Today in History--M:S opens

[montyz81]

(Be warned, this is yet another Horizons Post, I just had to state my experience on this day in history) So listed on the "Today in History" panel is the opening of Mission:Space. I can't help but remember the original ride on that piece of land and the incredible imagineering that went into that ride vs M:S. On Oct 1, I sat down and actually watched all of Martin's tribute video to Horizons (which is very well done, I might add). I had never seen Horizons in real life, but using my visit to EC in March of 1983 as a reference point, I was able to achieve an accurate experience of what the actual ride was like. One word comes to mind that I feel is absent from the rides that are built today... Detail! I was blown away by the amount of detail that was present in that ride and all rides back then. You can even see it in the differences of SSE 1982 and SSE 2010. With all this in mind, M:S is very much a disappointment and a sorry excuse for imagineering. I know this has been talk about ad nauseum so I apologize for for bringing it up again, I just had not realized how much went into Horizons until I watched that video. If I feel this way about a ride by simply watching a video, I bet there is still room for amazement if I were to experience the ride in real life. It truly eclipsed the detail seen in just about any other piece of imagineering work on the WDW property of its time and since then! I just can't believe that a decision to remove such an incredible work of imagineering would have actually been approved over a fractional cost of improving/updating the ride. Truly amazing that Eisner thought this was a good idea! Sorry for the rant, I just had to share my experience of how a simple video was able to provide for me a ride like experience and how that is such a testament to the imagineering work done on that ride! http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNH6a71snMq3-p5s9k5gJXjxmmRKLg&cad=rja

 

[karlbeau]

Yes - Horizons was a great attraction, but be careful not to compare the Imagineering between Horizons and M:S. The Imagineering that went into M:S took 3 years, an entire crew of Imagineers, and millions of dollars. Disney is quick to point out that many portions of M:S were used by NASA because they were at the forefront of technology. To get a proper feeling of weightlessness and extra gravity on the same ride took an immense amount of study and design. While you may not consider the detail to be the same, understand that details can also be hidden.

Hats off to both attractions!

 

[Pepper's Ghost]

Good constructive comments Karl. I'm not a huge Mission Space fan, but it's nice to see someone actually defend some aspect of the attraction for a change.

I often wonder if the hatred for M:S would be so strong if it was built in an empty parcel of land at Epcot, and didn't replace the seemingly popular attraction that Horizons was. I also wonder if those who express so much love for Horizons is more of the vocal minority, or the majority. I have nothing against Horizons, so please don't take these comments as negative. I've never been on the ride, but it makes me wonder why they tore it down if SO MANY PEOPLE loved it so much. I have to think that Disney decided to tear it down partially because ridership levels plummeted and they wanted to add an attraction that would draw people. I know not everyone likes M:S, but Disney wouldn't have made such a huge investment if they didn't think it would be popular. So anyway, if Horizons was so popular, why did Disney tear it down? I don't foresee them ever taking a wrecking ball to the Haunted Mansion, POTC, or other popular rides. It just wouldn't make sense.

 

[montyz81]

Good constructive comments Karl. I'm not a huge Mission Space fan, but it's nice to see someone actually defend some aspect of the attraction for a change.

I often wonder if the hatred for M:S would be so strong if it was built in an empty parcel of land at Epcot, and didn't replace the seemingly popular attraction that Horizons was. I also wonder if those who express so much love for Horizons is more of the vocal minority, or the majority. I have nothing against Horizons, so please don't take these comments as negative. I've never been on the ride, but it makes me wonder why they tore it down if SO MANY PEOPLE loved it so much. I have to think that Disney decided to tear it down partially because ridership levels plummeted and they wanted to add an attraction that would draw people. I know not everyone likes M:S, but Disney wouldn't have made such a huge investment if they didn't think it would be popular. So anyway, if Horizons was so popular, why did Disney tear it down? I don't foresee them ever taking a wrecking ball to the Haunted Mansion, POTC, or other popular rides. It just wouldn't make sense.

