Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom << The Disney of today would never build a dark ride like Horizons. Of course, they'd probably never attempt SSE, WoM, Energy, or the Land boat ride, either.>> I miss Horizons as well. But, in all fairness Disney in many ways has excelled since Horizons. Indy is an incredible darkride! And with all do respect the little mermaid is about to open in DLR ( with another coming to WDW in the next year ) and that will also be a well detailed darkride.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Yes HokieSkipper you will get no arguement from me there, mermaid will be too short. But mermaid's animatronics will be far superior to Horizons and WoM. Plus, Disney is going to have to foot the bill for "mermaid" unlike the financing for Horizons and WoM.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> I miss Horizons as well. But, in all fairness Disney in many ways has excelled since Horizons. Indy is an incredible darkride! And with all do respect the little mermaid is about to open in DLR ( with another coming to WDW in the next year ) and that will also be a well detailed darkride. << Fair point. I like the Indy dark ride and I guess Mermaid will be a nice little Fantasyland ride. But Horizons, WoM, SSE and the other Epcot rides didn't depend on movie franchises or animated movies for their content. Another reason why Horizons is something that Disney would never build today. It was ambitious and unpredictable. Before you rode Horizons for the first time, there was no way to anticipate what you would be seeing. With Mermaid, I feel like I know what I'm going to see, even before I ride it. It's just a paint-by-numbers retelling of the movie.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Another reason why Horizons is something that Disney would never build today. It was ambitious and unpredictable. Before you rode Horizons for the first time, there was no way to anticipate what you would be seeing.>> Horizons had it's merits. What was incredible that was it didn't rely on one single type of technology but actually used several different ones. But I could not help but think the "Imax" scene with all the green lines and stuff to be very "Tron" like. And let's face it the minitures were very reminecent of Walt's model of EPCOT, kinda hokie ( no pun intended). I always preferred dark rides that relied on animatronics rather than movies and minitures.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Having the main character in a major attraction in a Disney Park broken for several years is far from trivial.>> If Obama or Lincoln were broken in the Hall of Presidents, I would agree. But you see the Yeti in EE for about 3 seconds... not exactly a main character for me. For the the "main character" is the fantastic queue, the great show building (the mountain) and the coaster itself. They could do without the Yeti completely and I'd be fine with that. At times the anticipation of what you MIGHT see is far better than what you actually see... whether the Yeti is working or not.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Horizons was also my favorite attraction in the original Epcot. But I must say that the last few years I rode it, it was ALWAYS a walk-on. I know you can't believe everything you read, but I've read one of the reasons for replacing Horizons was that the show building was literally falling apart. Personally, even though I LOVE Mission Space, I would have preferred to see Horizons replaced with another Horizons type attraction. But you have to remember that the planning on this was done as Islands of Adventure was coming on line, and I think Disney felt it had to do something to compete with the thrill ride component of IOA. As for World of Motion... OVER-RATED!! I went on it my first visit to Epcot and never bothered again. I think Test Track is a far better attraction.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<If Obama or Lincoln were broken in the Hall of Presidents, I would agree. But you see the Yeti in EE for about 3 seconds... not exactly a main character for me. For the the "main character" is the fantastic queue, the great show building (the mountain) and the coaster itself. They could do without the Yeti completely and I'd be fine with that. At times the anticipation of what you MIGHT see is far better than what you actually see... whether the Yeti is working or not.>> Okay. I mean that's cool. I think it's nuts, but that's cool. Haha The entire queue/ride is a build up for your encounter with the Yeti. That's how it was designed. And as it stands now, it's a mediocre coaster with it's main show piece out of commission. If I wanted a mediocre coaster, I could go to my local Six Flags and ride one of their non-marquee rides. I come to Disney to see things I can't at home. And yes, the mountain looks great, and the queue is great. But the ride? Lacks in a lot of areas.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>...but I've read one of the reasons for replacing Horizons was that the show building was literally falling apart.