Mission Space Interior Photo

[Bob O]

I enjoy the a,b,c,d ticket designations as it infers the quality of the attraction. To get rid of the designation is to get rid of a legact started by the company and dumb down the quality of the rides.
And their are alot more option's today when it comes to ride mechanism/technology to make attractions and putting in spinners/wild mouse type rides may have "wowed" people years ago but even for small kids they are yawners today and the expectations are that much greater which disney hasnt shown any willingness to compete with.
While Star Tours was good for its time it is now mundane compared to what came after it like Back to the Future and a ride like Buzz is totally blown away when a ride like MIB is created that is much more interactive and offers a more immersive experience. Disney needs to step up to the plate and offer its guests more and hopefully Mission Space will be up to this and i wont condem the ride until people have had a chance to experience it while some are already saying the ride sucks just based on some photo's.

 

[Another Voice]

Again – why does “thrill” necessarily equal a stomach churning eighty mile an hour rollercoaster? I think the entire “but we have to compete with Six Flags on their terms” argument (that’s what it really boils down to) is just the easy way out of things.

Look at California Adventure – ‘Soaring’ always has a far longer line than the ‘Screaming’ coaster. And I don’t even think that ‘Soaring’ is a practically good implementation of the technology.

The focus on “teen market means suspended coasters” really sells the audience short. You know what the biggest hit movie Disney has had with teenage audiences in the last couple years? It wasn’t ‘Sorority Girls’ or ‘Bubble Boy’ – it’s ‘The Princess Diaries’! A G-rated family flick! And while the testosterone drenched ‘Reign of Fire’ could get even the D&D players to see it, an essentially family drama like ‘Signs’ packed them in.

Even in the 1950’s there were far more thrilling roller coasters around then what Disney chose to build. It’s not true that Disney easily met the “thrill threshold” of the audience – they never even tried. Others had big wooden monsters, Disney went for the Matterhorn: theme and imagination and experience over physical thrills.

Disney can do the same thing again today – and the audiences will respond the same way to it. All Disney has to do is stop whining, stop making excuses and do it!

 

[crusader]

The new trend is that children are now being prohibited from new attractions because of the height restrictions. Even the new half-speed bumper cars at California Adventure have a higher restriction than the Matterhorn or Big Thunder.

And how much of this is directed from the legal department?

 

[crusader]

Most particularly, we are dealing with a corporate entity who, during the same approximate time period that "the above changes" were happening, was busily spending $5 billion on a cable station and Power Ranger reruns. The phrase "a lot of financing to provide" sounds as though you want us to believe money was difficult to come by for Disney, and that's not the case.

Sorry for misleading you - my point is that yes money is the ultimate decision maker here. The rate of return on a cable station and sydication is far greater than the increase in park attendance a new multimillion dollar attraction will draw.

I'm wondering if the focus is being directed toward narrowing the timing between visits. This would certainly warrant more thrills for that repeat guest to freely spend their money on rather than long theatrical transport attractions which year after year would tend to lose their luster.

 

[raidermatt]

I'm wondering if the focus is being directed toward narrowing the timing between visits. This would certainly warrant more thrills for that repeat guest to freely spend their money on rather than long theatrical transport attractions which year after year would tend to lose their luster.

It really works in the opposite direction. Physical thrills can be topped by other physical thrills. All you have to do is build something taller, faster, with more twists, etc.

Solid entertainment is much more difficult to top, and can draw for a much longer period.

How many physical thrill rides have come and gone since Pirates and the HM opened?

Further, what is more responsible for Space Mountain and the Matterhorn still being around and very popular, the physical thrills, or the show and entertainment elements?

 

[crusader]

No, it isn't, either. There are more things in Heaven and earth, crusader, than are dreamt of in your philosophy... including people who can't or won't go on any attractions at all.

Well they must be "attracted" to something or are they just smiling aimlessly while doing nothing except emptying their wallets.

 

[d-r]

Originally posted by Another Voice


It's one of the reasons why The Company reagrds most Disney fans as being no different from those women weaping at Graceland or the fat guys trotting about the local Holiday Inn convention center in their Klingon uniforms.

AV I thought about this a while, and I was left to wish that only it was true. If it was, we would get better things than sequal movies, live action dvds that are transfers from crappy transfers to laser disc, stores full of plush and cheap kid toys, double dvds with extras, adult clothes besides ocassional obnoxious looking t-shirts, and spinner ride clones. I think that Disney thinks their customer is the occasional parent of a preschooler who will buy any piece of junk because they have to buy their kid something - I think this is why they have went to single dvds for lilo and stitch and treasure planet (besides the corporate pettiness stuff) while so many studios are going to big dvd sets for their movies - the logic being, most people don't buy "adult" movies, so they pack them with extras to make them more appealing to consumers. Disney dvds usually lead the sales charts, and they figure that people will buy them anyway, and since they are just for baby sitting they don't need any of the extras. Same kind of logic for the Disney Store (people will buy cheap junk if it is for the kids), for the sequals (people will take their kids because it is the only G move out so it doesn't have to be good). And the spinners (which aren't any more whole-family friendly than a height required ride, they have an innate hieght ceiling in that they are lame).

