John Lasseter Visits Imagination Pavilion

[Goofyernmost]

But even so, you are assuming that Figment has the same potential as Mickey Mouse to be a classic character, all that needs to happen is a big shot somewhere needs to decide to "promote" him. Well, easier said than done, you can't just put Figment dolls everywhere and expect people to buy him. Folks in DLR probably wouldn't as west coast folks have had less exposure in a single ride. To even get a shot to be as popular as Mickey you need decades of "exposure" and dozens, and dozens of cartoons. We know who Mickey is, Figment not so sure.

Not at all. Disney is Mickey Mouse. No one ever would think that anything, any character would ever equal the iconic symbol that is the Mouse. However, in their time and place they were very popular. Figment without the Dreamfinder is a non-entity. Figment is a part of Dreamfinders imagination without Dreamfinder there is no Figment, ergo, nothing to hang a hat on.

But from a narrative standpoint, Fig/DF are weak, IMHO. Where does DF live? Figment is magically created, right?, by DF. So, does that mean there aren't anymore Figments? And where does Journey Into Imagination happen? Inside somebody's mind? Pixar is sort of making this film, but without the constraints of relying on DF/Fig.

So, from a storytelling standpoint, Figment/DF's slim backstory basically serve to explain a ride, not to build further interest in themselves as characters.

I don't understand the need that you are describing. Can you tell me where Mickey Mouse started, where he was born, where he went to school, how he had the ability to drive a boat or fly a plane? How about Goofy, when did he learn how to talk and walk upright? He is a dog isn't he? Imagination Pavilion is a one shot pony, it didn't need any back story, it was a story. It and they were the instruments in that story. What other thing have you seen Snow White staring in. Didn't her story end when the credits came on at the finish of the movie. If you want to know where it takes place or how...use your imagination. That's what it was all about. That is what Disney (Walt) was all about. Imagination and our ability and need to exercise and understand the possibilities that exist when you use it. When created both characters represented YOUR imagination. YOUR ability to think and create and develop.

Unfortunately, as with a large part of today's world, people are not exactly excited about being told that the ability to do this is a personal responsibility. No one can do it for you. They can entertain you with their imaginations but only one person can activate and utilize your own imagination to the fullest. That is a message that was the story in Imagination.

 

[FrankLapidus]

I may have missed an early post regarding making Imagination vintage 1980's.

But given that TDO, Burbank, whoever, will likely never aggressively market Figment like Duffy, and given that the Pixar movie about the thoughts inside of a girl's head will get tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions in promotions . . . not sure that from a corporate standpoint they could justify not letting the Pixar characters take center stage at Imagination, should they choose that route for a major reboot of the ride.

Well let's just wait and see what happens in 2015 when the film is due to be released. It's easy to make the connection and say that Corporate couldn't justify not doing it but by that logic Dinoland will be replaced by an area rethemed to the Good Dinosaur and the Mexico pavilion will be rethemed to the Day of the Dead film. But given that the film is still some way away and there doesn't seem to be any kind of plan right now for a major overhaul of Imagination, this is all just speculation that, while it might look good on paper, might not ever go anywhere.

Personally I like Figment, but what if you saw Pixar's new film and some of the characters were really awesome. Like what if they had a character that was "Imagination", and was interesting, but they couldn't have both Figment and the new Imagination character in the ride?

I'll wait until I see the film before I make a judgement over whether or not I would like to see a ride based on it. At this moment, I would prefer to see Imagination remain with the theme that is has now but improved to resemble something of the quality of the ride it used to be. For me, it's too early to say with any degree of certainty whether the film would be a good solution.

Obviously, TDO underestimated Figment's appeal as they brought him back. That's shows they do "care" about guests feelings, in so much as they probably got a lot of nasty feedback about the changes. I think after seeing Carsland I'm much more open to new things, and Pixar projects. Before I might have said please keep Figment and the song, but now the possibility of a totally new ride really excites me.

