Mission: Space...was it hyped?

[palmage]

I haven't touched the ride since it opened... biggest disappointment ever to come to the Disney Theme Parks.

Then how do you know it's a disappointment???

 

[Innoventions]

The only reason most do not give MS as much credit is because of the fact it replaced Horizons. Horizons was a great attraction but MS is a great attraction all in its own. Some of you should stop living in the past, Horizons will not come back, they made a decision to get rid of such an attraction, and as shocking as it is to hear, besides on boards like these there really is not a demand for horizons.

I chose to enjoy mission space and remember the greatness of Horizons. Do not judge MS based on the fact that it is "not" Horizons.

 

[misterID]

Well... No one was talking about Mission Space vs Horizons... Errm, it was about the hole Horizons left that hasn't been filled by any attraction. And honestly, I could seriously care less M:S replaced Horizons. It would not taint my view of M:S. I'm not a fan. It makes me nauseous. I don't like the simulation. None of that has anything to do with Horizons vs M:S... Just like the discussion that was just taking place about the hole Horizons left that hasnt been filled in FW and EPCOT. :lol:

 

[dweezil78]

I never said it was the only thing they want but it is what is going to bring you average theme park guest into a park. One needs only to ride up I-4 to realize this. How many billboards do you see for non thrill attractions? Three maybe four. Bottom line is if Horizons was well attended by guests it would still be there. The reality is that towards the end of its run it was not. Eddie Sotto even confirmed this in this forum.

That's kind of my point. If you really just wanted a quick thrill, go get slung up in the air off of I-4 for a few bucks. If you're going to plunk down $70 to walk through a turnstile, you're probably interested in more than thrill rides. That's why Disney advertising focuses on the 'magic' and 'happiness' and all the other things unique to Disney. In the 90s Disney was definitely lacking in the thrill department (especially in the midst of the nation-wide coaster wars at the time) and they've since made up for it. Now it's time to get back to what they do best...

To assume thrill rides is what the majority wants is silly. Little kids don't go on thrill rides. Parents who have to watch over their little kids also don't go on thrill rides. That's a pretty big chunk of folks who walk into a Disney park every day.

And look, I love thrill rides, but I can go to Magic Mountain out here or IOA or Busch Gardens in FL if I'm craving thrills. At Disney though, I set the bar higher and look for something that is just as immersive as it is thrilling. Indy, for example, is incredible because it gives guests both of those elements, but I can't really name another Disney attraction that combines both nearly as well. (ToT is high up there, but let's face it... it's no Indy.)

When all is said and done, no one is saying a new Horizons has to be a carbon copy of the original. By all means it SHOULD have elements of thrill to it, absolutely. But it certainly shouldn't need to rely on that to draw guests in as long as it done with the same level of attention to detail as the original.

 

[Master Yoda]

To assume thrill rides is what the majority wants is silly. Little kids don't go on thrill rides. Parents who have to watch over their little kids also don't go on thrill rides. That's a pretty big chunk of folks who walk into a Disney park every day.

Really? You sure about that? My daughter has been going on thrill rides since she hit the height bar and I can safely say that she is not the only one.

 

[_Scar]

I've only done green because of motion sickness. :/

I wish I could've rode Horizons :'(