Mission Space Interior Photo

[Another Voice]

My internal conversations have a happy ending more often than not. It's because I work very hard to ensure quality, I try to instill it in those around me, and I seek out only worthwhile projects. My standards are my own, I don't lower them just to suit the moment so I feel better. Stuff like that just makes me feel ill somehow.

As for the "benefit of the doubt", I wonder if those people actually run out to every movie showing the theater. I mean, how you possibly know if a film is interesting unless you see the whole thing first. I mean, isn't saying "I don't want to see that" a horrible pre-judgement? Isn't that unfair to all those people who worked long and hard on the film? Isn't it down right unfair ???

Now if people are free to decide they don't want to drop $7.50 on a flick because the trailer looked bad, they don't like the title or the star doesn't appeal to them - how come we can say an attraction doesn't seem appealling based on how it treats its subject?

People make pre-judgements all the time, it's part of the entertainment business. And if I'm supposed to drop three grand for a trip to WDW (opposed to nine bucks for a movie ticket), I'd say an explaination is the least that WDW owes me.

 

[morphi]

Now, attach a percentage of time to each of those components. Where does "Viewing the Earth (or other heavenly bodies) as only a handful of people EVER have" settle in. Probably low on the list. While it may be a biggie as far as impact is concerned, one can hardly say that all the other items don't represent more of what the astronauts are "actually doing" up there. That is my point.

I think I understand your point now. And I agree that experiencing the extra G-forces and the time gazing at Earth and contemplating the nature of our existence comprises very little of the astronauts' time. However, I must agree with raidermatt when he says:

Most of the time spent being a fireman involves hanging out in the station, drilling and exercising. But what aspects of firefighting do folks want to see in their entertainment?

The only thing I would add is that not only is it obvious what portion of a firefighter's job the audience wants to see in its entertainment (what would the movie "Backdraft" be without the thrill of fighting fires?), but it should be obvious what portion of their job that the general public would like to experience (save the risking of their lives) or dreams about as a child.

So, from a passive entertainment AND an active experiential perspective, I still maintain that the guest would want to see and experience the physical AND emotional (e.g., a grand viewing of the Earth alone in space) thrills of flying into outter space.

 

[Cricket2]

Originally posted by Another Voice
My internal conversations have a happy ending more often than not. It's because I work very hard to ensure quality, I try to instill it in those around me, and I seek out only worthwhile projects. My standards are my own, I don't lower them just to suit the moment so I feel better. Stuff like that just makes me feel ill somehow.

I'm assuming nobody questions you on your standards either, therfore, there is no way for anyone else to say your conversations with yourself are sub-standard.

As for the "benefit of the doubt", I wonder if those people actually run out to every movie showing the theater. I mean, how you possibly know if a film is interesting unless you see the whole thing first. I mean, isn't saying "I don't want to see that" a horrible pre-judgement? Isn't that unfair to all those people who worked long and hard on the film? Isn't it down right unfair ???

Yup, it is.

Now if people are free to decide they don't want to drop $7.50 on a flick because the trailer looked bad, they don't like the title or the star doesn't appeal to them - how come we can say an attraction doesn't seem appealling based on how it treats its subject?
People make pre-judgements all the time, it's part of the entertainment business. And if I'm supposed to drop three grand for a trip to WDW (opposed to nine bucks for a movie ticket), I'd say an explaination is the least that WDW owes me.

Other than the official website, what trailer have you seen that includes a vast panorama of the vista of space that everyone was hoping to see????

The decision to visit EPCOT will not hang on the size of the view out of the "Mission Space" ride pod.

If you were to say, "Hey the "Mission Space" website looks crappy, so I'm not going this year", I'd say you have a point.

JC

 

[Cricket2]

Is it just me or does this look a lot like "Duct Tape"?

<img width="400" src="http://66.199.150.9/images/msdt.jpg">

Why do I get this feeling this picture is of some prototype.

JC

 

[Cricket2]

Would this have made anyone happier?

JC

 

[morphi]

Now THAT is awesome!!!

Forward that image to Disney corporate to let them know where the bar is.

 

[All Aboard]

The decision to visit EPCOT will not hang on the size of the view out of the "Mission Space" ride pod.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. I's say that there is at least some subset of guests out there who have a "been there, done that" feeling about Epcot and are waiting for the opening of Mission:Space to make a return visit. And, if they (for whatever reason) aren't getting the warm and fuzzies about it may, in fact, continue to wait.

