Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "I haven't seen it in person (which is always better), but the strongest parts of the show to me (on video anyway) are the more abstract parts - the one where they just let water and color and light and the other effects dazzle the senses." I agree, but I think what it's missing for me is some kind of meaning for why everything is actually happening. If we look at an attraction like Pirates of the Caribbean, we are in New Orleans being transported to the time of pirates. On the Matterhorn, we are in the Swiss Alps sliding down a mountain in a bobsled. On the Rivers of America we are being transported to the time of Indians and explorers. In all three cases, we are either being transported to some far away place, another time or a fanciful realm. World of Color, we're in Southern California watching some amazing technology do its thing. What's the motivation? Other shows offer some motivation. Fantasmic! displays plenty of Disney film stuff, but it's all structured in the context of Mickey's imagination. Most of it is presented in a unique way, such as the dragon finale. BraviSEAmo! has the thinnest of storylines, but it's there. Mickey appears to set things up, and what follows is so completely unique that you can't see it anywhere else. Most of World of Color, on the other hand, is in our DVD collections. The water effects are nice, but all that can probably be boiled down to 10 minutes at most. It's not a bad show, though. The only thing I really hate about it is the Disney-channel filtered pop version of the World of Color theme. Now that really grinds my gears.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "If you've never watched the Disney movies that are part of WOC, it really doesn't matter, because the WOC show is so great." Are you sure about that? People cheer every time a new movie is introduced. The show is all about Disney film nostalgia, and if you don't love Disney films, you probably don't care about the show. You have to know the "SQUIRREL!" catchphrase to get the Up part or else you have no idea who is screaming "SQUIRREL!" and have no idea what it references or means. I guess that's why the show isn't exactly my cup of tea. I'm not that into Disney films. I don't necessarily go to Disney parks to see the Disney films recreated. The shows and attractions have to be interesting in their own right, not simply because they throw in Buzz and Woodie.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>What's the motivation?<< I would say it's a toss up between imagination and sheer beauty/spectacle. We are, after all, dealing with a water fountain spectacular. There's no "motivation" for a symphony (aside from what the composer may have been thinking about). Dance and abstract art aren't always wedded to a story. This show is what it is-- and the best at what it is. As for imagination-- that's what the quote at the beginning of the show tells us. Every child is blessed with a vivid imagination. This goes beyond JUST a lot of beauty and spectacle, and also engages the imagination. If you know what film you're seeing, fine. But even if you don't, the use of the film clips-- and the variety of ways in which they are presented-- exercises the imagination of the viewer.
Originally Posted By believe >>>>>The shows and attractions have to be interesting in their own right, not simply because they throw in Buzz and Woodie.<<<<<< That's what I'm trying to say. Guests will like the show not just because of the Disney/Pixar character - yes, the ones who are familiar with the Disney characters will enjoy the show because of that - but the ones who don't know the Disney characters will like it too because the show is such a spectacle and the music is so good. An example would be the Bellagio Fountains - most people like the show, even though they never heard of any of the songs they play during the show. They like the show because it's such a spectacle - (and it's free .
