After four years, what is the legacy of Mission: Space
Today marks the anniversary of Mission: Space which began soft openings on August 15, 2003 . The intense fanfare began long before the grand opening in October of that same year. Now four years old may not be the most significant or miraculous of milestones, but it has not been an easy four years for attraction that was to revolutionize thrill rides and the theme park industry as a whole.
Mission: Space reportedly cost well over $100 million to develop and launch, as well as an absolutely ridiculous amount of time and effort on the part of Imagineering and even some NASA consultants. Everywhere you went in Orlando and beyond, the ride’s logo could be found. Disney pulled out all the stops to hype this new thrill ride and it worked on me. Being a sucker for the space program, this looked like a dream come true. I mean to actually feel what those people feel during lift off?? I couldn’t wait.
During the initial testing phase, rumors circled that the Imagineers needed to tame down the intensity level because riders were getting terribly sick. After it opened to the public, reports were somewhat mixed. Some said it was an amazing experience, while others reported it was too physically taxing and the story was somewhat unimaginative. Though I enjoyed it, it was too intense for me to ride it over and over again. That same feeling worked its way through many fans, causing the initial honeymoon to wear off rather quickly.
Soon reports surfaced of people, especially older people, needing to be taken to the hospital for medical treatment after riding Mission: Space. Then in June of 2005 a four year old boy died after the ride. Only 10 months later, a woman died as well. Both were found to have pre-existing conditions, but the damage was done. Lines for the attraction disappeared and Disney needed to respond by offering a less intense version called the Green Team.
The ride that was supposed to be the most amazing new experience at Disney World, and the crowning achievement for Imagineering, turned into a public relations catastrophe. Lines still rarely get too long and the attempt to use it for marketing purposes has all but stopped. The attraction that replaced Horizons, beloved by purists everywhere, had everything going for it. It had oodles of money invested and as much manpower as anyone can ask. But perhaps the Imagineers reached to high. Many think the failure of Mission: Space has forever backed Disney off the “ultra” thrill rides and re-focused them on to more family related attractions that are slightly less intense. Only time will tell.
Eric said,
August 15, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
“Many think the failure of Mission: Space has forever backed Disney off the “ultra” thrill rides and re-focused them on to more family related attractions that are slightly less intense. Only time will tell.”
I can only hope.
I think I tried the original version just once or twice, and that was plenty. The “thrill” wasn’t worth the hour of nausea that followed. On our last trip I tried the green version, and was thrilled. It gave me enough sense of movement to be fun, and, let’s face it, the cockpit is just cool. (All those flashing buttons, levers and knobs are irresistable to me.)
While it was an expensive lesson learned (over $100 mil) I think it is still a serviceable attraction with both versions now open. And the building exterior is beautiful!
Raidermatt said,
August 16, 2007 @ 7:59 am
Honestly, I don’t think they reached too high, I think they didn’t try to reach high enough.
I don’t mean in terms of intensity. On that note I’m with you guys. I can ride either version with little trouble, but when I think of the excitement of space, I don’t think of feeling g’s.
Going for a thrill ride was the easy way out. Really, what takes more imgaination, building a thrill ride based on a physical thrill or building a ride that thrills without needed that physical thrill?
They focused on trying to simulate a simulator so you can feel a fraction of what a real astronaut feels. If instead they had focused on simulating the wonders of space, and attempted to show you distant worlds and stars, let you see a supernova explode, flew you by a black hole, a comet, and many other amazing things NONE of use will ever get close to in real life, they could have had a truly amazing experience that just might have been that revolutionary attraction they billed M:S to be.
Instead they focused on the ride mech, and counted on the g’s to be the draw. Cheap graphics on a tiny screen and a truly lame attempt at interactivity. I agree with Eric that it LOOKS cool, both inside and out, but it’s a shame that after all that time, money and effort, that’s all they’re left with. Disney really is capable of so much more.
Matt said,
August 16, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
I remember the hype around this attraction and people keeping tallys of how much they’ve ridden it and how amazing it was. Really, hype can’t begin to describe how this attraction was billed. And by the time M:S hit it’s 1 year birthday, I’d say it was tossed in the back of many minds and once Soarin’ opened up and later Everest, it became MIssion:Who?
I remember riding this on my first solo trip as my first attraction back in 2004 or so and I ran over, amazed by no line for it, rode it and thought it was okay. The preshow(s) are too long and pointless, the best part of the ride are launch and lunar orbit and they are far too short. And like Dave mentioned, the story is really loose.
I like M:S, it’s something I will ride at least once and like Dave mentioned, rarely has a line of significance. I remember talking to Jim Hill about M:S and he said that Disney had grand visions of spinning this attraction to all of its theme parks around the world and in terms of the scope of what the Imagineers had in mind, M:S failed. It’s too bad, because like Dave, the space theme really appealed to me and I really wanted to love this attraction.
Eric said,
August 17, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
While I agree that it should be at the Studios, allow me to speculate on why Future World was chosen.
Since it is only scheduled to be for one week, perhaps they were looking for a more densely populated park area in order for these test runs to gather a larger audience. Future World obviously gets more walk-by traffic than the Muppets area of the Studios, hence a greater number of park guests to interact with.
How sad is it that Disney has allowed the Muppet properties to lanquish in obscurity for so long that it seems an entire generation of children do not recognize them? There are plenty of ways to use the Muppets in the parks and expand their presence in the Studios. (Cheap plug: To hear some of those ideas, be sure to listen to Mouse Guest Weekly this Sunday.)
Eric said,
August 17, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
Heh….wrong topic. Oops! let me try that again.