 

[Cricket2]

Originally posted by morphi
Forward that image to Disney corporate to let them know where the bar is.

It's right through the front door, just past the ladies room

I's say that there is at least some subset of guests out there who have a "been there, done that" feeling about Epcot and are waiting for the opening of Mission:Space to make a return visit.

Yeah, all 12 of those guys will be awfully upset all right (sorry, just trying to be funny here )

JC

 

[morphi]

Based on what Disney said it wanted Mission:Space to deliver, it needs to be a combination of three different rides:

1. The movement of a motion simulator a la Body Wars.
2. The video on a large curved screen a la Back to the Future.
3. The extra, negative, and 0 Gs of a centrifuge.

The trick would be to merge all of this into one pod on the end of a centrifuge. The large screen would fit on the end of the pod with fake windows between the seats and the screen. It would be attached to pod. The motion simulator would move the pod around left/right, up/down, and around. The centrifuge would provide the changing Gs. The orientation of the entire pod to the centrifuge arm would dictate the direction of the G forces. The movement of the pod on the centrifuge arm in concert with the motion of the video on the screen would provide the sense of movement, etc. Any number of sensations can be achieved by how the centrifuge, motion simulator, and video worked together.

It sounds like M:S may have the centrifuge and motion simulators in place. What seems to be missing is the large projection screen. It is the attachment of a rounded projection screen onto the end of the pod (with the windows placed between the screen and the seats) that would really elevate the quality of the experience that this ride could provide.

But who knows, maybe the monitor/joystick bank in the picture moves out of the way and a large screen is behind it. I can still hope.

 

[Bstanley]

Are we sure that the screens that we see in the picture are monitors and not just 'windows'?

 

[All Aboard]

Seriously, I think Disney recognizes that Epcot needs to be revitalized. Was it Eisner or Rasulo who had the slip of the tongue on the conference call? A lot is hanging in the balance for the success of Mission:Space. Some have alluded to the willingness of Disney to plow dollars into Project Gemini hinge on the response to Mission:Space. And I'm putting a lot of weight on the competitive battle with the French up I-4.

If the attraction has been reduced to a video game while G-forces are being excerted on you, then Disney has narrowly defined its target market for this attraction. It's all speculation, I know, but the photos and descriptions tend to point in that direction.

 

[raidermatt]

To me, it sounds like you are saying Disney owes us some sort of explination as to why they are doing what they are doing, even before they do it.

If that's how it sounded, I did a poor job of getting my point across. Let me try again....

Disney owes us nothing. We owe Disney nothing.

Beyond that, this is really a blown-up case of "the price of fame". We all know that with fame comes attention. Don't want it? Too bad, fair or not, you're going to get it.

Same concept here, but on a much larger, and even deeper, scale. Disney has millions of fans and has profited from that. However, besides profit, a result of having that many devoted fans is that those fans are interested in what you do. Personally, I see nothing unfair about it. If you don't want attention, don't be successful. A lot of people live their entire lives that way.

At least you agree it is an unfair situation.

No, I don't.

Would this have made anyone happier?

Uh, Yes! Reminds me of "Soarin' Over California", except a bit higher of course. Interesting to note that Soarin' is highly regarded as a ride, but makes no attempt to include the physical experience of flying by subjecting you to g's, wind, or flight controls.... (of course it lacks any real show or story elements, but that's another issue).

Now, to head off the rebuttal, yes, I would be disappointed if M:S just ended up being "Soarin' Over Earth". The point is that the visual grandness of such large scale subjects as landscapes and space is an important element to capture for any attraction like this.

Again, maybe M:S will be truly amazing without this, or maybe it somehow does capture the grandness of the subject. I'm only saying the photo does not support that.

 

[DC7800]

Originally posted by Mr. J. Cricket
Would this have made anyone happier?

JC

Yes, that is indeed a vast improvement. As others have noted, no one wants a Soarin' over the Stratosphere clone, but at least this view provides that breathtaking "wow" factor.

 

[morphi]

raidermatt makes a good point about Soarin' Over California. Those types of rides (with large screens) give you a sense of motion even without motion simulator movements. I haven't ridden Soarin' yet, but I have seen TimeKeeper and O Canada recently. Even these circle-vision films give me a sense of floating and movement. I often need to hold onto the hand rails to keep my balance. If this feeling of floating and moving can be accomplished with large (or circular) screens, image what could be accomplished with motion simulators and a centrifuge in addition to the screen. Imagine the whole Soarin' theater on a motion simulator base and that attached to the arm of a centrifuge! THAT (obviously with the theater being shrunk down to a pod) is what I thought M:S was going to be.

