A Fourth Refurbishment for "Journey Into Imagination"

[jakeman]

Ya know what's funny?
When I read that, along with the statement you quoted...I thought you were talking about Tony.
I was gonna have to leap to his defense!:lol:

That is funny. I would assume, then, that Tony does not look like Dreamfinder?

I am going to put on my flame retardant suit and say something that has been said around here for a while but needs to be said again:

It seems that the most ardent proponents of the stagnation of progress at Epcot resist the change solely on the foundation of "it is different than it used to be".

I am going to go out on a limb here and make some assupmtions and broad generalizations.

It appears that some if not a majority of fans of Dreamfinder and Figment wish to see an outdated attraction with obcure Disney character revitalized soley on the basis of, "well I liked in the 80s". Well, we all liked Captain EO in the 80s and that didn't work out to well...

The same principal hold true for Horizons. I would never imagine that almost seven years after an attraction was close, due to a sinkhole that was undermining the structural integrity of the building, that folks would still be lamenting the loss of Horizons.

The general impression that is left from groups of people that claim that Epcot was better x number of years ago, is that no change would be good. However, Epcot is like anything else, it becomes guilded over time. For example, then I'll take my soapbox and leave, I like "Friends" and think it is much funnier than most comedies on TV right now. This is probably not true, but I remember how much I enjoyed "Friends" and remembered joy is some times greater than current joy, due to a number of circumstances.

Okay, I'm done...

 

[wannab@dis]

• Spaceship Earth being updated and the Global Neighborhood being replaced (which is in progress)
• WoL getting something new
• Imagination
• Make real use of the old Millenium Village, not just a convention center
• Replace the Norway film
• Remove the wand
• Prepare Epcot for its 25th
• Update/do something with UoE only after everything else on this list is completed

Your list seems a little self-serving, but that's true of most of our opinions on the parks. If we look at Epcot closely, there are some glaring problems, but most of the items on the list are minor.

SSE needs a new post show and it needs some rehab work, but it's still a strong attraction. Other than the post show... minor.

WoL should be replaced, but that is a much bigger under-taking than other rehabs would be. That means it probably will not get the limelight at this time.

Imagination changes... minor. It's not pulling its weight, but the other problems probably will need to be a higher priority.

Millenium Village is being utilized for a specific function and is being used quite frequently. It's probably the biggest source of income for Epcot besides the gate. Conventions are extremely important to WDW and this is a resource that should continue serving those needs.

Norway film (and other movies in WS) need to be updated. I would like to see WDW take the lead and get them updated. Doing so would freshen up many aspects of Epcot and would have the most "bang for the buck".

Wand...

Epcot's 25th may be celebrated, but I don't see a need for it to be a major undertaking like the 50th. Freshen up everything, add a tag for ROE, update the movies, add something to innovations... several things can be done that are not budget killers but will be easily seen by the guests.

UoE needs some help, but I don't see a need for a major undertaking. Again, several small things could be done that would give it a fresh outlook.

 

[Skippy]

One thing is certain about people's opinions on Epcot... it definitely was a different park when it opened and for the first ten years or so. Quite different, when was it 'better' is your opinion.

Horizons sinkhole? Isn't that one of those supposed facts we'll never know the whole truth about? I'm really asking, to my understanding it was rumored and reasonably true, but nothing official can be said about it. (Sounds to me like a good excuse to demolish a ride people don't want gone).

And in my opinion, the original JII didn't have the overwhelming 80's feel to it like other Epcot attractions like the Wonders of Life pavillion. In fact, it could probably hold up as a good ride today if it didn't cost as much as it did to operate, and also those sponsoring issues.

 

[wannab@dis]

I am going to put on my flame retardant suit and say something that has been said around here for a while but needs to be said again:

It seems that the most ardent proponents of the stagnation of progress at Epcot resist the change solely on the foundation of "it is different than it used to be".

I am going to go out on a limb here and make some assupmtions and broad generalizations.

It appears that some if not a majority of fans of Dreamfinder and Figment wish to see an outdated attraction with obcure Disney character revitalized soley on the basis of, "well I liked in the 80s". Well, we all liked Captain EO in the 80s and that didn't work out to well...

The same principal hold true for Horizons. I would never imagine that almost seven years after an attraction was close, due to a sinkhole that was undermining the structural integrity of the building, that folks would still be lamenting the loss of Horizons.

