-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Rumor Inside Out to Replace Journey into Imagination with Figment?
- Thread starter Just4Pics
- Start date
Spending $1 Billion on Star Wars seems justified, but not for Dreamfinder and Figment. Yes, educate me on my understanding of Figment. We all need education to put us into our place of why we should care about characters barely featured in Imagination anymore.Right, because we've never known Disney to build things with a huge budget...
Also, seeing as he's been around MUCH longer than IO and represents things like the Flower and Garden festival, calling Figment a "non-entity" just shows a real lack of understanding of the character. Especially when your next statement insists that there are well-developed characters in Inside Out. They're as "well developed" as the body parts in Cranium Command.
Inside Out had the benefit of a 2 hour movie where we know much more about the characters than Dreamfinder and Figment and much bigger audiences than the entire history of the Imagination attraction.
Bender123
Well-Known Member
Figment is still one of the highest grossing merch characters at WDW...
Based on the amount of sales and attention he gets at WDW, its actually amazing that he hasn't gotten a real shot at expanding beyond the parks. One of the reasons he was brought back was because of the massive hole his disappearance left in the merch sales budget.
Mac Tonight
Well-Known Member
Dude, you make me laugh.
No one is suggesting spending a billion dollars on Imagination. That's all you.
Secondly, Figment (and Dreamfinder) has existed since 1983. Not only in his attraction, but also in cartoons.
But yes please, keep calling him a "non-entity" and insisting that Inside Out emotions are more developed and therefore deserve to take over the pavilion.
Box office mojo. Inside Out : Worldwide: $857,611,174
I used $1 Billion as a significant sum. They need at least $100 million to have a decent attraction, but no money needs to be spent on Imagination with Dreamfinder and Figment. Just keep the wreck indefinitely with barely any support. Or no one will miss them if they don't have an attraction with them in it. Both can continue to sell merchandise in Epcot without an attraction. Inside Out will be a new attraction that will attract it's own following.
Mac Tonight
Well-Known Member
OK. This discussion clearly isn't gonna go anywhere, so let's just agree to disagree. Keep pining for that Inside Out attraction. There's one nearing completion in DCA as we speak!
Inspired Figment
Well-Known Member
The problem with your argument is, is the original theme with Dreamfinder & Figment was very successful. The “Honey, I Shrunk the Audience” themed overlays that came after were the issues. If anything, it seems more or less to prove the point that film IP is not the way to go.
Mac Tonight
Well-Known Member
It's not a problem. You can't get over the fact that they can't go back. If they could, they would have brought Horizons back and numerous other attractions. Since Imagineering ruined Imagination, it makes no sense to revive the attraction as it was. They're not going to fund massive amounts of money to bring it back. It makes no financial sense. It's an over 20 year attraction.
Okay, now I have to say your argument is a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow that a film IP shouldn't be attempted.
Inspired Figment
Well-Known Member
Also, let’s not forget that there was clearly an effort to put more development into the characters with the recent Marvel Disney Kingdoms Figment origin story comic (which were *extremely* successful by the way). So to say that Inside Out has more development than Figment is a bit of a lie. The original had plenty of development for the characters aswell. They didn’t need that much development to understand to begin with, as the entire theme was creativity and imagination. A theme and concept we *all* can easily understand.
Mac Tonight
Well-Known Member
You'd be surprised
MacTonight said I don't understand it. So I insist your argument is not borne out by its defenders, ironically.
Inspired Figment
Well-Known Member
PS: It doesn’t *exactly* have to be “going back” either. It can be a *new* Journey Into Imagination ride, with elements from the original and the recent comic series put in. Heck, if you wanted to. Since Figment *has* met and interacted with film IP characters before in the Language Arts Through Imagination short films (like Alice & Peter Pan for instance). (Not to mention Dr. Channing from Honey, I Shrunk the Audience and some of other film characters featured in the Institute) It *could* technically be utilized properly without it being intrusive.
Think Disneyland’s treatment of It’s a Small World. You can see various small cameos in the form of items or small appearances. And it still works, as it’s based on the theme of abstract thoughts and all the creative mediums.
*Infact*, you can actually find concept art of the original Literature scene that utilizes the Cheshire Cat for the ‘Cat/Bat’ shadow illusion gag. And a section with an open comic featuring Spider Man. (i’m not even kidding, I’ll try to find the artwork and post it here later). But it can easily work.
And you know how at the end, after exploring each creative realm, Figment ultimately decides to take all he learned and apply that to becoming a “film” star (*cough cough* Kodak film. Lol) and we get to see him imagine himself in different roles? As a cowboy, a super hero, an ice climber, a scientist, a pirate, etc.)
Now who’s to say you couldn’t change that slightly to have Figment imagine himself as different Disney film character roles. Say instead of a pirate, you could have Figment dressed in the role of Jack Sparrow fighting Davey Jones, or Figment imagining himself as Woody riding on Bullseye alongside Jessie. Why not Figment climbing the ice tower/castle with Olaf or Elsa? Why not Figment imagine himself as Rocket with the Guardians of the Galaxy (synergy. LOL).