I've always been open to the addition of Pixar attractions, believe it or not, but I don't always think that they're the best or only solution. Like I've said, I would love to see a Ratatouille ride added to World Showcase and I think WALL-E is a character who could be used well in the park but, personally, I would rather see Figment remain at Epcot and used better than he is now rather than see him removed entirely to make way for something Pixar-related. I'm not against Pixar in any way but I would like a balance where the memorable and classicly unique Disney attractions (like Imagination) remain and prosper, not simply because they are unique, but because they really add something to the overall experience of the parks in my opinion.

But even so, you are assuming that Figment has the same potential as Mickey Mouse to be a classic character, all that needs to happen is a big shot somewhere needs to decide to "promote" him. Well, easier said than done, you can't just put Figment dolls everywhere and expect people to buy him. Folks in DLR probably wouldn't as west coast folks have had less exposure in a single ride. To even get a shot to be as popular as Mickey you need decades of "exposure" and dozens, and dozens of cartoons. We know who Mickey is, Figment not so sure.

I really don't think anyone is assuming that and no one has said Figment could ever reach anywhere near the kind of popularity that Mickey enjoys. You say "you can't just put Figment dolls everywhere and expect people to buy him" which is correct but that is not what is meant by saying that they should promote him more. I've suggested ways they could do that here, things like at park opening having Dreamfinder stroll around the entrance plaza with the Figment puppet, interacting with guests. Just to be clear I know this isn't going to happen, but it would be an easy way of getting those characters out amongst the guests and promoting them.

If they made a Figment movie, and the public responded well, maybe Figment could develop a following.

But from a narrative standpoint, Fig/DF are weak, IMHO. Where does DF live? Figment is magically created, right?, by DF. So, does that mean there aren't anymore Figments? And where does Journey Into Imagination happen? Inside somebody's mind? Pixar is sort of making this film, but without the constraints of relying on DF/Fig.

So, from a storytelling standpoint, Figment/DF's slim backstory basically serve to explain a ride, not to build further interest in themselves as characters.

You say you don't believe that a ride has to have a film or television franchise behind it but you keep bringing it up. Your opinion about the Pixar potential is fine but put it to one side for a moment because if it were to happen it would more than likely be quite a few years from now and there has been nothing to suggest it is even remotely on the horizon at present (again, if an insider knows different please correct me). No one here is talking about making Figment into the next big Disney cartoon film star or creating a franchise based around him or Dreamfinder. Looking at your last point there, that is what I want those characters to do, I'm not hoping for "FIGMENT AND DREAMFINDER: THE MOVIE". I don't know if these articles answer your questions regarding the characters' backstory but they do offer a lot of information about them nonetheless.

http://www.mouseplanet.com/9461/Remembering_a_Dreamfinder

http://www.mouseplanet.com/10073/Tony_Baxter_Figment_and_Imagination

I'm not holding my breath about anything I've suggested in this thread, all I can do is express my opinion that Figment and Dreamfinder could still have a big role to play at Epcot if Disney were so inclined. I'm not saying either should be promoted like Mickey Mouse or Pixar characters but that more could and should be done to at least make people aware of them within Epcot, not anywhere else. Things are what they are and there's nothing I or anyone else can do about that but I do believe there is a fanbase out there for these characters that has the potential to grow and reach more people who aren't aware of them if they were given more exposure. It more than likely won't happen and maybe in ten years Figment will be gone too but I still believe that those characters and the ride they were created alongside have the potential to be a lot more than they currently are.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I'm not holding my breath about anything I've suggested in this thread, all I can do is express my opinion that Figment and Dreamfinder could still have a big role to play at Epcot if Disney were so inclined. I'm not saying either should be promoted like Mickey Mouse or Pixar characters but that more could and should be done to at least make people aware of them within Epcot, not anywhere else. Things are what they are and there's nothing I or anyone else can do about that but I do believe there is a fanbase out there for these characters that has the potential to grow and reach more people who aren't aware of them if they were given more exposure. It more than likely won't happen and maybe in ten years Figment will be gone too but I still believe that those characters and the ride they were created alongside have the potential to be a lot more than they currently are.

