Soul at Epcot

[Tony the Tigger]

I watched it last night and was absolutely blown away by it. everything, the visuals, the soundtrack just the general imaginitive way the pre-life world was created.

I wouldn't myself want to see a Soul based attraction at Epcot, but what i did think was the pixar team have enough imagination to really takeover the imagination pavillion and create a truly unique attraction without the need to stuff any kind of exisitng Pixar characters/story into it and maybe still being able to keep figment in it, with maybe a little pixaresque makeover.

Again, because if they create it for the attraction, it’s “original” but if they *create* it for a movie and then an attraction, it’s “stuffing IP?”

 

[Inspired Figment]

I watched it last night and was absolutely blown away by it. everything, the visuals, the soundtrack just the general imaginitive way the pre-life world was created.

I wouldn't myself want to see a Soul based attraction at Epcot, but what i did think was the pixar team have enough imagination to really takeover the imagination pavillion and create a truly unique attraction without the need to stuff any kind of exisitng Pixar characters/story into it and maybe still being able to keep figment in it, with maybe a little pixaresque makeover.

The problem with that lies in the fact that it repeats the exact same problem as the last 2 redos. Putting in a film IP that has nothing to do with the theme of creativity or imagination.. and on top of it, carelessly shoehorning in Figment to appease fans without any real understanding of what his purpose, his character, and appeal represented in the original Journey Into Imagination attraction is. It makes just as much sense as replacing the Haunted Mansion with a cheap, half-hearted High School Musical attraction, then shoehorning the ghosts back in after a massive amount of guest complaints, having the story be that that they constantly screw with the new cast & theme throughout the attraction before getting their way at the very end, and calling it a “fix”.

 

[Inspired Figment]

Again, because if they create it for the attraction, it’s “original” but if they *create* it for a movie and then an attraction, it’s “stuffing IP?”

Correct. An original attraction means it’s something completely new & original created ‘specifically’ for the parks, none of it originating or being an adaptation of a film or show. Not quite sure whats so hard to understand about that.. but oh well.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Correct. An original attraction means it’s something completely new & original created ‘specifically’ for the parks, none of it originating or being an adaptation of a film or show. Not quite sure whats so hard to understand about that.. but oh well.

I was being sarcastic because it’s so ridiculous.

An idea is an idea. Where you decide to implement it first doesn’t preclude it from being used elsewhere, or lessen it in any way if you do.

The pretentiousness is off the charts around here.

 

[Inspired Figment]

I was being sarcastic because it’s so ridiculous.

An idea is an idea. Where you decide to implement it first doesn’t preclude it from being used elsewhere, or lessen it in any way if you do.

The pretentiousness is off the charts around here.

It really isn’t, The fact of the matter is, the act or use of shoehorning film IP everywhere in the parks is a tired & overdone practice these days. Most folks honestly don’t have an issue with the idea of utilizing film IP itself if it’s properly executed & put where it fits. The problem comes in the fact that there’s no balance of building completely new, original, park exclusive ideas & film IP adaptations anymore like there used to be in the past. And then to make matters worse, it seems these overused film IP adaptations keep coming at the expense of the tried & true ‘classics’ that are park-exclusive attractions we all know & love. Again, ruining the balance that initially made the parks what they were & should continue to be. That there lies the issue.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

It really isn’t, The fact of the matter is, the act or use of shoehorning film IP everywhere in the parks is a tired & overdone practice these days. Most folks honestly don’t have an issue with the idea of utilizing film IP itself if it’s properly executed & put where it fits. The problem comes in the fact that there’s no balance of building completely new, original, park exclusive ideas & film IP adaptations anymore like there used to be in the past. And then to make matters worse, it seems these overused film IP adaptations keep coming at the expense of the tried & true ‘classics’ that are park-exclusive attractions we all know & love. Again, ruining the balance that initially made the parks what they were & should continue to be. That there lies the issue.

Best example....

 

[marni1971]

Is Dis ever going to change the name of this park.
DHS makes little sense.

They were. That plan is currently on hold though I think Disney’s Hollywood Adventure is more fitting nowerdays.

 

[cookiee_munster]

I kind of feel attacked here... my response to the original post was against any kind of movie tied property in the imagination attraction. What i was for was for the creative team at pixar to come up with a unique story and characters specifically for that attraction and nowhere else.

I threw in the figment idea because so many people would be up in arms about him leaving the imagination pavillion. personally, I wouldn't care if he went tbf.

