No idea. That’s why I asked the member I asked.
-
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
FrankLapidus
Well-Known Member
Maybe I misquoted him or made it harsher than he intended, if so I apologize. Figment is popular for merchandise but the attraction isn't. (I know because I ride it almost every time I am in Epcot.) But it is not something I am going to recommend to friends going to Epcot for the first time.
I hate how the exit has been neglected for so long. Used to be fun for the kids when they were younger. You can still email someone a picture. WOW!
I just liked the idea as a way to make the attraction as good as the character is.
I'm sure you haven't, this isn't the first time I've seen or heard that kind of sentiment expressed by someone connected to Disney.
I agree with you about the attraction, it is awful. But that's down to Disney's negligence; they had a classic and destroyed it. Twenty years later, they're still selling Figment hats, Figment mugs, Figment plush - they wouldn't still produce as much as of it as they do if nobody cared about or remembered Figment, it's just a baseless excuse they they like to trot out.
It is a smart idea - I think they could do a lot with the park attractions on Disney+; I know I'd watch animated shorts and series about the Tiki Birds, the Country Bears and the Haunted Mansion. I'd love to see a Figment and Dreamfinder series - the comic sold incredibly well so Disney can't say that there isn't an audience for those character - but I think sometimes it suits them to pretend that Figment is some obscure character from the 90's that no one really cares about, even as they sell the hats, mugs and plush.
AVAC Juice
Active Member
In 2019 Imagineering should literally be blowing the capstone off of the Journey into Imagination pyramid with every effect and illusion imaginable.
It isn't all about technology. In the absence of cutting technology spilling over the sides, great storytelling and true artistic vision relevant to Epcot definately cuts it for me.
I'm not certain that every dreamer intern at WDI understands this.
Last edited:
There lies the fundamental flaw in today’s thinking. First timers to any attraction don’t know much about it. First timers to the original JII, Horizons, Spaceship Earth etc. would have had very little knowledge if any of what to expect. But they went on to be unbelievable popular.
Build a stunning attraction and they will come. Even more so with today’s connected society.
MaximumEd
Well-Known Member
To the point that the interim nighttime show will be centered around all those “failed” ideas.
huwar18
Well-Known Member
The thing is I doubt the Imagineers have any say. I just imagine that the Imagineers have all of these amazing attractions and redesigns filed away because they were told if they don't have an IP attached they can't use them.
KevinPage
Well-Known Member
1. Most of management who makes the $$$ decisions has no knowledge (or care) for Disney history or the long term thinking of having a balance of IP & non IP attractions. All they care for is the quick easy fix that will generate more revenue and help the stock price.
2. Unfortunately, the ideology in #1 has worked so far, so why would management change their ways now? None of them are Disney “lifers” or plan to be. Nor do they seem to view the parks as anything more than a
. They don’t feel it is something that needs to be nourished/cherished.
3. Our only savings grace (in this day and age) is that WDI pulls the right strings and can be as creative as possible at the right time.
4. RE: “Edutainment”, people don’t crave it or actively seek it out, they just want to have fun and be distracted from their regular boring lives. So the best attractions are the ones that educate and entertain, without asking anything of the guest going in. If you can WOW someone by enjoying something so much, while learning in the process, that’s the way to go.
And this is something I hope GOTG strives for AND accomplishes. If anything can pull it off, it’s this. People will flock to the ride based on name alone and be much more receptive to it than some random film in World Showcase trying to convey a message
2. Unfortunately, the ideology in #1 has worked so far, so why would management change their ways now? None of them are Disney “lifers” or plan to be. Nor do they seem to view the parks as anything more than a
. They don’t feel it is something that needs to be nourished/cherished.3. Our only savings grace (in this day and age) is that WDI pulls the right strings and can be as creative as possible at the right time.
4. RE: “Edutainment”, people don’t crave it or actively seek it out, they just want to have fun and be distracted from their regular boring lives. So the best attractions are the ones that educate and entertain, without asking anything of the guest going in. If you can WOW someone by enjoying something so much, while learning in the process, that’s the way to go.
And this is something I hope GOTG strives for AND accomplishes. If anything can pull it off, it’s this. People will flock to the ride based on name alone and be much more receptive to it than some random film in World Showcase trying to convey a message
RoysCabin
Well-Known Member
Totally unscientific take here, but it's something that's been on my mind:
I recently saw an article entitled "Why No One Watches Baseball Anymore"; as a huge fan of the game it was pretty heartbreaking stuff, but a lot came down to the league constantly chasing after the highest dollar totals and profits at the expense of planting the seeds for a future fanbase. So the games run longer mostly due to commercial breaks being longer and/or more frequent, many teams bilk the cities they're based in to the tune of hundreds of millions for publicly financed stadiums, the biggest games air at times that are awful for young kids (seriously, 8:40pm EST for the World Series, on school nights), etc. All of this is happening while TV platforms throw tons of money at the league despite its falling popularity, because currently TV networks and cable platforms are desperate for any and all live programming they can get, as that's about the only thing keeping even more people from cutting the cord. Ergo, the league doesn't really worry about fixing its issues: after all, they're making tons of money today, so who cares about tomorrow? Just ignore that the cable TV bubble is likely going to burst in a hideous way within the coming decade and focus on your current earnings, instead, right?