The problem is that Dreamfinder and Figment were identified by the ride. Without the ride connection, no following or identity can happen. The don't exist outside of the Journey into Imagination. In that respect I agree that even though there is a fan base from the past, there will never be a significant addition to that fan base. It's like having the only phone in the world. Great gadget, but what would one use it for? That's DF & Figment without the "One little spark" tie-in.

In that respect I agree with Pixiedustmaker...it is a dead entity. It no longer has a purpose or identity. I wish they never would have let it die, but it has and the resuscitation team is unable to recharge it's batteries. The only way it could be revived is by Disney rebuilding the original Pavilion sans Capt. Weirdo! Or is that EO...can't remember! Anyway...the likelihood of that happening is just a tad less then my winning Powerball and I don't buy tickets.

 

[FrankLapidus]

The problem is that Dreamfinder and Figment were identified by the ride. Without the ride connection, no following or identity can happen. The don't exist outside of the Journey into Imagination. In that respect I agree that even though there is a fan base from the past, there will never be a significant addition to that fan base. It's like having the only phone in the world. Great gadget, but what would one use it for? That's DF & Figment without the "One little spark" tie-in.

In that respect I agree with Pixiedustmaker...it is a dead entity. It no longer has a purpose or identity. I wish they never would have let it die, but it has and the resuscitation team is unable to recharge it's batteries. The only way it could be revived is by Disney rebuilding the original Pavilion sans Capt. Weirdo! Or is that EO...can't remember! Anyway...the likelihood of that happening is just a tad less then my winning Powerball and I don't buy tickets.

I agree, I'm not disputing that viewpoint at all. I'm speaking hypothetically; if it were brought back to the quality it once had it could attract a new and larger fanbase. Like I said I know none of what I've spoken about will happen, all I've done is say what I would like to happen. Time moves on, Imagination's day is more or less done and I fully accept that (even if I don't like it). I'm not expecting anything significant to happen to the pavilion (including a Pixar overlay), I expect instead that it will remain as it is. I don't dispute that Imagination is a dead entity as you put it, it has been for years as far as I'm concerned, I'm just offering a hypotethical situation where that could be rectified and ways in which the characters could receive further exposure, but I have absolutely no expectations at all of any of it ever happening. Whatever happens, I really hope Figment remains in the attraction and Disney don't decide to do away with him completely but beyond that I have no real attachment to Imagination as it is today.

 

[Enchantâmes]

Pixiedustmaker is like 5 right?

 

[Goofyernmost]

I agree, I'm not disputing that viewpoint at all. I'm speaking hypothetically; if it were brought back to the quality it once had it could attract a new and larger fanbase. Like I said I know none of what I've spoken about will happen, all I've done is say what I would like to happen. Time moves on, Imagination's day is more or less done and I fully accept that (even if I don't like it). I'm not expecting anything significant to happen to the pavilion (including a Pixar overlay), I expect instead that it will remain as it is. I don't dispute that Imagination is a dead entity as you put it, it has been for years as far as I'm concerned, I'm just offering a hypotethical situation where that could be rectified and ways in which the characters could receive further exposure, but I have absolutely no expectations at all of any of it ever happening. Whatever happens, I really hope Figment remains in the attraction and Disney don't decide to do away with him completely but beyond that I have no real attachment to Imagination as it is today.

Yes, I know...I was more or less echoing your thoughts, but adding a few of mine. Didn't mean it to look like an argument. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm am also sorry that Disney allowed whatever power to remove a very important part of EPCOT history and replace it with nothing.

Even now, if they would come up with a quality substitute that contained the magic that the original Journey had in huge quantities, I might be able to snuggle up to it. But my feeling is that all the people with that type of imagination are now either retired or deceased. And at the same time, leaders with the strength and vision strong enough to allow experimenting with new ideas are also completely missing. No one knows more than I how difficult it is to have to explain to stockholders why you made a decision that might be dangerous, but that is sometimes what it takes to create something that has "the staying power" that we all would like to see and make that person a truly talented and unforgettable leader.