I suppose I should have included perspectives like this in my statements above. It was absolutely about low ridership. It just wasn't a draw like other rides at WDW. I wonder if there is a "Cost per rider" figure that works into this somewhere. I guess what I was trying to say is that there was so much investment in this ride, I just wonder if they could have spent a fractional dollar figure to improve that "cost per rider" figure (if there is a figure like that). My point was that it just seemed like such a waste for them to tear it down with so much space down there. As you said, they could have simply plussed Horizons and built M:S. Hell, it made more sense to tear down Energy over Horizons and I love that ride too. I bet with M:S in the space of Energy, and an improvement to WOL, a Plussed Horizons and the current TT, I bet you would have more people on that side of the park then there is now! What would be the investment, not much more then what they did to put M:S in. M:S and TT would draw in the people, and while they wait for Fast Pass times, they coudl ride both WOL and Horizons without going too far!

 

[Krack]

So anyway, if Horizons was so popular, why did Disney tear it down?

Sponsors wanted something new. Disney wanted the money. Same reason JII and WoM took beatings.

 

[WDWGoof07]

Mission: Space is one of my favorite WDW attractions. I disagree with the notion that it is not detailed - in fact, I find it succeeds in its immersion of guests into the environment.

The preshow is fantastic. It's one of Disney's most engaging preshows because it's very effective at creating a mood. The choice of music and theatrical lighting inspire such excited anticipation within guests, hooking them into the story. The guests proceed to the ride cabin, an extremely intimate ride vehicle that literally surrounds you with the theme. Then, of course, the physical aspect of the ride is quite unique and features some of the most exhilarating thrills in any theme park ride - sustained G-forces, liftoff, and the brief period of weightlessness.

The ride itself is very stimulating for the imagination because it basically encourages you to play astronaut. I would not call Mission: Space an interactive ride. But, when you consider the buttons that perform guests' "jobs", the ones that just make sounds, and the physical thrills, it's clear that M:S is not a passive experience. With only four people in the cabin, guests feel more comfortable acting out, which happens surprisingly often in my experience. Guests spontaneously creating their own scenes without realizing it adds another layer to whole experience. Any ride that engages the imagination so actively is a winner.

 

[Enchantâmes]

Horizons was a wonderful attraction that I luckily rode over and over back in 97. Mission: SPACE is not a bad attraction it just has the misfortune of being a sack of crap when compared to it's predecessor. Mission: SPACE is my least favorite ride on property, I still wish to this day they had done something more with it than just a spinning simulator with little box screens and bad graphics. I mean the ride doesn't even dare try to even make you believe you are in space because its just a training program... It's title misleading IMHO you think Mission: SPACE would be a Realistic space adventure given it's budget, but in reality all you get is a 3 minute training program that has killed several people since it's opening. While Horizons was a 15 minute experience that took you to the future of the City, Desert, Sea, and Space in a detailed and charming way. Mission: SPACE is a cold, soulless contraption that is already outdated. The flight videos at the end of Horizons were more convincing than the video played in the Mission: SPACE simulators, but again this is all just my opinion. :wave:

 

[preludevtec01]

I feel like the pre-show is nothing but telling you, to get over to the green side. Mission Space is great for what it is, however is nothing campared to the experience you walked away with from Horizons.

 

[montyz81]

Mission: Space is one of my favorite WDW attractions. I disagree with the notion that it is not detailed - in fact, I find it succeeds in its immersion of guests into the environment.

The preshow is fantastic. It's one of Disney's most engaging preshows because it's very effective at creating a mood. The choice of music and theatrical lighting inspire such excited anticipation within guests, hooking them into the story. The guests proceed to the ride cabin, an extremely intimate ride vehicle that literally surrounds you with the theme. Then, of course, the physical aspect of the ride is quite unique and features some of the most exhilarating thrills in any theme park ride - sustained G-forces, liftoff, and the brief period of weightlessness.

The ride itself is very stimulating for the imagination because it basically encourages you to play astronaut. I would not call Mission: Space an interactive ride. But, when you consider the buttons that perform guests' "jobs", the ones that just make sounds, and the physical thrills, it's clear that M:S is not a passive experience. With only four people in the cabin, guests feel more comfortable acting out, which happens surprisingly often in my experience. Guests spontaneously creating their own scenes without realizing it adds another layer to whole experience. Any ride that engages the imagination so actively is a winner.

I guess it is perspective. I just don't see that detail that you speak of.

 

[Enchantâmes]

I guess it is perspective. I just don't see that detail that you speak of.

I don't see it either. :wave:

 

[Thrill Seeker]

Happy Birthday to my old attraction!

 

[montyz81]

One thing I didn't tell everyone, I actually watched Martin's video on my Samsung 3D TV. You can convert from 2D to 3D. It definitely enhanced the experience.