Rumor Figment, well, to be replaced by Figment

[tirian]

Not so sure that's an animated figure. If it is, it's been broken for quite some time.

It was never animated.

 

[misfitdoll]

Designers understood those elements; they’d been developed in the late 1800s and arguably reached their peak during mid-century design. But that was all done by hand or with printing presses.

In the ‘90s, computer-aided design styles were just. that. bad. And Epcot wasn’t spared.

Well, yes. You're right about that. They understood the concepts, maybe just not how to apply them to a new tool that was so sterile? Previously, every element was created rather than clicked and dragged. Created with purpose and care by someone who chose, trained for, and had pride in their skillset. Widespread tastefulness peaked when we had to work for it. Computers have made things much much much easier to do, but often they are still, even today, not done WELL. Computer aided art-- whether music production or visual art or SKREENZ in a Disney park ride-- just do not have the organic energy of hand made art and design. Not to say there are not fantastic artists making things with computers in 2019, because of course there are! But I still, personally, think the energy is different. I can't feel the blood sweat and tears, and I cannot identify with the humanity of the creator unless that creator *really* works to add the life back in. There are no natural human vibes. And getting back to Disney, that energy is what sets really moody atmospheric rides like Sinbad or The Haunted Mansion apart from Ariel's Book Report Ride. Of course there are MORE reasons HM is better, but at the heart of it, that is THE thing that I instantly feel.

The Haunted Mansion feels ALIVE and like a temporary shift in reality, whereas Ariel feels like it it was made on a screen and then came out of a factory in China in one piece and no human ever touched it except to take off the price tag.

Does that make sense? I got way off topic. Where is my coffee.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Well, yes. You're right about that. They understood the concepts, maybe just not how to apply them to a new tool that was so sterile? Previously, every element was created rather than clicked and dragged. Created with purpose and care by someone who chose, trained for, and had pride in their skillset. Widespread tastefulness peaked when we had to work for it. Computers have made things much much much easier to do, but often they are still, even today, not done WELL. Computer aided art-- whether music production or visual art or SKREENZ in a Disney park ride-- just do not have the organic energy of hand made art and design. Not to say there are not fantastic artists making things with computers in 2019, because of course there are! But I still, personally, think the energy is different. I can't feel the blood sweat and tears, and I cannot identify with the humanity of the creator unless that creator *really* works to add the life back in. There are no natural human vibes. And getting back to Disney, that energy is what sets really moody atmospheric rides like Sinbad or The Haunted Mansion apart from Ariel's Book Report Ride. Of course there are MORE reasons HM is better, but at the heart of it, that is THE thing that I instantly feel.

The Haunted Mansion feels ALIVE and like a temporary shift in reality, whereas Ariel feels like it it was made on a screen and then came out of a factory in China in one piece and no human ever touched it except to take off the price tag.

Does that make sense? I got way off topic. Where is my coffee.

It makes perfect sense. The rise of the home computer and self-taught "graphic designers" was a slap in the face to those of us who have decades of training and experience.

 

[misfitdoll]

Okay, to tie it back to Figment: my greatest wish for Imagination, no, for EPCOT, is that Imagination is restored to glory, with the Dreamfinder, childish delight, and SOFT, HAND-MADE details and that it becomes the heart of the park and a can't-miss attraction even to non Epcot-heads. I 100% believe this is possible.

(Sidenote: Why does WDW not get "soft" finishes anymore? In Tokyo, all of the Pooh characters on Hunny Hunt have fur. Fuzzy fur! With variation of texture! I cannot overstate what a difference this is. Even our inferior Pooh ride would be much better with this change in execution, and again, Ariel suffers here.)

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

Okay, to tie it back to Figment: my greatest wish for Imagination, no, for EPCOT, is that Imagination is restored to glory, with the Dreamfinder, childish delight, and SOFT, HAND-MADE details and that it becomes the heart of the park and a can't-miss attraction even to non Epcot-heads. I 100% believe this is possible.

