Dreamfinder Returning??

[jedimaster1227]

No, conventions happen ALL the time at Disney! In fact, about 4000 a year... which is an average of about 11 a day. :wave:

Interesting reading for you...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11920572/

Ok, well you have convinced me. Thanks for filling me in on that! :wave:

Anyways, if they were to add the Dreamfinder, that would mean removing the Imagination Institute and possibly Nigel Channing. But, I wouldn't mind that....:drevil:

 

[CaptainMichael]

Ok, well you have convinced me. Thanks for filling me in on that! :wave:

Anyways, if they were to add the Dreamfinder, that would mean removing the Imagination Institute and possibly Nigel Channing. But, I wouldn't mind that....:drevil:

The whole Imagination Pavillion at Epcot is the perfect candidate for a rework. HISTA has run its course and from what has been said, JIYI is quite lackluster. The theme of imagination opens up so many possibilities for Imagineers. The problem is that Epcot is still in the process of reversing stagnation and outdatedness with UoE and WoL being more likely candidates.

 

[marni1971]

I remember when the place first opened...MGM only had half of it's attractions ready to go....it just left you with the impression that they opened too early just so they could beat Universal's opening date.

Try Universals first summer - it made MGM look like a 3 day park :lol:

 

[Empress Room]

But remember, you think logically, and a large amount of the time, Disney doesn't think logically in the sense that they use available attraction space for private or corperate uses like lounges.

Does anyone know whether this is the case for the upper level of Imagination? I really don't think so. As I recall, there were some pictures posted as recently as late last year which showed that the upper level of Imagination is not a "space or corporate use like lounge" but is rather a stagnating wreck where all the old Imageworks displays are still present. As I also recall, someone who took a backstage tour said that they were taken upstairs and confirmed that the upper level is nothing more than storage and pieces of the old Imageworks from its heydey.

If this is the case, then it confirms that the space is being underutilized. As such, its apparent that it is a travesty.

 

[marni1971]

The Imageworks itself looks like it did in late 1982, apart from some equipment missing, and is falling apart. The foyer area under the pyramid is nice and clean, decorated, and has had seating arranged for presentations.

 

[jedimaster1227]

The Imageworks itself looks like it did in late 1982, apart from some equipment missing, and is falling apart. The foyer area under the pyramid is nice and clean, decorated, and has had seating arranged for presentations.

Who here has gone up there since its closing?:veryconfu

 

[Empress Room]

The foyer area under the pyramid is nice and clean, decorated, and has had seating arranged for presentations.

Isn't that what the old Odyssey restaurant is reserved for, Marni? : ) Just another example of wasted space...

 

[wannab@dis]

It's almost hilarious to see people making statements about "wasted space" when they really don't have any idea as to why decisions are made. Sometimes it's best if we leave up to the people that actually know the details and logistics of the park as to whether or not space is being wasted.

It's easy to sit in front of a computer and make claims when there's no basis of factual information. If the space fulfills the needs that they have, then it is not wasted.

 

[Empress Room]

It's almost hilarious to see people making statements about "wasted space" when they really don't have any idea as to why decisions are made. Sometimes it's best if we leave up to the people that actually know the details and logistics of the park as to whether or not space is being wasted.

It's easy to sit in front of a computer and make claims when there's no basis of factual information. If the space fulfills the needs that they have, then it is not wasted.

Say, Wannab, I'm certainly in no position (nor are any of us) to guess or second guess what imagineers had or have planned for any attraction or pavillion. However, it's fairly logical to conclude that something is amiss with the Imagination pavillion specifically when, for the better part of its existence, it was a two-story attraction that utilized both floors and, in its latest incarnation, it's been reduced to a much abridged ride/attraction that uses zero percent of its previously utilized space on its second floor.

Perhaps there's a good explanation for this decision. Perhaps there's latent asbestos or structural problems inherent in the pavillion that necessitated the elimination of the second floor. Since, however, it's still part of behind-the-scenes tours and is also apparently used for presentations and as a lounge, this seems unlikely.