The general impression that is left from groups of people that claim that Epcot was better x number of years ago, is that no change would be good. However, Epcot is like anything else, it becomes guilded over time. For example, then I'll take my soapbox and leave, I like "Friends" and think it is much funnier than most comedies on TV right now. This is probably not true, but I remember how much I enjoyed "Friends" and remembered joy is some times greater than current joy, due to a number of circumstances.

Okay, I'm done...

Well said and very accurate.

 

[Skippy]

Wand...

That would be an amazing 25th birthday present.

add something to innovations... several things can be done that are not budget killers but will be easily seen by the guests.

Just a question, is the building across from innoventions west being used for anything, or not... really.

 

[wannab@dis]

One thing is certain about people's opinions on Epcot... it definitely was a different park when it opened and for the first ten years or so. Quite different, when was it 'better' is your opinion.

Somewhat true... but many of the EPCOT supporters fail to see the facts about what was no longer garnering attention of the guests. They also fail to acknowledge the fact that many of the changes have been very well accepted by the general public... the people buying the tickets.

Horizons sinkhole? Isn't that one of those supposed facts we'll never know the whole truth about? I'm really asking, to my understanding it was rumored and reasonably true, but nothing official can be said about it. (Sounds to me like a good excuse to demolish a ride people don't want gone).

The ride sat closed for about a year and was in the middle of updates when the sinkhole was found. The reason it needed updating was because it was no longer pulling in the crowds. The problem was found... they had to act. Some people very close to the situation have said the sinkhole was a fact... not some conspiracy.

And in my opinion, the original JII didn't have the overwhelming 80's feel to it like other Epcot attractions like the Wonders of Life pavillion. In fact, it could probably hold up as a good ride today if it didn't cost as much as it did to operate, and also those sponsoring issues.

It wasn't holding up at the end of its run... so I don't see how it could have possibly held on for several more years. Things get closed and changed. It's simply a fact of keeping the parks fresh and inviting for the paying public. It would be wonderful if EVERY change was always accepted and always perfect, but that's just not possible.

 

[Stitch69]

Iam waiting for them to redo it. I do not care for the last redo! LAME!!!!

 

[Tigger1988]

Well, certain things you can, and certain things you can't when relying on Wikipedia.

For Disney speculation and rumors, no, don't count on Wikipedia as being "the confirmed source." The info that was posted there was likely culled and sifted from this web site as well as a few others.

But for certain things, like hard factual news, then yes, Wikipedia can be the place to do.

But until we hear it from Disney, the next incarnation of Journey Into Your Imagination ride is just a pipe dream. Heh, pipe dream. Figment and Dreamfinder would like that. Heh.

The thing with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit the information ("the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" -Wiki's main page)., I could go on there and change any piece of info I wanted, and I've seen it happen with pages related to US history, its better to rely on a real encyclopedia

 

[Skippy]

They also fail to acknowledge the fact that many of the changes have been very well accepted by the general public... the people buying the tickets.

agreed.

It wasn't holding up at the end of its run... so I don't see how it could have possibly held on for several more years. Things get closed and changed.

Do you mean physically, aka, ride systems and mechanics not holding up? If so: Yeah, I can believe that, but mechanial issues aside do you think it would be a welcomed ride if it worked without problems?

 

[Original19]

For you and everyone else who agreed with him/her: If you never really liked Figment, Dreamfinder, or even the ride, why'd you even come here?

First of all, I will assume that you are biased seeing as you have an Figment avatar. Therefore, I take your incredulous question with a grain of salt.

Second: I come here because I can (even with a dial-up connection).

I have never been on any of the new versions of this attraction. Every time I rode it was before the October 2001 alterations. Even as a child I knew Dreamfinder somehow didn't fit Disney's cadre of characters (Figment, on the other hand, hit slightly closer to the target as evidenced by his warm welcome back to the attraction in June of 2002).

Really though, at the end of the day, it's all personal opinion. To some Journey into Imagination represents the embodiment of their childhood; which is fine. But, as for me, it typifies a 70s "Hippie" subculture ideal... which isn't all that appealing. I mean... how many rides do you know of that include a purple dragon shoveling flowers into a rainbow pot so his dirigible flying creator can paint a white dreamport? LSD anyone?!

Like I said, I found the red-bearded-purple-suited-magician-guy to be kinda creepy. Maybe he'd be more appealing on hallucinogens?

 

[Sumshine 904]

You just sounded as though you didn't like Figment all that much. But now that I know you actually sorta maybe do like Figment, then I'm sorry for saying what I said.

