Project Gemini

[Bill]

Horizons should have stayed... it was the sequel to the Carousel of Progress. I miss Horizons. And Space is great and all, but any Horizons fan will agree, it can't do justice to what Horizons was. Horizons was real... Space is a movie. Mark my words, Space will never be as popular as a real ride... meaning, you can't just have a movie. Sure, they are great for a while, but none of them have the staying power that a real ride does. Simulators and 3-D movies are ALL that way. The staying power just isn't there. Sure, when Muppets opened, there were lines. When HISTA opened, there were lines. When Star Tours opened, there were lines. But they all died down. It's because it's not a real ride. Pirates of the Caribbean still has long lines in the day time, and look at how old it is! It has amazing staying power. And, some people will flame me now... there were never any lines on Horizons... it was always a walk through.

Well, I got news for ya, it was the omnimover system that made it always a walkthrough. The ride had decent attendence. Heck, the Haunted Mansion is the same way... or, should I say WAS. Fast Pass is not always a good thing. On Attractions like Living with the Land and the Haunted Mansion, Fast Pass is a bad thing, and there's no reason for it at all. The longest wait we ever had for the Haunted Mansion was 15 min before Fast Pass. Now it's suddenly up to 45. What on earth happened? But wait, it even goes deeper. The Haunted Mansion has a preshow. You had to wait until you were let in. Horizons was always straight on to the ride. You'll notice a trend here people. And I feel sorry for those of you who don't see it. Space will fail. Just wait in 5 years and see what will happen. But wait... we're lucky. Disney knows this could happen. Hence, Space is updateable just like Star Tours. Well, it's a little more complicated then that, but it is updatable. So Space does have a chance... but until the movie changes, attendence will slowly decline after it reaches it's peak this year.

Let's name other Onmi mover systems that had the same problem as Horizons, save for Spaceship Earth, since it's the icon attraction.

-World of Motion
-Dreamflight
-Journey Into Imagination
-Seacabs... well, this one is special, keep reading...
-Umm, what else is there... I know there are lots of DL attractions that suffered the OmniMover fate...

Yet, what doesn't fit is the Haunted Mansion. For some reason, we still have it. Perhaps the theme? Perhaps the tradition. Something is making us keep the Haunted Mansion. Yet, the attendence has been the same as any other Omni Mover Attraction... except for the fact that there is an illusion. Since you are let in by groups. Where else have we seen this? The SeaCabs! Always crowded when it was open... the guests were sent in waves. So, that's the key to an omni mover system. The wave factor. Amazing, isn't it?

So, if there would have just been a preshow added on to Horizons, we would 100% still have it here today.

Holy Cow. I can't believe I just solved the mystery of Disney Attractions. But, as funny as this may seem, it is the key to making a omnimover attraction that will continue to hold up over time.

 

[tomm4004]

Sponsors... they need sponsors.

Does it worry anyone that SSE, UofE, WofL, and Living Seas don't have sponsors? This means, I think, that Disney is paying the maintenance and operating costs which cuts into their bottom line. This they no like. It seems that when the sponsor goes the ride goes. I'm just wondering about the fate of these sponsor-less buildings. Especially UofE. With Hess having the gas concession but not interested in EPCOT, what energy company would go in there and sponsor a ride?

Bill - good post about lines. For example, the line for Peter Pan is always much longer than for It's A Small World but I'm wondering if it actually takes more people per hour or per day. The capacities seem vastly different. Thus, the true popularity is hard to determine.

I also agree about attractions involving movies having a shorter life. The problem is that in a film your attention is directed to a specific spot (except for 360 films) and thus it gets old quickly. But in a ride through like Pirates, for example, your eyes can explore different facets of the ride each time. For an analogy I say it's the difference between looking at a brochure about Niagara Falls and actually going to Niagara Falls.

This is what is so clever about Stormrider in Tokyo. There are so many 4-D facets (the cabin falling apart, the wind, the rain) that what happens on the sim screen is almost secondary.

They can change the M:S program but will they? Like they've changed Star Tours?

 

[cloudboy]

Couple of good topics. First, yes I am very worried that there is a lack of sponsors at Future World. But it seems to be such an overwheleming lack that I am beginning to think they may just have to accept it and go on. I wonder if having Eisner gone will improve that situation.

The difference in the old dark rides versus the newer ones were simply the storyline itself. Really. In Pirates and Haunted Mansion, there is a storyline, but it is pretty simple and straightforward. Instead there are a bunch of scenes, which are helpd together by the overall storyline. You are In the story - you can move around and still be part of it - you participate. In some of the newer rides, and especially the film rides - you watch them. Sure you physically moving with them, but you are not mentally engaged in it - your mind has nothing to do to participate in it and so it is passive. That's the difference I feel, anyway.