What at least appears more likely is that a decision was made (for budgetary or other reasons) to strip down the pavillion and utilize only the bottom portion. Its this kind of reasoning that leads one to conclude that the decisions being made for Imagination were more fiscally motivated rather than guest or experience motivated - and that's really a shame.

There's nothing "almost hilarious" about guests being concerned with experiencing the best and most magical attractions for their dollar spent.

 

[comics101]

THANK YOU! I'M GLAD I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE! I love the old one through sheer nostalgia but to be honest with you, if it was still here today, I don't think I would've ridden it too often. After we rode the new version with my little sister, I showed her Martin's video of the original and she eventually left. She said she prefered the new one. So Disney must be doing SOMETHING right. Plus, if you notice in that video, there seems to be quite a few empty cars so interest must've been dying down.
Though I must say, if there's ANYTHING I want brought back from the old ride, it's the old Imageworks. Aside from the computer that lets you edit your image, the "What if Labs" seemed pretty seemed pretty ho hum to me.

My younger brother is the exact oppisite, not only with JII but with Food Rocks too.

 

[wannab@dis]

Say, Wannab, I'm certainly in no position (nor are any of us) to guess or second guess what imagineers had or have planned for any attraction or pavillion. However, it's fairly logical to conclude that something is amiss with the Imagination pavillion specifically when, for the better part of its existence, it was a two-story attraction that utilized both floors and, in its latest incarnation, it's been reduced to a much abridged ride/attraction that uses zero percent of its previously utilized space on its second floor.

You're right, we're not in a position to question the decisions made by those who have more knowledge of the situation. We also have no basis to make conclusions on why the second floor is no longer used. It could be that it just wasn't needed. The pavilion is rarely crowded as it is when I've been there.

Perhaps there's a good explanation for this decision. Perhaps there's latent asbestos or structural problems inherent in the pavillion that necessitated the elimination of the second floor. Since, however, it's still part of behind-the-scenes tours and is also apparently used for presentations and as a lounge, this seems unlikely.

But, in any event, if what you are saying is true, then it's being used. Just not in the fashion that you think would benefit you more.

What at least appears more likely is that a decision was made (for budgetary or other reasons) to strip down the pavillion and utilize only the bottom portion. Its this kind of reasoning that leads one to conclude that the decisions being made for Imagination were more fiscally motivated rather than guest or experience motivated - and that's really a shame.

There's nothing "almost hilarious" about guests being concerned with experiencing the best and most magical attractions for their dollar spent.

Budgetary constraints are a necessary evil when dealing with a business that's primary desire is to reward the shareholders. If, in fact, the area is not utilized due to fiscal reasons, then it makes more sense for them to leave it as it is today. If they didn't and they incurred losses, those losses would be made up somewhere else. More than likely from the maintenance budget or the capital improvement budget.

So, if this is the case and back to your statement about experiencing the most magical attractions for your dollar spent, it IS in the guest's best interest that the area is closed so that the money can be better utilized to serve the guest.

 

[comics101]

This may be kind of stupid to say but why not just ask about it in some way?

 

[marni1971]

As a guest, way before I was as interested as I am now in the parks, I was frustrated by the closed areas I saw - litereally a waste to the everyday fee paying guest. When it comes down to it, a paying guest expects to see everything onstage - Odyssey, Imageworks, wasted Innoventions areas, and now WoL too. It was almost a joke about Horizons, TK and 20k in their vegitating state. If an onstage facility is there, and designed for guest access, it should be available to the guest.

First and foremost, the magic in the parks is about image - and a great part of that image is in what the guest sees. Areas closed off arn`t magical. Look what hapened in Anaheim under the previous regime. Don`t let WDW become another West Coast Tomorrowland.

 

[Empress Room]

As a guest, way before I was as interested as I am now in the parks, I was frustrated by the closed areas I saw - litereally a waste to the everyday fee paying guest. When it comes down to it, a paying guest expects to see everything onstage - Odyssey, Imageworks, wasted Innoventions areas, and now WoL too. It was almost a joke about Horizons, TK and 20k in their vegitating state. If an onstage facility is there, and designed for guest access, it should be available to the guest.

