Originally Posted By leemac <<As for the relevence of Imagination ... without it how would the future happen?>> Ugh! My final post before I need to head out of business travels for a month but... I never had an issue with a pavilion dedicated to imagination. I had an issue with its execution. It felt too Fantasyland-ish with no real science or substance behind it. It was just a folly for me. It didn't belong in the FW line-up in that form.
Originally Posted By ChiMike What I was saying is that those projects had worse longevity, if any to begin with, than JII. >>Dinorama was about capacity and increasing the length of guest stays at the park<< Wow, I hope the millions they spent adding these were worth the extra 10 minutes guests were staying in the park and then some coming away saying "what's wrong with Disney?" Sounds like a great investment! >>Whether you like the execution or not it added a true family attraction in Triceratop Spin<< Which was JUST added to the MK. Creating a bottleneck reminescent of Disneyland's Adventureland. Yeah, boffo strategic planning on all accounts. >>and a spinning coaster in Primieval Whirl.<< If it's good enough for Six Flags, eh! >>Everyone I talk to about it at WDI just shrug and say I don't know what went wrong or even right with it.<< Well that's comforting. Way to earn those paycheck's boys! Funny, because most of us "fanboys" can certainly tell anyone at Disney what went wrong or even right with it. We won't even ask for consulting fees. Man, o man, John & Steve are going to have his hands full. They "Shrug", man if it wasn't so sad it would be funny.
Originally Posted By ChiMike Have a good trip! We'll miss you. >>It felt too Fantasyland-ish with no real science or substance behind it. It was just a folly for me. It didn't belong in the FW line-up in that form. << Again, thank goodness it was like that or EPCOT would have lost a lot of fans in the families with kids.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 I'd love to join in this very lively discussion. Heck, I'd actually like to read more responses but I think I'm going to head to the pool and then to Epcot myself ;-) But tonight I'll add my dime's worth ... if ChiMike hasn't beat me to it.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Same nonsense that people trot out about Toad and 20k at MK.<< And by the way, it was a spirited discussion so I forgot to get back to this point. This is a very good example of what a bad excuse this "no line" mantra is. How exhausted, and stale in itself, this spin is. Because 20K and Toad had huge lines up until they closed. Whether it JII, Toad, or CoP. Pointing at the line is never productive. It is always a way to divert the truth or to make an excuse. We always point to a line for the reason that an attraction like Horizons need to go but often these attractions were designed from the get-go to have the least amount of a line as possible. JII was close to being one of those attractions. Just because capacity was no longer met is not a harbinger of it's popularity. Jezz, on a Saturday night in the summer I can walk-on Haunted Mansion and/or Splash Mountain. A line at one point of time doesn't come close to telling the whole picture. So then when anyone lumps a ride like Toad or 20K into the discussion I really have to roll my eyes. Because then it's simply rewriting history. Because even though JII might have seen more guests then 20K in a day, 20K had a much more present line when JII was a walk-on. All were removed for their own reasons, but other then things like Dreamflight, Food Rocks, the MK Lion King show, etc., none of the big attractions (up until Disney stopped operating them daily in a productive manner) were removed because no one was showing up.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I'm hoping that doesn't involve Dreamfinder and Figment.< I'm, another person hoping you're dead wrong....and as far as berating people for pushing their biased agendas, you obviously have a distaste for Figment and Dreamfinder, which is fine because everyone is entitled to their opinion, but what makes your correct, and the opposite opinion biased ? Of all places the concept of a 'figment' of imagination and a dreamfinder.....in a land that espouses being able to THINk past a common theme park enviroment - to search the planet earth, and the living seas, to investigate the human body, and where energy comes from. To travel into space and 'imagine' the land where vegetables could be grown without soil...and a whole area dedicated to Innoventions ... of course - where does imagination fit it ? It was with the original imaginears, but maybe not so much with the current batch - I fail to undertand your stance where this concept doesn't work in an area that is supposed to stand for exactly that ? With out Imagination where is the envisionment of the future in future world ? Again, one thing to opine, another to call other opinions biased.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >> That the average guest has always either disliked or not got Journey.<< <<What EPCOT did you visit? Because I know during the 80's JII WAS the destination in EPCOT. You've got to be kidding me Lee! IS this the kind of stuff that is truly believed in the halls of WDI??????!!! No wonder they are so out of touch in what the guests want in the theme parks.