-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
John Lasseter Visits Imagination Pavilion
- Thread starter DocMcHulk
- Start date
articos
Well-Known Member
Dreamfinder and his dragon were originally created by Steve Kirk, who was part of Tony Baxter and Tom Scherman's group, working on a project called Discovery Bay, which was part of a shelved expansion at Disneyland. Dreamfinder's origin was a character called Professor Marvel, for an attraction named Professor Marvel's Gallery, a CoP style revolving theatre. Steve ended up on Epcot working with Tony again a few years later, where they had a character somewhat like Prof Marvel named "The Landkeeper" for a concept pitched to a lumber company interested in sponsoring The Land pavilion (no dragon on this one). When Kraft signed on, The Land's focus shifted to farming, and Tony's team's concept was shelved. Tony was then asked to meet with and come up with a pitch for Eastman-Kodak, which was thinking about coming on board to sponsor a pavilion. The Land concept's building design and Discovery Bay's characters were repurposed with a focus on an Imagination pavilion concept. Both characters had revisions done to Steve's original (somewhat sarcastic) design....Andy Gaskill, X. Atencio, Tony and the sculptors at WED all had substantial input in making them the characters we know today.
FigmentJedi
Well-Known Member
Dreamfinder and Figment represent the left and the right brain respectively. Dreamfinder's age and wisdom show in how he creates things with a little more logic put into it, Figment's childlike, wild and carefree personality goes with the right brain traits nicely.
To examine Dreamfinder further, he's very much an Uncle Walt figure and that figures a lot into his charm. Some press material gave Dreamfinder a description of being "Older then wisdom and younger then the morning mist" and I think that describes him pretty well with retaining that sense of wonder well into old age if you can describe someone who's most likely an immortal manifestation of an abstract idea in such a manner.
To examine Dreamfinder further, he's very much an Uncle Walt figure and that figures a lot into his charm. Some press material gave Dreamfinder a description of being "Older then wisdom and younger then the morning mist" and I think that describes him pretty well with retaining that sense of wonder well into old age if you can describe someone who's most likely an immortal manifestation of an abstract idea in such a manner.
MissM
Well-Known Member
Two tiny wings, eyes big and yellow.
Horn of a steer, but a lovable fellow.
From head to tail, he's royal purple pigment.
And there, Viola!, you've got a Figment!
That's who he is. The song tells you perfectly and you don't need some elaborate story because the ENTIRE POINT is to use your imagination.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
Understood. As it said it was a very minor point, but I didn't want anyone to be confused about the dates. Sorry, I didn't mean to sound condescending, just trying to understand. This explanation is absolutely clarifying.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
If Dreamfinder didn't stand the test of time, how come we are talking about him so much. There wasn't anything about Dreamfinder that was unlikable. He was one of the stellar characters of EPCOT and is remember fondly and missed immensely.
Someone or maybe a handful of Disney people thought him to be unimportant and threw him out along with Figment. Since Figment was cheaper to reproduce, he alone got to return, but DF found a great many fans in his short life as a Disney star. It's just that he didn't apparently impress some of the folks pulling the strings. Just shows you how wrong those high priced folks can be.
Here's a couple of interesting things:
Pixiedustmaker
Well-Known Member
We all have our personal favorites in terms of canceled attractions, but the fact of the matter is that the Dreamfinder was taken out of Journey Into Imagination. This isn't opinion, this is just plain old fact.
I'm sorry they took out your favorite character, but I don't think that everybody would agree that Dreamfinder was completely likable (as a character).
I liked Dreamfinder back in the day, but I feel his presence was somewhat dated, especially his dress and the flying machine, which looks a little cheesy by today's standards, IMHO. And that he was a sort of two-dimensional character who laughed all the time and was a little bit . . . whacky, in a 1980's sort of way.