 

[Scar Junior]

It wasn't holding up at the end of its run... so I don't see how it could have possibly held on for several more years. Things get closed and changed. It's simply a fact of keeping the parks fresh and inviting for the paying public. It would be wonderful if EVERY change was always accepted and always perfect, but that's just not possible.

I always try to ignore your posts, but I must ask..... do you actually prefer the new version of the ride to the original?


The reason I ask: you always argue when people say they miss the old version. Also, you ENDLESSLY argue when people say that they heard a rumor about the attraction.

Just wondering what the deal is.

-Scar

 

[Legacy]

I always try to ignore your posts, but I must ask..... do you actually prefer the new version of the ride to the original?


The reason I ask: you always argue when people say they miss the old version. Also, you ENDLESSLY argue when people say that they heard a rumor about the attraction.

Just wondering what the deal is.

-Scar

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but considering in most of the debates he gets in I end up siding with him, I at least want to explain my understanding of the situation.

I prefer the original. In my memory, it was the most amazing attraction at the world. I loved Figment, loved the Dreamfinder, loved the concept, everything. I can still close my eyes and picture moments on the attraction because they are so well ingrained into my memory.

That said...

I really wouldn't care if I never saw Dreamfinder again. Honestly, after the first incarnation, I didn't care if I saw Figment again. It's not because I don't like the characters, not at all. But the fact that it was something different is what appealed the most to me. It showed progress and change, which, more than anything, is what Epcot is about. To gripe about changing the Land, Living Seas, Horizons, World of Motion, Wonders of Life, Imagination... as great as all of them originally were, is to argue against what Future World specifically and Epcot as a whole is suppose to represent.

I think people should look at the attrractions (all of the attractions) as just that... attractions. What good is fighting for memories when all that does is possibly prevent something better and new memories from being created.

That is why I argue at least... it's not because I don't like Disney. On the contrary it's because I love Disney and want to see it succeed.

And in order to make an omellete you have to break a few eggs...

 

[Scar Junior]

/\ I don't want to make it seem that I am an Epcot Old Schooler, but I feel this is one attraction that was wronged (The other two: Horizons and World of Motion. I will miss both forever... I pray a billionare decides to recreate these rides, cuz I know Disney won't). But it is what it is.

Regardless, with EVERY disney attraction I believe that progress is a good thing. I don't think Dream Finder NEEDS to be brought back. I don't think anything - even my favorites: ToT, HM, PoTC, SE and the Moutain Range- should be void from progress. Some have been changed for the better. I believe in Walt's idea that nothing is finished.

Yet, with that said... I just get confused with Wannabe's non-stop arguing. I would like if Dreamfinder was brought back. It's not like I'm in mourning. I do, however, cherish the concept of Disney extendeding the unused track and bringing back Dreamfinder.... only because I think Niles Channing is weak. He was funny at HISTA when I was young.... but the film is old and the addition of him in JII was logical but still unconvincing.

***WARNING: ENTERTAINMENT THEORY AHEAD***

As one who studies storytelling it is elementary when confronted with a duo concept that when character A is changed (dreamfinder - channing) that character B (figment) must change as well.

The part that seems to slip away from many peoples' arguments is that Figment has gone from free-loving, happy-go-lucky, innocent yet inspirational 'buddy' to mischievous, tricky and troublesome character who sometimes seems even annoying. This change is imminent by the dynamic of the duo.






Here's how:

The character of Wayne Szalinski was "odd," "bothersome," and "pesky" to the norm (audience). When the 3D attraction was built, they had to add a character who was constantly worried about Szalinski (as well as in general: Channing). Thus, when the concept of "Imagination Institute" was expanded, Channing had to remain constant - by logical entertainment theory rules - and the changing attraction's character (Figment) had to adjust.

This is where the discontent originates. And I feel that this is where the true debates lie. The choice of the 3D show's expansion caused harm upon figment's domain. Call me crazy, but I have invested tens of thousands of dollars (and 4 years) into this type of education and this is the reason that Channing is so annoying and people want Dreamfinder back. So... Channing is the "normal" character who is odd but represents the audience psychologically, and Szalinski and Figment are the weirder off-shoots that the main character (Channing) must try to dominate and keep control of.

This character/socio-element is far different than the relationship that Dreamfinder and Figment shared. Thus, it's less about bringing back Dreamfinder as it is taking out Channing.


Your thoughts?

