From what I recall at the time, GE was not happy with the attraction and did not want to invest again in rebuilding it. WDI wanted something more exciting, and GE wasn’t interested in ponying up. Whether other factors came into play…we can only assume they did.

Also, “gemini” the name was probably first used right after the millenium celebration. My first memory of giving it a name was from Jim Hill, but I could be wrong. What I am referring to is the plan to make the park, specifically FW, something very different. That pre-dates 2000, as Test Track was not the only ride they wanted to move in that direction.

Corporate sponsorship always has been deeply rooted in both FW and WS, and has driven the growth and success of pavilions on both sides of the bridge. We all know that many WS pavilions never saw the light of day simply due to the lack of corporate interest (and/or dollars), and FW is no different. Lack of corporate backing can easily sound the death knell for an attraction.
With regard to “Project Gemini” - in name alone, it really did not exist before the birth of “today’s” internet, with the earliest references I can find online to it were back in 2002. Theoretically, the “Blue Sky” concepts of adding Soarin’, updating SSE and adding a new pavilion/attraction may have predated that time, but did not take shape in the form of Gemini until much later. In fact, I think that much of the whole Gemini “debate” started with the mention of the name simply taking on a life of its own on the internet.

I firmly believe that there were never any realistic plans to “gut” SSE and implant a roller coaster into the sphere. First of all, from an engineering perspective, it would likely be close to impossible (save for slicing the ball in half horizontally, scooping out the insides like a grapefruit, reassembling it.. you get the idea). I also don’t necessarily believe it was ever the intention of the Disney Imagineers and decision-makers about making Future World more exciting, and instead may have just been fueled by internet discussion.

Finally, with regard to meeting space, I know from conversations with Event staff at WDW just how much revenue is derived from corporate events. Venues that might otherwise have been updated or filled (i.e. the Diamond Horseshoe and Odyssey), remain in their current state (for the time being) partially due to the amazing amount of dollars Disney is able to secure for events in these spaces. From training, to team-building, parties, etc., many of these areas come at a premium and are booked months in advance. To have another large arena for Disney to allow big-ticket events in does not make bad business sense. While I am the first to believe in the Disney “magic”, we can’t lose sight of the fact that it is a huge corporation, driven by dollars and cents, that also has a responsibility to answer to its shareholders.

Horizons is the “3rd Rail” of Disney debates. Touch it and you get fried. I guess I touched it. The fact is, the ride was a bore…

Not sure about the open debate about Epcot in the early 90s that you speak of. Stock reports and company literature from the period indicate a steady as she goes philosophy of corporate sponsorship. A couple of quotes from company materials:

“Enhancements moving Future World into the 21st century will begin with its major pavilions presented by outstanding American corporations in 1992 during the Tenth Anniversary of Epcot.”

“Discussions and planning are underway with charter Future World participants (sponsors) and concept teams are developing renovation proposals for World of Motion, The Land, SSE, UOE and Horizons.” (This from 1991)

At that same time, a Space pavilion was being considered that would have been wholly separate from Horizons. And the fact that WOL had just opened in late 1989 with MetLife firmly affixed to the pavilion, pretty much demonstrated that sponsorship model was deeply rooted and not going anywhere.

I don’t think a real substantial debate about Future World’s direction really emerged until the whole Project Gemini proposal from the early 2000s.

I don’t mind creating meeting space if the need is there, but I don’t think it should be sitting out in the open for all to see, but only some to use. I think many guests just wander from structure to structure to see the next “thing” at Disney parks. How many have wondered over to Odyssey to find a locked empty building? Now, they are creating another such building.

Jeff, did you ever wonder what GE thought of Horizons?

Also, by 1992 WDI was openly debating the future of Epcot, and sponsors were part of that debate. Yes, GE could have insisted it stay, but we know how that ended. Also, Horizons attendance figures at the end were nowhere near comparible to SE. Yes, it ate lines, but people were not riding anymore.