If I met somebody like the Dreamfinder in real life, I would probably think he was on drugs.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
If you met someone in real life that was like Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Pinocchio, Capt. Jack Sparrow, Goofy or any of the variety of other Characters in the Disney lot either you or they would, in all likelihood, be on drugs. However, you don't. You only meet them in a Disney Theme park. This particular one was about imagination.
Reach down, deep inside and stop worrying about what "would be in style" now. That isn't even close to what it is all about. Regardless, of my "personal" favorites, Dreamfinder was a classic EPCOT character and along with Figment was a very important part of the Imagination Pavilion. What has Figment done by himself? Not much. In fact, a lot of people don't like the character as much as they used too. The played off each other and were a necessary team. Figment, after all, was a figment of Dreamfinders imagination that we were allowed to see.
I'm also pretty confident that I have a lot of backing in my opinion. Without Dreamfinder, the Imagination Pavilion has been in a constant downward spiral to the point that it isn't even worth walking by except for leaping fountains.
FigmentJedi
Well-Known Member
If you immediately think somebody imaginative is on drugs or something was created while on drugs, then you aren't really that imaginative are you?
TropicalFig8
Active Member
Steampunk is becoming really popular lately.
So I don't see why Dreamfinder wouldn't be loved in the parks.
I'm sorry, I always say that Dreamfinder and Figment need to be together in the park again because they reprsented the imagination of the human mind and their relationship together was so perfect. Like a father and son relationship. I can see so much potential with these characters that Disney just doesn't see.
So I don't see why Dreamfinder wouldn't be loved in the parks.
I'm sorry, I always say that Dreamfinder and Figment need to be together in the park again because they reprsented the imagination of the human mind and their relationship together was so perfect. Like a father and son relationship. I can see so much potential with these characters that Disney just doesn't see.
FrankLapidus
Well-Known Member
Which you know nothing about, including whether or not you are going to like the film. I don't mean to criticise your viewpoint but I just think that's a very premature statement to make about a film that's still a few years way from being released. It's like me saying the Mexico pavilion should be overhauled and themed to Lee Unkrich's upcoming Day of the Dead film.
So by this logic, the Enchanted Tiki Room and Country Bear Jamboree should go too. None of those characters have a backstory beyond what is revealed in their respective attractions.
Once again it sounds like you're saying that unless a ride has a big-budget franchise behind it then it should be replaced by one that does. Figment only really needs to sell merchandise in Epcot, that's where his ride is, he has no presence anywhere else, that's the park he is a mascot for and where he was created to be. Promote the character, make him central to the attraction he was created alongside and sales of his merchandise will increase, it seems pretty simply to me given he's an appealing character who has retained a fairly large fanbase for over twenty years now.
Dreamfinder has stood the test of time, that's why he still has a fanbase; his appearance at one of the D23 conventions is proof of that. Maybe you can argue he appeals to a certain crowd who are familiar with him (Disney are to blame for that crowd being as small as it is because they needlessly did away with the character) but why shouldn't those fans who want to see Dreamfinder return matter? They pay their money to get into the parks and they would get back in line for Imagination, as we all would, if Disney gave us an incentive to in the form of an improved attraction. By your logic, Mr. Toad didn't stand the test of time at WDW, or 20K Leagues Under the Sea.
Fred Dreamfinder?Which is fine but there are a lot of people who would still like to see a lot more of Figment and Dreamfinder at WDW and they shouldn't be ignored. Perhaps I'm being idealistic but I see no reason why those two characters shouldn't be returned to their attraction in an overhaul of the mess it has needlessly become.
Enchantâmes
Active Member
Oh my here we go the notion that to create something original and cool you have to be on drugs argument. Its people like you that make me want to vomit in the worst way and I'd be happy to vomit my rainbow puke all over you, it would make you look better IMO, and probably give you that "high" so that you could be actually creative. Peace.
muteki
Well-Known Member
I unfortunately don't think guest appearances at D23 conventions or ongoing discussions on a WDW fansite are good examples of Dreamfinder "standing the test of time". Those of us here and attending D23 events are of such a minority in the big picture that no attraction-development decision will ever be based on them. I'd love to be incorrect but with the current management I just don't see it happening.