>> Having just spent almost a week at WDW, you'll have to excuse me as I'm joining back in in the midst of the discussion. My take is that from Lee's own posts in the past that his attraction to Disney was largely formed during Eisner's tenure. My OPINION (I don't know this but will likely find out by posting.) is that Lee likely didn't visit EPCOT Center on the basis he does now until well into the 1990s when he'd be quite right about many of the FW pavilions being tired and attracting fewer guests. But as someone who has had an AP since EC debuted, I can say without a doubt that Journey was HUGELY popular in the 1980s and that lines often stretched out in the sun to where those 'hidden' restrooms are on the side. To say it wasn't popular just isn't true. Maybe in 1995 it wasn't. But in 1988 it sure was. <<Not trying to go nuts, but between being told that guests disliked JII from the go and that the Soarin' ride system should be employed in each park I might need a valium!>> I often find myself longing for some when reading some of Lee's posts ;-) >>It is a fanboy obsession much like people pining over Horizons which never found its feet with ordinary guests. World of Motion is a different story though.<< <<If it's easy to write off history as fanboy obsession, then go ahead. George McGinnis designs for fanboys but Sue Bryan has all the answers. Her stuff is the stuff dreams are made of!>> Cah-ching, nothing but net! ChiiiiiiiMike ... threeeeeeeeeee!!! <<BTW, you have that backwards Lee. WoM saw less guests per hour than Horizons. Not Capacity, but ride counts. So the idea that it never found it's "feet" with guests is something I can't get my hands around. Maybe in 1998 when Disney was reverse promoting it. But what about the other 14 years?>> Really? I didn't know that. My info is largely anecdotal, but WoM often had major lines, it was just a people-eater. I honestly don't ever recall waiting longer than 20 minutes for Horizons even in its heyday.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 Rose-tinted history is all I can say. <<Journey was THE destination in Epcot, right? Please the average guest came off purplexed as to what it was supposed to be. Same nonsense that people trot out about Toad and 20k at MK. Anything to push their bias agenda forward. >> Everyone has biases. Everyone has agendas. Some are more noble than others.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<The attractions was VERY popular. Like other things in the end of it's life it became a little stale. Disney replaced a stale 17 year old attraction with a brand new one. A brand new one that was worse then the 17 year old stale attraction.>> Uhm ... two new ones ... and counting. <<The only issue though, is that my bias has been validated. My bias existed before Roy even knew he needed a SaveDisney.com My bias existed when everyone else loved Michael. My bias was present when people were telling me what an idiot I was for thinking the gutting of JII was a bad idea. That the new one was going to make JII look like a Kmart to a Neiman Marcus. My bias was telling people 8 years ago that EPCOT and MGM needed a course correction and that AK was a great park. So I feel pretty validated in my bias. The bias of wanting Disney to be above their peers in what they do. The bias of wanting Disney to treat their employees well. TO promote competent people into decision making positions. The bias to lay off the number crunchers who fancy themseleves creatives but really don't understand what appeals to ALL of Disney's guests rather than the fringe who find joy in every little alteration.>> That sounds like intelligent business that made Disney the amazing company it became. Doesn't sound like bias to me at all.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<On that logic Epcot should be refreshing product every decade. If that was the case it would swiftly be closed down by WDW. It wouldn't even be able to justify its own existence.>> So Epcot, of all parks ... one that was created to be an ever-changing, developing world's fair of sorts, shouldn't refresh its product every DECADE? That's just sounds crazy to me. The reason that Journey ... that all of FW ...got tired in the early-mid 90s was simply because the product got stale.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<He seems more of an 'annoyance' in this version than whimsical in the orginal.>> <<Funny you say that as I always found him annoying. A spoilt brat of a character with no redemption.>> You either 'get' the character or not. You either like the character or not. But whether you individually like Figment isn't really the point. Many people do ... and his merchandise, which is what matters right?, flew off the shelves for years ... and still sells well. And Figment basically embodied the spirit of the original EC ... but if you don't get that, you don't.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<As I'm likely to be away from the boards for the next month I guess my point is that you either love or hate Journey. It never did anything for me and I certainly didn't lament its loss. I'm not fond of either of the two changes since then but I do believe a completely fresh approach without the need to rely on DF and Figgy is required.>> And do you have faith that WDI can actually come up with a new concept that works? <<But first get Wonders of Life and SSE sorted. Imagination can limp along for a while longer. Both of the other FW pavilions need some TLC.>> Ya think? But we both know SSE is going to get what it needs with a new sponsor. As for WoL? It just sits decaying, although apparently word in the park is it will be opening again for the holidays.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Sorry, but Figment never struck me that way. Unbridled enthusiasm perhaps ... and that is the wonder of a child ... which Figment always struck me as.>> That's how he struck me too ... and most others. Because ... well, that's how he was developed. <<As for the relevence of Imagination ... without it how would the future happen?>> I wonder that everytime I wake up and Don Goodman, Jay Rasulo and Al Weiss are still employed by TWDC.
