*From The Horizons Thread* Are thrill ride replacements of past rides better?

[Testtrack321]

Another Voice Said This In The "Was Horizons Worth Saveing" Thread...

Horizons’ was important to save because it was the clearest reflection of the message of park – there are choices we can make that will affect the future. The goal of the original EPCOT Center was to show what’s just around the corner. But the world got to that corner and the place became Epcot, and all about fattening wallets in the here and now.

The intent was to continually update ‘Horizons’. But that costs money. And it didn’t help either when Disney went out and bought a network that competes directly against the one owned by the pavilion’s sponsor. In the end though, the pavilion fell victim to the desire to sell easy tickets. It’s much easier to sell motion-induced nausea than it is to appeal to the imagination.

And speaking of ‘Test Track’, I’m going to pull a pirate. Frankly, the process of testing autos is the subject for a twenty minute industrial film you have to watch in the sixth grade (the day when the teacher forgot to bring the lesson plan and has to fill up the time). And zipping around in a fake car at the impressive speed of fifty-five mile per hour is what most adults call “the morning commute”. Granted that ‘World of Motion’ was little more than an ode to the internal combustion engine, but it wasn’t as bad as ‘Test Track’. Worse still is that Test Track has yet to explain why, with all this impressive mega technology and engineering magic – why hitting a pole at 5 mph cause $750 in damage to a car!!

This rases a good question. Are newer, more thrilling attractions, like Test Track, better or worse than their more tame conterparts, or vice versa? Does the story suffer when you zoom around hair pin turns at 50 mph?

My oppinion, no. Unless the whole attraction is faulty. If the same story is told, but with a more thrilling verson installed, the more thrilling verson will accomplish more. More people would ride it because of the thrill. Coaster haulics may not ride JII because of it's "lameness" (their term, I liked it), but would ride H,ISTA because it was more thrilling. They nessaserily don't tell the same story, but they are both about imagination.

Lets assume Test Track was a dark ride like WoM, and you went through a proving ground, saw vehicle design, and other things. Would it be better? More family oriented, no height requirement. Or will it be worse?

 

[Werner Weiss]

If I want thrill rides, I can be at Six Flags Great America (Gurnee, Illinois) in about 45 minutes. I haven't bothered to go there since 1986.

I enjoy Test Track, Dinosaur, Rock'n-Roller Coaster, Splash Mountain and Indiana Jones (California) -- so it's not that I hate thrill rides. I hated the Indiana Jones Coater at Disneyland Paris; my ears hurt for days after my head was banged back and forth betweeen the restraint bars.

It's not a matter of taking rides a "theming" them -- that's what they do at Six Flags (and what Disney did with Indiana Jones at Disneyland Paris). Disney needs to offer great, immersive attractions that tell a story. If a thrill element helps to tell that story, then let there be thrills! I could imagine a "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride" on a much grander scale than the defunct WDW attraction or the still-operating Disneyland version. Thrills could be an appropriate part of such an attraction.

 

[Bob O]

Newer/more thrilling rides are most defintely better than their lame counterparts IMHO! Disney has more than enough of those rides but very little in the thrill dept and i like Test track but dont consider it to be that much of a thrill ride.
Werner Weiss i go to Six Flags Great America often as its the closet park to my house. While not anywhere as good a experience as wdw, they do have rides like Raging Bull/Batman/V2 that are true thrill rides that outdo anything at disney in the thrill dept(other than tot) and they would be even greater rides if their was a better theming emphasis behind them! You can make great thrill rides with coasters, it just costs more to finsinh the storyline.

 

[raidermatt]

I voted no, but its a qualified no. Adding some thrills does not hurt, as is proven by the Mountains in MK. So 2-4 per park is fine, and Epcot really only has Test Track. HOWEVER, those 2-4 thrill rides need to be tamer thrill rides, which certainly Test Track and the Mountains are. While Disney does have height restricted rides, they are generally lower heights than the thrill rides at other parks, which is a good thing for families with young children, and families with non-thrill seekers. Disney just isn't in the business of competing with the biggest thrill parks around. Never have, and never should (in the existing parks, at least). I know my friend BobO disagrees, but I don't believe a single park can be all things to all people.

So for the most part, I don't think "all-heights" attractions should AUTOMATICALLY be replaced with height restricted ones. But if a park has none of these, as Epcot pretty much was, its ok to beef up a few, as long as they don't go overboard.