 

[JIMINYCR]

I saw the movie and enjoyed it and especially the music that was included. But I still dont think putting it anywhere in any of the parks as an attraction should be done. There are many Disney films with great take away messaging, moral teachings and stand out societal theming that are worthy. How do you choose and where do you draw the line.
I'd much prefer Disney wow us with something theyve designed utterly unique and original and not tied to something thats appeared on the screen.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

If the film is to appear in the parks, perhaps it could be in a way that isn't a ride.

I'm picturing a creative activity, maybe where folks get to make wire art (like the Jerry characters).
Or maybe a place where we share/express some of the sparks in our lives. When the pandemic ends, and we all get back to doing more of what we usually enjoy, this might make sense.

As an aside, while I enjoyed the movie overall, I felt slightly disappointed with the way music, especially live music, was ultimately treated/valued. During this pandemic, I'm personally finding great joy in music. I'm greatly missing the energy of live art performances. Truly, I think there's transcendent when people do the extraordinary right before our eyes. And it doesn't have to be some hugely famous musician/dancer/actor that makes me happy. At WDW, all the live performances add to the energy of the place, including the high school bands.

 

[Marden]

If the film is to appear in the parks, perhaps it could be in a way that isn't a ride.

I'm picturing a creative activity, maybe where folks get to make wire art (like the Jerry characters).
Or maybe a place where we share/express some of the sparks in our lives. When the pandemic ends, and we all get back to doing more of what we usually enjoy, this might make sense.

As an aside, while I enjoyed the movie overall, I felt slightly disappointed with the way music, especially live music, was ultimately treated/valued. During this pandemic, I'm personally finding great joy in music. I'm greatly missing the energy of live art performances. Truly, I think there's transcendent when people do the extraordinary right before our eyes. And it doesn't have to be some hugely famous musician/dancer/actor that makes me happy. At WDW, all the live performances add to the energy of the place, including the high school bands.

Absolutely. Diverse methods of presentation and interaction is totally welcome. Not everything needs to be a ride. Had mom and dad let me, I would have spent hours in Communicore back in the day.

Looking back, maybe they did leave me while they went to eat at Alfredo's.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

Absolutely. Diverse methods of presentation and interaction is totally welcome. Not everything needs to be a ride. Had mom and dad let me, I would have spent hours in Communicore back in the day.

Looking back, maybe they did leave me while they went to eat at Alfredo's.

The booth in Epcot where you could make paper was really neat.

 

[Magicart87]

The booth in Epcot where you could make paper was really neat.

I miss that! I was thinking something similar could have been done with the Ratatouille attraction offerings. How awesome would it have been (post-Covid of course) to cook with Alfredo Linguini? (and a CGI Remy)

Little Chef Academy with Remy & Linguini
Let your child be a "little chef" just like Remy from Disney-Pixar's RATATOUILLE as they learn to cook their very own culinary takeout pasta dish with chef instructors Remy and Linguini. Includes: Meet & Greet with instructors Linguini and Remy. 1- Little Chef's made takeout-style Pasta Bowl meal (Choose from three pasta dishes), 1- complimentary Toque Blanche-styled Chef's Hat, and 1- Etched Wooden "Little Chef" Souvenir Spoon. For an additional fee you can also purchase Guesto's Secret Recipe's Cookbook and a RATATOULLE brand apron. Starting at 39.99.

Of course that's a long way off from making paper...for free! But those days are gone.

 

[Inspired Figment]

I kind of feel attacked here... my response to the original post was against any kind of movie tied property in the imagination attraction. What i was for was for the creative team at pixar to come up with a unique story and characters specifically for that attraction and nowhere else.

I threw in the figment idea because so many people would be up in arms about him leaving the imagination pavillion. personally, I wouldn't care if he went tbf.

So let me clarify.. what you’d like is for the creative team at Pixar to come up with a completely unique, original park-exclusive attraction, ‘not based off a pre-existing film property’? If that’s the case. Alright, fair enough. But that’s basically what most of us would like to see throughout the parks as a whole. A fine-tuned balance of both unique/original ‘&’ film IP based experiences throughout. Just like in the past. Infact, it was those creative folks from the film & animation studio that were brought over to WED/WDI to utilize their talents in creating those unique experiences made specifically for the parks. So I get that.

but personally, when it comes the imagination pavilion, I think they should just go back to what worked there initially and simply upgrade/enhance it with new tech & spfx ala DL’s Great Moments with Lincoln. That original attraction was already a popular, timeless classic. So there wouldn’t be a need to put something else entirely there again. Particularly if folks already love Dreamfinder & Figment and the original idea & concept for that pavilion. (The ‘original’ attraction mind you, not the ‘99 & ‘02 “Honey I Shrunk” IP versions with Figment shoehorned in as an afterthought. Those don’t properly present the Figment character or Imagination concept correctly, whatsoever )

 

[Inspired Figment]

I threw in the figment idea because so many people would be up in arms about him leaving the imagination pavillion. personally, I wouldn't care if he went tbf.