Mike Eisner, love him or hate him, had that when he was teamed with Frank Wells. Since then it must be "proven" success before anything is approved. It's a good thing that Walt didn't wait for overwhelming support for Disneyland before he went ahead with it. We would have to post all this stuff on a completely different Discussion Board. John Lasseter is the only person of our time that might have that type of courage and insight, but he is confined by the budget now like everyone else. When it's not your own money it is much more difficult to make your imagination reality.

 

[FigmentJedi]

But from a narrative standpoint, Fig/DF are weak, IMHO. Where does DF live? Figment is magically created, right?, by DF. So, does that mean there aren't anymore Figments? And where does Journey Into Imagination happen? Inside somebody's mind? Pixar is sort of making this film, but without the constraints of relying on DF/Fig.

If you ever saw the original ride, you'd remember that the Dreamport is Dreamfinder's home, Figment was created on the blimp and is referred to as "a" Figment of Imagination, implying others which is the thread of logic the Modern ImageWorks uses for it's ORIGINAL CHARACTER DO NOT STEAL generator that replaced the "Put Silly Things on Your Face" photo stations when Kodak left.

As for the ride's setting, the whole attraction is a metaphor for the creative process of gathering, storing and recombining to make new things. It could be seen as being set in the mind in that respect, though I've always gotten a "Second Star to the Right and Straight On Till Morning" vibe from "The Dreamport is never far away as long as you use your imagination", so it could be a physical location along the lines of Neverland or Wonderland.

 

[FrankLapidus]

Yes, I know...I was more or less echoing your thoughts, but adding a few of mine. Didn't mean it to look like an argument. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm am also sorry that Disney allowed whatever power to remove a very important part of EPCOT history and replace it with nothing.

Even now, if they would come up with a quality substitute that contained the magic that the original Journey had in huge quantities, I might be able to snuggle up to it. But my feeling is that all the people with that type of imagination are now either retired or deceased. And at the same time, leaders with the strength and vision strong enough to allow experimenting with new ideas are also completely missing. No one knows more than I how difficult it is to have to explain to stockholders why you made a decision that might be dangerous, but that is sometimes what it takes to create something that has "the staying power" that we all would like to see and make that person a truly talented and unforgettable leader.

Mike Eisner, love him or hate him, had that when he was teamed with Frank Wells. Since then it must be "proven" success before anything is approved. It's a good thing that Walt didn't wait for overwhelming support for Disneyland before he went ahead with it. We would have to post all this stuff on a completely different Discussion Board. John Lasseter is the only person of our time that might have that type of courage and insight, but he is confined by the budget now like everyone else. When it's not your own money it is much more difficult to make your imagination reality.

Apologies, I misunderstood your post first of all but I understand what you were saying now so I'm sorry if I came across as being argumentative, I just thought my own point needed a little more clarification. Needless to say, I agreed with everything you wrote .

I agree with what you're saying here as well. It would be amazing if Tony Baxter came up with some ideas for the attraction given the role he played in it's creation, but it looks like that the chances of that happening are zero.

You're right about Eisner and Wells, their partnership at the company was the last real "golden age" when every department seemed to thrive. I've said in the past that when Iger goes I'd like to see a return to that management structure but, as with everything else, I won't be holding my breath of that happening. It would be amazing if Lasseter being at the pavilion actually led to something happening there, I'm sure there are still people at WDI who are fans of the original Imagination and would see a being part of a project there as a labour of love.

 

[Gabe1]

The Duffy story is interesting, and bares some parallels with Fig/DF,

"Although originally created for and briefly sold at the Disney World Once Upon a Toy shop in Orlando in 2002, Duffy only became popular after Oriental Land executives adopted the character, gave it a name and a backstory, and aggressively marketed it in the Tokyo DisneySea park. Japanese fans took to it and some of them started to carry around multiple Duffy plush bears during their visits to the park. The My Friend Duffy show replaced a Donald Duck-themed show at the American Waterfront Cape Cod Cook-Off hamburger restaurant in 2010."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duffy_the_Disney_Bear

Duffy was aggressively marketed by TDT, and fans responded. And for probably a lot of different reasons, Duffy is now in multiple parks,