 

[Uncleromulus]

I don't mind "soft" thrill rides--like Splash Mountain. And Big Thunder Mountain is at the edge of my toleration level.
Basically tho, I am quite content to ride the train around the MK. I like the Tomorrowland Transit Authority!! I used to like Horizons and the World of Motion.
It seems that Disney must strike some sort of balance--if they go wholesale "amusement park" they'll lose people like me. But if they try to remain themed "soft rides", I can see they'll lose a lot of others.
The future will be interesting----

 

[Sandy Fisher]

First of all, I'll admit to being a person who doesn't like to "make waves". Never did. Hated doing presentations in class that required me to be standing in front of a whole group of people. Still don't like it. But here goes.......
Being one of the elder participants of most of these Disney boards, I realize I'm opening myself up to lots of boo-hiss reactions from some of the younger folks. My youngest DS is 27, so that gives you an idea of where I'm coming from.
We love Splash, Thunder, etc. Rode Test Track shortly after it opened (before Fast Pass I believe). Stood in line and got bored silly waiting for that brief ride. Was it fun? Yes. Would I stand in line again? No. Would I do it with no wait? Probably.
But I remember very clearly how enjoyable Horizons was -- our DSs were both MUCH younger then. And I loved World of Motion too. Those are attractions suitable for families, young and old, people with limited abilities, small children who can't ride many of the thrill rides, etc.
Yes, "thrill" rides belong at Disney. But I hate to see a trend that replaces things like Carousel of Progress, Horizons, etc. with 100% thrill rides that limit so many people. We are perfectly able (for now to ride the rough and tumble rides. But it won't always be that way. So much of the world caters to the young spending people. Don't like to admit it, but we 50-somethings spend a lot too. And we don't go to WDW to ride rollercoasters. We can do that at Hershey or Kings Dominion or something similar.
In my opinion (you'll be glad to know I'm almost finished) it takes less imagination, less theming, less originality to come up with a fast, short, rough ride than it does to come up with something like Spaceship Earth, etc.
We need a balance or WDW becomes just another amusement park.

 

[Barb]

I agree with the majority, here. If I want coasters, I'll go to Hershey Park or Cedar Point. I would love to see a balance of rides at all the parks. EPCOT is in serious need of another "E-Ticket". IMHO, both FW and WS need a jolt. I would love to see some attention given to the countries. Why not add some type of tamer thrill ride to WS? It might get more people back there. I see this time and time again-they race back to Maelstrom and then head out of WS. On the other hand, I do miss Horizons and World of Motion. It wouldn't hurt to keep attractions like these mixed in with the "thrill" rides. Why not offer something for everyone?

 

[Bob O]

I agree that wdw shuldnt be all thrill rides, but now their are hardly any true thrill rides at all that some thrills are needed for people who dont want to go on just on kiddie/familie rides. Epcot to me has no thrill rides at all, test track is ok but not a thrill ride. MK also has no thrill rides as well as Ak. Now mgm has two rides imho could be considered thrill ridesd RNRC and TOT. So for people complaining about the parks be overrun with thrill rides thats not the case at all IMHO. And even for people who talk about Universal as being a place for thrill rides IMHO Universal has no thrill rides and ioa only 3 that i would consider to be thrill rides-Hulk/DD/Dr Dooms fearfall.

 

[Testtrack321]

Lets do some clearification, Bob O...

Thrill Ride- any ride that has a height requirement or induces excitement through out the ride and ISN'T a rollercoaster.

Rollercoaster- any ride that uses gravity to propel a car accross a track after an inital "launch" (lift hill, LIM, air, etc.)

TT will be a thrill ride along with Body Wars and Honey. So will SpMtn. SplshMtn., Big T Mtn., and Alien Encounter. It dosn't nessesarily have to "move". Honey is a movie, but still has lots of excietment.

 

[Bob O]

testtrack321 so a rollercoaster isnt a thrill ride?????? or can a ride be a roller coaster and a thrill ride??? Even among coaster enthusiats their is a disagreement about what constitutes a roller coaster. Some claim Super the Escape is a roller coaster and some claim its not because its not full circuit. Your idea of what constitues a thrill ride would differ from mine, how can something be a ride if you are in a non-moving seat??? Doesnt a ride mean you have some type of movement?? How can honey be a ride unless something jabbing at you makes it a ride??? Not every roller coaster is a thrill ride!!!

 

[Planogirl]

I simply think of a thrill ride as any ride that might provide a thrill. This is very subjective of course but I believe that Test Track fits that definition because I certainly know of a few people who are scared of Test Track and felt quite "thrilled" while riding it. I also believe that a show fits the definition of "ride" but "attraction" may really be a better term in this case. That said, I like the idea of mixing thrill rides in with tamer rides (or shows as the case may be).

I still believe that Horizons had a concept that fit into Epcot quite well. I think it suited the concept better than a thrill ride (that term again! ) that seems guaranteed to make Body Wars seem soothing on the stomach by comparison.

 

[Testtrack321]

Originally posted by Bob O
testtrack321 so a rollercoaster isnt a thrill ride?????? or can a ride be a roller coaster and a thrill ride??? Even among coaster enthusiats their is a disagreement about what constitutes a roller coaster. Some claim Super the Escape is a roller coaster and some claim its not because its not full circuit. Your idea of what constitues a thrill ride would differ from mine, how can something be a ride if you are in a non-moving seat??? Doesnt a ride mean you have some type of movement?? How can honey be a ride unless something jabbing at you makes it a ride??? Not every roller coaster is a thrill ride!!!

