There was plans for that to happen in Disneyland in the 90's if the contract went through.
Well, Figment in it's current form is just suffering and wilting away, so if this is what's needed to bring some life into it, I say bring on The Muppets
You mean JII. Journey Into Imagination. Y implies Journey Into ^Your Imagination and that’s the same lousy Honey I Shrunk IP one we have now, just with Figment in a lesser throw away cameo role than we have now.
Figment is ‘not’ one who’s supposed to cause mayhem… he’s supposed to be ‘curious’, he’s a ‘learner’. Hence why he connected with us guests originally. He has the same childlike curiosity from Dreamfinder’s guidance & showcase of the realms of imagination that we had. Can we ‘not’ advocate for the same damn problematic needlessly rethemed attraction just with Muppets slapped in instead of Honey I Shrunk? It’s supposed to be a ride you come off inspired by, not one with a bunch of mayhem taking place that you come off thinking “what the hell was that?”.. C’mon guys. You all deserve better than this.
So bring on Tiana and her Salt Mine into Splash right, simply cause maintenance sucks? Cause that food co-op revamp concept is such a grand idea that’ll bring more life to the attraction.. c’mon guys. Stick up for the standards Disney once had and the ones we still hold them to. Don’t accept lousy mediocrity like the last 2 versions.
You can certainly count me out of that category. I ‘loathe’ unnecessary IP replacements or overlays, no matter what the IP is. Especially when the initial, beloved original/unique attraction & characters were so brilliantly produced & timeless in comparison to the lousy, ill-conceived IP replacements we got after.
Some “life”. Just like the Honey I Shrunk IP mixed with some other Medfield College connected films (Flubber, Computer Who Wore Tennis Shoes) brought “much needed life” into the pavilion in ‘99 and again in ‘02 (just with more Figment, not understanding what made that character and attraction work to begin with)
There's a difference between "Shove a plot that has absolutely no business being on a log flume" and "Take the time to create something that belongs on Imagination's ride track/setup".
So copying what went wrong with the last 2 iterations of imagination is something that “belongs”? The original concept was the only thing that ever belonged, just with enhancements to the tech & spfx. Nothing more, nothing less. They took something that originally showcased the essence of how to approach and what could happen through imagination & creativity, and made it the most unimaginative pavilion of a tour that goes wrong.. through a bunch of lab equipment, charts, and doors about the senses that has ‘nothing’ to do with Imagination (but rather sensory perceptive tests, a thing ‘seperate’ from creativity).. and an upside down house isn’t much better. Is that a good representation of how creativity compliments art, literature, theatre, science & technology, ‘and’ film all at once like the original did? I certainly don’t think so..