(Sidenote: Why does WDW not get "soft" finishes anymore? In Tokyo, all of the Pooh characters on Hunny Hunt have fur. Fuzzy fur! With variation of texture! I cannot overstate what a difference this is. Even our inferior Pooh ride would be much better with this change in execution, and again, Ariel suffers here.)

I completely agree with you here! Anyone who thinks figment and dreamfinder aren’t as well known as some other IP has to think of it this way. Nobody knew who they were before 1982, and soon after they became extremely popular among guests. If they did it back then, they can reintroduce figment and especially dreamfinder to a new generation, and they will fall in love with them, just like everyone did back in 1982. Also, original rides like haunted mansion, pirates, etc don’t date that easily, as they aren’t based off an IP to begin with in the first place, so because of that there isn’t an IP that will become dated in the matter of 20 years after a ride opens. However, with the current way the company is being run at the moment, sadly, Disney is probably going to want to shove some kind of IP into imagination, but let’s just hope they are smart about this one and they don’t!

 

[tribbleorlfl]

Indeed, there are myriad excuses for why the attraction was closed including insidious plots by Micheal Eisner. However, the bottom line was that it got old and boring for most guests. Also, it didn't help that Dreamfinder gave off a rather creepy vibe as was depicted by Butters in the South Park Imaginationland parody.

I recognize that certain defunct and near-defunct attractions garner very loyal fanatic followers. It's hard for them to accept that some attractions do not age well and they need to be put down. Some people just become so invested in these attractions that they fail to understand that Dreamfinder had a rather undesirable atmosphere about him as opposed to the much more popular Dr. Nigel Channing who has a friendly comedic character.

Also, it doesn't help that several well known and liked actors played the role of Dreamfinder (including a young Joe Rohde) and some loyal fans conflate the character with the actors. The same thing is true about the ride itself in that Tony Baxter is so closely associated with this ride. Some fans think that the change in JII showed scorn and disdain for Mr. Baxter's work.

Suffice it to say that there is a lot of extra baggage that goes along with JII and the loyal fan base wants all their perceived wounds healed and they want their creepy Dreamfinder back along with ImageWorks.

I view it as the past is a bucket of ashes. Let's not put the ashes in an urn and store them on the living room mantel for the rest of our lives or bequeath them to new generations. Let's instead cast the ashes to the wind and let Disney create a new and exciting attraction!

I'll be honest, I don't know why this post is getting the scorn it is. Nostalgia is a powerful commodity, and our memories are always biased and rose-colored compared to objective reality.

I loved, LOVED Horizons, and was devastated when it was torn down. But with distance, I realize it was a very dated looking attraction, with a very 80s-specific interpretation of future aesthetics.

I think many of us can agree the replacements for these classic, beloved attractions fail to live up to the originals, but that doesn't mean bringing them back would be a success, either.

 

[HauntedPirate]

To those who think Horizons is "dated", I ask this: How many colonies in space do we have? How many undersea bases are there around the world?

Horizons was future-thinking, not future-predicting. As has been said many, many times, it would have been easy to update the scenes, as necessary, to reflect where we are/were with future-thinking in subsequent years. M:S does fit the Future World theme, regardless if we love it or hate it.

But I think that's enough Horizons talk in a thread that was supposed to be about Figment. We wants da Dreamfinder! We wants da Dreamfinder! (And the fun, curious Figment, not the annoying pest Figment) Wait... now I'm bringing PotC into this thread, sorry about that.

 

[tirian]

Indeed, there are myriad excuses for why the attraction was closed including insidious plots by Micheal Eisner. However, the bottom line was that it got old and boring for most guests. Also, it didn't help that Dreamfinder gave off a rather creepy vibe as was depicted by Butters in the South Park Imaginationland parody.

I recognize that certain defunct and near-defunct attractions garner very loyal fanatic followers. It's hard for them to accept that some attractions do not age well and they need to be put down. Some people just become so invested in these attractions that they fail to understand that Dreamfinder had a rather undesirable atmosphere about him as opposed to the much more popular Dr. Nigel Channing who has a friendly comedic character.