What is the big deal with ride attendance, anyway? It's not like like people pay separately to go on a ride. And with so much unutilized space at Epcot it's not like they are hurting for room.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Like i said, there's a rumor floating around that Eisner is a prime reason for the loss of the latest sponsor. Granted its a rumor, but he doesnt exactly have the best "Show" when it comes to dealing with people....

 

[jrriddle]

Originally posted by ZHoyt
Now that Soarin is well under-way and the Spaceship Earth coaster deemed impossible, what's next for project gemini?

Phase 2 & 3 for the Living Seas
Watered down version of Time Racers.
Rehabs

 

[Dayma]

Keep in mind that the lack of sponsorship is not due to the rides but the economy. Most companies see this as an expense that can be cut.

Once the market imrpoves which it is you will see the same sponsors or new ones start to comeback.

Also Horizons was a learning experience. It taught you about be inovated ( horrible spelling ), which is what science is about.

As always just my opinion

 

[tomm4004]

Keep in mind that the lack of sponsorship is not due to the rides but the economy. Most companies see this as an expense that can be cut.

Possibly. But I'm wondering how much Disney's reputation for tough negotiating plays a part. Maybe they're scaring them off.

EPCOT opened in 1982. I recall a recession around those years where I lived in Canada. Wasn't there a recession in the U.S. circa 1980-81? It's possible as well that the sponsors didn't see a benefit from the outlay.

 

[DarkMeasures]

Originally posted by tomm4004


I also agree about attractions involving movies having a shorter life. The problem is that in a film your attention is directed to a specific spot (except for 360 films) and thus it gets old quickly. But in a ride through like Pirates, for example, your eyes can explore different facets of the ride each time.

Well the one thing about mission space is when you look in the moniter from different angles you see different things. Also, Unlike pirates, you are part of the story, you have a Mission in Mission Space and that is to fly your ship to Mars. In pirates you are watching the story unfold but not actually in the story.

 

[ZHoyt]

Originally posted by cloudboy
The difference in the old dark rides versus the newer ones were simply the storyline itself. Really. In Pirates and Haunted Mansion, there is a storyline, but it is pretty simple and straightforward. Instead there are a bunch of scenes, which are helpd together by the overall storyline. You are In the story - you can move around and still be part of it - you participate. In some of the newer rides, and especially the film rides - you watch them. Sure you physically moving with them, but you are not mentally engaged in it - your mind has nothing to do to participate in it and so it is passive. That's the difference I feel, anyway.

Wow, there so many flaws in this argument, I'm not even sure to begin.

1) Are you trying to say there isn't a story behind body wars, star tours, mission space, or any of the 3-D films? In my opinion, these attractions are more story oriented than PotC or HM, and I think that is a pretty easy argument to make. Also if you want to compare dark ride to dark ride, Dinosar/CtX is also heavily story oriented.

2) Now to your point about participation. IMHO, Mission Space is posibly the most interactive ride at WDW. Sure, the physical interaction is meaningless, but it is fun trying to push the buttons at the right time anyways. One of the things that impressed me most about MS is the cockpit design. There are so many gauges and meters and sticks and switches to play with, and for me half the fun is playing along with the story line and flipping switches that do nothing. Not to mention the actual simulation effects of the ride which are quite impressive. This is true to a lesser degree in Star Tours, and an even lesser degree in Body Wars. Yes, you are in reality just stuffed in a box that gets thrown around, but if you break it down like that, you can just call the HM riding in a cart on a track. The theming of being inside ships is done very well, the communication screen to your pilot keeps you in to the theme, along with the sim effects, and keeps the experience immersive. The addition of the animatronic pilot in ST makes it a superior experience IMHO because you physically see your pilot, you know he is there. It is much more than just watching a film. Which brings me to point 3.

3) Film is not inherently a passive media. Yes, you can sit back and be passive and not pay that much attention, or you can be an active viewer. You can get the story and the basics of whats happening by being passive, but if you do this you risk missing the beauty of filmart. In the same way, you can be a passive rider on a dark ride, or you can be an active one. You can get the jist of the Haunted Mansion in one ride through. But at the same time you can be actively enjoying it, finding new things to marvel at each time. This is exactly how film, and most other art forms, work. And that is just talking about the film. Disney takes it a step further to try and get you to be an active viewer, theming the cockpits, simulating the motion, throwing 3-D objects at you and having special effects to make them seem real.

