Mission Space Interior Photo

[raidermatt]

OK, once again, a disclaimer that I am NOT writing this attaction off, and I am still anxious to experience the thing. (A bit disappointed that at least parts of it will have to be experienced without my wife and son, but that's another issue...).

So, DK, I can certainly see how the quote you posted could be interpreted in a very positive manner. Not knowing any real details myself, other than the picture, I can't say whether or not your interpretation is accurate. However, in playing devil's advocate a bit, its hardly a stretch to imagine how the ride COULD still be very disappointing to many of us while not truly "misrepresenting the facts".

...all through the magic of virtual reality.

Well, I know we all have the visions of virtual reality being the helmet you wear while you have a light sabre duel with Darth Vader, but certainly there are more modest interpreations of what virtual reality encompasses? Couldn't the old Mission to the Moon qualify legally? I mean, they did make us feel like we were on a space ship, and gave us a window to look out of...

featuring high-resolution computer-generated imagery

Ok, but don't modern video games have this too?

combined with advanced audio and optics

Advanced audio = great sound...nice. Advanced optics could be a high res monitor.

Again, I'm not saying this interpretation is right... Only that the description from the annual report could be interpreted many ways without mis-representing the facts. Given the lack of objectivity of the source (Disney), and past descriptions of, um, well, less than "stellar" attractions, this doesn't really qualify as evidence, in either direction.

I hereby nominate Mr. Raidermatt for President of Imagineering. (And I'm a Bucs fan!)

Thanks, but would you say the same if the Raiders had won the Super Bowl? (I know, that outcome was so far from reality you probably can't even imagine it!).

But, from what I understand, Mr. Sklar is far more talented than I could ever dream of being. He probably CAN envision exactly what that new, awesome, family-inclusive attraction would be. But it doesn't do much good if the powers that be won't let you build it.

 

[DisneyKidds]

OK, once again, a disclaimer that I am NOT hyping this attaction, and I am anxious to experience the thing.

I can't say whether or not your interpretation is accurate.

To be quite honest, I really haven't interpreted this quote to mean much either way. I thought it might make for an interesting point of discussion, given where this thread has ventured.

I guess the extent of my interpretation is that, if the things mentioned exist in any way, shape, or form, it might mean that there could be more to the overall attaction than a spinning pukefest. How good or bad those other elements might be I have no idea. Do they exist? I have no idea, but I won't assume they don't based on one photo.

 

[raidermatt]

To be quite honest, I really haven't interpreted this quote to mean much either way.

My mistake. I should have referred to it as the interpretation you posted, as opposed to YOUR interpretation. Similar to my "devil's advocate" interpretation....I posted it for discussion, not as my assessment.

How good or bad those other elements might be I have no idea. Do they exist? I have no idea, but I won't assume they don't based on one photo.

Yup, and I think we are in agreement that one photo does not a full preview make.

I'm disappointed in what I think the photo implies, but acknowledge it is far from enough info to make anything close to a final judgement.

 

[Testtrack321]

Current video game technology isn't even able to render the same frame rate and complexity as even Toy Story. Sure, a few cut sceans might make us look at video games as techaly challangeing as Toy Story, but video games lack a universal story and voice acting that make them real.

And when were talking computer simulated graphics, we're talking more than your PS2 or GameCube, more like something Lucas Arts does.

 

[crusader]

How good or bad those other elements might be I have no idea. Do they exist? I have no idea, but I won't assume they don't based on one photo.

Same here.

its hardly a stretch to imagine how the ride COULD still be very disappointing to many of us while not truly "misrepresenting the facts".

I question this attitude which seems to be prevalent thoughout this thread. How much of this is a true depiction of WDW engaging in the practice of imagineering and design failure vs. simply not being able to please all of the people all of the time? Whatever the focus has been, the reality remains that these recent additions provide a full spectrum of amusement and M:S will as well.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

How much of this is a true depiction of WDW engaging in the practice of imagineering and design failure vs. simply not being able to please all of the people all of the time?