Originally Posted By basas <<You either 'get' the character or not. You either like the character or not.>> Exactly...at least his 'character' is done in a classy way...unlike Stitch.
Originally Posted By brotherdave To clarify my post about Figment being an annoyance in the current version, I always felt that in the original Journey Into Imagination, Figment was more childlike and full of wonder, always asking Dreamfinder what all you could create with your imagination. In the current version, he seems more like a 'know-it-all', always "butting-in" and interrupting the seemingly clueless Dr. Channing. He just seems less lovable in this attraction than the first. Personally, I still like the fact that Figment was brought back to the ride, even in his current state. The ride's still better than the Figment-less attraction that preceded it and certainly better than a (semi)permanantly closed attraction like WoL. And Eric Idle isn't all that bad, imho. There's certainly worse attractions out there (Stitch and Dino-Rama come to mind!). I'm just hoping that if a fourth version does get built, that it goes back more to the spirit of the original and returns that sense of wonderment that is evoked by all people young and old alike.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror Okay, Lee, after being substantially challenged, and challenging ChiMike to provide facts and stats to counter YOUR statements that ALSO are not backed up by any facts or stats... Now it seems you're reversing yourself, backtpedaling on at least a couple of your earlier contentions. It furthers the sentiment that your capacity of authority on these issues is often very subjective, but touted as much more definitive. This reversal struck me as the most obvious: >>>I never had an issue with a pavilion dedicated to imagination. <<< Oh yeah you did: >>>get that purple dragon out of Imagination! and totally retheme the pavilion. The original didn't meet the mantra of Epcot and every redo has missed the mark too. Time for a new concept, period.<<< You can argue that you were referring more specifically to the ride itself, but then there'd be no need to retheme the pavillion, would there? No need to junk "imagination" as a concept, for a new concept, right? You have your own set of sunglasses on this issue. JOURNEY in its original form sparkled, guests loved it, it enjoyed a strong run for over a decade, and as maintenance decayed and attention was lost on the pavillion as a whole, interest waned for the pavillion as a whole and the ride by default. Installing "CAPTAIN EO" instantly DATED the entire attraction. The failure to adequately update IMAGE WORKS also contributed to the waning popularity of the pavillion as a whole. But the ride remains one of the most beloved, lost theme park attractions of all time. That you have no fondness for it, and never did, coupled with your repeated apologetics for Barry Braverman's brand of Warehouse-Industrial-Exhibition Entertainment, really draws the conclusion that you're little more than another "Fanboy" - albeit well-connected, with a very different, less-than-inspired point of view. We had one of those already. She drank her martinis and sailed off into the sunset.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<But the ride remains one of the most beloved, lost theme park attractions of all time.>> Most definitely at WDW. I'd venture to say that many more folks miss it than they do Horizons ... or 20,000 Leagues ... or even Toad. <<That you have no fondness for it, and never did, coupled with your repeated apologetics for Barry Braverman's brand of Warehouse-Industrial-Exhibition Entertainment, really draws the conclusion that you're little more than another "Fanboy" - albeit well-connected, with a very different, less-than-inspired point of view.>> That about covers it. Except Lee is now going on one of his non-posting sabaticals for a month ... funny thing is, I still have this feeling he'll read everything here. <<We had one of those already. She drank her martinis and sailed off into the sunset.>> Yes. But I've heard she looks great. Guess that's what living in paradise can do.
