Mission Space article

[KNWVIKING]

"Chevy doesn't make schoolbusses for charity. There's is a cost for each bus which comes out of the taxes you pay. "

Tell me, when was they last time you saw a school bus with a Chevy emblem on the front of it. That's how profitable the school bus business is.

 

[Bob O]

Raidermatt-Disney set out to make a totally unique attraction and to simulate space flight, and that cant be done properly or be made to be realistic if the attraction would be a lame ride. Space travel means g forces and the like and not a ride like Haunted Mansion(which is a great ride). if made to be realistic it needs the elements to do so and trying to make it so everyone can ride would make it a waste as all people cant handle the effects of space travel.

 

[Another Voice]

“Space travel means g forces”

Not in the least –

Space travel is standing at the base of volcano four times the height of Mt. Everest, climbing down the side of a canyon that would stretch clear across the U.S., flying through a hurricane the size of three Earths.

Space travel is a world where it rains frozen natural gas, another where the volcanoes erupt with water ice and another where the air is so hot the rocks are soft to the touch.

Space travel is digging through a long dried river bed on a distant world hoping to find a fossil, or chipping through three miles of ice to see if anything swims among the thermal vents below, or starring deep into the sky at a billion stars just like our own sun and wondering who – or what – is gazing back.

Space travel is looking at a tiny blue dot suspended in space and finally understanding how special we are in the Universe.

Spend ten minutes browsing through a book of Voyager, Hubble or Pathfinder photos and you will see sights that are beyond anything the human mind can dream up. They are the answers to questions people have been asking for tens of thousands of years, and will provide mysteries for the next ten thousand.

But what is the most astounding thing of all is how an entire universe of wonders can be reduced by shallow imagination and crass greed into nothing more than a three minute challenge to avoid blowing chunks over the tourist sitting next to you.

 

[Another Voice]

This line is spoken about every 45 seconds here in Hollywood – I would have made something good if you had just giving me the money.

Imagination and talent are the key factors in creating something “magical”. Money is simply a tool used to build it. Like all tools they have to be skillfully used and even the most expensive set doesn’t guarantee a good final product. This reminds me too much of all the hype surrounding the latest Hollywood Mega Hit – somehow we’re just supposed to be impressed by how much money they spent and not concern ourselves about if it’s any good or not.

So the answer is C) The focus of this project seems to on an unproven ride system whose main purpose is to incite motion-induced nausea instead of trying to invoke the awe and wonder of the Universe. The later could have been created for the same (or even less) money than the former and it definitely would have been more “magical”.

It goes back to what Disney does best. A lot of people had built boat rides before, Disney could created ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’. Haunted houses had been the staple of carnivals for a century; Disney created ‘The Haunted Mansion’. The chief difference is that Disney produced thrills for the imagination; the others built thrills for the stomach.

But creating real magic, not the marketing plug line “I say it is because I’ve copyrighted the word” type, is difficult to do. Disney right now simply refuses to even try. Taking a thrill ride and tacking on a simple storyline (“oohhh – a meteor storm!!!”) isn’t it. Yea, ‘Mission: Space’ is going to be a good kick in the pants. But it won’t be what it should have been no matter how much money they spend.

It’s not the ride itself I’m disappointed in. I’m saddened that Disney no longer strives to achieve greatness anymore. I’m tired of all their excuses, I’m tired of all the economic charts, I’m tired of all the marketing used in place of creativity. Most of all, I’m tired of having to accept less than their best because they are afraid.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Wow AV - did you go off the Prozac . (Although I will admit going off the meds has made you wonderfully philosophical ).

It is amazing how much negativity this thread contains for a $100+ million attraction that has yet to open. If this is the kind of prevailing thought out there they better infuse the water supply with Prozac to prevent the general population from jumping into the vastness of Space that exists off the edge of your nearest high rise building . Sheesh .

I'll wait until the attraction opens to assess whether it is a worthy Disney effort, or a tribute to Disney's so called ability to exhibit "shallow imagination and crass greed".

My goodness .

 

[Bstanley]

I wonder how much M:S actually cost?

The $100M number that gets tossed around certainly isn't right. That was simply the 'three year commitment' that Compaq made to advertise on 'Walt Disney Internet Group' websites.

 

[airlarry!]

Someone earlier asked me (or everyone) if they needed to spend $300 million to make a great attraction.

Who cares? (I'm saying this nicely.)

I couldn't care less how much they spend...did they create a story? Did they create an adventure?

