Horizons represented all that was special about the original Epcot Center. It inspired us; leaving guests with a sense of awe, and full of hope and utter amazement about the future experienced in a day at Epcot. Horizons (and the rest of Epcot) simply spewed pixie-dust (how else do you explain the feelings Epcot & Horizons left you with?). Lesley said it even better:
Horizons appealed to a sense of wonder and optimism about the future...there was story going on there of some of the best kind...the kind where your imagination is challenged to consider the possibilities.
Horizons was truly a sight to behold - at least in 1983 when it premiered. The problem, of course, was a 1983 vision of the future looks rather dated in the mid-90's, dulling that sense of "awe" and wonder. Regular updates are the only solution (Disney could open an attraction about the future in 2002; left untouched, it too might look pretty awful in 10-15 years). For enduring years of neglect, I'll argue Horizons held up fairly well (and better in many ways than the original Tommorrowland). The amount of updating to "freshen" Horizons would not have been (
should not have been) that dramatic, nor that expensive. The destruction of Horizons was a mistake, and a tremendous loss for Epcot.
For those who loved the original Epcot attractions (dark, "omnimover type", whole-family rides), only Spaceship Earth survives.
Four major pavilions have been either forever lost or radically altered. Little wonder that many people (who formally raved over Epcot) now find much less there to stir the imagination (pun intentional). Naturally, dark rides aren't everyone's favorite type of attraction, hence the apparent attempt to "thrill-up" Future World. However, the "thrill-ride" crowd isn't exactly overjoyed with Future World either, for they have but a single thrill ride of their own - Test Track. This is a gross oversimplification of Epcot today, but you (hopefully) get my point.
WDW theme parks should offer something for everyone (but with almost every ride accessible to
virtually all guests - too many recent efforts have been thrill rides). The ideal solution, of course, would have given us Horizons and Mission:Space, World of Motion and Test Track (in both cases, the rides actually complement each other!). Horizons, and the other "lost" attractions, could easily have been updated - brought back to high attendance, state of the art magic - and probably for less money than was wasted on the JIYI debacle, the Spaceship Earth icon, and other ill advised projects (the "hat"). This would have given Future World something for everyone - the thrill seeker and the family. Simply tearing them out seems like such a waste. Besides, if you lose a pavilion for every one you add, the park gains nothing long-term (hmm...guess we only "need" six attractions per day anyway, right?). Instead, to quote Lesley again:
Now we'll get yet another ride that will require a lengthy break in a child swap waiting area for many families, and will most likely not kindle that same sense of "possibility". Hmmm...what was it Walt wanted for his parks? A place where parents and children could have fun together? I don't think that statement was qualified with "over 40" tall"
Anyone can develop rides which produce excitement via thrills ("cheap thrills" all-too often, ie. Dinorama). In other words: "faster, wetter, wilder" rides that would feel right at home over at IOA or Six Flags. As AV noted:
In the end though, the pavilion fell victim to the desire to sell easy tickets. Its much easier to sell motion-induced nausea than it is to appeal to the imagination.
Far greater skill, talent, imagination, and - of course - money is necessary to generate excitement through fantasy or story, yet that is what Disney has always done best. Indeed, such attractions are what WDW is known for - the reason we have passes to WDW instead of a regional ("Six Flags" type) park. There's no harm in a
few rides with a thrill element, but there are very good reasons to avoid this element in the vast majority of (family) attractions.