I honestly have to say.. if you haven’t seen the original Journey Into Imagination before, then I can understand why you have no attachment to Figment. And I can also understand why seemingly shoehorning Figment into a completely different attraction he wasn’t designed to be a part or have a real purpose in of would seem ideal when it really isn’t. He’s not the same character nor does he have the same role in ‘02-current version at all. Unfortunately, the team behind that one is the same team behind the ill-conceived “Honey I Shrunk”-based “Journey into YOUR Imagination” revamp version that was there for only a couple years. They intentionally portrayed Figment as a loud know-it-all that constantly interferes with the Sensory based Institute tests to get his “upside down” viewpoint across to stuffy Dr. Channing as a way to tongue-in-cheek mock the controversy that happened when they initially changed it. It’s extremely unfortunate.
The original attraction was truly amazing & inspiring.. it taught you about the creative process, and then took you on a journey through all the creative realms (art, literature, performing arts, science/technology, and film) to showcase what could happen when you let your imagination free in whichever creative occupation you chose , and Figment was an warm, endearing character that had that childlike sense of curiosity & creativity within us all, hence why we identified & grew so attached to him in the original one... he too was discovering what imagination was all about ‘with’ us, while Dreamfinder was our mentor/guide.

(PS: There’s a reason the Journey Into Imagination: With Figment sign looks identical to Tiki Room: Under New Management..... The Tiki Room revamp mocked New Management (Eisner/Pressler = Iago).. while “With Figment” mocked the Fans & Guests (The Friends of Figment) that protested & succeeded in forcing them to “Bring Figment Back” by “Making a Big Stink/Putting Them on Blast via a Chorus of complaints” in a sense.)

 

[Cpt. Sassypants]

Here's my take (not that anybody asked for it). EPCOT doesn't need any new IP hammered in, but Soul feels like a natural fit for something like a rebooted Wonders of Life (which will also never happen). That makes two Pixar IPs they could use to justify putting something worthwhile in that pavilion again. To echo the fan theories of the last five years, Inside Out could anchor the whole pavilion with a dedicated Cranium Command-esc attraction, and Soul could be the theme for some interactive exhibits, think like the footprint of the Sensory Funhouse but with some new activities for the kiddos. Would even fill the void they're trying to with the whole Play Pavilion thing. Are either of these necessary to redo Wonders of Life? Of course not, but it's the only way something like that could ever be approved again. It wouldn't fit anywhere else in the park either, sans Innoventions if done right.

Regardless, it's a straight to Disney+ one off film that doesn't have an established fanbase as of writing, nor does it have the box office returns to justify any parks representation. The Pete Docter pavilion remains as nothing more than a fan's dream. Come back to me when there's a Soul 4 and we might get it in the Imagination Pavilion or something idk

Want to add to this, they could also have a nice "Soul" inspired Jazz bar to put somewhere for grownups to enjoy. It could easily go with the boardwalk theme since they already have a dueling piano bar.

 

[Fox&Hound]

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I saw Soul and hated it. I thought it had a muddled message at best, and I don't think it warrants a movie any more than classic disney movies that are not represented in the parks currently.

 

[WondersOfLife]

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I saw Soul and hated it. I thought it had a muddled message at best, and I don't think it warrants a movie any more than classic disney movies that are not represented in the parks currently.

In a day and age where there’s hardly anything creative or original anymore, I couldnt disagree more.

 

[Fox&Hound]

In a day and age where there’s hardly anything creative or original anymore, I couldnt disagree more.

You don't think Disney has a plethora of creative, original characters/films that have no presence in the parks that deserve a spot in the parks before Soul? Sorry, but Soul should wait in line....

 

[WondersOfLife]

You don't think Disney has a plethora of creative, original characters/films that have no presence in the parks that deserve a spot in the parks before Soul? Sorry, but Soul should wait in line....

Hmmmm.... Nah.