Originally Posted By leobloom I can't believe some of you are so sure that Horizons, WoM, Wonders of Life, and Journey into Imagination aren't coming back. In case you haven't heard, the only thing Disney wants to do right now is reopen old attractions. They seem most comfortable trotting out the old, retired "classics" for whatever reasons. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if they decided to rebuild Horizons. Well, actually it would surprise me since, technically, that would mean they would have to build a new E-ticket for one of their Florida parks.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>Sure, I want high quality. I'd hardly call TT high-quality with it's barely there scenes and sterile setting. That being said, the technology behind the ride is fantastic.<<< The technology is fantastic and that is the attraction...the rest is a set to show off that technology...I guess I'm the only one that see that. To me the scenes are just a place to run the technology through...not really the story. Probably just me though!
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<The technology is fantastic and that is the attraction...the rest is a set to show off that technology...I guess I'm the only one that see that. To me the scenes are just a place to run the technology through...>> That's not what an attraction in parks like Disney and Universal is supposed to be. It's supposed to tell a story, not just show you what a ride vehicle can do. Hence why attractions like Forbidden Journey, Spider-man, Indiana Jones, and Tower of Terror succeed so much. They mix terrific story with terrific technology.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I probably didn't word that correctly, there is a story, it just isn't the primary focus of the attraction. It's not the first to do that. Universe of Energy originally didn't have a story, it was just one long, long Exxon commercial. No one complained loudly about that, but then they put in Ellen, which did contain a story, and everyone thought it was awful. Note: when I use the words "no one" and "everyone", I am, of course, not being literal...just figures of speech. Anyway, that is what happens when you rely on corporations to fund attractions. They want to get the brunt of the attention that they paid dearly to show. Continuing with my thought...what story was Living Seas telling, or for that matter, the land or Wonders. They were exhibitions not stories as was most everything in Epcot. Imagination was the only true "show" of the Dark Rides, in my opinion. Even Spaceship Earth was a moving history of communication, not a story. Epcot had a much different mission then MK did. Now everyone wants Epcot to be a bigger MK. Variety is good...not everything has to be the same (I've said that before).
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Variety is good...not everything has to be the same<< But when the surveys say that guests enjoy XXXX type of attractions, what incentive is there to try something new? Why take a risk on surpassing their expectations, when you know you can meet them? And when you aim to meet expectations, you'll never blow the audience away.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<what story was Living Seas telling>> You were traveling into an under water seabase. <<the land>> Kitchen Kabaret and Symbiosis were informative and fun, same with Living with the Land. Test Track ain't informative, and it's barely fun. <<Wonders>> Cranium Command, Making of Me, and Body Wars all had a story. <<Even Spaceship Earth was a moving history of communication, not a story.>> Since when is history not a story?
Originally Posted By ChiMike I have to agree with Hokie, Goofy. You're falling into the Everest trap with the idea of literal stories for each attraction. They should hang a big "The End" banner at every unload. The older attractions were designed by former movie men for the most part. They didn't have stories as much as synopsis. Most scripts or screenplays are sold with a pitch or synopsis attached. It is my belief that the pitch or synopsis was all that the designers felt was needed for their creations. At which point the audience, CMs, environments would take over to fill the blanks. Like many interpretations of the past recently at WDI, the current crack pot crew of designers completely misunderstood this central notion and for the last 7 years we have been overly subjected to "story" "story" "story" from everything to field guides to Discovery channel shows. From Pirates, to Haunted Mansion, to the examples Hokie gave, most things up until 1994-1995 can be summed up by a two sentence introduction. Even ToT. The modern inclusion of the video preshow has certainly also caused this shift, ToT being at the genesis of it for the most part. ToT straddled the line between abstract preshows such as Flight to the Moon, Tiki, and Haunted Mansion* to post ToT shows including Indy that were far more literal.