 

[jedimaster1227]

/\ I don't want to make it seem that I am an Epcot Old Schooler, but I feel this is one attraction that was wronged (The other two: Horizons and World of Motion. I will miss both forever... I pray a billionare decides to recreate these rides, cuz I know Disney won't). But it is what it is.

Regardless, with EVERY disney attraction I believe that progress is a good thing. I don't think Dream Finder NEEDS to be brought back. I don't think anything - even my favorites: ToT, HM, PoTC, SE and the Moutain Range- should be void from progress. Some have been changed for the better. I believe in Walt's idea that nothing is finished.

Yet, with that said... I just get confused with Wannabe's non-stop arguing. I would like if Dreamfinder was brought back. It's not like I'm in mourning. I do, however, cherish the concept of Disney extendeding the unused track and bringing back Dreamfinder.... only because I think Niles Channing is weak. He was funny at HISTA when I was young.... but the film is old and the addition of him in JII was logical but still unconvincing.

***WARNING: ENTERTAINMENT THEORY AHEAD***

As one who studies storytelling it is elementary when confronted with a duo concept that when character A is changed (dreamfinder - channing) that character B (figment) must change as well.

The part that seems to slip away from many peoples' arguments is that Figment has gone from free-loving, happy-go-lucky, innocent yet inspirational 'buddy' to mischievous, tricky and troublesome character who sometimes seems even annoying. This change is imminent by the dynamic of the duo.






Here's how:

The character of Wayne Szalinski was "odd," "bothersome," and "pesky" to the norm (audience). When the 3D attraction was built, they had to add a character who was constantly worried about Szalinski (as well as in general: Channing). Thus, when the concept of "Imagination Institute" was expanded, Channing had to remain constant - by logical entertainment theory rules - and the changing attraction's character (Figment) had to adjust.

This is where the discontent originates. And I feel that this is where the true debates lie. The choice of the 3D show's expansion caused harm upon figment's domain. Call me crazy, but I have invested tens of thousands of dollars (and 4 years) into this type of education and this is the reason that Channing is so annoying and people want Dreamfinder back. So... Channing is the "normal" character who is odd but represents the audience psychologically, and Szalinski and Figment are the weirder off-shoots that the main character (Channing) must try to dominate and keep control of.

This character/socio-element is far different than the relationship that Dreamfinder and Figment shared. Thus, it's less about bringing back Dreamfinder as it is taking out Channing.


Your thoughts?

Scar, your money has been well spent any you will do very well in the media industry! :wave: You have basically said everything to justify the discontent with Channing and the Imagination Institute. "I just want to thank you for saying what needed to be said"- another great moment in WDWMagic history that I am referring to...

 

[Legacy]

Here's how:

The character of Wayne Szalinski was "odd," "bothersome," and "pesky" to the norm (audience). When the 3D attraction was built, they had to add a character who was constantly worried about Szalinski (as well as in general: Channing). Thus, when the concept of "Imagination Institute" was expanded, Channing had to remain constant - by logical entertainment theory rules - and the changing attraction's character (Figment) had to adjust.

This is where the discontent originates. And I feel that this is where the true debates lie. The choice of the 3D show's expansion caused harm upon figment's domain. Call me crazy, but I have invested tens of thousands of dollars (and 4 years) into this type of education and this is the reason that Channing is so annoying and people want Dreamfinder back. So... Channing is the "normal" character who is odd but represents the audience psychologically, and Szalinski and Figment are the weirder off-shoots that the main character (Channing) must try to dominate and keep control of.

This character/socio-element is far different than the relationship that Dreamfinder and Figment shared. Thus, it's less about bringing back Dreamfinder as it is taking out Channing.


Your thoughts?

I deleted the first two thirds of your quote for space only.

My honest opinion is that if any character should still remain constant it is Channing. I feel that keeping Channing is one of the most simplistic ways to make the "imagination" obtainable, not the the child, but to the cynic. Channing is an every adult, and I feel that retaining him in the attraction keeps a character that actually grows. It, in essence, adds MORE of a story to the ride by focusing, not on visuals, but character development. That, I feel, makes for a more mature and developed attraction.

I think that there would be an affective way to have all three characters in the ride, and make a lasting impression that will make everyone happy. The original attraction showcased Dreamfinder as a "teacher" and Figment as a "student". If they adjust the story so that Figment is a "teacher", Channing is the "student" and Dreamfinder is simply a cameo payoff, I feel the attraction will come have come full circle.

I write a script a while back... I might post it.