Originally Posted By Dlmusic I think the problem with this discussion is you have two different arguments going. 1st argument is "Was it good business sense to close the attraction?" and the 2nd is "Was it artistically sound to close the attraction?" Obviously you can argue back and forth the second point because it's completely subjective. Let's put that aside for a second and look at the 1st question in regards to some recent "controversial" renovations: World of Motion - Test Track I don't see how anybody could argue this wasn't good business sense. World of Motion, even if it was meeting it's capacity head on and treating thousands of riders a day was not generating much excitement for EPCOT or it's sponsor GM. This spot is now one of the hottest attractions in EPCOT, still, even after about 7 years of operation. Any independent survey would show guests like this attraction way more than World of Motion. Mr. Toad's Wild Ride - Many Adventures of Winnie-the-Pooh Again, hard to not justify this business wise. On the one hand you have a completely obscure film that a small percentage of park guests know about, and on the other you have a huge franchise that at that time nearly rivaled Mickey and Friends. While this isn't as strong of a positive change for guests as Test Track was, I still say the average guest prefers it. Journey Into Imagination - Journey Into Your Imagination - Journey Into Your Imagination with Figment Obviously this was a business flop. While the idea to renovate the attraction for modern audiences seems to have a strong basis in how the attraction seemed to be getting a lot of comments about being "dated" from guests. However, there is no doubt that the two attempts to help the pavillion appeal more to modern audiences have failed, and the original fans have also not been satisifed. Horizons - Mission:Space This one is hard to judge, because on the one hand Horizons was not all that popular and was experiencing pretty bad attendance towards the end of it's run. On the other hand, Mission: Space was a highly expensive attraction that seems to have created a mild splash in Epcot appeal. So again like Imagination, while I see the business sense in closing Horizons I think that Mission: Space has not really delivered enough to justify it's high cost. Kitchen Kabaret - Food Rocks Honestly this business decision made no sense to me. The shows were too similar and it didn't seem to have any positive impact. In fact, I would dare say that less people attended Food Rocks than would have attended Kitchen Kabaret if it had stayed open until Soarin. Food Rocks - Soarin' I can't see anyway that anybody could debate that this wasn't a brilliant business move and one of the most succesful attraction expenditures in recent history. Now before you get concerned, I do realise that you do have to take creative concerns into these decisions. After all, theme parks are creative projects. The question is, how do you juggle that? How many people have to like an attraction in order for it to be a success? Is an attraction that a minority enjoys immensly better than an attraction that the majority midly enjoys? It's hard to say, and it's one reason why Disney's decisions aren't as cut and dry to me as they are to most people it seems. For example, I know that a lot of people don't pay attention to a lot of the detail thrown at them. Take Animal Kingdom where walking through the park at times is an "E" ticket experience with detail galore and a complete 3-d environment that is almost without peer in the U.S. Guests often complain of the lack of attractions and "things to do." I want to shake them and explain, "but did you see the amazing architecture here, or the brilliant use of landscaping, or the creative signage, etc." Personally I think it's wonderful that Animal Kingdom was created considering it's really above the heads of a lot of people. I honestly like the idea of challenging people who only think roller coasters are fun to ride a 20 minute dark ride on postulations of the future. I also understand it's a hard sell. In the end the balance between business sense and creative sense is hard. If Disney had a decade or so where they tipped too hard on appeasing the masses at the expense of those who take theme parks as art, I would prefer them do that then go too far on the other side and drive themselves out of business.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Any independent survey would show guests like this attraction way more than World of Motion. < I think the survey would show they like the ride better, not the attraction piece. A combination of the two attractions would have been best ( and I like TT ) - as for GM- they have trouble generating excitement due to lousy products more than anything else.
Originally Posted By Dlmusic <<I think the survey would show they like the ride better, not the attraction piece.>> Not sure what this means. <<A combination of the two attractions would have been best>> I agree with you from an artistic standpoint. However, I can understand the business sense of not opening an additional attraction. It's not like Epcot has capacity problems and needs to up it's ride count to lower lines. Also I'm sure that logistically there was not enough space for both Test Track and World of Motion.