First and foremost, the magic in the parks is about image - and a great part of that image is in what the guest sees. Areas closed off arn`t magical. Look what hapened in Anaheim under the previous regime. Don`t let WDW become another West Coast Tomorrowland.

Well said, Marni. Where I differ in opinion with Wannab is that Imagination HAD been used fully in the past - so obviously, at least at some point in time, a decision was made to build, house and showcase a two-story pavillion. Reneging on that decision says to me that the motivation is not in the guests' best interests (in terms of experience and value). Wannab's comment that the pavillion is not that busy now so maybe the best use is to only use the lower floor begs the question - if the attraction was better, it stands to reason that it would be more popular. Build it and they will come; reimagineer and they will continue to come.

Mothballing pavillions that were constructed for guest experience sends the absolute worst message to both the casual guest and Disneyphile.

 

[Empress Room]

You're right, we're not in a position to question the decisions made by those who have more knowledge of the situation. We also have no basis to make conclusions on why the second floor is no longer used. It could be that it just wasn't needed. The pavilion is rarely crowded as it is when I've been there.

Doesn't this beg the question? If it was originally constructed as a two-story attraction, but now isn't "needed" because the pavilion is "rarely crowded," doesn't that just confirm that the attraction's current incarnation pales in comparison to its original content and design?

But, in any event, if what you are saying is true, then it's being used. Just not in the fashion that you think would benefit you more.

It has less to to with what would "benefit" me more, and much more to do with, as Marni correctly observed, the negative message sent to both casual guests and Disneyphiles. Empty and underutilized attractions and pavilions clearly send the wrong message.

Budgetary constraints are a necessary evil when dealing with a business that's primary desire is to reward the shareholders. If, in fact, the area is not utilized due to fiscal reasons, then it makes more sense for them to leave it as it is today. If they didn't and they incurred losses, those losses would be made up somewhere else. More than likely from the maintenance budget or the capital improvement budget.

So, if this is the case and back to your statement about experiencing the most magical attractions for your dollar spent, it IS in the guest's best interest that the area is closed so that the money can be better utilized to serve the guest.

Actually, what's in the "guest's best interest" is for imagineers to create penultimate attractions whose popularity will generate the necessary revenue to create, maintain and staff the attractions that were and are being built.

 

[wannab@dis]

Well said, Marni. Where I differ in opinion with Wannab is that Imagination HAD been used fully in the past - so obviously, at least at some point in time, a decision was made to build, house and showcase a two-story pavillion. Reneging on that decision says to me that the motivation is not in the guests' best interests (in terms of experience and value). Wannab's comment that the pavillion is not that busy now so maybe the best use is to only use the lower floor begs the question - if the attraction was better, it stands to reason that it would be more popular. Build it and they will come; reimagineer and they will continue to come.

Mothballing pavillions that were constructed for guest experience sends the absolute worst message to both the casual guest and Disneyphile.

Sure, in a perfect world, ALL areas on stage would be available to entertain the guest. But, there's an inherent problem, it's not a perfect world. Decisions have to be made whether we like it or not. I would love seeing Imagination teeming with people because I like the current pavilion, but it's not. The old version also lost its appeal. If it hadn't, they would probably be utilizing the entire pavilion today with the old JII.

I understand that not everyone understands the inner workings of a business, but we should accept that they will do their best to give the guest the best possible experience while maintaining the ability to turn a profit. If they lose their ability to make a profit, much worse things than an empty 2nd floor of a pavilion will be coming.

I guess the best way to sum it all up is this... Try to enjoy what is available, look forward to what the future will bring, and don't worry about what you perceive as 'loss of experience'. Dwelling on that perception will only dull the magic of all the experiences you could be having.

 

[wannab@dis]

Doesn't this beg the question? If it was originally constructed as a two-story attraction, but now isn't "needed" because the pavilion is "rarely crowded," doesn't that just confirm that the attraction's current incarnation pales in comparison to its original content and design?

No, it doesn't. The original had lost its capability to entertain the general guests.