Put succinctly, Major League Baseball is just doing all it can to wring more money from its existing, aging fanbase, and its existing media platforms, despite most of them moving toward obsolescence or not being fully equipped for the current media landscape (e.g. MLB.tv online games having ridiculous blackout rules). The league is making money hand over fist today, so many will tell those with concerns to sit down and shut up, but anyone with even half an eye toward the future can see the light from the oncoming train.
I'm not about to fully equate Disney theme parks with Major League Baseball; that's obviously two very different entertainment mediums and two very different business models, so this certainly isn't an apples to apples comparison. But I do question the overall philosophical shift of Disney parks toward "throw in whatever people recognize" instead of aiming for more ambitious material, and how it reflects a short term, "MBA-style" focus on immediate profit over the cultivation of lifelong fans and a sterling reputation.
I don't remember the exact line, but Walt once said something during Disneyland's first decade along the lines of "don't worry about how much <something esoteric or seemingly unneeded> costs; put it in as part of a great show, and people will line up to come back again and again." When it opened, Journey Into Imagination was a concept like that: huge, ambitious, showy, effects-laden, beautifully crafted...and it was a massive success. Move away from EPCOT, and look at the effect Pirates, Mansion, and other rides have had across all Disney parks: people feel a connection with those attractions despite them not being based on any individual IP, and to this day people make the journey back to their park of choice to experience them.
Again, I have no evidence to back up anything I'm about to say, but I fear a future where the answer is always "just use a movie they'll recognize", "just add another meet n' greet", or "let 'em drink more"; I'm not opposed to any of those things in isolation (hell, I've done "Drinking Around the World" with no shame), but what so many people are asking for isn't 1982 EPCOT Center remade verbatim, but some kind of sign that Disney still has that level of ambition in them, particularly when other places without such big IP demands in recent history proves they can still pull it off, ala Tokyo DisneySea.
I recently saw an article entitled "Why No One Watches Baseball Anymore"; as a huge fan of the game it was pretty heartbreaking stuff, but a lot came down to the league constantly chasing after the highest dollar totals and profits at the expense of planting the seeds for a future fanbase. So the games run longer mostly due to commercial breaks being longer and/or more frequent, many teams bilk the cities they're based in to the tune of hundreds of millions for publicly financed stadiums, the biggest games air at times that are awful for young kids (seriously, 8:40pm EST for the World Series, on school nights), etc. All of this is happening while TV platforms throw tons of money at the league despite its falling popularity, because currently TV networks and cable platforms are desperate for any and all live programming they can get, as that's about the only thing keeping even more people from cutting the cord. Ergo, the league doesn't really worry about fixing its issues: after all, they're making tons of money today, so who cares about tomorrow? Just ignore that the cable TV bubble is likely going to burst in a hideous way within the coming decade and focus on your current earnings, instead, right?
Put succinctly, Major League Baseball is just doing all it can to wring more money from its existing, aging fanbase, and its existing media platforms, despite most of them moving toward obsolescence or not being fully equipped for the current media landscape (e.g. MLB.tv online games having ridiculous blackout rules). The league is making money hand over fist today, so many will tell those with concerns to sit down and shut up, but anyone with even half an eye toward the future can see the light from the oncoming train.
I'm not about to fully equate Disney theme parks with Major League Baseball; that's obviously two very different entertainment mediums and two very different business models, so this certainly isn't an apples to apples comparison. But I do question the overall philosophical shift of Disney parks toward "throw in whatever people recognize" instead of aiming for more ambitious material, and how it reflects a short term, "MBA-style" focus on immediate profit over the cultivation of lifelong fans and a sterling reputation.
I don't remember the exact line, but Walt once said something during Disneyland's first decade along the lines of "don't worry about how much <something esoteric or seemingly unneeded> costs; put it in as part of a great show, and people will line up to come back again and again." When it opened, Journey Into Imagination was a concept like that: huge, ambitious, showy, effects-laden, beautifully crafted...and it was a massive success. Move away from EPCOT, and look at the effect Pirates, Mansion, and other rides have had across all Disney parks: people feel a connection with those attractions despite them not being based on any individual IP, and to this day people make the journey back to their park of choice to experience them.