 

[Original19]

You just sounded as though you didn't like Figment all that much. But now that I know you actually sorta maybe do like Figment, then I'm sorry for saying what I said.

No apology necessary. I love a good debate as much as the next guy.

Slightly off topic: my favorite childhood memory of Epcot was the hydrolators. What a great piece of themeing and a great use of "imagination"!

 

[Sumshine 904]

I don't want to make it seem that I am an Epcot Old Schooler, but I feel this is one attraction that was wronged (The other two: Horizons and World of Motion. I will miss both forever... I pray a billionare decides to recreate these rides, cuz I know Disney won't). But it is what it is.

Regardless, with EVERY disney attraction I believe that progress is a good thing. I don't think Dream Finder NEEDS to be brought back. I don't think anything - even my favorites: ToT, HM, PoTC, SE and the Moutain Range- should be void from progress. Some have been changed for the better. I believe in Walt's idea that nothing is finished.

Yet, with that said... I just get confused with Wannabe's non-stop arguing. I would like if Dreamfinder was brought back. It's not like I'm in mourning. I do, however, cherish the concept of Disney extendeding the unused track and bringing back Dreamfinder.... only because I think Niles Channing is weak. He was funny at HISTA when I was young.... but the film is old and the addition of him in JII was logical but still unconvincing.

***WARNING: ENTERTAINMENT THEORY AHEAD***

As one who studies storytelling it is elementary when confronted with a duo concept that when character A is changed (dreamfinder - channing) that character B (figment) must change as well.

The part that seems to slip away from many peoples' arguments is that Figment has gone from free-loving, happy-go-lucky, innocent yet inspirational 'buddy' to mischievous, tricky and troublesome character who sometimes seems even annoying. This change is imminent by the dynamic of the duo.

Here's how:

The character of Wayne Szalinski was "odd," "bothersome," and "pesky" to the norm (audience). When the 3D attraction was built, they had to add a character who was constantly worried about Szalinski (as well as in general: Channing). Thus, when the concept of "Imagination Institute" was expanded, Channing had to remain constant - by logical entertainment theory rules - and the changing attraction's character (Figment) had to adjust.

This is where the discontent originates. And I feel that this is where the true debates lie. The choice of the 3D show's expansion caused harm upon figment's domain. Call me crazy, but I have invested tens of thousands of dollars (and 4 years) into this type of education and this is the reason that Channing is so annoying and people want Dreamfinder back. So... Channing is the "normal" character who is odd but represents the audience psychologically, and Szalinski and Figment are the weirder off-shoots that the main character (Channing) must try to dominate and keep control of.

This character/socio-element is far different than the relationship that Dreamfinder and Figment shared. Thus, it's less about bringing back Dreamfinder as it is taking out Channing.


Your thoughts?

:sohappy: Bravo! Bravo! Very well said! :sohappy:

I agree with you 100%! I now crown you king of "Most Reasonable Explinations!" :king:

 

[CJR]

A lot of you will probably disagree, but I don't think they should bring back the original JII. They took it out for a reason, it was a walk on ride (Much like today). Disney wants something that people will have to wait in line for and the original JII won't do that. It'll only please a small percentage of fans who actually road JII (A lot of people have been to Disney World since then or the ones that remember the orignal don't care). I'm not saying the original was bad (I loved it), I'm saying that it would be a pointless waist of money to bring it back. It won't have a line with maybe one week after its opening. If they do a refurbishment, they need to start from scratch. However, they can still keep Figment and Dreamfinder in the all new concept.

However, I'm fine with the current ride and would rather see Disney refurbish and reopen Wonders of Life instead. Epcot's 25th birthday is next year and I would rather see the whole park open.

 

[Skippy]

A lot of you will probably disagree, but I don't think they should bring back the original JII. They took it out for a reason, it was a walk on ride (Much like today). Disney wants something that people will have to wait in line for and the original JII won't do that. It'll only please a small percentage of fans who actually road JII (A lot of people have been to Disney World since then or the ones that remember the orignal don't care). I'm not saying the original was bad (I loved it), I'm saying that it would be a pointless waist of money to bring it back. It won't have a line with maybe one week after its opening. If they do a refurbishment, they need to start from scratch. However, they can still keep Figment and Dreamfinder in the all new concept.

Bringing back the old one today would be working backwards, and that's something I definitely don't want to see done. I just wish they didn't have to change the ride back when they did. And I'm disappointed with the ride today and wish it would be changed to something better, but moving forward instead of bringing back an old rendition.