What do you think about Mission: Space & Test Track

[chimike]

Mission Space:

Is it unique? Is it immersive?

Unique: It's not. It's the follow-up to CyberSpace Mountain, using common simulator technology fused with technology that had not been meant for public recreation. The story, pre-show, post-show are very, very, common and over-used. A Virtual Reality Simulator Attraction is an outdated and a short-term way to present an attraction. The ride is not very unique in any capacity other than SOME of the aspects present with the technology.

Star Tours, Mission to Mars, Flight to the Moon, Rocket to the Moon all are examples of this story having already been used. An attraction where something goes tErRiBlY wrong or an attraction that is a "Training" mission. Not a very unique plot.

Virtual Reality ... Soarin', Star Tours, Body Wars, Cyberspace Mountain, dozens of other park's knock-off rides. Not a very unique storytelling device.

Immersive: This attraction does not follow the principles WED/WDI have adhered by in their past creations. It is not immersive. The story is weak, the transition at load is poor, the transition at unload is horrendous. Does the story take place in the now or in the future? How are we transported to the future? How do we come back to present day? If we stay in present day, why is this attraction in an area referred to as Future World? If we stay in present day, is this a realistic activity?

Most of the immersion depends on Virtual Reality. The ride system is exposed for crikes sake!!!! The queue is bare-bones with exposed ceilings.

The attraction M:S replaced, Horizons was not only unique and immersive, but it allowed the rider to experience a progression through the story with corresponding physical movement from point A to point Z.

It explained the story, the reason for the story, and how the journey is taking place from past to present to future. Everybody could ride it. It had it's own soundtrack that could specifically be identified with it [the attraction]. It's queue was appropriately themed. It offered a gimmick in the ride-experience that had never been attempted, even in a more primitive fashion. It offered a significant ride time with a minimized wait.

For all the reasons I felt Horizons succeeded, M:S fails.

I used to say that TestTrack was the biggest waste of money since Disney's WWoS. I thought TestTrack was the worst improvement to an attraction area in the history of Disney Theme Parks. I find the ride utterly unimaginative and mundane. It did not live up to Disney's promise through PR efforts prior to it's opening. It replaced an attraction that I hold in high esteem. An attraction that had charm, imagination, and whimsy in it. Produced by legendary Disney artists.

Which brings me to my point,

With all that said regarding my view on TestTrack, I still find it to be a better attraction offering than Mission: Space. By stating that I like TestTrack better than Mission Space I felt I would be very distinctive in my displeasure towards it. I suppose I should have gone into a little detail.

The reason I find TestTrack to be a better attraction is because it DOES exist in a semi-realized environment. It does not depend on a handful of Circuit City displays. More importantly, it is a physical, linear journey through the Imagineer's attempt at story. You have a start and finish that reconcile one's physical and mental record of the experience.

For these fundamental reasons alone, TestTrack is a superior offering.

I believe the General Public proves my point in practice. The four times that I have visited Future World during peak hours, Test Track had such a larger standby wait and FP demand than M:S, that it eclipsed Mission: Space's higher capacity.

The public seems to favor TestTrack. I believe some of my principals are factors in such a preference. Well and, that TestTrack is more family-friendly

I feel that Mission: Space is two things:

I. It will have a very low ridership repeatability, putting Disney's and Compaq/HP's investment into question

II. It offers a weak attraction experience because it either lacks or violates a number of Disney design fundamentals.

One of the reasons that I associate it with those two points is that it is a Virtual Ride Experience. Like other rides such a Soarin', Body Wars, Star Tours, Mission to Mars, Flight to the Moon, & Rocket to the Moon, the ride offers a simulated environment and a simulated movement while physically never leaving to go anywhere. There is no physical journey from A to B to C that matches the journey your brain is perceiving. Even a ride with a high thrill level - the thrills are 'simulated' to an extent.

What would you rather ride, Cyberspace Mountain or Space Mountain? Even with the inversions on Cyberspace Mountain, most people would say Space Mountain.

They are glorified cycle rides not circuit rides.