Originally Posted By Dabob2 ,"I haven't seen it in person (which is always better), but the strongest parts of the show to me (on video anyway) are the more abstract parts - the one where they just let water and color and light and the other effects dazzle the senses." <I agree, but I think what it's missing for me is some kind of meaning for why everything is actually happening.> Well, as Dug says, what's the motivation for a symphony? Or for a painting, to take the visual end? Is beauty itself not motivation enough? Perhaps not for you. YMMV as they say. Did you see it in person, or still only film clips? It will be a while before I'm able to see it, so I'm actually being very judicious about what I watch. I want there to be some surprise when I actually do see it, plus of course the greater impact of being there in person.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Well, as Dug says, what's the motivation for a symphony? Or for a painting, to take the visual end? Is beauty itself not motivation enough?" It's all about the beauty, and it motivates me to visit the symphony and art museums. However, Disney theme parks are a different beast. Even symphonies can have motivation, though. The most recent one I attended was inspired by death of the composer's daughter, so he wrote the symphony for her. "Did you see it in person, or still only film clips?" I'm not going to fight the crowds to see it. If I'm dragged to it by my girlfriend, I'll go, but I'm not going to make the effort on my own at this time. If they had officially scheduled the third show so that it wasn't just a rumor, I would probably make more of an effort to see an 11:30 performance.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 I hate that today whenever you watch something you also see about eight camera screens. REALLY distracts........from my youtube viewing.......uuuummmm wait a minute. ; ) Oh and I love during the "Under The Sea" portion when that little guy with the buzzcut in front starts bopping aorund. That was cute.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 Just watching now and I thought Under The Sea sequéd perfectly into Dory and Marlin. But the heads being chopped off thing is kinda distracting. They need to fix that.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Hey Bob, if you're in the back, I'm hearing that the views are so bad that parents are putting their children on their shoulders. Great for the kid, huh? Some anonymous person on some blog pretty much summed it up for me. The show feels like it was designed by committee, not by a showman. But hey, fire is cool, am I right or what? I'm sure Beavis would like that part.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 And Up segués perfectly into ALaddin as we fly up into the air. So far Sue Kruse is not looking very reliable. Did she go to the San Francisco toilets during these parts?
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 And now we have the green nature sprite thing leading into Pocahontas, because, you know, if there's one thing "Avatar"(and indeed, Pocahontas)taught us is that indiginous natives are the pure embodiment of living harmoniously with nature. ; ) Runs off to google that incident the loony left are trying to cover up that indicated the ancient Australian aboriginals turned the entire interior of the continent into dry, harsh, uninhabitable desert through burning of shrubs and foliage while they hunted to extinction several major species of mammals. But WoC is a pretty show. : )
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 Sue Kruse wrong again - She said Lady and The Tramp was one of the few older sequences. Wrong. I counted Dumbo, Bambi, Fantasia(but strangley no Pinocchio!)and I am sure there were others. Hell, was that even the OLD MILL there at one point?!?!?! Little Madison-Rose and Jordan from North Carolina are going to have to have THAT one explained to them! Hell, I think even THEIR PARENTS will!!! VERY nice. The kaleidoscope effect was BEAUTIFUL and tied back to the old show perfectly. Pretty good show and I bet it's awesome in person.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///Pirates, HM, SM, BTMR,Small World, the old fireworks show, all really didn't have stories either, yet they are all great attractions and shows./// 1) I'm thinking that every attraction has a story to tell. Some(like Pinocchio, Peter Pan and Splash Mtn.) rely on strict/closed narratives while others deliver a more loose/open ended account such as Big Thunder RR. Ultimately I favor attractions that use story lines that can be interpreted in multiple ways----the more nebulous the better. 2) as far as Disney is concerned all shows are attractions but not all attractions are shows(just like all enzymes are proteins but not all proteins are enzymes)
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "The show is all about Disney film nostalgia, and if you don't love Disney films, you probably don't care about the show." If that's the case then this show will surely be a flop. That's kind of like saying if you've never seen a Disney animated feature you can't enjoy The Electrical Parade, which like WoC, has no narrative story line.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "It's all about the beauty, and it motivates me to visit the symphony and art museums. However, Disney theme parks are a different beast. " Not necessarily. I love sitting in the Animation lobby and just being surrounded by all the beautiful artwork. That's as good a theme park experience as any other (and better than many.)
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Exactly. Why can't Disney create a spectacle that is simply about the beauty of color and music?
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance I'm so excited I can barely contain myself, and it'll be months before I get to see the show!
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance Just watched the live stream, LOVED IT!!! Me and my baby girl watched it together, we had the best time togetherd. watching our freakin computer screen, can't imagine how much better this will be in person!!! LOVED the villians segment!!!! Also thought Toy Story was awesome with the Buzz/Zurg battle.