<< Was the building falling apart because of some intrinsic problem with the building or attraction? Or was it because Disney had completely given up on the ride, so they saw no value in attempting to maintain it? The same thing happened after the closure of 20K, which lead to the eventual removal of the lagoon, when it started leaking into adjacent cast locker rooms under Fantasyland. I believe that occurred because Disney didn't give a rat's behind about the lagoon, so they stopped performing any sort of regular maintenance on it, which lead to the problems. I can only assume that Horizons experienced much of the same, since it had been closed for a while, only to reopen during the TestTrack construction. They had already given up on the attraction and it was resurrected from beyond the grave. They knew that it wasn't going to be around much longer, so why would they see value in taking care of it? All the work would just be torn out in a few years anyway. The building may have been falling apart, but I don't see this as a sign it was time to go, it was just a sign that Disney didn't care about it any more. Horizons had many buildings around it that were built in the same era (most were actually a year older), and presumably had at least as much traffic, yet none of them were literally falling apart. The closure of that attraction has always been a little suspicious to me, but I think that this is a clear sign that Disney was just looking for excuses to get rid of it. Make it look so bad that nobody will want to ride it, and then it's easy to justify closing it.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Horizons had it's merits. What was incredible that was it didn't rely on one single type of technology but actually used several different ones*** Total agree. But I could not help but think the "Imax" scene with all the green lines and stuff to be very "Tron" like. And let's face it the minitures were very reminecent of Walt's model of EPCOT, kinda hokie ( no pun intended)*** Are you seriously arguing that taking inspiration from Walt Disney himself was somehow a BAD idea? ????? ***I always preferred dark rides that relied on animatronics rather than movies and miniatures*** You are arguing about small points in the whole masterpiece. Sort of like people who argue the Mona Lisa was no good because her eyes were too close together. Big picture, dude. Big picture.
Originally Posted By Mr X And I should add, Horizons features some of the best animatronics and animatronic scenes that Disney has ever produced.
Originally Posted By Manfried What I can't help notice about Universal is who are doing the designs. Yep, a bunch of Imagineers. Many of them forced out or laid off by those who played the "whatever you want Michael" game. So that means when it comes to Imagineers working on WDW, all you have left there for the most part of the leftover "whatever you want Michael" crowd.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Horizons was also my favorite attraction in the original Epcot*** Mine too! ***But I must say that the last few years I rode it, it was ALWAYS a walk-on*** The year I lived in Kissimmee and had an AP, I considered that BONUS. I knew full well that my very favorite attraction in WDW was a guaranteed walk on. Sindbad at DisneySea is very similar. If the general public hate it, oh well. I can walk on anytime. (sadly, that probably means Sindbad will go the way of the dinosaurs at some point, too) ***I know you can't believe everything you read, but I've read one of the reasons for replacing Horizons was that the show building was literally falling apart*** I can confirm that much from my bizarre hurricane behind the scenes tour. The place was in rough shape (and that was back in 1999 or so). ***Personally, even though I LOVE Mission Space, I would have preferred to see Horizons replaced with another Horizons type attraction*** Agreed. Except that I didn't really love Space. I liked it, and appreciated some of the excellent technology behind it. But I didn't love it, I'd have preferred the ending be some sort of challenging landing segment to the simulation rather than a silly "OMG! Something has gone horribly wrong!" easy way out for the designers. ***But you have to remember that the planning on this was done as Islands of Adventure was coming on line, and I think Disney felt it had to do something to compete with the thrill ride component of IOA*** Disney is at their best when they AREN'T trying to one-up the competition, at least not directly and in a hurry. The MGM "answer" to Universal Florida never stacked up, and trying to turn Epcot into a thrill park still doesn't impress that tween and teen segment they were so desperate to appeal to, even today. ***As for World of Motion... OVER-RATED!! I went on it my first visit to Epcot and never bothered again. I think Test Track is a far better attraction*** Great minds think alike.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA ***But I must say that the last few years I rode it, it was ALWAYS a walk-on*** I used to take my Traditions classes onto "Horizons" -- it was always a walk-on, and a much needed air-conditioned break as we traipsed through the parks on our walking tour.