It works.. it can be reimagined and not completely destroy the spirit or theme of the original ride. It can still be done in a cohesive and non-intrusive,respectful way
Think Disneyland’s treatment of It’s a Small World. You can see various small cameos in the form of items or small appearances. And it still works, as it’s based on the theme of abstract thoughts and all the creative mediums.
*Infact*, you can actually find concept art of the original Literature scene that utilizes the Cheshire Cat for the ‘Cat/Bat’ shadow illusion gag. And a section with an open comic featuring Spider Man. (i’m not even kidding, I’ll try to find the artwork and post it here later). But it can easily work.
And you know how at the end, after exploring each creative realm, Figment ultimately decides to take all he learned and apply that to becoming a “film” star (*cough cough* Kodak film. Lol) and we get to see him imagine himself in different roles? As a cowboy, a super hero, an ice climber, a scientist, a pirate, etc.)
Now who’s to say you couldn’t change that slightly to have Figment imagine himself as different Disney film character roles. Say instead of a pirate, you could have Figment dressed in the role of Jack Sparrow fighting Davey Jones, or Figment imagining himself as Woody riding on Bullseye alongside Jessie. Why not Figment climbing the ice tower/castle with Olaf or Elsa? Why not Figment imagine himself as Rocket with the Guardians of the Galaxy (synergy. LOL).
It works.. it can be reimagined and not completely destroy the spirit or theme of the original ride. It can still be done in a cohesive and non-intrusive,respectful way
Last edited:
Mac Tonight
Well-Known Member
This concept is probably too advanced for some, but I love it.
Figment is easily one of Disney's most versatile characters where literally the only limitations around him are the limits of our imagination.
While it sounds okay on paper, it doesn't quite seem like an improvement on what the attraction is currently. It's more or less the same existing attraction. Kodak is a blast from the past. Edutainment. Why would you want Figment to play different Disney character when you can have the Disney character? Disney's Imagination instead of Your Imagination. The shifting of word and images without it amount to much substance. It's definitely a throwback to what it was.
I propose "Inside Out" with 'new friends' (in small type and probably includes Figment). You morph between different areas of your brain to investigate your emotions. Face some peril. A creative spark emerges and it's Figment. Figment and Bing Bong save the day. Then exit the attraction into a Figment and Bing Bong candy and plush store.
I propose "Inside Out" with 'new friends' (in small type and probably includes Figment). You morph between different areas of your brain to investigate your emotions. Face some peril. A creative spark emerges and it's Figment. Figment and Bing Bong save the day. Then exit the attraction into a Figment and Bing Bong candy and plush store.
Mac Tonight
Well-Known Member
Inspired Figment
Well-Known Member
I strongly disagree. Infact, what you’re describing seems more similar to the current attraction than anything else. Journey Into Imagination is *supposed* to be a journey through each medium of creativity that inspires you to use your imagination. In the original it was the Dreamport (where all the abstract ideas and thoughts are gathered, stored, and processed), then the realm of Art, then Literature, then Performing Arts/Theatre, then Science, then Film (Image Technology) (What Figment decides is the medium he wants to take part in after learning and exploring each of the creative realms with Dreamfinder. And if you think about it, that medium combines every other creative medium all into one.)
Dreamfinder also explained what the process of imagination was (you gather abstract ideas or things you’re inspired by that you find in the world. Then combine them in new and interesting ways to create new things. That’s where Figment comes into play. He’s a physical embodiment and demonstration of that process, along with his dreamcatching machine. Not to mention Figment’s wideeyed childlike curiosity that sometimes gets him into playful mischief (but not destructive or intrusive)
I say it’s better to keep that basic concept in mind, but to upgrade it. Disney character cameos that fit within each medium can be placed here and there. But not in a way that detracts or intrudes on the story or concept.
It’s a Journey into Imagination. Not a Journey into your senses or emotions with Figment coming in to prove you wrong before finally “getting it right” in the end. That’s repeating the same problem the other redos had. It’s just supposed to be a Journey into Imagination. Not conflicting mind ideologies clashing before ultimately settling on one by the end.
Last edited:
My concept is different because it’s not education dressed up as entertainment. It’s pure entertainment. Each emotion is explored creatively with amazing colors that can interact with the vehicle. It’s not about inspiration as that isn’t the goal. It’s to give the audience an amazing time as they identify with the over saturated colors of each emotion and characters as shown in the movie.
It’s funny how you disagree with it so strongly when you think it closely resembles the current attraction. That it resembles Imagination should be less of an objection especially when it goes into a different direction creatively. Making Figment the sole focus on the Imagination attraction is it’s failure. It also focuses too much on abstract ideas and objects. No one care about such abstraction.
Inside Out has the girl (Riley) who has this overwhelming need. People identify with her and Joy. Imagination just has Figment and Dr. Nigel Channing.
It’s funny how you disagree with it so strongly when you think it closely resembles the current attraction. That it resembles Imagination should be less of an objection especially when it goes into a different direction creatively. Making Figment the sole focus on the Imagination attraction is it’s failure. It also focuses too much on abstract ideas and objects. No one care about such abstraction.
Inside Out has the girl (Riley) who has this overwhelming need. People identify with her and Joy. Imagination just has Figment and Dr. Nigel Channing.
