Pongo said:
Test Track is progress. The ride technology was extremely innovative for its time. It is that extremely innovative technology that CAUSES the breakdowns. Again, Mission: Space was an innovative ride with brand new technology, which is why it cost 100 million dollars. It is also about the progress of the human race into regions we have never reached before (Mars), much like Horizons was (with the different places to live: space, sea, etc.). The reason for IMAG's re-imagineering in the late 90's has been discussed in NUMEROUS threads. Bringing it up adds nothing to your argument since it has nothing to do with progress or a lack thereof.
Also bringing up the deaths on M:S was not only uncalled for, but extremely disrespectful.
You're right there, but new usually means innovative. You're saying that TT and M:S were new but not better, however, the technology for both was innovative, which is better in my book.
Not to mention that both helped to revive a dying EPCOT Center and bring into the successful EPCOT of today. Remember when everyone thought Epcot was "boring"? Yeah, guess why.
Have you been living under a rock for the last five months? They JUST added new effects to make it a more appealing ride. And guess what? It worked.
Well, I certainly appologize for the bluntness of my statement concerning mission: and those who have passed while riding it. But let us also look at the facts. A good number of people have died on mission space where other rides have a much better record. I feel that you can argue either way whether the ride itself caused those deaths and I will explain. Look at all of the crazy intense rollercoasters across the country, and how many of them have had riders die of heart or brain conditions. When someone goes to six flags, they know what they are getting. When someone sees a rollercoaster lauching people at 100 mph and sending them 400 ft in the air, it is easy for them to say, that looks too intense for me, I know better than to ride it. Now i guess saying the ride itself is the cause for those deaths is out of line, but given many different reasons it is harder for people to determine if the ride is for them or not. You can't see it in action and have no idea what you are getting into until you actually ride it. Opinions and reviews are subjective, so they don't always apply. And sure, there are warnings all over the place, but this doesn't stop a good number of people. It's disney after all. How bad could it be. Compare it to the other thrill rides like splash or space mountain, or BTMR. Those are disney thrill rides but no where near the standards of other thrill based amusement parks. Space mountain has warnings all over it too, but the sensation of the ride and the actual stress on the body are not compareable. People may think 'well, if I handled that I can handle this'. Or finding out it is a simulator makes it compareable to Soarin or Star tours until you are familiar whith it. It is certainly quite different when compared to other disney rides which is both good and bad. You attract a new crowd, but at the same time you risk alienating or catching families off guard who are used to a tamer disney experience. Look at all of the problems they had with AE. It was innovative technology directed toward an older audience, but families took their children on this ride regardless of the warnings because disney intense is not everybody else intense. Snow white is concidered tense for younger rides by disney standards. Because of the complaints, regardless if it was innovative or progressive technology, AE was removed. It was simply out of place because Disney park are ment to be family oriented. Most people come to believe that every experience at disney is suitable for everyone because of it's conotation. As much as I love Mission: Space on a solely personal level, on a whole I don't believe it was a good addition for the above mentioned reasons. No other ride in the park has barf bags on board out of nessesity. Sure the technolgy can be considered advanced or innovative, but it doesn't nessisarily make it better on the whole. It's an expensive way to spin you in front of a video screen.
Innovative is a purly subjective term. There are some things that are easier to classify as innovative and others that can be argued to eternity. A car that runs on a non fossil fuel source, that would be innovative. A cure for cancer, that would be innovative. Cell phones, yes and no. It is advanced technology on a preexisting idea which has benifits and flaws. People can reach you incase of emergency, but can cause distractions leading to deaths. For those who critized me about my comment on mission space, let's look at it from another angle. Do cell phones cause vehicular accidents or is it the carless driver using it. Do guns kill people or is it simply the people who use them that are to blame. Of course, if you took cell phones away there would be no accidents from that cause and certainly fewer accidents due to a distracted driver. Getting rid of guns would decrease murder rates everywhere. So hopefully you can see depending on your point of view either could be true.
And if a ride system brakes down often, it's flawed and it's hard to call it innovative if it doesn't work right unless you are saying because the technology is so advanced that it is supposed to break down which almost seemed like what you were suggesting. Advanced maybe to some degree, but not innovative.
And when test track was built, it was the first truely new ride in ages, so of course it would attract people becasue of the scale of the attraction and not nessisarily any other reason. Look at EE. Everyone flocked due to the antisipation without real knowledge of the quality. With the right theme and marketing you can do this with any ride. Didn't Monsters Inc help Cali Adventure, and that's just a little itty bitty dark ride. Granted it has a popular movie as the theme, but any idea that is bound to intrigue people while increase the guest count, like a yeti for example.
And yes, test track is simulated driving. You ride in a car and are taken through a test track which in real life a car is driven through. It simulates a driving experience. I realize it's a little more sophisticated than that, and I do like this ride, but on a basic level that's all it is as far as I am concerned. And yes it's popular, but so was 20k and Mr. Toad but it was ok to tear those down because that's progress.
I realize pirates just received on update, but how many other rides could have recieved an update instead of being torn down. I guess that's what my point was.
I'm not really on one side or the other. I like keeping an open mind in these situations and not simply new is good and old is bad or vice versa because that is all subjective. So when I see a one sided arguement occuring I like to step in and dispatch my own fairly open minded opinion.
Again, I appologize anyone who was offended by my previous statement. It was not ment to be hurtful and I regret the interpreted inappropretness.
