Journey Into Imagination With Figment To Be Replaced With An Inside Out Attraction?

[The Visionary Soul]

Wow, the point really flew right over your head, didn't it?

The point that you actually believe that Disney will still build something just because it will be high quality and they don’t care if there is a movie or tv show related to it? No, I firmly believe that you believe that. But that doesn’t make it true.

 

[UNCgolf]

The point that you actually believe that Disney will still build something just because it will be high quality and they don’t care if there is a movie or tv show related to it? No, I firmly believe that you believe that. But that doesn’t make it true.

No? I don't believe Disney will build something just because it will be high quality. In fact, I feel the opposite -- I'm pretty sure they won't build anything that doesn't have a film/TV show attached to it because that's the Iger/Chapek MO. I don't know why you think I'm arguing that. I'm pretty sure we are all discussing what should be done; i.e. what would be in Disney's best interests (let the Imagineers build what they want without constraining them to a specific IP). Not what Disney actually will do.

 

[RSoxNo1]

That’s based on what a small group of fans think. The ride could be successful or it could be an abysmal failure. Why would I take the risk?

If I say here is 200 million dollars to use on a state of the art dark ride, would you bet it on a well known current relevant brand that has synergistic opportunities like Black Panther or on Dreamfinder and Figment? Or would I just make another Black Panther movie? You’re not just competing with the other classic rides, this isn’t a game. It’s the best use of the company’s money, and no one is going to bet on Dreamfinder as a sure-fire success. Give it a rest.

Smugglers Run is based on one of the biggest known entities on the planet but it fell short. As a result, guests outright avoided Disneyland this summer. IP is not the only factor.

Quality is the most important thing and when thematic integrity is compromised so to is quality. It's why all of the efforts to shoehorn characters into Epcot have felt off. The park has no identity or thematic integrity anymore and as such quality consciously or subconsciously suffers.

You know full well that non-linear story telling matters when creating a themed environment but the current non-creative leadership only understands leveraging IPs because they feel it's a safer bet. It sounds like you too have been beaten to submission with this new corporate mindset.

The only advantage an IP based attraction has over a non-IP attraction is the initial marketing push. If the attraction sucks, the guests will tell you.

 

[UNCgolf]

The only advantage an IP based attraction has over a non-IP attraction is the initial marketing push. If the attraction sucks, the guests will tell you.

This is the point I was making. There can be a smaller long-term advantage if the ride isn't terrible, but isn't especially good. Something like the Frozen ride at EPCOT gets a boost simply because it's Frozen (but that won't last forever). But no one should be happy settling for that; why would we want mediocre rides carried along solely by the presence of IP rather than legitimately great rides with or without preexisting IP?

There are disadvantages, too -- namely that it's easier to design a ride that doesn't have to fit into any existing continuity. There are certain constraints when designing something based on a movie or TV show that don't exist when you're building something totally new.

 

[RSoxNo1]

This is the point I was making.

There are disadvantages, too -- namely that it's easier to design a ride that doesn't have to fit into any existing continuity. There are certain constraints when designing something based on a movie or TV show that don't exist when you're building something totally new.

Exactly.

I'm ok with the purpose built lands, but forcing an IP into an existing area is always a tougher play. They always run the risk of diluting the theme of the area or the park and the execution has been inconsistent at best.

 

[Thelazer]

I'd be happy if they would just make the lighting jars work again that are stashed in the current pre-show walk thru area.

 

[The Visionary Soul]

Smugglers Run is based on one of the biggest known entities on the planet but it fell short. As a result, guests outright avoided Disneyland this summer. IP is not the only factor.

Quality is the most important thing and when thematic integrity is compromised so to is quality. It's why all of the efforts to shoehorn characters into Epcot have felt off. The park has no identity or thematic integrity anymore and as such quality consciously or subconsciously suffers.

You know full well that non-linear story telling matters when creating a themed environment but the current non-creative leadership only understands leveraging IPs because they feel it's a safer bet. It sounds like you too have been beaten to submission with this new corporate mindset.

The only advantage an IP based attraction has over a non-IP attraction is the initial marketing push. If the attraction sucks, the guests will tell you.

