Because they still wanted to commit to the idea of an interconnected Imagination Institute as HISTA was still popular in addition to the budgetary problems.
The biggest hole of your wacky conspiracy theory is that the current ride is trashing Tony and Figment fans is that Nigel Channing is never portrayed as being in the right. Instead, he is a stuffy British authority figure that cannot deal with anything remotely fun or risky that would be perfectly at home as the antagonist of a 1960s live-action Disney film, keeping with how terrified he is of lawsuits during the Honey 3D movie. We may get caught up in Figment's pranks, but he's saving us from the boredom of riding through hearing tests and a visit to the optometrist.
The reason Imagination keeps getting put off is because people there range from being Ride or Die on a Dreamfinder reboot that keeps getting put off by IP projects at other Pavilions or just really not wanting to put down Old Purpler for an IP flavor of the month and hoping the execs lose enough interest in said flavor to try pitching Dreamfinder again.
I don’t doubt your whole reasoning on the whole aspect of pitching Dreamfinder. But I believe there’s more to that. Oh HISTA was “popular” alright. Popular thanks to park op manipulation of changing the Magic Eye Theater line queue, advertising the movie as the *main* attraction in the pavilion as opposed to the ride and imageworks (which can be heard in the monorail spiel I posted here), all the while, seemingly intentionally getting JII attendance numbers down in order to get Kodak’s attention to do a complete overhaul on it... coincidentally after the whole closure and seasonal reopening of Horizons.... WDI pitched the idea of a revolutionary “Honey”-based ride with high tech technology (which Convinced Kodak and other Disney execs to greenlight the project) (view the Epcot Legacy Imagination article I linked). Along with Figment kept but reduced to a cameo (thanks to letter protests sent to Kodak when word got around of the original ride’s closure) (look at the “Save Imagination” website screenshot I posted). However once Eisner’s budget cuts thanks to the DL Paris and other factors set in. It just made the project all the worse. (See the Epcot Legacy article link I posted aswell as the statements made by one of the shareholders who helped “Bring Figment” Back”, Mike (Cheshire Figment))
Sound at all familiar to the recent rumors we’ve been hearing of WDI pitching an Inside Out attraction with Figment reduced to a cameo (Your Imagination all over again), when thankfully Pete Docter intervened and rejected the pitch and commissioned guest surveys to prove to WDI Figment was still indeed popular? (Jim Hill has also reported this same rumor in one of his recent podcasts).
And speaking of which, yes, your perception of the story is right. *However*, why do you think they’d use and portray Channing as the “stuffy authority figure who’s “never right” that cannot deal with anything remotely fun or risky” in the ride being constantly “upstaged” by the “free-thinking, creative, imaginative individual” with a supposedly “upside down” way of thinking. Please, do think about that for a moment. Try and think about what the whole inspiration and thought process behind the storyline and character roles were. Of course Figment proves his way of thinking to be right in the end. But in what way?? ...By constantly interfering and causing mischief to “Poor Channing” trying to run his tour with his “captured and controlled” way of thinking (just as it was in Your Imagination. *Who* was the imagineer that created Journey Into Your Imagination that also had involvement with Honey, I Shrunk the Audience? Look it up) .... then Figment makes “a big stink” that stops Channing’s tour before showing his and the Friends of Figment’s (all the multiple Figments on the ceiling and at the end) “upside down” way of thinking is the right way.
Am I the only one who finds it really odd they wouldn’t rather portray Figment’s view on Imagination as a more positive view of creative thinking. (Abstract concepts and ideas combined in new and unique ways to create new things), as it was in the original ride. I’m just saying...
Infact, it makes you wonder why they couldn’t have just instead utilized Channing in a similar manner to Dreamfinder and Figment again as the pure, childlike, curious character learning more about creativity through Channing. But mainly that’s just my own criticism.
And then to have it end with Channing saying “Well if you can’t beat him, join him”, then Figment congratulating Channing at the end by saying he “knew he’d get it cause he’s got a wonderful imagination”....
then getting blasted at the end with a room with seemingly every homage to the original ride you can think of and right after, Dr. Channing as the Horizons moon at the finale is just really odd to me. Seems to be a pretty oddly specific reference after all that, doesn’t it? Same goes for the Rose scent tank in the Smell Lab before spraying us with skunk instead.
Just seems overall to be really cynical and in poor taste to me.
Almost makes you wonder if that “mischief making nuisance” characterization of Figment was also intentional to perhaps *make* him unpopular, so they’d have a reason to completely get rid of him in the future. Thankfully that hasn’t happened. But still.. it makes you wonder.
Another thing worth mention is in the Epcot Legacy article, it mentions this whole “feud” and “political aspect” of WDI at the time also. Supposedly some execs “not playing well with others” and “being envious of Tony’s position at the time”, not to mention Marc Davis’s grudge on Tony thanks to Big Thunder being greenlit as opposed to Western river expedition. Which.. looking back at that time period and Tony’s position at that time. It would make a whole lot of sense. Even when thinking of Figment’s popularity alone at the park during that time compared to the other attractions, that would make a lot of sense as to what perhaps fueled the urge to get Journey Into Imagination closed and what the inspiration behind the new portrayal of Figment was .
Which ultimately sorta becomes the reason why Figment is still constantly targeted for removal still. Add that with the risk-averse, narrow “film IP” mandate mindset from the current CEOs that don’t have any sort of grasp or understanding of the popularity or potential investment of the original Journey Into Imagination, Dreamfinder, and Figment. And it becomes much more clear just how big of an issue this is.