Again, I have no evidence to back up anything I'm about to say, but I fear a future where the answer is always "just use a movie they'll recognize", "just add another meet n' greet", or "let 'em drink more"; I'm not opposed to any of those things in isolation (hell, I've done "Drinking Around the World" with no shame), but what so many people are asking for isn't 1982 EPCOT Center remade verbatim, but some kind of sign that Disney still has that level of ambition in them, particularly when other places without such big IP demands in recent history proves they can still pull it off, ala Tokyo DisneySea.
mikejs78
Premium Member
Shame really. Baseball is such a great sport.
starri42
Well-Known Member
Wait, a rollercoaster themed around a band with four Grammys isn't IP-based? Under what possible definition?
In the last twenty-five years:
Non-IP: Test Track, Mission: Space, and everything in Animal Kingdom that isn't Pandora.
IP: New Fantasyland, Buzz Lightyear, Tower of Terror, Rock'n Rollercoaster, Toy Story Land and Galaxy's Edge, and Pandora, with Remy and the Guardians in the pipeline.
I don't know if my list is exhaustive, since I just did it off the top of my head, so I welcome any corrections.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Now put those in chronological order and you’ll notice a trend after 2006. The franchise mandate is not a secret.
huwar18
Well-Known Member
Actually, Animal Kingdom has a lot of IPs. Nemo show, Lion King, Bug’s Life show, Up bird show, Dinosaur... there are probably things I am missing. Also, Disney doesn’t own Aerosmith. It’s not an IP of Disney’s.
starri42
Well-Known Member
They didn't own Avatar when Pandora opened either. Nor do they own the Twilight Zone. Nor did they own Star Wars or Indiana Jones when they started using them in the parks.
They're still intellectual properties being designed to hook guests. They're just not all IPs that are owned directly.
huwar18
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I agree. Those would still be IPs integrated into the parks. It just shows the push for IP driven attractions. If used appropriately, IP attractions don’t bother me. Especially, in a park like Hollywood Studios. It is basically the new Universal. The Tower of Terror is basically an original attraction. It just takes place in the Twilight Zone universe. Those are the types of IP attractions they need to create.
starri42
Well-Known Member
I totally agree with that. I'm just saying that using IP is not a recent idea.
Not a recent idea (Even the Jungle Cruise, an opening day attraction at Disneyland, was somewhat tied into the True Life Adventure series Walt had produced) but there was always a pretty good amount of equality between using IPs and not using IPs.
However, there is currently NO project that is greenlit without shoehorning an IP into it, whether it works thematically or not. Pixar Pier is embarrassing in every respect. Guardians DCA, while a fun ride, is out of place and looks hideous. Guardians at Epcot has no place in Future World.
Last edited:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
You don’t see a difference between using and only being allowed to use?
starri42
Well-Known Member
Look, I got nothin' for Pixar Pier. I've never been to California Adventure, but so much about it doesn't make any sense to me. Especially why I'm supposed to think taking an area that didn't work in two previous incarnations and hosing it down in Pixar juice is somehow an improvement.
I'll reserve judgement on Mission Breakout until the rest of the Avengers move in.
Nor am I going to judge the Guardians at Epcot until I know what the ride actual is. I mean, beyond the basic mechanics that we already know.
Honestly? If the end result is a good ride, I don't.
RoysCabin
Well-Known Member
Right: Jungle Cruise drew from the True Life Adventure series, Frontierland from Davy Crockett, etc., Pirates got some inspiration from various Disney works including Treasure Island, but each were allowed to become their own thing independent of the inspiration behind them, and each was implemented to supplement the theming and experience of the area they were placed in. Fantasyland is where there was the more direct "experience parts of the movies you remember" vibe, but that Fantasyland style is now pretty much overtaking everything they do in the parks. Selfishly speaking, as a kid I probably was least interested in Fantasyland (never disliked it, just not quite as into it), so the trend in that direction hasn't sat well with me as an adult.
Plus, there's the shelf life of the IPs involved; nobody doubts that Inside Out, for example, is a fine film, and will certainly have legs under it for many years to come, but is that good enough material to create a potentially timeless attraction? Pirates became timeless in large part because it drew from pirate-related IPs, it didn't directly lift its entire narrative and character from them; the original Imagination was timeless, using original characters, music, and settings you couldn't experience elsewhere; Peter Pan has become a timeless ride because it gives you that experience of flight, not merely because "hey, look, it's the story of Peter Pan...in RIDE form!" The Finding Nemo ride at the Seas does that latter approach, and it's pretty much the most forgettable ride in the park.