 

[ChrisFL]

Originally posted by Bstanley
Are we sure that the screens that we see in the picture are monitors and not just 'windows'?

That's what I'm thinking, I would take a bet they are windows and not monitors...

And, for those of you who think Disney owes us something...the only thing I can say is, unlike seeing a movie trailer, which is official, we haven't seen any official "Disney" photography or commercials about M:S, and yet you expect an explanantion or apology about a half-finished (guessing here) attraction.

I know when I work on a project, I never like anyone to see what kind of mess I make until I'm done. Then they get an appreciation for what I did, and not the mess I made in the interim.

 

[space42]

That's what I'm thinking, I would take a bet they are windows and not monitors...

Why would they be windows.. remember the theme.. This is SUPPOSED to be a training simulator and NOT a real spaceship. I bet they are monitors (I hope I'm wrong).

raidermatt makes a good point about Soarin' Over California. Those types of rides (with large screens) give you a sense of motion even without motion simulator movements

The sad part is that Horizons already did this. Horizons had TWO IMAX screens. With the horizontal configuration of the ride vehicles, you had a nice "panoramic" view that included a few great space scenes.

 

[DisneyKidds]

I would take a bet they are windows and not monitors...

I'll take that bet . I'm sticking with monitors. Windows just don't make sense. Disney seems to have put in a lot of effort to make the "pods" realistic. A window like that wouldn't be authentic as the space shuttle, or any other spacecraft, really doesn't have a small square window like that in front of a bunch of controls.

Add to that the pictures and description I have seen that outline how each guests is supposed to complete a part of a mission (and effect the outcome of the ride) using the controls and a screen in front of them - I just can't see these being windows.

 

[Bstanley]

Well, whether it's a Monitor or a Window may not matter.

The latest on WDW Magic is the following from some lucky rascal who has had a M:S test ride:

It's not all about the physical experience. Much of what makes Mission: Space brilliant is the psychological aspect. In this way the ride really does "push the envelope." There really is nothing else even close to this experience in a theme park. Many people who ride this attraction are going have sore cheek muscles from smiling so much before the ride portion of the attraction has even started. I've never been to a Space Camp, but I can't imagine a more thrilling experience for someone who wishes to be an astronaut than the Mission: Space ride at EPCOT.

Now I'm wondering if I should wait until this fall to visit!

 

[DisneyKidds]

Thanks for the update Mr. Stanley. I like this part of the quote.............

Many people who ride this attraction are going have sore cheek muscles from smiling so much before the ride portion of the attraction has even started.

Folks can complain about Mega:Spinners and vomit inducing launches being all Mission:Space is about, but if this info proves to be reliable that may be an incorrect assumption. Time will tell, but this info seems to carry more weight than any of the prognosticating we can do.

 

[raidermatt]

Look, I was honest when I said that the picture was a bad SIGN, and not necessarily a guarantee of a disappointment.

Similarly, this quote could be a good SIGN, but I would expect it to be met with the same skepticism by those who were critical of jumping to conclusions over the picture.

Here is the entire quote:

"The official press release talks of "pulse-racing lift-off." This is not merely marketing spin. "Lift-off" is "pulse-racing," that's for sure."

"It's not all about the physical experience. Much of what makes Mission: Space brilliant is the psychological aspect. In this way the ride really does "push the envelope." There really is nothing else even close to this experience in a theme park. Many people who ride this attraction are going have sore cheek muscles from smiling so much before the ride portion of the attraction has even started. I've never been to a Space Camp, but I can't imagine a more thrilling experience for someone who wishes to be an astronaut than the Mission: Space ride at EPCOT"

Now, I don't know, maybe this was just some schmo off the street who gave this unsolicited feedback. But honestly, doesn't this sound like it could have actually been a press release? It seems awfully well put together, and does not use language one would expect a guest to throw out off the cuff. Just look at the last sentence....what guest would say "the Mission: Space ride at EPCOT"?

But, to be fair, I allow that this could be legitimate, random feedback, and like the picture, its is just an unconfirmed piece of the puzzle.

Now I'm wondering if I should wait until this fall to visit!

I wouldn't move up any trip dates until we get a better handle on when the opening would be. The most official statement is still Eisner's comment of "Fall" on the earnings call...