Also, it doesn't help that several well known and liked actors played the role of Dreamfinder (including a young Joe Rohde) and some loyal fans conflate the character with the actors. The same thing is true about the ride itself in that Tony Baxter is so closely associated with this ride. Some fans think that the change in JII showed scorn and disdain for Mr. Baxter's work.

Suffice it to say that there is a lot of extra baggage that goes along with JII and the loyal fan base wants all their perceived wounds healed and they want their creepy Dreamfinder back along with ImageWorks.

I view it as the past is a bucket of ashes. Let's not put the ashes in an urn and store them on the living room mantel for the rest of our lives or bequeath them to new generations. Let's instead cast the ashes to the wind and let Disney create a new and exciting attraction!

I'll be honest, I don't know why this post is getting the scorn it is. Nostalgia is a powerful commodity, and our memories are always biased and rose-colored compared to objective reality.

I loved, LOVED Horizons, and was devastated when it was torn down. But with distance, I realize it was a very dated looking attraction, with a very 80s-specific interpretation of future aesthetics.

I think many of us can agree the replacements for these classic, beloved attractions fail to live up to the originals, but that doesn't mean bringing them back would be a success, either.

To those who think Horizons is "dated", I ask this: How many colonies in space do we have? How many undersea bases are there around the world?

Horizons was future-thinking, not future-predicting. As has been said many, many times, it would have been easy to update the scenes, as necessary, to reflect where we are/were with future-thinking in subsequent years. M:S does fit the Future World theme, regardless if we love it or hate it.

But I think that's enough Horizons talk in a thread that was supposed to be about Figment. We wants da Dreamfinder! We wants da Dreamfinder! (And the fun, curious Figment, not the annoying pest Figment) Wait... now I'm bringing PotC into this thread, sorry about that.

I don’t think anybody literally wants the exact same, 80s-tech, creaky attraction back in Epcot. People do want something that lives up to — and surpasses — the creativity and wow factor of the original.

 

[HauntedPirate]

I don’t think anybody literally wants the exact same, 80s-tech, creaky attraction back in Epcot. People do want something that lives up to — and surpasses — the creativity and wow factor of the original.

No, no, didn't you read the memo sent out by the pixie dusters? Anyone who loves old EPCOT Center attractions is cemented in 1984 and never wants anything to change.

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

 

[rreading]

I don’t think anybody literally wants the exact same, 80s-tech, creaky attraction back in Epcot. People do want something that lives up to — and surpasses — the creativity and wow factor of the original.

Do you think that they still have it in them? As much as I still love WDW, my impression is that their most inspirational work is in the past.

 

[Phil12]

Do you think that they still have it in them? As much as I still love WDW, my impression is that their most inspirational work is in the past.

Of course they do. After all they brought us Dr. Nigel Channing.

 

[DoleWhipDrea]

Do you think that they still have it in them? As much as I still love WDW, my impression is that their most inspirational work is in the past.

It’s hard to be optimistic with recent track records, but there’s also so much at play regarding what actually gets approved to be built. Imagineers dream up so many ideas that never see the light of day because an executive doesn’t give it the green light... I can only begin to imagine how many amazing concepts never made it past the drawing board. And imagine how discouraging it must be to Imagineers that have amazing original ideas but get shot down because they didn’t tie their concept to an existing IP...in fact, I’m sure many creative individuals in WDI have been let go over attempting to only implement original ideas. Finally, I’m certain most of the projects that do move forward only happen because an executive gives a particular direction like, “Create a ride that features the Avengers to be in California Adventure.”

 

[ImperfectPixie]

It’s hard to be optimistic with recent track records, but there’s also so much at play regarding what actually gets approved to be built. Imagineers dream up so many ideas that never see the light of day because an executive doesn’t give it the green light... I can only begin to imagine how many amazing concepts never made it past the drawing board. And imagine how discouraging it must be to Imagineers that have amazing original ideas but get shot down because they didn’t tie their concept to an existing IP...in fact, I’m sure many creative individuals in WDI have been let go over attempting to only implement original ideas. Finally, I’m certain most of the projects that do move forward only happen because an executive gives a particular direction like, “Create a ride that features the Avengers to be in California Adventure.”