Oh, they can try to beat me to submission, but they'll never be able to. Galaxy's Edge is out of place in Disneyland. It doesn't feel right because there's a huge difference between the sense of optimism and reassurance that Disneyland provides and a war zone. Literally, it's Star Wars, what do you expect? People don't accept that it's part of Disneyland. But that's not because it's Star Wars... the IP certainly didn't hurt it. It's the ride experience. Like it or not, a ride that is IP based has a much better chance of success than one that doesn't. Was it the wrong IP for the wrong place? Absolutely! But did it get built? Yes! And is it a success? Well, both attractions are filled to capacity at all times, so from that metric, yes. But the wait times are short... for now.

Anyway, if you're trying to suggest that putting the Muppets into Epcot will somehow harm the thematic integrity of the park, then I have issues with that. I'm one of the few that never liked any characters going into the park. But at this point, I'm all about the lesser of two evils. If I have to choose between Dreamfinder returning and the Muppets taking over a pavilion, then I'll choose Muppets, because there's very little that could go wrong with Muppets exploring Imagination. Dreamfinder... he just hasn't aged well. And Inside Out? That should have gone into Wonders of Life. Remember, none of these really belong in that park... but I've given up trying to fight it. And I'm quoting someone when I say that. I'll let you guess who that might be. It shouldn't be too Sklard to find out.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Oh, they can try to beat me to submission, but they'll never be able to. Galaxy's Edge is out of place in Disneyland. It doesn't feel right because there's a huge difference between the sense of optimism and reassurance that Disneyland provides and a war zone. Literally, it's Star Wars, what do you expect? People don't accept that it's part of Disneyland. But that's not because it's Star Wars... the IP certainly didn't hurt it. It's the ride experience. Like it or not, a ride that is IP based has a much better chance of success than one that doesn't. Was it the wrong IP for the wrong place? Absolutely! But did it get built? Yes! And is it a success? Well, both attractions are filled to capacity at all times, so from that metric, yes. But the wait times are short... for now.

Anyway, if you're trying to suggest that putting the Muppets into Epcot will somehow harm the thematic integrity of the park, then I have issues with that. I'm one of the few that never liked any characters going into the park. But at this point, I'm all about the lesser of two evils. If I have to choose between Dreamfinder returning and the Muppets taking over a pavilion, then I'll choose Muppets, because there's very little that could go wrong with Muppets exploring Imagination. Dreamfinder... he just hasn't aged well. And Inside Out? That should have gone into Wonders of Life. Remember, none of these really belong in that park... but I've given up trying to fight it. And I'm quoting someone when I say that. I'll let you guess who that might be. It shouldn't be too Sklard to find out.

I understand your sentiment regarding Galaxy's Edge in Disneyland. You are not alone in that feeling, but I would rather that as a self contained entity than something like Frozen in Norway. Having said that, I maintain that Star Wars and Marvel should have anchored a 3rd gate in California but that's besides the point.

I think characters have to be in Epcot, we learned that from the outset when Disney tried to build a park without characters. It simply doesn't work. But there needs to be proper integration. If they were allowed to do it for example, I think showcasing faux Wakanda tech in Future World would fit the park much better than Frozen Ever After, The Seas with Nemo and Friends and Gran Fiesta Tour. I don't have much of an issue with Ratatouille, and I believe there are story treatments that work for Guardians as well (although I don't know if they'll go down that route). I also don't have an issue with something like Turtle Talk which uses familiar characters in an educational way. What I object to in Epcot though are the attractions that make no effort to be thematically appropriate. That's Frozen, that's the Seas and that's Gran Fiesta Tour.

8 year old me would object to anything other than Figment and Dreamfinder in the Imagination pavilion but I absolutely understand the sentiment that Dreamfinder is dead. Having said that, I personally love the idea of a unifying theme in Future World where you have park specific characters created for each pavilion (Dreamfinder, Landkeeper, etc) but that's neither here nor there. The thing with the Imagination pavilion is that they've done with it what they so often do... nothing. When its neglected for as long as it has been, ANYTHING they do to replace it gets praised. Neglect until nobody cares about the replacement.

One of the proposals that was long rumored was an Inside Out proposal, and most people on here felt that while Inside Out could absolutely fit into Epcot as a concept (a la Cranium Command) it didn't really belong in the Imagination Pavilion. I'm inclined to agree with that, but my podcast cohost pitched the idea of some sort of hybrid concept where we'd use the Inside Out concept to look inside Figments brain. It's a little meta but that type of thing could work. Similarly, a new take on the Imagination institute (or similar concept) with the Muppets very well could work as well.