Well, anyone who has been around the boards long enough, and who doesn't dismiss out of hand the things I write, has known for well over a year that Mission:Space was going to be a CyberSpace Mountain sort of videogame pod attached to a centrifuge which creates local g-force effects; bought whole from ETC. So this picture shouldn't be too disappointing from the standpoint of how well Disney Imagineering performed: the videogame pods seemed to be decorated very nicely, as far as I could tell.

I think the more disappointing failure was that of Disney management; they that made the decision to spend so much of the budget outside of their own company. Sure, there are creative folks everywhere, but depending so much on outside creativity gives away both the creative learning experience of building the thing, and the creative consistency and control that was a hallmark of early Disney (not to mention, that was one of the primary motivators to build in Orlando, in the first place).

Presented with a business challenge, Disney's management chose to largely abandon both their traditional foundation market, and their own creativity. Call me crazy, but I say those're the roots of Disney's business struggles, right there.

Whatever the focus has been, the reality remains that these recent additions provide a full spectrum of amusement and M:S will as well.

There you go again. You simply are not the final arbiter of "reality," much less an unimpeachable predictor of its future.

-WFH

 

[WEDWAY100]

Originally posted by raidermatt
Thanks, but would you say the same if the Raiders had won the Super Bowl? (I know, that outcome was so far from reality you probably can't even imagine it!).

Yes, I would say the same. I've had season tickets to the Bucs games for the last five years. So I've been waiting for a year like this for quite a while.

But that quote I posted of yours states my feelings very well. People keep comparing thrill rides to the current E-Tickets. But they don't realize, or don't think about the fact that many of those E-Tickets have been around since the late 1960's. What would a new E-Ticket look like? I have no idea, since there hasn't been one built in a while, and I'm almost anti-creative.

On the subject of VR, I've always felt that Pirates and HM were a very good 1960's version of VR. I actually prefer that type of experience to the current VR. I like being "in" the envoirnment rather than putting on a helmet. If Disney wants to do VR and get ahead of the game, then they should invent the holodeck from Star Trek. Then maybe Raidermatt could watch the Raiders beat the Bucs in the Superbowl.

 

[ChrisFL]

Originally posted by WEDWAY100
On the subject of VR, I've always felt that Pirates and HM were a very good 1960's version of VR. I actually prefer that type of experience to the current VR. I like being "in" the envoirnment rather than putting on a helmet. If Disney wants to do VR and get ahead of the game, then they should invent the holodeck from Star Trek. Then maybe Raidermatt could watch the Raiders beat the Bucs in the Superbowl.

Well, besides touch style interactivity, CAVE is supposed to be pretty close to a holodeck in function, except that right now, it's more of a real looking environment that looks like a large area , but could only be a small room. The problem with that? People kept hitting or running into the walls of the place.

The technology isn't really that incredible, as much as how they're using it together.

I may try to dig up some websites on it later...

 

[crusader]

I think the more disappointing failure was that of Disney management; they that made the decision to spend so much of the budget outside of their own company.

Your right - Imagineering can only work within their constraints. Management has control and money governs the decision making.

but depending so much on outside creativity gives away both the creative learning experience of building the thing, and the creative consistency and control that was a hallmark of early Disney (not to mention, that was one of the primary motivators to build in Orlando, in the first place).

You mean besides enticing us with the allure of the "Sunshine State"?
Seriously though you have to consider what the current employment environment is today vs "early disney". There really is no such thing as job security anymore so how are you going to contain the creative genius within your company when your "best" is either watching his/her back or being solicited with a better offer.

 

[ChrisFL]

Here's a few links on CAVE technology:

http://www.tomshardware.com/network/20020723/ultraunreal-07.html
http://www.cave.vt.edu/

That second link has a great write-up on what it is. Like I said, it's not incredible technology, as much as it is a certain way of putting things together.