It has less to to with what would "benefit" me more, and much more to do with, as Marni correctly observed, the negative message sent to both casual guests and Disneyphiles. Empty and underutilized attractions and pavilions clearly send the wrong message.

See previous post...

Actually, what's in the "guest's best interest" is for imagineers to create penultimate attractions whose popularity will generate the necessary revenue to create, maintain and staff the attractions that were and are being built.

Uh, no. There's basically a standard growth of guests and they will not exceed those growth numbers. Continually building new attractions will only drain capital. There's a growth criteria that should be taken into account. Adding "penultimate" attractions may bring in a few extra guests right now, but they will not keep them coming back year after year. There's a fine line of balance they have to tread.

More than likely you would consider many of the "original/extinct" attractions of EPCOT as "penultimate" attractions. However, history has already shown us that they do not continually draw in the guests. Epcot is currently in better shape than it has been in many years. Yet some still gripe about the loss of attractions and some empty spaces. I guess if the old attractions were still there and those empty spaces were filled, but the gates were closed, you would be happy.

 

[mousermerf]

A note people are forgetting.. there is a point when an attraction become a detrimental experience taking away from the enjoyment of a park as a whole.

The Superstar Limo fiasco is the perfect example of this.

Dying, unpopular - and in Epcot's case - outdated attractions take away from the whole guest experience.

It's like how songs are cut from musicals and scenes are cut from movies. This is not always done in the "creation" period, as several songs from Broadway musicals have been removed over years tothe desires of audiences.

I have fond memories of JII too, I loved figment as a kid, but I understand why the current pavilion is the way it is. I do think a re-do is in order, but the right elements need to be in place for it to be successful.

Epcot needs higher attendance. The lines extending back into Communicore from East park have been gone for years. There's a signifigant difference in guest numbers since Epcot opened.

Epcot is rebuilding it's attendance, but it has the ability to be much higher. Until it reaches a high level, new or old guest areas wont be needed.

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

Who here has gone up there since its closing?:veryconfu

I've been up there at least three times, during the day, and late at night. Everything is still there except for the computers, and a sign or something here or there. There are even a couple of red neon lights still on in the Rainbow Corridor.

 

[Empress Room]

More than likely you would consider many of the "original/extinct" attractions of EPCOT as "penultimate" attractions. However, history has already shown us that they do not continually draw in the guests. Epcot is currently in better shape than it has been in many years. Yet some still gripe about the loss of attractions and some empty spaces. I guess if the old attractions were still there and those empty spaces were filled, but the gates were closed, you would be happy.

Not at all, Wannabe, you've read me incorrectly. If you review a history of my posts, you'd see that I am a strong proponent with "out with the old, in with the new" so long as it makes sense. Although, like most, I have a fond place in my memory for the classic attractions, I know all too well that Disney would not eliminate and/or re-imagineer rides and attractions that remained popular, brought in the guests and were fiscally feasible.

WOL, CoP, AE, WoM and even Horizons - whether I personally liked them or not I know inherently that there are others within Disney who have much more knowledge concerning the continued popularity and viability of any attraction. If M:S is going to pull in more guests than Horizons, farewell to Horizons and greetings to M:S. I like change and I like the changes being made to Epcot.

My only concern is when the changes are made and made in a less than first class manner. If the budget isn't there to re-imagineer Imagination, maintain the original until the budget becomes available. A half empty pavilion (although I don't personally mind the newest version) just sends the wrong message. If WoL is outdated and unpopular, raze it and raze it now. Don't leave a shell that, again, negatively impacts guests' opinions and experiences.

I know business and know businesses must make difficult choices. Having said that, my concern is that Disney will run into the chicken and the egg problem. You need paying guests in the park to generate revenue to build or retheme empty or half-empty attractions. However, it's less likely that paying guests will be in the park unless those empty and half-empty attractions are imagineered in a magical, "returning" guest sort of way.

Big, lumbering hulks like a less-than-capacity Imagination or a completely empty Superstar Television won't ultimately satisfy the guests or Disney.