"Duffy the Disney Bear joined American Disney parks on October 14, 2010. He was welcomed at Epcot in Walt Disney World and Disney California Adventure Park at the Disneyland Resort.[1] He then joined Hong Kong Disneyland Resort on November 19, 2010. He was welcomed at Main Street, U.S.A. in Hong Kong Disneyland Park.[2] He joined Disneyland Paris on June 2011. He will make his official debut in Disneyland Paris at the Disneyland Park on November 7, 2011 for their Christmas season. He will have his own Meet-and-Greet area and photolocation in Town Square. He will also have a Meet-and-Greet location at the Disneyland Hotel and at the Disney's Newport Bay Club Hotel. He will participate in the daily daytime Parade "Disney's Once Upon a Dream Parade" in the Christmas unit "Dreams of Christmas". He will also be at the daily nighttime Show "Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony."

And Duffy is on the small screen,


"Duffy is unique among Disney characters in that he was not first featured in a Disney movie or television show until he made his television debut in the 2010 Disney Parks Christmas Day Parade. He also is on his own Bedtime Story Channel in Walt Disney World."

Some reasons why Figment/DF didn't take off when compared to Duffy:

1. Teddy bears are inherently cute. I can see guests in Tokyo taking Duffy with them everywhere, I kind of doubt this would have happened with Figment as he is more reptillian, IMHO.

2. TDO didn't aggressively market Fig/DF, or give them a backstory. We can argue why this didn't happen, (or why it should have), but given the amount of time Fig/DF were in Epcot, maybe fan reaction wasn't very strong. Pure speculation on my part, certainly there are diehard fans, but I talking about total numbers.

3. Duffy is linked to Mickey Mouse being his bear and having "hidden" Mickeys incorporated into his body. So, not so "original" perhaps as Fig/DF.

I knew the Duffy story, most do. And basically you just confirmed my point above. There is not a purpose for Duffy in Epcot or anywhere else on Disney Properties other than revenue. Basically they successfully lifted the Build A Bear Concept, out of nowhere attached him to Mickey. Figment at least has a direct tie to Epcot and was loved by many an adult and child. After Disney messed up the attraction Figment became the victim. Figment wasn't unpopular, Figment was an embarrassment to Disney and a constant reminder to the fan base how badly Disney messed up that pavillion. Disney's solution, exit Figment.

 

[marni1971]

I'd rather see Pixar take over the pavilion than the crap that's there now.

Or Apple.

Damn. Too late.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I knew the Duffy story, most do. And basically you just confirmed my point above. There is not a purpose for Duffy in Epcot or anywhere else on Disney Properties other than revenue. Basically they successfully lifted the Build A Bear Concept, out of nowhere attached him to Mickey. Figment at least has a direct tie to Epcot and was loved by many an adult and child. After Disney messed up the attraction Figment became the victim. Figment wasn't unpopular, Figment was an embarrassment to Disney and a constant reminder to the fan base how badly Disney messed up that pavillion. Disney's solution, exit Figment.

Duffy is a phenomenon. Guests in Tokyo, per Wiki, ". . . started to carry around multiple Duffy plush bears during their visits to the park." They also have to limit the number of Duffys sold on certain, and limit the number sold, in some venues.

According to one article, (http://www.wdwfacts.com/2010/11/10/who-is-duffy-the-disney-bear/),


"Duffy’s popularity soared. Disney says the bear became a coveted collectible with women between the ages of 20 and 35, who would sometimes line up in advance outside stores whenever a new Duffy costume was introduced."

Something tells me the number of Duffy fans far outweighs the number of Figment fans. I don't see Figment ever coming close to Duffy's popularity, or even brand recognition.

The whole Figment as an embarrassment and victim thing is a little too much anthropomorphizing for my taste, and I don't really understand the reference. I know Figment was out, then they put him back in, but I think it was due to guest feedback post-changes, not that Figment was taken to the garage and put out of sight because he was an embarrassment.

 

[ExtinctJenn]

"Duffy’s popularity soared. Disney says the bear became a coveted collectible with women between the ages of 20 and 35, who would sometimes line up in advance outside stores whenever a new Duffy costume was introduced."