In short, your classification of film based rides as being inherently inferior to 'reality' based rides is very biased and discrimanatory.

 

[ZHoyt]

This thought just came to me while writing my last post, but it was not very congruant with the last topic.

Imagine the possibilities of Mission Space. Imagine if they brought in the best part of Horizons, namely, choosing your own ending. What if the buttons that dont make any difference now could alter the outcome of what you see on your monitors? It is entirely possible. They could make a complex choose your own adventure type of story played out in real time based on your decisions, how you steered, and what buttons you pushed, etc, etc? For me, one of the big letdowns is having a joystick with no control. I know its not feasable to have it possible to end the mission in firey death, but they could at least give us something.

Maybe once the popular fades, we could hope for a major rehab. I think the mission space technology is amazing, if WDI could work more with it, it could be the most intense and interactive ride at any of the parks.

 

[tomm4004]

Well the one thing about mission space is when you look in the moniter from different angles you see different things.

Cool. So this varies depending on what seat you are in? I'm not sure how this works. I didn't really notice any difference but maybe I wasn't paying enough attention.

In short, your classification of film based rides as being inherently inferior to 'reality' based rides is very biased

Well, it's their opinion and I share it. Of course, you can focus on different parts of the screen is you want, but a 2-D image on a screen doesn't provide the variety that an environment in a ride does. M:S may be interactive but you can pretend you are avoiding cannon balls in Pirates as much as you can pretend you're really steering down the canyons in M:S.

And yes, you can be an active participant in film, but it won't carry you as far as a ride will because the variables are usually more limited, and thus, it doesn't have the repeat value. The added elements of 4-D effects, spraying water and the like, do help, but not enough to give film attractions the longevity of ride-throughs.

 

[ZHoyt]

Originally posted by tomm4004
Of course, you can focus on different parts of the screen is you want, but a 2-D image on a screen doesn't provide the variety that an environment in a ride does. M:S may be interactive but you can pretend you are avoiding cannon balls in Pirates as much as you can pretend you're really steering down the canyons in M:S.

And yes, you can be an active participant in film, but it won't carry you as far as a ride will because the variables are usually more limited, and thus, it doesn't have the repeat value. The added elements of 4-D effects, spraying water and the like, do help, but not enough to give film attractions the longevity of ride-throughs.

What you neglect is that in the film based rides, it is not solely a 2-D image on the screen. It is a fully themed ride with the main action happening on a 2-D screen. You still get an environment to engage you in the ride. As far as dodging cannon balls, this is a pretty weak comparison. MS is completely engaging with realistic controls to trick you into thinking you are in control of the ride. In PotC, you are observers of a story. It is a completely different experience. To me, PotC is much more like a filmic experience. Maybe a circle vision film. You ride through, you are exposed to scenes, you go to the next scene, the story progresses. You are not engaged into the ride. But at the same time, I do concede that something like Pirates or HM does more variables to see, but part of that is not the medium, but the ride. PotC and HM are classics, Body Wars isn't.

Imagine this. A sim version of Pirates. Bring in the cannon type interface from the Pirates game at Disney Quest. Mix the Pirates story with Buzz Lightyear like action. Ride in a fully simulated pirate ship and save the town from your rivals. Obviously there would need to be some major technological innovations and a big price tag, but to me, it sounds like a keeper. Better than the original PotC? Maybe. It depends on how it's done. If you could get the same level of detail and design from PotC into a simmed interactive version? It's possible. I think the real thing to do is mix the two. Come up with an interactive ride that you actually ride through instead of being in a stationary sim. But that is getting way to forward thinking and I am just starting to ramble.

In any case, I think on such stiff opinions as these, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[tomm4004]

MS is completely engaging with realistic controls to trick you into thinking you are in control of the ride.

Ah, this is a good and interesting point. Part of the fun is trying to make you think you are actually joysticking down the canyons, like the Jungle Cruise skipper telling you to duck when the headhunters appear. But as I think you mentioned in another post, wouldn't it be cooler if you actually did have an effect? Hard to pull off I agree. Still, I contend that the need to have fake controls and to "trick" you is due to the limiting nature of the experience. The Imagineers know that looking at a 2-D screen gets boring. So I agree with you that these interactive and 4-D effects make the attraction. I guess what I'm saying is that they are necessary because simply looking at a film screen is limiting. Thus, M:S will have a longer lasting appeal than Body Wars because of those added elements!

