Testtrack321
<font color=blue>Good GOD, man, quit banging your
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2001
Another Voice Said This In The "Was Horizons Worth Saveing" Thread...
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?
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 whats 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 didnt help either when Disney went out and bought a network that competes directly against the one owned by the pavilions sponsor. 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.
And speaking of Test Track, Im 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 wasnt 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?