I guess the big difference is you said "fan" not "customer," which is what I was thinking about. I guess the logic is that they have the "fans" anyway and they will buy any bone that you throw them.

DR

 

[Bob O]

AV-Calling Calif Screamin a "thrill ride" is a insult to thrill rides!!! Now while that ridew may not inpsire long lines a true thrill ride would certainly do so and have longer lines than Soarin which is a very nice/excellant attraction. Disney has no thrill roller coaster at all and has tottally neglected that market which is a major weakness in their ride catagory.
And while i dont want a coaster that is just bland, a well themed inverted/launched coaster would be excellant and while it would be ridden by teenagers it would also be riden by lots of adults as well . Disney ingnores the teenage elment at their own peril as soon enough they will be adults and will make decisions on where to visit and if turned off by disney now it will be hard to get them back and my 17 yr olds son is a example as is alot of his friends who look at disney as boring save a couple of attractions at each park but much perfer Universal due to the thrill rides they have as well as the moive inspired attractions they have put in their parks that they can relate too and will do the same once they have families.
Raidermat-While big steel coasters are somewhat new and time will tell about their longevity there are alot of wooden roller coasters that are much older than HM or any ride in a disney park and the ones that were built of high quality still draw major crowds in the parks they are in.
And if we want thrill without coasters why cant disney come up with something of the quality of Spiderman or MIB. Disney has done little in their ride additions to make their parks relevant to the teenage market who dont have the affection/loyalty to the mouse that some do here and that will spill over once they are adults.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

The rate of return on a cable station and sydication is far greater than the increase in park attendance a new multimillion dollar attraction will draw.

You keep saying things that have no basis in reality as though they were facts (not to mention, you still haven't reconciled the three orders of magnitude by which my data point dwarfs your own).

Look at the results for the Disney Family Channel and Tokyo DisneySea, then try again to compute the delta between rate of return on a cable station and quality built attractions.

The only reason DFC's numbers look better than Disney's California Adventure's, is because DCA so completely and colossally failed to get the results Disney expected and planned for.

Of course, if you are subtly trying to make the point that Eisner doesn't know how to build attractions and should either step down from Disney to concentrate on collecting cable stations or just sell the parks to someone who knows a little about the business, then I agree with you completely.

Well they must be "attracted" to something or are they just smiling aimlessly while doing nothing except emptying their wallets.

I don't understand your point. You declared that a statement about Disney's attractions was "true for all," and it absolutely was not true for all.

If all you're saying is that Disney does a great job of pleasing the people who smile while emptying their pockets, well, that's a syllogism I'm not going to argue with. But aren't you concerned that the number of those people and the take from their wallet-emptying are shrinking at such an alarming rate?

-WFH

 

[OnWithTheShow]

As a card carrying member of the American Coaster Enthuasists I would have to dispute your statement that California Screamin is not a thrill coaster or that Disney ahs no Thrill coasters. Have you rode Screamin? If so why would you describe it in this way? Also has anyone ever consider that it doesnt have huge line for other reasons than that it is a bad ride? Perhaps it is because California Adventure as a whole is a failure (personally I disagree, I loved California Adventure, but I would like to see some more unique attractions instead of clones from WDW) or that the ride itself has a unbelievable hourly capacity,

 

[Another Voice]

According to the “rumors” I’ve heard whispered, ‘Soaring’ runs at a higher capacity than the roller coaster due both to the popularity of the “film ride” and because of maintenance problems with the coaster. You can also watch the opening rush (a rather small affair for DCA) – people all run to ‘Soaring’ and not to the coaster. And I’m just comparing the two rides to each other. They both have the same chance to draw a line from the same crowd; the over all attendance of DCA isn’t a factor.

From Mr. D-R: “I guess the logic is that they have the "fans" anyway and they will buy any bone that you throw them.”

Bingo – pin trading isn’t meant for the general public. Disney sees “the fans” as a separate customer base that has to be treated differently than the general public. It’s typically figured that Annual Passholders and DVC members will buy anything (and I mean anything) with a Disney® sticker put on it.

Back to ‘Mission: Space’. The newest round of rumors is that people have been told in no uncertain terms that the ride must open by August. There are rumors of the traditional head-rolling threats, the “you’ll never work in this industry again” comments and so forth.