Originally Posted By ChiMike * Some would argue that Haunted Mansion's foyer and/or stretching rooms are completely part of the main show and not preshows. A very compelling argument. At Disneyland, I would argue that the foyer, if not the stretching rooms is certainly a preshow. At MK, even prior to the goofy additions the structure of the foyer lends itself more to be apart of the attraction. IMO.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> The technology is fantastic and that is the attraction...the rest is a set to show off that technology...I guess I'm the only one that see that. To me the scenes are just a place to run the technology through... << Do you mean the technology of the ride vehicles or the technology of actual car testing? Because, if anything, the attraction seems to do a better job showing off the vehicle technology than the actual GM car testing technology that the ride is supposed to be about. I mean, the "tests" they decided to include are so weak it's laughable. Incline test? Dodging cones? Hot and cold rooms? Drive around a cardboard-cutout "forest." If you ever get evacuated out of TT (or if you ever get a view from the GM lounge of the interior of the ride), you'll notice how little there is to it. It's just a warehouse with a few props.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I really enjoy Test Track, but I will agree that the sets are a little sparse. At least the cardboard cutout forest tries to do SOMETHING... once you are past that you really are just in a dark warehouse with black walls and a few sparse sets here and there. Unlike EE where you are going so fast that you wouldn't see much anyway, on TT you have plenty of time to look at all the nothing.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Because, if anything, the attraction seems to do a better job showing off the vehicle technology than the actual GM car testing technology that the ride is supposed to be about. << Great point Leo!
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Think out of the box...vehicle technology sponsored by GM. Product by association. You cannot duplicate an actual test track in a building, so there was never an attempt to make it absolute. However, what else would you put auto technology of that degree through to showcase it with that theme. Test Track is as much of a ride as, let's say, Space Mountain. You get the story, however, weak it is, while waiting to ride. The ride itself is just a ride unless you can convince me that someone putting out the lights is a major advancement in story telling. If so, I would like a job as an imagineer please...send my check directly to the bank. At least with TT you are visually in contact with something. But when all is said and done, like Space Mountain, it is just a ride. A high tech. ride but a ride. I don't understand how it can be seen as anything else.
Originally Posted By ChiMike Not story. Synoposis: Venture through a futuristic spaceport to climb aboard a rocketship for a thrilling ride among the stars/cosmos. Easy, simple, to the point for the guest to grab ahold of as introductory exposition to their upcoming attraction experience. Nowadays, wdi would create some elaborate and expensive backstory that no one would pick up on or care about. Something about a former astronaut now going into business for himself and using the proceeds to pay to feed all the poor life forms on Neptune.
Originally Posted By leobloom That last sentence was funny stuff, Mike. And sad, too, since it sounds like something WDI would come up with.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>> <<Even Spaceship Earth was a moving history of communication, not a story.>> Since when is history not a story<<<< I don't consider it a traditional narrative, it's the exposition of something. But yeah, it could be a "story".
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Not story. Synoposis: Venture through a futuristic spaceport to climb aboard a rocketship for a thrilling ride among the stars/cosmos. Easy, simple, to the point for the guest to grab ahold of as introductory exposition to their upcoming attraction experience. Nowadays, wdi would create some elaborate and expensive backstory that no one would pick up on or care about. Something about a former astronaut now going into business for himself and using the proceeds to pay to feed all the poor life forms on Neptune<<< Heck, you don't even have to make it that far fetched. GM car takes you through history with GM ingenuity. High speed finale. Done. Ford's Magic Skyway was that premise, without the thrill, of course.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>That last sentence was funny stuff, Mike. And sad, too, since it sounds like something WDI would come up with.<< Thanks Leo, it would be funny if it wasn't so sadly possible. ...The guests would have to use their rockets to deliver the food in time to the famished Neptunians. Any hack like me can come up with this cynical idea in a blink of an eye, but it truly takes the talent of WDI to spend 25 million developing it.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<Ford's Magic Skyway was that premise, without the thrill, of course. >> I love listening to Walt's narration in that attraction.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Heck, you don't even have to make it that far fetched. GM car takes you through history with GM ingenuity. High speed finale. Done. Ford's Magic Skyway was that premise, without the thrill, of course<< EE, I was strictly speaking toward SM. That the attraction intentionally was void of story. It certainly was inspired by 2001 and Black Hole, but the story development only went as far as my first synopsis above
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Why are people here behaving as if somehow having a compelling "story" behind a ride/ attraction somehow makes it a far better and superior than it's counterparts? Is there a backstory to "Soarin"? How about HM or Hall of Presidents? Why can't you just enjoy the ride without having to be "briefed" about it first? You know I just realized there is actually a backstory to the Wilderness Lodge and Wilderness Lodge Villas. Oh Dear!