If Scoop is right, and they spent $170 million on this thing, and it's a one-time experience with no story or wonder, then it was a collossal waste.

All of my favorite attractions have storylines to them. Even Space Mountain when it opened was designed to give the 70s tourist what it would feel like to 'visit' a 'space port' ready to blast off on a trip as if it were as easy as buying a Greyhound bus ticket.

I will absolutely, completely, wait until I actually ride this thing before I pass a judgment on the project. But, it is still fair of us Disnoids to wonder if this thing is going to have some heart in it.

Scoop, maybe it's my fault for paying so close attention to the rumors on this thing. We were first told years ago that we were looking at the Space Pavilion, where you would be rocketed away on a simulated version of a space trip to a space station/colony. If you didn't want the g-forces, you could go 'up' a different way. Either way, when you got there, there was to be a pavilion-type thing...think Living Seas here with a Space theme.

Man, I wanted to ride that thing the day it was announced...so maybe its my fault for believing that Imagineers still have the touch and the backing from MGT to go crazy with their ideas and execute them in a fashion that will knock my socks off.

Or maybe it's ME's fault.

 

[Bob O]

Space travel is going into a vehicle and launched into space and it would be idiotic to not have as part of the attraction a simulation of whatspace travel is and what a launch entails. And when people are launched into space, be it an Apollo mission or a space shuttle mission it does include G forces and to not have them would take away any simulation of what space travel is. Space travelisnt just sitting on a couch watching tv as that isnt what takes place during a launch. If you want to show pictures from Hubble thats fine, but to not include a luanch would make the attraction a total lame joke!!

 

[Another Voice]

No, not drugs (despite the proximity to Hollywood), just a growing impatience with excuses. Most of my job consists of listening to people whine about “with $10 million more I create my masterpiece!!!”. In reality, the extra money would just let them make more dreen instead of improve anything. Budget is simply an obstacle that needs to be overcome with talent, skill and imagination. It’s certainly isn’t a substitute despite what everyone wants to believe.

I expect that kind of attitude from a twenty-four year old film school grad. But coming from Disney, it’s unprofessional (to say the least) and is a sign that something is fundamental wrong. The “but they worked so hard on it” bit is fine when you’re watching the third grade school pageant, but it’s flat out pathetic when it has to justify something a multi-billion entertainment company has created.

Disney, and its ever-praising fans, claim that The Company is so innovative, so astounding, so wonderful, so gosh durn magical® - yet all we ever hear are a string of reasons why this couldn’t happen, or why we just have to accept what we got, or told to wait and it get better some day. Somehow the burden is on me to lower my expectations to match what the company decides to present. Call me an old fashioned idiot, but any company has to earn my money; I don’t owe then anything.

I’m not dazzled because someone dropped $150 million on ‘Mission: Space’ (which by the way is about what Disney dropped on ‘Pearl Harbor’ or what Miramax dropped on ‘Gangs of New York’ or is dropping on ‘Pirates – The Movie’ just to give you some perspective). Again – it’s what is done with the money. A $20 million ‘Soaring’ clone swooping through the canyons of Mars, the ice volcanoes of Miranda, buffeted by the storms on Jupiter or the oceans of Io could have been more magical than ten times the money if the chief thrill is hearing “push the button – Mabel’s goin’ ta hurl!!”

Mr O. - ask a shuttle astronaut which is the more amazing thing, the launch or staring out the window down at Earth.

 

[Bob O]

AV, but you dont get the view without the launch into space so how can you have a ride based on space travel without launching into spcae and getting their so you can lookdown on earth????
Now if they want a show showing just space pitcures you could go to a planterium and see that, which would do little to encourgae people to come to disney and spend thousands of dollars.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Call me an old fashioned idiot, but any company has to earn my money

Sure they do. However, because you don't feel Disney is earning your money, for your own personal reasons, doesn't mean that Disney isn't earning other people's money. Different strokes for different folks.

AV, but you dont get the view without the launch into space so how can you have a ride based on space travel without launching into spcae and getting their so you can lookdown on earth????

There are a few ways you can look at this whole question. You could look at the launch and the view as one combined story, you could look at the launch as a seperate story, or you could look at the view as a seperate story. Disney will tell one of those stories, and it appears it will be the launch story.

AV, are you saying they can't make this (as Matt would say ) a COMPELLING story? If you are, what is your basis? Personal preference? Something else? It would be great if Disney put on the combined story/show and included both, but who ever said they had to do both? So long as they tell a good story with the launch can they really be faulted for not telling the combined story? With that logic it seems you would never be happy with anything, as you could always add something more. That seems rather unrealistic and unfair. Really, it appears you have decided that the overpriced direction Disney chose for M:S will be devoid of COMPELLING story. Is there more you can tell us to give some backing to this opinion?