Not that’s it’s going to have much impact. The other rumor is that most of the people working on the attraction know they will be laid off the moment the ride is complete. It’s not effective to threaten to fire someone who has already been fired. There are also whisperings that Disney is looking to sell off the WDI complex in Glendale. After the next round of budget cuts they won’t even need the already much reduced space they are currently using.

‘Mission: Space’ is rumored to be the last major in-house attraction designed by Disney. Everything from here on out will be purchased rides with minimal decoration done by contracted freelancers.

That is until, we hope, that short fellow reaches the top of Mt. Doom, tosses the Ring into the pit and Eisner departs from this world.

 

[Bob O]

As im also a card carrying member of ACE im sure if a poll was done asking if Screamin was a thrill coaster the vote would be NO!!! The launch is weak for a launched coaster and while a long ride has few if any elements that could be constured as thrilling. Now maybe if they got rid of the dreadful over the shoulder restraints and had a lapbar the right would then have some thrilling elements. It doesnt have long lines because it is a BORING ride!!! A ride which doesnt call for many re-rides which is a sign of a excellant attraction-reridable ability!! Its sad that they built this new coaster and it is inferior to Space Mountain.
Now it was dumb for disney to build a fake wooden coaster in that section when it called for a real wooden coaster!!!
PS- Are you going to go to Coastercon???

 

[crusader]

Look at the results for the Disney Family Channel and Tokyo DisneySea, then try again to compute the delta between rate of return on a cable station and quality built attractions

I was not arguing globally here - The focus was on WDW attendance. My point simply is that while a quality built attraction such as mission space will certainly heighten the attendance levels at Epcot, I do not believe it will have a significant impact on increasing ticket sales.

Change is a fundamental concept here - as a corporate entity, simply maintaining the "status quo" in attractions being offered to your guests will most certainly have a negative impact on attendance levels. The options are: install quick and inexpensive rides and promote them as "new" or invest multi-millions to build something of magnitude which is more in line with what the general public expects. I do believe it is all designed to decrease the length of time on average between visits for the typical consumer. But the question is, how much of an impact do these changes really have on the bottom line???????
I do not see the cost benefit ratio for the big ticket items here. They take several years to build - typically one at a time - and to what advantage beyond offering a change in venue to prevent the numbers from slipping further.

 

[crusader]

If all you're saying is that Disney does a great job of pleasing the people who smile while emptying their pockets, well, that's a syllogism I'm not going to argue with. But aren't you concerned that the number of those people and the take from their wallet-emptying are shrinking at such an alarming rate?

This is a concern. What I cannot understand is why focus on promoting the "new" vs. affordability. Consumers continue to spend money on entertainment despite their economic contraints. WDW implies "expensive vacation" which will perceptually detract visitors in a weak economy.

 

[Bstanley]

My point simply is that while a quality built attraction such as mission space will certainly heighten the attendance levels at Epcot, I do not believe it will have a significant impact on increasing ticket sales.

WDW implies "expensive vacation" which will perceptually detract visitors in a weak economy.

What a curious syllogistic example - each of the above statements are individually accurate, but because they do not completely encompass the topic the conclusion is exactly wrong...

Here's my $0.02 worth.

1. WDW has been historically successful precisely because it offered unique and Magical experiences that literally could not be found any other place on earth.

2. Often (not always though) these unique experiences cost a lot of money to create - more than 'standard' amusements cost.

3. For some time period - some might say 10 years, some might say 5 - Disney Corp has chosen to take the large sums of money that rolled into WDW and have used that money to fund other business projects.

4. WDW has not added or replaced the unique and Magical experiences as often as they needed to because of this lack of funding - ie. they were not able to update/replace often enough to maintain the significant/tangible difference that existed between them and other vacation destinations.

5. Attendance at WDW has slipped as people have figured that out.

6. If WDW wants to set new attendance records they need to be more unique and Magical again. Indeed - replacing a single attraction will not turn things around at EPCOT...but if they seriously want to turn things around they had better be prepared to replace/update practically EVERY attraction over the next 5 years

Customers recognize quality and will pay for it, they recognize value and will choose it and they recognize uniqueness and will pursue it.

If WDW aspires to be 6 Flags and offers 6 Flags experiences (ie. rides and attractions without uniqueness or imagination) it will be rewarded by becoming 6 Flags.

 

[crusader]

Solid entertainment is much more difficult to top, and can draw for a much longer period.

How many physical thrill rides have come and gone since Pirates and the HM opened?

Further, what is more responsible for Space Mountain and the Matterhorn still being around and very popular, the physical thrills, or the show and entertainment elements?

raidermatt - it is not a question of entertainment vs physical thrill. WDW typically provides both on its attraction venues. But I disagree that Space Mountain and the Matterhorn are big on both - the "show" elements are not strong but visitors continue to be drawn to these for two reasons:
1) lack of rides considered to provide big thrills in these parks; and
2) the thrill element itself.