Something tells me the number of Duffy fans far outweighs the number of Figment fans. I don't see Figment ever coming close to Duffy's popularity, or even brand recognition.

Well... I'm a 35 year old woman and while I don't yet have a Duffy bear, I have tons of Figment plush toys ranging from 1983 to 2007. And, if it says anything, when I saw that they had a 30th anniversary shirt for Duffy with Figment on it my first thought was "I absolutely have to buy a Duffy bear now!"

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

If you ever saw the original ride, you'd remember that the Dreamport is Dreamfinder's home, Figment was created on the blimp and is referred to as "a" Figment of Imagination, implying others which is the thread of logic the Modern ImageWorks uses for it's ORIGINAL CHARACTER DO NOT STEAL generator that replaced the "Put Silly Things on Your Face" photo stations when Kodak left.

As for the ride's setting, the whole attraction is a metaphor for the creative process of gathering, storing and recombining to make new things. It could be seen as being set in the mind in that respect, though I've always gotten a "Second Star to the Right and Straight On Till Morning" vibe from "The Dreamport is never far away as long as you use your imagination", so it could be a physical location along the lines of Neverland or Wonderland.

I knew some of that, including that Figment was created on the blimp. IMHO, the concept of a steampunk guy flying a machine to a "Dreamport" is kind of generic and very much in the vein of fantasy of decades past. I do love the song, so I actually like the current version best.

Did the old one have Figment's House? I thought that was new . . .

I never liked lines like the one you mentioned, "The Dreamport is never far away as long as you use your imagination", because while I know you could say, "use your imagination", they seem kind of flowery and generic, and an over use of authorial reticence, IMHO. Drag me out in the street and shoot me, but "Dreamport" sounds so made up, (which of course it is), but is sounds like they invented the name in a couple minutes and it is really just a McGuffin as the blimp machine doesn't really need to go anywhere, IMHO, but they need to create a sense of progression through the story.

From a visual stand-point, the old Imagination ride was pretty good, but from a storytelling standpoint, not so good, IMHO.

 

[ExtinctJenn]

IFrom a visual stand-point, the old Imagination ride was pretty good, but from a storytelling standpoint, not so good, IMHO.

I think the idea of the original was actually to not tell a story but rather let the guest imagine it. They set up the characters and then put you into rooms of inspiration and let you take it from there.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I think the idea of the original was actually to not tell a story but rather let the guest imagine it. They set up the characters and then put you into rooms of inspiration and let you take it from there.

From a sensory processing angle you got all of the visual/auditory information coming in, and your trying to make sense of Figment, and the guests enjoys seeing him be creative. Of course, other Disney rides, like Indy, even Jungle Cruise, have those "blank slate" moments where you are in a highly themed area and your mind becomes imaginative.

I think I meant more along the lines of a narrative style, Imagination was sort of like the Never Ending Story where, during the fantasy pieces, you are thrown into a fantasy world and must instantly accept the "rules" to believe the story. I guess I never found DreamFinder/Figment believable enough where I would figuratively close my eyes and imagine a Jules Verne type guy who flies this weird contraption around while helping a little dragon/steer hybrid learn about the creative process.

Every story needs a strong beginning, middle and an end. I think Imagination's beginning was a little weak on believability.

 

[FigmentJedi]

I knew some of that, including that Figment was created on the blimp. IMHO, the concept of a steampunk guy flying a machine to a "Dreamport" is kind of generic and very much in the vein of fantasy of decades past. I do love the song, so I actually like the current version best.

I never liked lines like the one you mentioned, "The Dreamport is never far away as long as you use your imagination", because while I know you could say, "use your imagination", they seem kind of flowery and generic, and an over use of authorial reticence, IMHO.

From a visual stand-point, the old Imagination ride was pretty good, but from a storytelling standpoint, not so good, IMHO.

And the Imagination Institute is? It's very terribly defined. You never get a sense of what they even do there beyond giving trophies and positions to scientists from Disney Sci-Fi comedies.