 

[raidermatt]

Unforunately, when hair-brained rumors are tossed about as if they were once the final plan, then, sure, someone's expectation may not be met---even if the actual result tells a compelling story.

What exactly was it about what Larry heard that was hair-brained?

Rumors shouldn't be the basis for defining whether an attraction meets expectations

I don't think anybody is using a rumor to define their expectations. At least not in this thread. Our expectations have been set by what we have seen and experienced from Disney in the past. Larry's point was that the original rumor met that expectation, and the new one is questionable.

AV, but you dont get the view without the launch into space so how can you have a ride based on space travel without launching into spcae and getting their so you can lookdown on earth????

Bob, you can launch without having a "realistic" launch and the associated g's (which still won't be anything close to realistic anyway). AV's point is that spending an extra $75 million on a ride mechanism to produce a watered down physical feeling of a launch does very little to promote the story and adventure of the attraction.

AV, are you saying they can't make this (as Matt would say ) a COMPELLING story?

I don't think he's saying they CAN'T, but rather they AREN'T.

So long as they tell a good story with the launch can they really be faulted for not telling the combined story?

I guess it depends on who you ask. If somebody can't handle the physical thrill of the attraction, and that's the only way to experience the story, they might find some fault with it.

But as Scoop said, that's another discussion, which we have had before...

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

Rumors should be used to get a feel for an attraction, it's general story, ride mech, opening, etc. Rumors shouldn't be the basis for defining whether an attraction meets expectations because, quite often, the rumored attraction was never more than someone's misguided extrapolation of a small piece of incomplete info or, worse yet, someone's own attempt at playing "Imagineer for a Day" and "CEO for a Day" all at once...

Actually, you shouldn't use rumors as a basis for expectations at all. The only basis for one's expectations should be what one has come to expect from Disney.

If the first "Disney's newest ride" you ever rode was Rock 'n' Roller Coaster, you're going to have different expectations than if you were one of those people who couldn't wait to ride the newly installed Pirates of the Caribbean.

Mission:Space, no matter how much I may one day enjoy a ride on it, is already disappointing to me in several ways; all having to do with the business methods by which it has thus far been executed. It is these business methods upon which I believe rest the future of the company; much more than upon how well a self-selected sample agree they enjoy the Mega:Spinner.

Bad business decisions about AK were not covered up by superlative detail work from the Imagineers whose jobs hadn't been out-sourced into oblivion; at least not "covered up" in any financial sense of the term.

From my perspective (now there's a five-ball if I ever saw one), the processes that gave us Animal Kingdom and Dino-Rama are at work once again. As far as the future of this one ride goes, that might be encouraging: something they throw at the parks will have to stick, in an economically meaningful way, sooner or later. But as a long term way of running what was once the envy of a few industries, it just seems like a really bad, and really cheap, way to do things.

And let's talk about "cheap," as it's probably going to be a lightning rod, anyway. Mission:Space's final cost will be divided into two checks; one to the Imagineers and one to ETC.

Guess who gets the big check, and guess who gets the small check. However much the ride _really_ ends up costing, the Lion's Share is going to ETC (not to mention the TCO Lion's Share ETC will get for the spare parts and non-warranty service).

'Scoop, I don't mean to be knocking your sources with all this. In a way, I'm really on their side: it sucks that there's so much of the budget going outside of the company, instead of investing in their own resources. I'm quite sure WDW Imagineers do a great job with what they're given.

That doesn't change some things: epidemic out-sourcing is not the way to maintain (much less rebuild) a brand identity as cherished as Disney's. Sorry I seem to blur threads so badly all the time, but Mission:Space, already, by virtue of the methods of its conception and birthing, does not add to my hopes for the future of Disney.

I do reserve judgement of the ride's entertainment value until after the experience.

An illegitimate child raised in squalor might turn out to be a great person. That doesn't make "out-of-wedlock, single-parent, poverty level family" a highly recommended childhood environment, in general.

Disney just keeps cranking out those poor *******s...

-WFH

 

[curtisl]

Gee, I seem to remember being shrunk to the size of a molecule and launched into "Inner Space" without spending several millions and feeling like hurling afterwards. I also remember being in a rocket to Mars and the Moon without any height restrictions and really feeling the g-forces pushing me into my seat. (OK, later I figured out that it was my seat deflating, but that 1st time had me convinced.) Those two rides, which no longer exist, were classics at the time and fully emersive with cool stories and probably didn't cost millions. I was even too scared for a while to go on Inner Space because I was sure I was going to be shrunk to molecule size. Those minature people at the end of the shrinking machine sure had me convinced.