To further prove this, it has been more rollercoaster enthusiasts than Disney fans who I have seen be negative on Mission: Space. Why? Because those people have a long track record of experiencing real thrill. They are accustomed to starting at the station and physically matching their movement in the ride vehicle with their perceived interpretations of thrill, while moving through the circuit to the unload area.

Mission: Space presents the entire journey on a screen placed in front of the riders face. The rider embarks and disembarks in the same spot, never leaving the building. Rides like this grow old fast, and 150 million dollars should not be spent on them. In the old days, Disney at least offered a changeout for Rocket-Flight-Mission. Star Tours and Body Wars were not so lucky. The company wouldn't even spring for a new film upon bringing Soarin' to the East.

Another example is Spiderman at IOA. This attraction is the best of both worlds. It offers it's riders real physical, linear progress through the story being presented, and it uses the best aspects of Virtual Ride Entertainment to plus the real show sets and real show effects. A lot of the action is virtual, but every rider realizes that they are moving from room A to room B to room C, matching what is being conveyed to them mentally.

I really do believe that this cycle v. circuit effect affects riders' opinions subconsciously. I think it affects their long-term interest in the attraction.

This is also why I feel TestTrack is a better offering (which says a lot). Why TestTrack has longer lines. At least in TestTrack you have the movement along a circuit. The thrills (excuse the use of the word) aren't artificial.

I feel confident that as a 'nay-sayer' I will be validated 5 years from now when Mission: Space is old hat for the General Public and Expedition Everest is still packing them in (Even comparing EE 7 years instead of 5).

It's the same thing as how many past critics feel validated on their long-held beliefs regarding Eisner, Disney Animation, DCA, etc.

I would just say that an opinion that a ride is enjoyable is great, but it doesn't influence the history of Disney's design - the evolution of Disney's standards and concepts. There are still hard, concrete examples present today of the advancement of Disney's creativity through the years.

It takes perspective through either witnessing or studying those real examples to see how the current offerings compare.

An opinion is fine and good, but it doesn't change reality. It doesn't help one forecast the future. It doesn't help one understand the past. Disney needs decision makers who hold a strong perspective, not just opinions.

There is strong evidence that thrills encountered along a circuit, experienced as a linear progression throughout the surrounding environment are more effective in obtaining repetitive and long-lasting ridership.

In short, People dig them more.

I would just say that an opinion that a ride is enjoyable is great, but it doesn't influence the history of Disney's design - the evolution of Disney's standards and concepts. There are still hard, concrete examples present today of the advancement of Disney's creativity through the years.

It takes perspective through either witnessing or studying those real examples to see how the current offerings compare.

An opinion is fine and good, but it doesn't change reality. It doesn't help one forecast the future. It doesn't help one understand the past.

The problem recently is that way too much focus has been spent on an addition's infrastructure. Especially after ToT and Indy, the decision makers at WDI have felt that ride systems were the distinctive value proposition in an attraction.

By infrastructure I mean that they put the emphasis on either technology, machinery, and/or exterior architecture.

I would say that infrastructure is very minor to:

1) Story

2) Environments, and the transitions between them

A very likely correlation can be drawn on why Disney Feature Animation has suffered while Pixar Animation has succeeded.

Disney as a company has become way to reliant on technology and art for technology's sake. In all lines of business. At WDW, Destination Disney is a perfect example.

Where as, Pixar has focused on Story, Story, Story. They have also emboldened their success by adding a strong sense of environment with A Bug's Life and Finding Nemo.

This all brings me back to my point. For a ride to be successful and for it to enter the Disney canon, it needs to go back to fundamentals.

WDI needs to focus and they need to bring story and environment back to the table.

The rides that infuse story (think character development, conflict, plot; not "Happily Ever After") and environment together are always the rides that reap wild popularity.

POTC, HM, Fantasyland Dark rides, Splash Mountain, JII, Indy, Spiderman, even to a lesser extent, ToT.

It's not about a different era, it's not about the Nine Old Men (Yet they were the pioneers of this formula), it's about having an organization filled with enablers who do "get it". There are folks at the Mouse who do, but they are powerless or are risk averse.

There needs to be a call to action, and I think with Eisner now on his own "rendezvous with destiny", we might have some happy days on the horizon.