When kids start asking their moms to go see Dreamfinder at Epcot, and those moms start complaining in droves why he isn't there, THEN you will see him reintroduced to the park.
montyz81
Well-Known Member
I didn't think you were condescending at all. It was good to call it out. I am glad I had a chance to clarify! Thanks!
FrankLapidus
Well-Known Member
I agree and like I said it's a particular group of people who probably make up a small percentage of guests in the grand scheme of things but it exists nonetheless and while that is the case, I think Dreamfinder will stand the test of time. I guess it depends on how you define the phrase but like you I won't hold my breath over his possible return. It would be nice though and be a step in the right direction to improving an attraction that a lot of us remember very fondly.
I agree with that last part, I know I'm probably being an idealist here but I just don't agree with some of the criticism levelled at the character in this thread. I don't know the reasons behind him being removed from Imagination but that is the reason why he isn't remembered more widely; out of sight, out of mind as they say.
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
I bet the Chipmunks would fit in real well in the former Imagination Pavilion. Break out the pocketbook, Disney!
Pixiedustmaker
Well-Known Member
Sadly for Dreamfinder fans, this is probably the case, especially since the vast majority of kids haven't heard of the Dreamfinder.
Folks blame Disney for using too many "franchises", but in reality, guests have always wanted to see visible characters in the park. Tinker Bell was associated with the Disneyland show, and guests thought they would get to see Tinker Bell in the park. They got upset that Tink wasn't a walk around character, so Disney had to hire somebody to dress up as Tinker Bell.
Pixiedustmaker
Well-Known Member
You make good points, but in terms of being a diehard fan of CBJ at Disneyland, I would readily admit that the bears sadly didn't stand the test of time at DLR. I want to believe that there are fans like me, who loved CBJ and would love to see Pooh ripped out and replaced with a new CBJ facility. I could even point to the CBJ walk-around characters at Big Thunder and conclude that the bears have a big fan base. I could say,
"Hey! CBJ withstood the test of time at Disneyland! It is so obvious the higher ups made a big mistake, shows you what those high priced fools know. There are tons of fans that want to see CBJ in Critter Country, why else do they trod out the bears in Frontierland?"
But sadly, when CBJ closed there weren't 50,000 APers immediately protesting the next day in front of Disneyland. I think there was a small amount of excitement that Pooh was coming. I really hate Pooh, but I realize that Disneyland needed this ride, though sadly the Pooh DLR got is third rate even when compared to MK.
So, if an attraction/character doesn't survive in terms of having a regular presence in a theme park, then yes, the character/attraction, for better or worse, didn't stand the test of time.
We all know why Disney parades characters from attractions gone extinct in a given park: to make fans feel that they "care". I honestly don't think anybody is wringing their hands at Disney thinking what horrible mistake it was to remove Dreamfinder, or CBJ from Disneyland, sadly.
Pixiedustmaker
Well-Known Member
I think most people would say that this phrase, "stands the test of time" is not being correctly used, and that may be the confusion.
If I was a tour guide at Disneyland, and I was giving a tour of Critter Country and I told the guests, "The Country Bears have stood the test of time at Disneyland. We have the Hungry Bear restaurant's Big Al salad, and walk around characters."
I think somebody would inevitably say, "but . . . they closed the ride. Right?" Things that have withstood the test of time aren't things that have been completely removed from the general public's view and no longer serve the same purpose (entertainment) that they once did.
Even perhaps more so with Dreamfinder, I think the tribute to him in JiI is just something that reads, "Dean Finder". Like they didn't even want to use his real name.
I think what you want to say is that the Dreamfinder has a small, but enduring, fan base despite his absence from the ride.