The problem I have with the newest attractions, ToT, RnR, and even Indy to some extent, is that they are over too quickly, and I feel like hurling afterward. Thank goodness Indy has a great queue line that makes up for most of it. I want another great travel to the future attraction that doesn't make me puke. It would be nice if M:S has a gentiler setting too, because I would like to enjoy my time in space.

 

[kpatches]

When is Mission: Space scheduled to open?????????

 

[Another Voice]

The problem isn’t that the launch isn’t a part of “space”, it’s that from Disney’s point of view, it’s the only part of “space”.

The concept of Epcot was that each pavilion would act like a “land” for each topic. Just as Adventureland is just the background for several attractions (i.e., stories) set in the environment, each pavilion would be the background for several means of exploring the topic. Thus you had the multiple attraction ‘Land’, ‘Health’, ‘Motion’, ‘Imagination’ and ‘Seas’ (which lost its planned 15 minute ride-through early in Eisner’s reign). Sure, ‘Energy’ and ‘Horizons’ broke the pattern, but those were the exceptions and to make up for it with the length of their ride-throughs.

Space is an amazing topic. It has so many incredible facets that it was always planned to be a multi-attraction pavilion. This was the main point of Mr. Hill’s article. Against this background the thrill of a rocket ride makes sense – but not as the solitary experience meant to represent everything that “space” stands for. It is, with a difference in cost, much like plopping down only ‘Peter Pan’ and claiming that Fantasyland is complete.

There is a difference between whether ‘Mission: Space’ is going to be a good amusement park ride, and whether it adequately covers and uses the topic in a way up to the standards (and expectations) that people have for Disney. If all you want are G-forces, go on the teacups with someone who has upper body strength. But I want more from a major Disney attraction and the subject matter they’ve chosen than just a cheap physical thrill.

As for “just showing pictures of space”, well Disney found a way to show a five minute travelogue of California that draws more people than a looping rollercoaster, a shot ride and a raft ride combined. Imagination is the single most important element in a Disney attraction. A moderate amount is worth tons of stomach turning spins.


P.S. No one knows right now when 'Mission: Space' will actually open. Most estimates are somewhere in the July 4th to Labor Day range. They want it open before the start of summer to give them some break-in time before the large crowds hit. But they are still working through many technical issues with the ride mechanism.

 

[Bob O]

Raidermatt/AV- If you are going to base a pavillion on space travel/exploration and not include a attraction that does its best to simulate the feeling of the launch would be akin to having built TOT and not include the elevators!!!!! I applaud disney for speding the time/effort/money to hopefully give us a unique attraction found nowhere else. It would be like IOA buidling the Spiderman attraction but instead of spending the time/effort/money to develop the moving vehicles for the ride that they instead put us in peter type ride vehicles!!! And then epect us to be overwhelmed by the experience as somehow its something new!!!
Its seems like may want to dumbdown the experience into a IMAX show and nothing more and call it exciting and breathtaking as we sit in a seat tied to the floor and view photo's on a wall when simliar photo's can easily be found all over the internet and sceine books of space!!!
I went on inner space and Rocket to mars/Moon and while they were OK attractions for their time, they never gave any feeling of having been to the Moon/Mars or having been shrunk even as good as Honey I shrunk the Audience and with today's special effects would be boring for even small kids let alone an adult!!
Now i would agree with AV that the pavilion should include more than just the Missio to Space attraction, but that attraction shouldnt be dumbdowned or reduced but the pavilion should have been built as orginally proposed but was reduced inthe same manner as AK was.
As for Calif Screamin, the joke of a thrill shot ride, both are lame and that is why neither has the ridership they would have if the rides had been built properly. Now if disney had built both rides up to a proper standard the ridership levels would be different(though you do have capacity issues considering the different type of rides and if the rides are being run to their full capacity ie-all trains running on a coaster).
And in regards to the business methods, when im on the ride i will care less about the methods used or who paid for what, all i will be concerned about is how the attraction is and how i like it and hope the lines arent too long so i can ride again. The rest of the BS will be forgotten!!

 

[DisneyKidds]

I don't think he's saying they CAN'T, but rather they AREN'T.