Well, it seems that Honey DOES include a lot of thrilling portions in it. It "ACTS" like it is moving, eventhough it dosn't (excluding the 4 inches the theater moves, but that's a different story. And that's a non-moving seat. Dito with Bugs. As for the coasters, mine differs from you, but mine is still, any ride that first is propeled by gravety after an initial launch of some sort (lift hill, LIM, Air, etc.)

 

[d-r]

TT will be a thrill ride along with Body Wars and Honey. So will SpMtn. SplshMtn., Big T Mtn., and Alien Encounter. It dosn't nessesarily have to "move". Honey is a movie, but still has lots of excietment.

OK I want to know what I am voting on here.

if these are thrill rides:
body wars
splash mt.
t. mtn.
space mt.
hista
alien

before I play along here and vote let me know if these are thrill rides:

pirates of the carribean (thrilling drop in the darkness)
haunted mansion (thrilling drop backwards out of the attic window into the graveyard)
astro orbitor (really high and spinning)
winnie the pooh (thrilling bounces and swishy water)
goofys barnstormer (it is a roller coaster)
roger rabbit (spin!)

spaceship earth (thrilling drop backwards through starry dome)
maelstrom (trolls! it turns backwards!)
test track

Kali river
Safari (those trucks really cut out, although it never gets over 10mph)
ctx
tough to be a bug (hista)

star tours (body wars)
muppet vision (hista)
tot
rnr

Indiana Jones

at dca, mulhollund madness, orange stinger, sourin over ca., grizzly river, golden zypher, jumpin jelly fish (I'm assuming that the movies will be the same as wdw and that ca. screamin and mailboomer are thrill rides).

 

[starwood]

I think Disney needs to look at the number of rides they have that each age group can go on and achieve a balance. Thrill rides are OK but not at the expense of all the rides you could take a 3 year old on. After all Walt built Disneyland (and Disney World) for families and that means all ages (not just 15-50).

 

[King Triton]

Test Track is a big disappointment. I'm sorry, I can't get excited over some crash dummies. World of Motion was a lot better. Removing Horizons and World of Motion was a big mistake. Epcot is missing it's charm and magic. I feel so sorry for the people who missed out on seeing Horizons and World of Motion. The old Epcot was 100 times better! Forget the thrill rides - stick to the Disney magic and imagination. That's why we go to Disney.

Will the Disney suits please LISTEN!!

King Triton

 

[Bob O]

Horizons and World of Motion were removed because they had little attendance. People who visited Epcot voted with their vote by not going on the rides, its pure and simple!! They were almost always walk ons!!

 

[hopemax]

Because this annoys me "walk on" does not equal "unpopular." Horizons had a capacity of almost 2800 people per hour, World of Motion had a capacity of 3,240 people per hour! (love those Epcot fact sheets)

By comparison Test Track can run 29 vehicles at a time, 6 people per vehicle, the ride time is 5 1/2 minutes not including unload/load time, so the cars could be loaded 10 times per hour for a capacity of only about 1740 people. So theoretically WoM could be a "walk-on" but still have a daily ride total higher than Test Track's!

Also for comparison, Splash can run a maximum of 54 logs, 8 people per log, the ride is 11 minutes so the logs can be reloaded 5 times an hour or 2160 per hour, Space is about 2300 per hour with both tracks

Note: I do believe both WoM and Horizon's attendance had dropped to a low number that meant something had to be done. But just because a ride is a "walk on" don't assume it's an unpopular ride, and just because you see a ride with a line don't assume it's popular. Capacity matters and the old Epcot's ride capacities were HUGE!

I feel better now

 

[ContempoSMT]

yes and no.
Horizons was a great ride and i loved it but Mission Space is looking really cool and i am anticipating it for its opening.

 

[PlutoPal]

I think, even though Horizons was a good attraction, that the thrill rides are much more exciting than the old ones. I love RnR, ToT, and Test Track!

 

[PanamaMike]

Amusement parks with super intense rides are everywhere and if I want to ride a stand up, triple-looping, backward-spinning roller coaster, I'll go to a Six Flags or Paramount park or any one of countless other parks.

One of the things I (and countless others) have always loved about Disney is their attention to detail and the story behind the attraction. These are not "rides". Sure, many of them are slow moving, but that's part of the appeal, knowing that for the next 6, 8,11 or 13 minutes I can sit back and enjoy the show. It also helps endure waiting in line, knowing when you do get on, it won't be over in 1 1/2 minutes.

Of course as technology allows faster and more exciting thrills, Disney has to stay competitive, but I think sometimes we are too eager to tear down the past to make way for the future, only to regret it later.