 

[crusader]

1. WDW has been historically successful precisely because it offered unique and Magical experiences that literally could not be found any other place on earth.

While I agree with this I will say that the key word here is "historically". Thirty years ago WDW was it. Today there are many choices for a unique experience albiet maybe not so much in the "magical" sense, but that success factor is becoming less and less effective.

3. For some time period - some might say 10 years, some might say 5 - Disney Corp has chosen to take the large sums of money that rolled into WDW and have used that money to fund other business projects.

My question here is WHY??? I believe this was an investment shift in order to gain the quick returns everyone was chasing in the 90's. What backfired was the actual return itself - some of which was probably earmarked to reinvigorate the parks.

4. WDW has not added or replaced the unique and Magical experiences as often as they needed to because of this lack of funding - ie. they were not able to update/replace often enough to maintain the significant/tangible difference that existed between them and other vacation destinations.
5. Attendance at WDW has slipped as people have figured that out.

I agree with you but there is an economic impact on attendance as well.

The theory that a consumer willingly pays more for something unique falls short in the vacation arena if you cannot sell them on what the benefit of this expense will be. WDW gives the impression it is expensive but worth it - but if it fails to meet that expectation with its guests they will not be so willing to pay again and may impress upon that whenever deciding on a future vacation.

 

[Bstanley]

Today there are many choices for a unique experience albiet maybe not so much in the "magical" sense, but that success factor is becoming less and less effective.

I believe that being unique and Magical are still WDW's most important 'success factors' - just as they were historically. WDW is not some distant tropical isle that can lure people with it's exotic locale, nor does it offer some staggering beautiful vistas of mountains and geysers or ski trails. WDW has to draw it's audience based on it's 'Magic' - much of which is generated by it's attractions. If they aren't unique and Magical then .....?

Disney Corp made a business decision for some number of years to take WDWs 'profits' and invest it somewhere else for awhile - OK fine - now it needs to make another business decision and come up with the money to pay back the IOUs that have built up at WDW. If it doesn't it squanders a very valuable resource.

WDW gives the impression it is expensive but worth it - but if it fails to meet that expectation with its guests they will not be so willing to pay again

Precisely so. If Disney Corp chooses not to go through with updating or replacing the various attractions that need to be updated or replaced - With things unique and Magical - then they will not be able to charge their premium prices.

 

[tfc3rid]

Believe it or not, I have read this thread through and eatched it develop.

I have had high hopes from M:S since its announcement (and rumors noted here). Yes, I have looked at the "photo" and read that "review" and am skeptical of both. But that is my way being an engineer.

Anyway, that being said, the thrill of the first experience on M:S is still there. I look forward to experiencing it, no matter what. It is something new, even if it is not meeting our initial expectations (which I don't think it will...but you never know).

As for the trend in thrill rides. As a 26 year old, I like thrill rides, but I love the "classic" Disney attraction. I grew up with them and they are something I cherish and are what I think of when I think of Disney. However, Disney has GOT to be feeling the pressure from the people up I-4. IOA fired the opening salvo in a war. Could they set the Central Florida theme park market on its head. And after a slow start...IOA is gaining strength, is moving up. Disney is Disney and will appeal to family...I hope. Thrill rides are going to be the order of the day as long as IOA continues to build up its market appeal. However, if I want thrill rides I could get a season pass for Great Adventure as opposed to my Annual Pass for Disney.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

Believe it or not, I have read this thread through and eatched it develop.

Oh, we believe it. We wonder "why, good lord, why," but we believe it.

maybe not so much in the "magical" sense, but that success factor is becoming less and less effective.

When something is used less and less, it very often becomes less and less effective.

I categorically disagree that Space Mountain's attraction is the thrill offered by the ride mech itself. Space Mountain is a punk coaster now, and it was a punk coaster in the mid-seventies. Removed from context of its show building, Space Mountain would be thrillfully indistinguishable from the Galaxie, a parking lot coaster that became part of my life at the Pavilion complex in Myrtle Beach.

This is where some posters are doing fly-bys of each other's points. Space Mountain succeeded because Disney took what even at the time was a tame coaster experience and dressed it up like no one had ever seen before. The thrills came from the environment, not the towering 2-story drops or the screaming 28mph top speed. Hell, the monorail offered more to those who had the need... the need for speed.

Mission:Space is absolutely _not_ a "Disney Magic thrill ride" in the Space Mountain tradition. The focus (and expense) was on the inherent thrill of the ride mech. The dressing-up job shows all the signs of being a video-game. Both the focus and the dressing-up of Mission:Space target an audience of teenage males, not because of a successful tradition within the Company, but because it would make a good advertising campaign against IOA.

No, Mission:Space will not be an example of traditional Disney Magic failing to be effective into the new millenia, as it is not an example of traditional Disney Magic, at all.

-WFH