There's some vague notion that they study the Imagination, but we never know what that entails. Journey Into Your Imagination had some thing with their crappy scanner saying "YOU MOUTHBREATHING TOURISTS DON'T HAVE AN IMAGINATION" right at the start of the ride running contrary to the whole message of the original and apparently a random assortment of optical illusions and noises can stimulate the mind to overload the useless piece of junk at the end.

The current version has some vague notion of testing your senses in mundane ways that seem to have little to do with measuring creativity and a "Think Inside the Box" mentality that also seems to be missing the point of about half their name of their organization. Figment's counterprogramming to the Institute almost seems to be an effort by him to save the riders from boredom at this lousy excuse for an Imagination Institute.

The original pavillion, not just the ride, focused on Imagination's nature as the abstract force in our minds that drives culture that it is. The original Imagination is about the creative process and the various stuff it can create or drive, Magic Journeys and it's story of childhood daydreaming is all about visualizing the things we can see when letting our minds wander. Old ImageWorks tied the pavillion's themes back into Future World as it presented how then new technology could serve us in creative endeavors in the future. Even Captain EO had some vague "People need creative freedom and music" theme to it with Michael Jackson moonwalking and shooting lasers at cold unfeeling cyborgs to make them 80s as hell dancers.

All this stuff fit nicely into how Future World West is meant for more natural science themes like those presented in the Land and Seas. By bringing the Imagination Institute and a more rigid science fiction aesthetic into the pavillion, that idea got muddled. Future World East, where more rigid structures exist and emphasizing technology and manmade endeavors, essentially dragged mud all over the Western carpet when the rigid Imagination Institute came in.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

And the Imagination Institute is? It's very terribly defined. You never get a sense of what they even do there beyond giving trophies and positions to scientists from Disney Sci-Fi comedies.

How dare you! The Imagination Institute is highly regarded institution of learning!

Just kidding.

But seriously, the humor angle allows the new ride to get away with a lot of stuff.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Every story needs a strong beginning, middle and an end. I think Imagination's beginning was a little weak on believability.

Actually, the problem with the original was that it had too much believability. DF & Figment were just masters of ceremony to the real world of possible imagination that followed. It showed things that were already imagined and hinted to thing that were still possible with the use of imagination.

Why would the place be called Journey into Imagination if it wasn't about imagining things. Things like Dreamfinder, Figment and Dreamport and how, and this is the just of the whole thing, imagination allowed everything to be within reach, like the Dreamport with just using your brain to see it.

Imagination, as defined, is the ability to picture, experience and see things within our minds. They don't have to be real or even possible. They are whatever we want them to be. How much simpler can that get? I'll bet that you would have been one of the many that missed the point of Sounds Dangerous as well. A show that was designed to make you picture what was happening and building the story by combining what we hear with what we should be able to imagine in our heads in a more elaborate form then reality can recreate. I guess it's a lost art, probably brought on by the total dependance on video games and TV.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

The original pavillion, not just the ride, focused on Imagination's nature as the abstract force in our minds that drives culture that it is.

Also, if I grew a beard and gained some weight, I could pass for DreamFinder. But not all guests at the park are "white guys" . . . and the Imagination thing is kind of a personal/unique aspect of everybody's mind. Maybe it would be "fair" to have the new ride focus on the thoughts inside a girl's mind? (Like the Pixar film coming out).

Also, I've met my Imagination, he looks like a cross between Leonardo Da Vinci and Denzel Washington. Surprised me because I'm as white as snow. Oh, and my imagination flies a plane instead of a blimp,

"Forget the Dream Port—we'll never make it, we're making an emergency landing in New Imagination!"

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Actually, the problem with the original was that it had too much believability.

Of course, if you look at DreamFinder's magic blimp you'll probably think to yourself, "Where the heck did they dig up a 1070 DreamFlyer with plaid counter balance balloon idea storage tank and a gramaphone-styled creative thought collector! and a 626-b Figment incubation chamber!?"

The realism is stunning. I'd figure they'd just dress up the old 1040 DreamFlyer, but they went all out.

Yup, much too much realism.