Right now it is still pretty grim, but I do think these fundamentals will come back. I consider the last 10 years the Dark Ages, and now, the Renaissance is just around the corner.

But to get back to Mission: Space,

A ride system an attraction does not make.

There is no unique environment, backstory, character, visual setting, conflict, plot, and virtual conveyance for Mission: Space. It's uniqueness solely lies in it's ride system.

I hope to God the same Imagineer team doesn't screw up Disneyland's Space Mountain Queue.

In all Future World attractions it is told specifically to you that you are traveling back or into time. Seas Preshow, UoE Theater I, Spaceship Earth accent/decent, Horizons on-board audio. Where in Mission: Space does one understand that they have made the 'jump' to the future? All the other Future World attractions feel they need to be rather obvious about it.

So TestTrack is a bad attraction for many of the reasons others have listed and M:S is even a worse attraction, in my opinion, for what I just outlined.

Your thoughts?

[Virtua Tennis]

If you needed to get that out of your system, theres a whole nother topic talking about making a new one in which discussion is in another one doesn't make any sense...if it needed to be split a mod would custom do that.

[chimike]

If you needed to get that out of your system, theres a whole nother topic talking about making a new one in which discussion is in another one doesn't make any sense...if it needed to be split a mod would custom do that.

MY GOODNESS!!

I wrote all of that, and all you can respond with is message board protocol? Something I find humorous since I've been posting to FidoNet and then Usenet since 1990.

Is this a board about theme parks and rides or a board about how to post in a message board? I have never met soo many people who pride themselves on being the administrators of a board, when they aren't. It's like a bunch of Barney Fife's running around.

When you're ready to discuss my post and the topic, I will be waiting.

[SFGAMkid]

Epcot has always been the "non-amusing" park when it came to rides/thrills. I've seen a lot of different tv shows that talked about the fact that no one wanted to go to Epcot to be "Educated" by walking through a building and looking at stuff or sitting in a theatre watching a movie.

That's when the Imagineers stepped in and had to change things.

For instance, many people thought The World of Motion (now Test Track) was losing it's touch, and that it no longer delivered a thrill. That's when the team contacted GM and decided that they needed a change, and hence...Test Track was born.

I don't know much about M:S but I'm sure it pratically has the same type of story behind it.

Heck, the plans were in to change Spaceship Earth a few years ago becuase that was not providing what was needed either! I don't know if this is still under planning.

So in the end, the parks don't care about what one individual thinks, they make decisions based on a majority. You and others may think that they spent a worthless amount of money on two attractions, but most people tend to enjoy.

Eventually, those attractions will become old, and unthrilling and then Disney will start back at the beginning replacing them once again. That's how the system works.

[Mr. D.T.]

I loved World of Motion!

I think the end of Spaceship Earth could use an update, and the entire thing could be repainted.

I'd like to try out M:S, but Horizons was too good of a ride to be torn down.

[chimike]

Epcot has always been the "non-amusing" park when it came to rides/thrills. I've seen a lot of different tv shows that talked about the fact that no one wanted to go to Epcot to be "Educated" by walking through a building and looking at stuff or sitting in a theatre watching a movie.

For the last 22 years it has consistently been the #2 or #3 visited park in the country.

What TV shows have talked about no one wanting to go to EPCOT? The Simpsons? That's satire.

What was your opinion rather then some phantom TV show's commentary? Where you there pre-1994? Did you sit in a 60 minute wait for The Living Seas?

Talking about a park in generalities does not cast favor or disfavor on an attraction. Especially a park the size of EPCOT. Even when FW was basically desolate with Test Track & Horizons both shut down, the park succeeded simply off the popularity of World Showcase and Illuminations

That's when the Imagineers stepped in and had to change things.

For instance, many people thought The World of Motion (now Test Track) was losing it's touch, and that it no longer delivered a thrill. That's when the team contacted GM and decided that they needed a change, and hence...Test Track was born.

O.K. Game over

This tells me right now that your information is faulty. GM insisted on the change/update.

I don't know much about M:S but I'm sure it practically has the same type of story behind it.

JUST WHEN it seems it couldn't get worse, it does! For a site that discourages rumor, there sure a lot of fantasies and ""novice experts"" on here.