 

[ZHoyt]

Originally posted by tomm4004
Still, I contend that the need to have fake controls and to "trick" you is due to the limiting nature of the experience. The Imagineers know that looking at a 2-D screen gets boring. So I agree with you that these interactive and 4-D effects make the attraction. I guess what I'm saying is that they are necessary because simply looking at a film screen is limiting.

What then, about special effects (ie smoke/fire in PotC) to trick you into believing things are realistic in non-film based rides? Do the imagineers think that simply watching animatronics etc gets boring? Maybe that's a bit of a stretch, but it's the same general idea. Tricking you into believing the reality of a ride.

 

[cloudboy]

First point. I am not saying that simulator rides have no story. In fact I am saying just the oposite - they have a for more structured storyline. Which means that the ride gets more reliant on following that story line. Where as a ride like Pirates or Haunted Mansion, you in effect are the director - you choose how to look at the scene. This is more effective in Pirates where you are surrounded by the set. Which is why I think some peple didn't like Horizons as much since you are esentiall just looking out in one direction.

Second point. Now I can't ride Mission:space so this is only from what I have read, but just becasue you have a button to press does not, at least to me, involve any more participation than sitting there. Indeed, if it had an outcome on the ride, then it would be different. Does it, infact? I am under the impression it does not. I am not talking about physical action, I am talking about imagination. Maybe that's just something for me. i don't know.

Third Point. Do you really, really think you are going to Mars? I keep hearing about all this stuff about"realism". Just like in computer animation. Sure it is "realistic" for today. Next year that same effect looks less realistic, and the next year even less. If the ride is only based on realism, it just dies. I thought the idea was to base something on imagination.

I think that maybe we experience rides (and for that matter) the world in very diferent ways. Something like Pirates invovles me becasue I am thining about the world that was created around me. Where as in something like Body Wars or Star Tours, the film is there - you don't get involved with it - you just watch it. From how you describe it you get very involved with something like that, but in a ride like Prates you just sort of watch what is going on.

 

[tomm4004]

Which means that the ride gets more reliant on following that story line. Where as a ride like Pirates or Haunted Mansion, you in effect are the director - you choose how to look at the scene. This is more effective in Pirates where you are surrounded by the set.

I am not talking about physical action, I am talking about imagination.

Cloudboy!!! Thank you so much for stating what I've been trying to say in a much clearer manner. Your points about being the director and imagination are spot on. That is the major difference between film and non-film based attractions!

Does it, infact?

A bit. If you don't hit your button at the proper time the computer will say, "computer override." But other than that - no. Not like in Horizons were you had a choice as to the nature of your return.

Do you really, really think you are going to Mars?

No, but no more than I know I'm not in the Jungle on JC. The concept for M:S works well.

 

[andre85]

Originally posted by ZHoyt
This thought just came to me while writing my last post, but it was not very congruant with the last topic.

Imagine the possibilities of Mission Space. Imagine if they brought in the best part of Horizons, namely, choosing your own ending. What if the buttons that dont make any difference now could alter the outcome of what you see on your monitors? It is entirely possible. They could make a complex choose your own adventure type of story played out in real time based on your decisions, how you steered, and what buttons you pushed, etc, etc? For me, one of the big letdowns is having a joystick with no control. I know its not feasable to have it possible to end the mission in firey death, but they could at least give us something.

Maybe once the popular fades, we could hope for a major rehab. I think the mission space technology is amazing, if WDI could work more with it, it could be the most intense and interactive ride at any of the parks.

I was agreeing with everything you were saying, up to this point. Though only because your idea simply isn't applicable. Remember that there's nine or so other pods (40 people total) in addition to yours spinning at once. Thus the G forces are applied the same way to everyone; there is no way to vary it for an individual pod.

The only way it would work is if all 10 pods (or whatever amount there are connected to the hub) acted together to determine the ending, though this would oppose the current story line, and it wouldn't be a very intimate experience either.

 

[marni1971]

Yep - 9 other pods. 10 pods per `fuge, 4 riders in each.

How nice to see a pleasent, in depth discussion!

One variable possible for individual pods would be to alter the angle of attack depending on commands from that pod - I know thats how they alter the relative G level in the pods (+g to near zero). I`m not sure how that would effect the human body without altering the `fuge speed.... could get messy!

 

[andre85]

Originally posted by marni1971
I`m not sure how that would effect the human body without altering the `fuge speed.... could get messy!

I know a few forum members we could test it on

 

[Shaman]

Originally posted by andre85
I know a few forum members we could test it on

Lead the way....