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***trying to turn Epcot into a thrill park still doesn't impress that tween and teen segment they were so desperate to appeal to, even today*** I heard a speech to cast members from the Ambassador along those lines when Test Track was under construction, by the way. The direction they took was TOTALLY going for that segment of the population, and if you ask me they failed miserably (those kids will ALWAYS choose Universal for their thrill seeking needs, or even 6-Flags, as they can both deliver it up in a way Disney can never hope to match). That speech was the first time I was shocked into realizing that some powers that be at Disney are complete idiots.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>Sort of like people who argue the Mona Lisa was no good because her eyes were too close together.<<< No, it is simply too small and crowded around the picture.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I really enjoy Universal Studios... I think it is definitely superior to Disney Studios and probably at least equal to the MK. But as far as I'm concerned Epcot and the AK still beat anything Universal Florida has to offer.>> I'd rather spend a day at UNI and/or IOA than at either MK or TPFKaTD-MGMS. I still love Epcot, although FW just needs a good $700-900 million STAT. And DAK ... well, Joe designed an amazing place, but the folks that run it truly are destroying it, bit by bit. I had a very BAD two hour visit last week and I've noticed issues for years now. <<As for restaurants, your comparison is unfair. You are comparing Tchoup Chop to a couple of Disney hotel restaurants that while popular, certainly aren't known as the best restaurants at WDW. How does Tchoup Chop rate compared to the California Grill or Victoria and Albert’s... typically regarded as two of the finest restaurants in Florida?>> Tchoup Chop is hands down my favorite resort dining experience in O-Town right now absolutely. It blows away any/every WDW signature location, including my beloved California Grill (where I haven't dined since 2008 because I refuse to keep paying more, while DDP guests that at one time would be at the KFC on 192 diminish my dining experience). No, it is no V&A's. But that is one special animal. It is a 5-star dining locale. And it is an experience ... a culinary journey that should take a good 3-4 hours. ... And let's face it, V&A's is a place that a tiny minority of WDW guests ever go near. You may not like my comparison of 'Ohana and Kona Cafe, but they are both extremely popular and located at a Polynesian-themed DELUXE resort at WDW. Since Papeete Bay Verandah and Tangaroa Terrace are ancient history, the two locales above are the top two 'high end' dining locales at the Poly. Tchoup Chop is one of four locations at the Poly-themed MODERATE Royal Pacific Resort at UNI. I will not go to O-Town now without eating two meals (one lunch, one dinner) there. It is just that good. It has something that Disney's top locales used to have pre-DDP ... class. <<Has Universal stepped up its game in the past 10 years? ABSOLUTELY! Does it currently beat WDW as a vacation destination? No way.>> That's opinion. Again, I'm not comparing size and scope. Disney wins that battle, but you know something? It isn't the important one. Quality, value and treatment of guests and employees matter more to me. <<How many golf courses does Universal have?>> Have you ever played a round at WDW? How many typical fans do? <<How many places can you rent watercraft or go parasailing?>> I don't believe any. But again, you're picking things that are vestiges from the 1971-1991 period when WDW was still The Vacation Kingdom of the World. I love to rent bikes and ride around FW and the WL. I love to get a treatment at the Spa at SS. I enjoy renting a boat (something I haven't done myself in years now) at FW. ... But really, how many people do these things vs. spending parts of four days in a week at the MK mindlessly riding the same attractions over and over ad nauseum? How many folks will stay at say the BW or PO or WL and NEVER even use the pools? <<Do they have any evening show even approaching Illuminations, Fantasmic or Wishes?>> Nope. They haven't had anything even decent at night since the old stunt show on the lagoon, which was worlds better than either tired stunt show at TPFKaTD-MGMS. <<Yes, you look at a few select areas and Universal beats WDW. But overall WDW wins hands down. To claim otherwise shows you are just plain burned out on WDW, which is certainly understandable. But don’t start claiming Uni is the superior resort because it just plain is not!>> The whole point of the thread has nothing to do with me being burned out on WDW or Disney (I'll remind you of my fanboi royalty status since I've visited every Disney resort since fall of '09 and taken a 15-night DCL cruise) and everything to do with Disney lowering the bar for the important things, while UNI has raised it. Let's talk about that and not how WDW has 43 square miles of timeshares, hotels, buses and paved, traffic clogged roadways. Disney wins that battle and the pixie dust crown and the pandering to mentally unstable people who are looking for something that doesn't exist crown too!