The stories are completely different. Compaq/HP never had sponsored a stand-alone attraction at a Disney park. There was no request for an update of a sponsor pavilion. GE sponsored Horizons and dropped their sponsorship years before Horizons finally shut-down. There were a number of reasons Horizons shut it doors and only a fraction of them dealt with guest demand.

Originally the "Space" pavilion was going to be housed in a separate area and had nothing to do with Horizon's footprint.

Heck, the plans were in to change Spaceship Earth a few years ago because that was not providing what was needed either! I don't know if this is still under planning.

There has been two different times where there were proposals to change Spaceship Earth. The last one was part of an overall blue-sky concept called Project: Gemini. There are now some who believe the blue sky idea was a lot of fabrication intended more for internal corporate maneuvers then for practical development. The overall project did encompass and include plans that WERE planned and now ARE occurring like Soarin'. The SSE rumor was one that was more lofty and now even more unrealistic. Don't expect to see SSE completely disappear for a while. Yet, some things could be changing due to AT&T pulling out as a sponsor. Once again, the sponsor has more to do with all of these issues more then anything else.

So in the end, the parks don't care about what one individual thinks, they make decisions based on a majority. You and others may think that they spent a worthless amount of money on two attractions, but most people tend to enjoy.

They make decisions based on money. Not the majority or the minority. If they simply made decisions based on the majority they wouldn't have earlier park closings, shuttered attractions, price increases, and additions that have suffered budget-cuts; like Mission:Space, DCA, DL's Pooh, DL's Tomorrowland, and what some fear will occur to portions of Expedition Everest.

A lot of people, Disney fan and non-Disney fan, have expressed disappointment with Mission: Space. Others who have even enjoyed it have been wheel-chaired off to first aid shorty after riding it. Sometimes cast members operating the attraction have to be pulled to assist the ill guest over to First Aid. It's a questionable ride with a questionable longevity when it comes to appeal and market draw.

Eventually, those attractions will become old, and unthrilling and then Disney will start back at the beginning replacing them once again. That's how the system works.

At a final ticket price of under $150 million dollars, and with Disney's depreciation schedules and sponsorship contract, the ride needs to at least last 10 years. It should be a 20 year ride, minimum. Maybe playing Rollercoaster Tycoon it is easy to be so cavalier with changing out theme park rides, but in the real world a $150 million dollar attraction is more then the value of most theme parks.

20 years from now I wonder which ride will have a better appeal, a 58 year old POTC or a 20 year old Mission: Space.

[SFGAMkid]

Actually to tell you a few things....

The tv show was on the travel channel over the summer and I DO have it on tape if you really wanted to know, so don't even get started with me there!

Secondly, you want peoples' opinions on what they think, and then you go and remark on everything that you thought was wrong. So what if they spent $150 million!?! If the attraction is not drawing the crowds, it obviously isn't going to stay and become a money waster!

Think about Alien Encounter at MK. I know it wasn't there that long and they spent quite a sum of $$$ on the thing, only to have it replaced.

Edit: So basically, that was what I "Think" about M:S and TT. Becuase that was in the name of the topic: "What do you THINK about M:S and TT"

[chimike]

Actually to tell you a few things....

The tv show was on the travel channel over the summer and I DO have it on tape if you really wanted to know, so don't even get started with me there!

I have seen every Lightship Production Disney show that has aired on Travel Channel. Nowhere during the show did they even allude to your statements, and they certainly didn’t ever state, as you did, “that it [WoM] no longer delivered a thrill.”

World of Motion was never thrilling. Your statements allow for an obvious picture.

If anything the only comments that have come from any of the shows resembled my earlier statement on here. Which is, in 1994, Disney had came to the apparent conclusion that futurism was dead among the populous. They began changes that turned the park’s over-riding theme to Discovery. That would be their new angle and thrill rides were the popular ride conveyance du jour.

They never stated that attraction A or attraction F was unpopular.

All of this said, it doesn’t discredit any of my original points in post #1 regarding Ride Design and Design Appeal theory.

Secondly, you want peoples' opinions on what they think, and then you go and remark on everything that you thought was wrong.

Exactly. I started a discussion. I invited other people to add to the discussion (even though it is inferred). Other people added to the discussion. I responded to those people, furthering the discussion. Amazing that you participate in this ritualistic concept, yet you seem to fail to fully grasp it’s nature.

So what if they spent $150 million!?! If the attraction is not drawing the crowds, it obviously isn't going to stay and become a money waster!

Whoa! I was right about Rollercoaster Tycoon, eh! I thought I was simply making a facetious, over-reactionary observation. How right I was.

Next thing I’ll hear is that shareholders don’t care if the parks make an operating profit.

Think about Alien Encounter at MK. I know it wasn't there that long and they spent quite a sum of $$$ on the thing, only to have it replaced.

As friendly advise, do with it what you will, I would be careful with the “I know” statements in situations like these.

First, Alien Encounter was there for a couple months shy of a decade. It did see a period of refurbishment shortly after it opened so to be technical, 9 years of operation. That is a long time. DCA’s Superstar Limo and Walt’s Stagecoaches lasted 15% as long. Those would be considered short-lived attractions.

Second, everything that costs something is “quite a sum”

Is 2+2 … “quite a sum”

Is 103838+84984983 … “quite a sum”

-and-

$$$ .. what is that in relation to?

Is $$$ representative of $18 or is it representative of $18 million dollars? Is it simply $+$+$, being “quite a sum” of 3 dollars?

You make it hard to issue a counter-point when you use such a vague statement. But, try as I might, I will make do. So,

>>…and they spent quite a sum of $$$ on the thing, only to have it replaced.<<

They didn’t spend relatively much money to open AE. The theater and show space was already there from a past attraction. The same preshow rooms were used. By using Alien Encounter’s space for Stitch’s Great Escape, they continued on the cost savings by reusing the same infrastructure that dates back to 1971’s Flight to the Moon. Compared to a Mission: Space the cost for both AE and Stitch resembles a tiny sliver.

So I have “thought” about AE, as requested, but I still can’t find your point. Please elaborate.

Edit: So basically, that was what I "Think" about M:S and TT. Because that was in the name of the topic: "What do you THINK about M:S and TT"

Whaaaa?

I have yet to read an opinion, stated by you, regarding what you think about the Mission: Space attraction or the TestTrack attraction. All I have seen are incorrect generalities and vague points of contention. Have you been on these rides even? If you have, did you enjoy them? Where they the best rides you have been on? Why? Did you dislike anything? What, in your opinion would improve the ride? Is the ride comparable to another ride? Do you think the ride supports Disney’s principles of architecture of reassurance?

[Coasterman Jro]

One simple point, if I may... Can any of you honestly say that Test Track seems like it was worth $100million?

[RedOne3781]

I rode Mission Space for the first time last week. I typically don't really like simulated (sp?) rides. But I kinda liked this one. While yes, I do agree that the film they used was kinda lame, the physical effect the ride had was cool. I didn't get sick, like some people who told me about the ride suggested I might. But I did get a little dizzy, and was pushed back into my seat more than once. To me the ride as a whole was just "eh". Something I did once, and might not do again. But I don't think it was totally horrible. For an EPCOT ride, it was intense...lol.

[rct2wizard360]

Let's Face it people, Before Test Track and Mission Space, that park was just boring. Those "Imagineers" are amazing.

[sixflagsguy5]

Wow all of you have big posts. I like test track i have never been on mission space.

[Sedir]

Test Track was fun yet it always has a huge line. Onetime the fast lane line was even 45 min. although that probably was because it was like 11:30 on New Years Eve.

Mission Space was being built there when I was there so all I saw was the outside. But my friend went on it and said he had a blast. He said something about you choose jobs and actually use controls.

[Soxman]

Let's Face it people, Before Test Track and Mission Space, that park was just boring. Those "Imagineers" are amazing.

The same Imagineers that took a very good Imagination pavillion and took out figment. They realized what a huge mistake they made and rushed him back into the ride. The original version is still far superior. Another great example of Imagineers and Disney spending money just to say they spent the money.

I would hope that you visited the park before Test Track and Mission Space. I would never call the park boring. Epcot is the most beautiful park I have ever been to. World Showcase with Illuminations is a park in itself. World of Motion, Horizons, The Living Seas, Imagination, Spaceship Earth, The Land, Universe of Energy, and Wonders of Life could keep anyone busy all day. There was so much to do and so much to see. It was never ment to be a thrill park, but a true theme park. When it was just Magic Kingdom and Epcot the resort offered two very different parks for different people. Adults could go to Epcot and have a blast with the different shows and restaurants. Kids of course enjoy the MK with the mouse.

I do not agree with the changes that have happened to the park, but I see where Disney is coming from in order to compete with Universal. I just wish they would have budgeted their money more wisely. Anyway I do not consider Epcot ever to have been boring.

[Virtua Tennis]

Epcot was definitly not boring before Test Track and Mission Space. Theres so much to do there I wish I had time to do more my last visit, also one of THE nicest parks i've been to, nice and spread out, beutifully landscaped and themed, and SE's Geosphere is perhaps the most visually 'awesome' figure i've ever seen. While it is a nice beutiful, elaboratley themed park, it did need some larger e-tickets to somewhat redefine the park because people were bored of it, a lot of teenagers who arn't entertained by The Land needed to be attained to to keep those retarted finger turnstyle things turning.

Now while Mission Space did not really impress me, I thaught it was a good ride. I don't find anything wrong with Disney taking a major step in intense thrill rides to compete with the cross-town opponents. However, it is very short and has some nice intense spots, other than that it had barely any other movement, if it had some nice laterals mixed in there with some better effects and maybe a little longer, i'd like it better. It has a great soundtrack though.
/\ Don't jump on me for saying it's the best ride in the world, cause it could definitley use some improving.

Now Test Track, I think, is an awesome ride. The queueing has some awesome theming, the ride is not a let down. When all of it's working it's one of my favorite rides. Going through all the car tests is entertaining and the finally is terrific....World of Motion was dated, not entertaining, and not popular. Replacing it with a ride that's very modern, entertaining, and popular doesn't seem so bad to me. The only thing I don't like about is how it lets off into a showroom .

One simple point, if I may... Can any of you honestly say that Test Track seems like it was worth $100million?

Well the fact that it almost always has an hour line even when the rest of the park is dead, and people like it, yes.

MY GOODNESS!!

I wrote all of that, and all you can respond with is message board protocol? Something I find humorous since I've been posting to FidoNet and then Usenet since 1990.

Is this a board about theme parks and rides or a board about how to post in a message board? I have never met soo many people who pride themselves on being the administrators of a board, when they aren't. It's like a bunch of Barney Fife's running around.

When you're ready to discuss my post and the topic, I will be waiting.

I don't quite understand why you would make a new topic when the exact same argument is taking place in a active topic.

Does the story take place in the now or in the future? How are we transported to the future? How do we come back to present day?

Oh really? How does Cranium Command take you to the future? How does Honey I Shrunk the Audience take you to the future? Cranium Command makes you an adolescent boy, HISTA shrinks you, just like Test Track sends you in a test car throgh a series of automobile tests and Mission Space sends you to Mars, they don't send you to the future then bring you back.

It was never ment to be a thrill park, but a true theme park.

I understand what your trying to say, but it needed some major thrill rides to keep people coming instead of scratching a day at Epcot for a day at IOA.....Mission Space opens peoples eyes, no questions about that.

[mnel18]

Epcot is defenatly not a boring park. There is so much to see and do. I have yet to find ANY themed area in any park even close to the detail put into the World Showcase. Yes I do love test track and Mission Space. They are well thought rides and something unique in my opinion.

[Sedir]

Don't forget about the "hidden" rides in some of the places in the world showcase.

There's the one that's kind of like small world and another one where you go down drops frontwards and backwards.

[twixmix0303]

Is it water ride? I went on one in, I think, Norway that was similar to Pirates, but without all the effects.

[Mr. D.T.]

The ride has plenty of effects, but I still don't understand why trolls 'cast a spell on you'. It's really hard to understand the point on both the rides. But I still like them. But they don't hold a candle to the late WOM and Horizons. But not even the best classics last forever.

[twixmix0303]

Yeah, I remember the trolls.