Oh, sorry. I missed the fact that AV has actually seen the attraction, or maybe he was on the design team . AREN'T? How can anyone say that now. Again, what is the basis? That someone might like to see something different? Really, what?

If somebody can't handle the physical thrill of the attraction, and that's the only way to experience the story, they might find some fault with it.

So I guess you and AV have a problems with RnR, ToT, Space, Splash, Thunder - not everyone can handle the physical thrills of these rides, but I don't see them getting knocked, and they are open. M:S hasn't even opened yet. At least wait until the ride opens and you have some experience with it before you condemn it as another Disney misstep.

An illegitimate child raised in squalor might turn out to be a great person.

Again I have to ask, how on Earth can we label M:S as such when you don't have a clue what the overall experience will be?

I am also a bit confused now. Oh so often folks on this board condemn Disney for no longer being cutting edge, not being innovative, not using the latest technology, etc. With M:S it surely appears that they are using cutting edge technology and doing something innovative - something no one has done before. Now that isn't good enough because you might not like the idea or you think they didn't go far enough? We also bash Disney for being cheap, which they certainly aren't with M:S, but now you aren't happy because, in your opinion, they spent the money in the wrong place?

The problem isn’t that the launch isn’t a part of “space”, it’s that from Disney’s point of view, it’s the only part of “space”.

The only part of spce they might have chosen to show.

The concept of Epcot was that each pavilion would act like a “land” for each topic. Just as Adventureland is just the background for several attractions (i.e., stories) set in the environment, each pavilion would be the background for several means of exploring the topic.

I'll give you Land and Life as having true multiple attractions. Imagination has 2 true attractions, with some hands on stuff. Other than that, all the other pavillions (Seas, Motion, Energy, Horizons) are one attraction, with some having a variety of hands on exhibits and such. I would imagine that M:S will have something other than the ride mechanism to put your hands or eyes on. It is a dangerous game when we compare somthing that hasn't opened yet to an idea of a Future World that isn't exactly what we portray it to be.

 

[HB2K]

...(after another 4 inches of ice and the white stuff in Knoxvegas).

Talk to me when you're digging out from a fout and a half of snow

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

As I've mentioned before, whether its through low morale, general malaise, corporate stifling, or less talent than before (or probably a combination of all the above), Imagineering has lost the reputation (with me at least) as a group that can create magical---regardless of, and sometimes even despite, the circumstances.

Imagineering was the heart and soul of Disney. Imagineering was the term created for doing things a different way, for believing in what you are doing, taking risks, and making your product everything you can make it.

If Imagineering is reduced to selecting which ride-vendor is best able to meet the budget restrictions, a great deal of what made Disney Magical, of what raised Disney so far above the competitors, has been eliminated. The systematic destruction of Imagineering parallels my assessment of Disney's likely future. Without Imagineering, Disney just buys the same rides from the same companies that everyone else does.

Imagineering was another word for "doing it Disney."

That's why rumors have no power to formulate expectations; only our personal experiences. If you heard about Mission:Space and based your expectations on your experiences with The Land and The Living Seas, multi-faceted full-family experiences that fascinated as well as entertained, you are likely to be disappointed in both the depth and breadth of Mission:Space. If you based your expectations on Rock 'n' Roller Coaster and Primeval Whirl, lightly themed store-bought ride mechanisms designed to attract a specific demographic, you are unlikely to expect any more than that... and therefore unlikely to be disappointed when that's all you get.

Those diverse expectations represent the sum of all the differences between growing up on rides Imagineered to traditional Disney standards and growing up on rides Disney bought and painted... even though we haven't been able to agree on the semantic boundaries of those individual differences.

While I do not discount the demotivating factors you mention above, I think you do the truth a disservice by failing to mention the enormous personnel cuts in those areas. It's difficult to blame an individual for low morale if he's watched the folks sitting on either side of him get fired. There is also the issue of Imagineering still doing things the way they used to if OLC is buying and not Disney itself. The "Japanese market is different" argument becomes superfluous if you're only looking at the creative side of things: it appears that Imagineering is still capable of stunningly effective products if there is someone who believes in them enough to let them work their Magic.

The state of Imagineering is not some temporary quirk of employee personalities: the state of Imagineering today is a concious choice made by Disney's management.

That's the root of why I don't think Disney will ever recover as a creative force, even though it is almost certain to survive as a legal and financial construct. I don't believe Disney will ever again recognize the long-term value in investing in Imagineering, and therefore I don't believe Disney will ever recover the brand identity, reputation for quality, and audience loyalty that the company once enjoyed.

-WFH