As longtime readers of this blog know, I reviewed both
Mission Breakout and its Halloween overlay,
Monsters After Dark, several months ago. After those initial reviews, I took the time to ride both versions of the Guardians of the Galaxy Tower multiple times in order to more fully assess the attractions. In doing so, I came to a surprising conclusion: I really,
really enjoyed Monsters After Dark.
Now, liking a ride in itself isn't a strange thing, but it seemed that there should be few reasons for me to enjoy that
particular attraction as much as I did. Not only is it an extension of the (in my opinion) hideous GOTG makeover of my favorite Disneyland attraction, but it is an
overlay of an overlay, multiple levels of temporary solutions seemingly meant to avoid designing an original attraction. Yet, starting with my first ride on Monsters After Dark, I absolutely loved it despite its flaws. Something about it just
worked.
Repeated ride-throughs of Mission Breakout, however, did nothing to improve my opinion of that attraction. The "mere exposure effect" never seemed to take root. Something about the experience of Mission Breakout just
didn't work in the way that Tower of Terror or Monsters After Dark worked. In mentally comparing the three different attractions, I finally realized what was "off".
Tower of Terror, Monsters After Dark, and Mission Breakout significantly differ in their approaches to storytelling, with Tower and Monsters making the guests engaged and involved in the story (experiential storytelling) and Mission Breakout making guests merely
watch the story (observational storytelling).
Tower and Monsters both have observational storytelling in addition to the experiential, of course. In general, rides have both types of storytelling present. Tower has the observable story of the five unlucky passengers whose elevator gets sent to the Twilight Zone via lightning (and the characters the guests represent being unfortunate enough to follow in their footsteps), while Monsters has the plot of Rocket trying to rescue Groot from the now-wrecked Collector's Fortress. However, both of these attractions also make sure the guests are engaged in the plot experientially; they balance the experiential with the observable.
In the Tower of Terror, guests are cursed to experience the fateful night of the Twilight Zone disaster. Supernatural forces take control of the hotel once again as the guests hope for survival, stuck helpless in the elevator car. Riders of course cannot change anything about the story, but this plays in to the horror. Both as actors and as characters we are forced to watch as the supernatural takes over and we hope for the best. The horror of events being out of your control, as well as wishing to escape the haunting unscathed, also engage the guests regardless of their familiarity with
The Twilight Zone, and the basic concept of "haunted building doing scary stuff" works regardless of the IP. The pre-show even highlights the experiential nature of the attraction: "In tonight's episode,
you are the star..."
Of course, in-story,
why our characters are going through this is one of Tower's greatest plot holes and perhaps its most notable flaw. Pure Imagineering's best summary is
"because reasons". Some research about
The Twilight Zone has led me to one possible, albeit unsatisfying, conclusion, which I'll detail below (in
green in case anyone wishes to skip this diversion and continue with experiential storytelling):
The Twilight Zone, in the eponymous show, is often (although not always) a realm of karmic punishment. In the book Everything I Need to Know I Learned in the Twilight Zone by Mark Dawidziak, the author notes that people who take dares fare especially poorly in the Zone. What was the marketing campaign heavily centered around? "I took the dare!" The pre-show video even states "We invite you if you dare to step aboard." It's possible that, by taking the dare to enter the building and/or ride the elevator, our characters were getting their punishment for taking dares. Likewise, our characters seemingly are poking around an abandoned and potentially dangerous tragic disaster site for no good reason, and thus being stupid and/or disrespectful--two other things that generally aren't rewarded in the Twilight Zone.
Of course, "this is happening because our characters were stupid jerks" is far from a satisfying explanation, and it stems from a knowledge of the ride's source material that the average rider may not have (and should not be required to have), so I won't posit my guess here as "canon". Instead it's merely the best explanation I can offer. Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Forbidden Eye sadly does use "the curse happens because your characters were stupid jerks" as its official story, so it wouldn't be completely out of character for Disney to use this plot device, however.
Monsters After Dark also uses the guests' forced passivity to make them engaged in the experience. Rocket is trying to rescue Groot, but needs some bait to distract the dangerous monsters loose in the building. This results in him setting up a constantly-moving elevator of warm, tasty humans to distract a dragon. Our inability to affect the outcome of the ride is once again played for horror; we have to hope our elevator drops out of the dragon's jaws at the right time. Despite us watching Rocket rescue Groot,
we are directly threatened by the dragon. There is a stake in the outcome regardless of whether or not the riders care about, or even know about, the Guardians of the Galaxy. The result is an engaging and thrilling experience that probably deserved better than being an overlay of an overlay.
In contrast, Mission Breakout is almost entirely observational and dependent on guests' familiarity with and love for the Guardians of the Galaxy. It's all about watching the Guardians, well, break out. The information presented in the queue presents little to introduce who the characters are, apparently requiring that the average guest watch a few Marvel movies first (although, being a Marvel fan, I cannot confirm that someone unfamiliar would be confused, as I
did understand the references). The pre-show sets up that the guests' hand prints are required to shut down the building generator, but this duty is fulfilled within the literal opening seconds of the ride. From then on, the guests have no personal stake in what occurs; rather, the rest of the experience hinges on how much a particular rider wishes to see the Guardians escape. The guests are never in peril; they're the legitimately invited guests of the Collector's tour, and they merely watch the chaos of the breakout from the safety of their gantry lift. Furthermore, the ride does not even present this observational story in a coherent or entertaining way; between drops we just get randomized, disjointed clips of the various heroes jumping out of their cages, fighting monsters, or floating in zero gravity. If I recall correctly, at least one ending voiceover even had a Guardian thanking the riders, only for another (I think either Rocket or Star Lord) to interject, "But they didn't do anything!"
Experiential storytelling is probably one of the most important aspects of a theme park ride, especially one based on an intellectual property. There should be a reason the guests want to go to the park and ride the attraction, rather than staying at home and watching the film's blu-ray. Tower of Terror and Monsters After Dark both provide thrilling experiences that engage the guests in the action (including cleverly using the riders' helplessness to
add to the horror), while Mission Breakout leaves us to watch characters having an adventure while hoping that we remain interested. It is this lack of balance that serves as Breakout's most core flaw, and the primary force holding it back from being a remotely worthy successor to Tower of Terror.
