be added to world showcase, gran fiesta tour, Spaceship Eartg final. Since Mission space is getting it... That's what has.do be done. Oh and did I.mention the aesthetic changes through Future World?
Daveeeeed
Well-Known Member
It won't be the near future. I can guarantee you.we are at least a decade out from that, but probably more like 20 years or never.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
I don't disagree with any of that, of course (although Nemo is very low on the list - it's fine, and for Epcot right now fine is enough.) I'd also add Wonders of Life and even (at the very bottom of the list) add Test Track, which remains far too boring for a thrill ride. M:S is still right at the top, however.
Party of Two
Member
Ooooh "new missions" that sounds good, hope they keep Lieutenant Dan though 
articos
Well-Known Member
Could Horizons have been updated? Absolutely. But not without a sponsor that wanted it.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
Well, it COULD have even without a sponsor - Disney ain't poor and it wasn't then. The sponsorship idea was a vestige of an earlier era that Disney desperately clung to. Amusingly, now that I think about it, Disney was faced with a choice - cultural changes dictated that they could only keep one element of the World's Fair ethos that served as the foundation of Epcot: either the corporate sponsorships or the educational, less thrill-oriented rides. Disney choose really, really poorly.
articos
Well-Known Member
Disney COULD do anything they want. But at that point in time, nothing major was done in Epcot without an OP. When GE opted to forego renewal, it was the end of Horizons. At the time, guest satisfaction was telling them put more thrill rides in Epcot. Mission Space as a concept was incredibly ambitious, with a lot of excitement from WDI to get it built, and it was definitely a thrill ride. When Compaq came on board, they wanted to make a statement with something that would wow, and sending guests to space in zero g sounded like an E ticket plus plus. The thought was it would be as great as Horizons and would blow people away. Unfortunately, they forgot why astronauts are an exclusive club AND they overpromised. After budget cuts and people blowing their lunch, here we are. The company could keep the edutainment aspect along with sponsors - see SSE, or The Land. It just depends on what the guest surveys say and the sponsors wish list.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
I think you're washing Disney's hands a bit too much here. The sponsorship thing is a very outdated notion - it springs from the World's Fairs, of course, and an era before the ad industry had fully matured, an era in which corporations and their proprietary control of science was going to bring us to a "Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow." That idea was already threadbare by the time Epcot opened and it's only gotten moreso since. The key element in the decline of Epcot (well, one of the key elements) was that, for financial reasons, Disney remained married to a dead idea. What killed Epcot was not sponsors wish lists but the fact that Disney kept insisting they mattered. That thinking replaced Horizons and WoM with M:S and Test Track and let Imagination and Wonders of Life crumble. Letting non-entertainment executives make decisions about rides turned out to be an awful idea.
Rides do continue without sponsors, of course - Energy hasn't had one for over a decade, Spaceship Earth lacked one for a while, Imagination, Soarin, Seas and so on don't have one (if any of this is wrong, I apologize in advance). Sponsorship seems to be an excuse WDW uses when convenient.
As to M:S - the concept may have sounded great, but it's hard to believe folks looked at the sketches and mock-ups and thought "yeah, this is a great idea."
Otterhead
Well-Known Member
The last time I went to Epcot, my 14-year old nephew re-rode Mission:Space and Test Track on repeat for an entire day.
Mission:Space is a perfectly enjoyable ride that entertains a ton of people. It's not heavy on hard science but it's a lot of fun for a lot of visitors. It's not in my top ten rides or anything, but I'll happily ride it whenever I go.
Not at all. Declaring something "horrible" is a personal opinion that isn't shared by most people. As others have pointed out, a lot of people like the ride, some think it's just okay, and some really like it. I don't think that's shocking or surprising to find out.
Last edited: