Motion Sickness Bags Are Now Being Handed out To Mission Space Riders

[Peter Pirate]

...Seems to me 'Mission: Space' runs the same risk as being just as empty as 'Body Wars'...

Oh brother. You certainly have to be pulling our chain on this.

As I've said, the three trips to WDW I've taken since the opening of 'M:S' proved unequivicably to me that this ride was hot. Everbody in every line at WDW was talking about it (good, bad & ugly...but mostly good). When folks found out we'd been on it already our little conversations with the folks next to us turned into pretty big group discussions, just standing on-line...

As for the validity of 'M:S,' which seems to be a recurring debate, the thing is 'M:S' IS what the Astronauts do. It's authentic and a huge, huge group of Americans still think of Astronauts as the ultimate in heros. I know I loved 'The Right Stuff' (both the book & movie) and while I always knew my physical limitations with regard to actually becoming an Astronaut, I'm 6'3," I've got bad eyesight and I get motion sickness, I still had that dream like millions of kids. When Disney announced this ride and at 46 years old, I was exhuberant and petrified all at the same time and this trepidition didn't go away until I finally did the ride - in my second attempt (along side of my 2 girls & gcurling). After a few rides much of the trepidition has vanished but the thrill and adreniline rush hasn't.

I know many folks complain that it isn't as exciting or even intense as they were expecting, but feeling your face pushed back, realizing what amazing effort it takes to move even your hands under these conditions, feeling the sensations of zero gravity or simply knowing you're doing something that 'true heros' did gives me immense joy.

'M:S' isn't just about thrill rides it's about space travel and that IS cool...

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by raidermatt
Yes, but I didn't use it as a reason it shouldn't. You (and you're certainly not the first to do this) used it as a reason it should be there. Its more of a "lowest common denominator" of anything on which Disney spends $100 million+.

OK ... I can see that. But I didn't use it as the ONLY reason it should be there. There are other reasons the ride is appropriate for Future World, but our discussion so far has revolved around people and barf bags and whether or not that's important.

Originally posted by raidermatt
I've seen the "scared adults" ad at least 15 times, but never any others. Its possible the local or regional audience is getting a balance, but it doesn't look like the national audience is.

I've never seen the "scared adults" ad here, except when being shown them in a presentation or meeting. But I saw the other one a dozen times in one weekend just after the ride opened. Occasionally followed by an astronaut doing a testimonial about how realistic it is. Could be that, here, they're playing off the nearby NASA connection, which wouldn't do as much good out your way.

Originally posted by raidermatt
That's the problem... Everybody knows the teacups can make you sick. So how bad is M:S if it offers bags and the Tea Cups don't?

Well ... you can watch people on the teacups. You can find a comparable ride in most other theme and amusement parks, and see how it operates. You know what to expect, and can tell pretty quickly if you'd like the ride. You can't see how M:S works. It's a technology most people aren't familiar with, and it's hidden within the ride. So guests can't compare it to anything to determine whether or not it's a good ride for them. So ... Disney releases info that air sickness bags will be made available. Thereby letting people who may have problems in this area know that this is something they should investigate before blithely wandering on, but letting those people without motion sickness concerns know that they'll probably be fine. Could that be a possible scenario?

 

[raidermatt]

He should know better than to trust any of that b.s.

If he isn't going to utilize the presentations he asks for when making his decisions, what exactly is he going to use?

But I didn't use it as the ONLY reason it should be there. There are other reasons the ride is appropriate for Future World, but our discussion so far has revolved around people and barf bags and whether or not that's important.

Yes, I agree. I probably just should have ignored it, since it didn't have any bearing on the debate either way, but sometimes, I ain't too brite...

So ... Disney releases info that air sickness bags will be made available. Thereby letting people who may have problems in this area know that this is something they should investigate before blithely wandering on, but letting those people without motion sickness concerns know that they'll probably be fine. Could that be a possible scenario?

Its possible, but I think its unlikely. They already have the warnings.

Again, the issue of M:S just being a thrill ride and therefore not for folk who are prone to motion sickness is not really what we are dealing with here. Its worthy of discussion, but not the point right now.

The problem is that it appears that not having motion sickness concerns does not exclude somebody from having problems on M:S. Apparently, the nausea has different causes than other rides. So sure, those that know they are prone stay away because of the warnings and now because they heard about the bags on TV. But a certain percentage of those that think they aren't prone are finding out they were wrong with respect to M:S. That makes the bags necessary.

I just can't buy that Disney would install the bags, and really think that spreading this story was going to be a net positive for them. It really just sounds like a way of trying to mitigate unexpected downside.

 

[Another Voice]

"the opening of 'M:S' proved unequivicably to me that this ride was hot."

Yes, yea, yea.

I was around for the opening of 'Body Wars'. That was a hot ride - using Disney's "we've got such hot stuff no else can touch use" simulator technology. The same ride system was already a giant hit out on West Coast. The East Coast version was going to awesome.

Disney paid Big Bucks for Real Stars to be in the movie, for a Real Director to direct the film, for ILM to crank out the effects. This Was Going To Be Big. They surrounded the attraction with a full out pavilion with other shows (also with Real Stars and Real Directors), shops and even a healthy place to eat something. Big I tell, you B-I-G big.

Gee - just look the size of the line they built for it.

There was Eisner screaming for WDI to make the ride more intense. There were lines of fanboys waiting to get onto a real intense Disney thrill ride. There were warning signs and special notes in the Birnbaum guide all about the "super thrills" to be found. There were even those that wanted to test their stomachs against these aWeSoMe attraction.

Yup - it was a thrill and now it's closed because no one visits the damn thing.

Shows and attractions get reputations. 'Body Wars' picked up one for causing motion sickness and for not being all that interesting. While it is still way too early to make a firm prediction, there are people at Disney worried that 'Mission: Space' is heading down that same path. It's too intense for the average guest, not intense enough for real thrill seekers. There is no real emotion to the attraction to keep interest up, just the same physical thrill time after time.

There's not a lot of difference between "crossing the brain-blood barrier" and zipping through some CGI generated canyon. Both become old real quick.


Like you, Mr. Pirate, I too am a child of the Space Age. I went to the assemblies at school to watch the flickering images of launches and landings on the TV set. I memorized all the astronauts, built the models of the LEM and put a map of the moon up I my bedroom.

And back then I thought it was a certain fact that by the Year 2000 I'd be living on a space station.

I've had in interest in EPCOT's Space Pavilion from the very first ideas in the late seventies. If I couldn't really go into space, I was confident that Disney would be able to approximate that. There were so many flat out brilliant ideas available that would have taken your boyhood excitement to places you couldn't have imagined. Yea, spinning about pretending this is how the astronauts "do things" is interesting for a moment - but it represents just the smallest fraction of a bit that space can represent.

Just like it's sad that I can't book passage on a Pan Am Orion Spaceliner like Kubrick & Clarke promised, it's sad that Disney lacks the imagination and confidence to do something bold.

 

[crusader]

If he isn't going to utilize the presentations he asks for when making his decisions, what exactly is he going to use?

Hey, he can look at the show and use it for what it is - a crap shoot.

Nothing more. The rest of it is gut, risk and talent.

I memorized all the astronauts, built the models of the LEM and put a map of the moon up I my bedroom.

Ok, so you understand how much it means to us to be given this opportunity.

I get your point on Body Wars but I want to you consider several things:

Body Wars is a jerky simulator. Since I'm not prone to motion sickness and love thrills, I consider myself the target audience. This ride never cut it for anybody I know.

Stationary simulators are considered a rip-off of an attraction. We're put in a holding tank and shown a film but don't actually move on any track mechanism. Once you've tried a few, you realize this very quickly.

By the time Body Wars finally came out, we had already lost interest in this stuff.

NASA's unit is different. It's a moving centrifuge, designed to generate real g-forces and provide a weightless effect. This is not some box on a spring we're talking about.

Your concerns about the story getting old because the mission is a quick thrill with a CGI landing are notable but doubtful. The show deserves alot more credit than that.

 

[KNWVIKING]

I'm just curious how many IOA / Six Flags teenagers who wouldn't think about wondering into EPCOT read about the barf bags and think : "hey, we've got to check this out!!". Maybe it's a great marketing stratagy.

I also wonder when the gift shop will be selling "I spew in Space" tee shirts.

 

[ChrisFL]

They really spent $150 million to build Mission:Space?

Ok, I understand that it is actually a centrifuge that astronauts train in, that's fine...but I can get the same sensation at the UFO looking ride at the county fair, put a TV and some plastic buttons and a fake joystick (it doesn't really do anything) in front of me, and boom, you got nearly the same ride with some nice preshows and a famous actor.

Disney had to make some major compromises with M:S as far as I can tell. When I rode it, my first reaction was that it was too short, but thinking about it, I can see why, they HAD to because the ride was intense as it was, they couldn't extend that intensity for much longer or a lot more people might get sick.

That is one problem with M:S to me. The launch and seeing Florida below you was cool, but the rest didn't interest me much.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Another Voice
I've had in interest in EPCOT's Space Pavilion from the very first ideas in the late seventies. If I couldn't really go into space, I was confident that Disney would be able to approximate that. There were so many flat out brilliant ideas available that would have taken your boyhood excitement to places you couldn't have imagined. Yea, spinning about pretending this is how the astronauts "do things" is interesting for a moment - but it represents just the smallest fraction of a bit that space can represent.

OK ... NOW I get how you define "magic." This one paragraph tells me more than all the other stuff you've written. And I can now more fully understand your disappointment in Mission : Space. You're right ... there is so much more that could be done to bring the wonder and thrill of space travel to the masses. And yes, Disney SHOULD be doing that, if they're going to say they are. Mission : Space is not a space pavilion -- it's a space-technology-based ride. And, therefore, not even close to meeting your expectations on what that building could have and should have been. And in that, I totally 100% agree with you. As a ride experience, M:S is fun and thrilling and exciting to lots of people, and it gives them a peek inside the space program. As a magical, Disney view of space and the wonders therein, it's not nearly enough.

 

[airlarry!]

I know many of you have read this article, but some may have not seen it.

Just in the interests of speculation, following WDsearcher's excellent post, is a chestnut from Jim Hill that talks about what is...what should be...and what might have been.

Jim Hill Media Archives

Oops. I forgot that his archives only ran the first part of this series...

The second part is here. And Laughingplace.com reran the whole series with pictures here.

 

[DancingBear]

There have ALWAYS been great ideas left on the cutting room floor in the process between Imagineering brainstorming and budgeting for and building the rides. If the Imagineers' dreams don't exceed the company's reach, they aren't doing their job.

 

[crusader]

This editorial comment pretty much sums it up.

And what was Jim's chief complaint? Readers should be fairly familiar with this refrain: The Imagineers had this great idea for an amazing attraction, but the cheapskates currently running the Mouse House wouldn't let them build the original version of the ride because it would have cost too much.

Blah blah blah. Yadda yadda yadda.

So utopia would cost 300+ million complete with that oh so believable kEwL Future aspect we all anxiously anticipate in the Information Age of the 21st Century. Yeah, that's a briliant long term investment strategy.

But since we have to cut this baby in half, which side should we build? Of course, the educational component - look how well that's been workin' out for them. T:T has no lines - everybody's at the Living Seas.

 

[raidermatt]

So utopia would cost 300+ million complete with that oh so believable kEwL Future aspect we all anxiously anticipate in the Information Age of the 21st Century. Yeah, that's a brilliant long term investment strategy.

Disney would not have invested $300+ million, only the difference between $300+ and the Compaq/HP investment.

Why are you so willing to accept that $150+ million is a good investment for going after thrill-seekers, and $300+ is not a good investment for going after everyone?

That "brilliant investment strategy" is the very reason you have a WDW to rave about today.

But since we have to cut this baby in half,...

It didn't have to be cut in half. They chose to do so.

There have ALWAYS been great ideas left on the cutting room floor in the process between Imagineering brainstorming and budgeting for and building the rides. If the Imagineers' dreams don't exceed the company's reach, they aren't doing their job.

Fair enough, but its not license to cut. In this case, the things left on the floor certainly seem to be things that would not have been left on the floor in the past. Certainly not for a "flagship" level attraction/pavilion.

OK ... NOW I get how you define "magic."

Understanding is a wonderful thing, isn't it? AV has made these kind of statements before, but we sometimes forget that everyone on the current thread may not have been reading every post in other threads for the last several years.

AV provides a much more vivid portrayal of what many of us hoped Disney would do with a Space pavilion, so I won't even try to expand on it.

Of course not every individual attraction has to be of that kind of scope, but certainly for something like a Space pavilion, its appropriate. And for things of smaller scope, the same type of spirit should be conveyed.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Anyone know what PotC (the ride) cost....................and what that would translate to in 2003 dollars??

Or, in other words....................would spending $300 mil to make a great Disney E-Ticket in 2003 (the way Pirates is a great, classic, Disney E-Ticket) have been fiscally responsible? Heck, would the $300 mil version of Space even be the equivalent of PotC.........or were there even bigger Imagineered dreams for that attraction? Yes, even in Walt's day fiscal responsibilty was in play - that's pretty much what Roy was around for. Yes, Walt at times threw that fiscal responsibility out the window..............but to the tune of 300 mil 2003 dollars?

Yes, what Jim Hill described very much would have appeased AV. Hell, it sounds incredible...........the stuff that imagineering dreams are made of. However, is it realistic to say, in the context of similar investments made for great attractions of the past, that it ever could/should have been a reality?

Let's say that Pirates cost translates into 150 mil 2003 dollars. Can you still say that there is no justification for having cut the dream scenario in half?

Ahhh...............to be a Monday morning quarterback.

 

[airlarry!]

Crusader's point is, IMO, disingenious, in that it presupposes that what Jim Hill lays out as the $300m big one that got away was the baddest of the baddest that WDI could come up with.

I doubt that.

I am sure, just as in every development, there was Blue Sky ideas that never even made it to the floor. Of course, Walt Disney Company has a fiduciary duty to its stockholders not to blow wads of money on wasteful, unnecessary construction or expenditures. (And my, they did a fine job of doing that with the Fox Family purchase...but that's a different topic).

But, to presuppose that the Pavilion as related by Jim Hill was blue sky is not correct. That was the final plan, and they were told to go back and cut, cut, cut, cut.

I am sure that WDI had many wonderful, wacky, way-out ideas that never even made it to the boardroom.

For instance, we've all heard the rumored details on Ex:E. What if they cut out the train ride and just put in a fall, a la ToT? Does that make the Village/Train Ride/et al stuff just blue sky things that need or can survive being cut without sacrificing the attraction?

Nope.

 

[DisneyKidds]

That was the final plan, and they were told to go back and cut, cut, cut, cut.

And the evidence that this isn't presupposition on your part is.................where?

I've ready many of Jim Hill's "why for" and "what could have been" articles on many things..............and the M:S one didn't seem any different from others where he describes a best case scenario that was never likely in the first place.

 

[Another Voice]

Simply spending more money on something doesn't make it better.

Look at the $150 million they threw at Cat in the Hat or the $200 million they threw at Matirx Reloaded. Are they "better" than the $100 million spent on Finding Nemo?

Building a $300 million 'Space Pavilion' may or might not have been isntantly better than 'Mission: Space' (my experience has been that the more money one spends the less wisely it gets spent). And something better than 'M:S' need not have cost any more.

The difference was in the approach.

The "old school" Disney approach was to take a subject and decide the best way to express the emotion of it. In the old Space concepts, the goal was to present the scope and wonder of other planets and the excitment of the vast frontier. The thrill was to grow out story and setting - classic Disney. How you go about doing that with whatever resources are available is the trick. A generous amount of imgination and a lot of hard work are much more important to a project's success then the dollars available.

With 'M:S', however, Disney took the opposite approach. They found a ride system and decorated it as a "space ride". The same mechanics could have been used to produce the 'Hurrican Hunter' attraction, the 'Time Votex' attraction or a dozen others. In this case, the thill was already there, Disney's job was just to dress it up.

It's a fundementally weaker way of making something. It can work ('Tower of Terror' is an example where it worked well), but often it comes across as mostly decorations glued onto something familar (like 'Primeval Whirll').

So in the end, Disney spent $150 million on a thrill ride, some of us where expecting a $150 million spent on marvels of space.

 

[DisneyKidds]

They found a ride system and decorated it as a "space ride".

I agree with much of what you say in terms of general approaches and what made/makes Disney different. I'm just not sure it completely applies to M:S because to equate a NASA grade space flight simulator to a typical ride system is a bit of an understatement.

The dream approach............make the guests feel what an astronaut feels (physically) and see what an astronaut sees (in grand scale). apparently was too costly............and very possibly for good reason we might all agree on. Notwithstanding that cable and internet debacles costs more than this grand vision, the history of Disney attraction development might never have included anything on that cost scale and there might be good reason why it never should. If it was realistic and fiscally responsible to do this then shame on Disney for not making it happen.

So alternate approach number one might be what we got. Use cutting edge, incredible, real life space training tecnology to make the guest feel what an atronaut feels...........but skimp on the see what he see's grandios part. Not without it's flaws.

Alternate approach number two might have been to have the space station and grandios see what the astronaut sees part without the physical feel what he or she feels. I'm sure that wouldn't have been without it's flaws as well.

Perhaps space was just too ambitious topic to even have been challenged?

 

[WEDWAY100]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Let's say that Pirates cost translates into 150 mil 2003 dollars. Can you still say that there is no justification for having cut the dream scenario in half?

Ahhh...............to be a Monday morning quarterback.

Mr. Kidds,

IMO, you can't even compare 2003 dollars with 1967 dollars in this case. Any comparison would be through an inflation index, or some other mathematical adjustment.

The problem with this is that it doesn't take into account 2003 waste. For example, I read an article by Bob Gurr on designing the monorail in 1958 and 59. Even though Walt signed an agreement with ALWEG, Bob had to take over design and construction of the monorail to keep it on schedule. Walt gave him one of the studio buildings as a work area, and put a rope up across the door while Bob designed and oversaw the construction of the trains. Bob actually made drawings on site and taped them to the existing structure so that construction people could understand what was to be done. And nobody crossed the rope. Not even Walt. He would stop at the rope and watch, but he respected Bob's ability enough to stay out of his way. In the end, ALWEG told them that the design wouldn't work, two weeks after it had opened at DL.

My point here is that Disney, as most other corporations today, probably has lots of process initiatives and quality programs like ISO9000 or TQM. There are most likely project managers and consultants running around. And all of this is sucking up some percentage of that $150M.

Walt hated waste, and he hated spending money on management trappings, like fancy offices. IMO, the company needs to streamline this stuff before we could make any comparison to 1967 dollars.

 

[crusader]

They found a ride system and decorated it as a "space ride".

Not true. They took THE space ride used at NASA training centers and tooled it for capacity. It is an authentic, unprecedented system. It doesn't get any purer than this.

It is absolutely perfect for EPCOT and a great use of capital.

Why are you so willing to accept that $150+ million is a good investment for going after thrill-seekers, and $300+ is not a good investment for going after everyone?

That "brilliant investment strategy" is the very reason you have a WDW to rave about today.

I'm with AV on the fact that money has a way of diverting. $300+ million is too much of Disney's resources to spend on one attraction.

$150 million is a benchmark that I see as manageable today. That's a sizeable budget. That's what can bring us great attractions the likes of Indiana Jones and ToT which each hit the 100 mil mark almost ten years ago. That's my "E" ticket.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Wedway..............

While not perfect, the comparison can still be made and of course it has to be adjusted for appropriate inflation indices. As for what you label "waste", like it or not it is a cost of doing business..................and some of those initiatives surely helped to "save" costs in other areas. It may even be a moot point as the lion's share of the $150 mil was probably subbed out anyway for the ride mech. But that may not matter much in the end either.

The question becomes, whatever the mix of cost may be, would it have been prudent or realistic to spend $300 mil on any attraction?

Using the CPI, what cost $300 mil in 2002 would have cost roughly $56 mil in 1967. Even if you discount the $300 mil for waste, did Disney spend upwards of $50 mil on an attraction back in the day? $40 mil? $30 mil? I have no idea, but I suspect not. If it turns out that not even Walt (getting around Roy) would have seen fit to spend that much to realize a single dream ride, how can we flat out say Eisner was wrong not to spend the equivalent amount?

People can say that they might have preferred one show over another, but that doesn't necessarily mean the show they did put on was not worthy of telling.