If it's anything akin to graphic design, that last sentence is most certainly the case. You wouldn't believe how vague bosses and clients can be...even when they already know what they want.

 

[tirian]

Maybe we should all skip to 21:30 in this video and remember the incredibly engrossing, creative, inspiring attraction. It addressed visual art, literature, science, theater, filmmaking, and the future.

In a way, the new ROTR attraction coming to SWGE — supposedly the most immersive ride Disney has ever built — is a return to the big-scale pavilions that dominated early EPCOT Center. The tech is newer and the subject matter is different. That doesn’t mean it hasn’t been done before.

 

[hauntology]

I agree the scene is a bit of a letdown, especially since it’s not even an animatronic; it’s a static mannequin.

But the trip up the sphere was never supposed to be the distant future. In versions 1–3 (Perrin, Cronkite, Irons), the ascent covered the past through the present, with a hint of the future. Version 4 stops with the past.

Versions 1–3 used the descent to make vague promises for a better future without getting too specific. Cronkite had video loops with “Tomorrow’s Child” advising the future starts today. V3 went so far as to begin the descent with video footage of ‘90s-era satellite TV, demonstrating our ability to share experiences in real-time around the world. Then V4 made it a cartoon look at a Jetson’s world.

Spaceship Earth was a pavilion that celebrated communication, not “the future.” That was the purpose of Horizons. In 2007—without the Horizons pavilion to handle the future—WDI attempted to shoehorn “our tech future” into SSE-4 with Dench, but they accidentally destroyed the coherent storyline.

I hadn't even thought of the fact it was really a ride about the contemporary over the future. Whichever version it was that has the ending as a glowing city seemed to reinforce the not so distant future narrative more.

Then it makes the introduction of the static figure in the garage scene even weirder, by 2007 that wasn't even contemporary, and every final scene had been vaguely contemporary with an implication of the future.

Isn't the Jetsons style screen thing supposed to mimic the options of where to live from Horizons?

Also found this article on the figure in the garage: https://www.wired.com/2008/01/whos-the-mystery-man-in-epcots-garage-neither-woz-nor-jobs/

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

@marni1971 besides the rumor of an inside out attraction taking over imagination, do the rest of the proposals you are aware of include other IP integrations? I would hope not.

 

[Goofyernmost]

@marni1971 besides the rumor of an inside out attraction taking over imagination, do the rest of the proposals you are aware of include other IP integrations? I would hope not.

I'm not sure that can even classify as a rumor. I think it was just fan speculation that blew up a little. I think it would be a good one and since Imagination has been in a coma for the past decade, it makes me sad and that is part of the inside out theme

 

[marni1971]

@marni1971 besides the rumor of an inside out attraction taking over imagination, do the rest of the proposals you are aware of include other IP integrations? I would hope not.

I'm not sure that can even classify as a rumor. I think it was just fan speculation that blew up a little. I think it would be a good one and since Imagination has been in a coma for the past decade, it makes me sad and that is part of the inside out theme

Inside out was being looked as a theme. It’s the only IP based based one I know of.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

I guess our saving grace for Figment is putting a cg animated show on Disney Junior to at least get kids interested in them...Seems to work for Mickey and the Roadster Racers...Why not name the show Figment's Dreamfinders in a nod to the cancelled Disney Channel show..Then at least he's an IP...

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

Inside out was being looked as a theme. It’s the only IP based based one I know of.

Ok, that’s good to know. I am aware though that anything can change between now and the next couple years up until they make a decision, and I’m aware that these are just proposals and nothing more, but it definitely makes me a bit more optimistic and hopeful, that Disney will lean towards bringing back the original attraction or something just as good, that’s non IP based!