Originally Posted By Lake Nona >>i kept waiting for the bikini clad crowdshot of miami beach to show up to no avail.<< Yea, and the millions of dollars that the spring break crowd bring to Flordia. Also no Daytona Bch in the movie.
Originally Posted By danyoung Wow - what a nice job by a true Disney fan! I think some of the shots being "boring" as some have said only point out how carefully scripted all of the shots in the real Soarin' were. Still, excellent work!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I thought the film was very well done. I do agree that since Epcot is not Florida centered in content, it would make more sense to have 'Soarin' Over America' and all the great scenes that would provide. As for the hang glider comments... Have any of you guys actually seen Soarin' at Epcot?? From the CM uniforms it is pretty clearly supposed to represent powered flight unless hang glider guys are all of a sudden dressing up in Captain's uniforms. Which makes sense, because MOST of the scenes in the film could not be made from a hang glider. There just aren't that many places over Disneyland or the Mojave Desert that you could jump off of. Hang gliders maybe can't go backwards, but they couldn't do that stuff either.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror Heck, how about Soarin' Over The World? I enjoyed this. Definitely shows that there's potential in just about any kind of well-thought-out replacement. As far as the scenery getting boring after a couple of viewings... SOARIN' the attraction becomes boring (at least to me) after several sittings. I tolerate it when I go with visitors, but the novelty and images have worn their welcome with me. Considering how cost-effective a new film could be, it's kind of sad that they aren't replacing this already.
Originally Posted By oc_dean A nice effort! But for all the nice "textures" that the state of Florida does have ... that 'hang-glider' has to get fairly low to capture it with the naked eye. I think a "Soarin' over America" will be the perfect thing for EPCOT's Soarin'. Over in DCA .. as in CALIFORNIA Adventure ... the point of the "California" film is taken. Over in WDW .. a major resort that reaches out to all corners of American tourists ... I think something that captures the whole country will be the perfect thing.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Why not have more than one Soarin? Put one in each park. There is no reason why guests should only have to experience that technology in one park at WDW.
Originally Posted By ChiMike ^ Oh my God Tom, you're going to give me a heart attack. I better get some oxygen now.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Oh come on ChiMike. We are talking about technology. It would be like someone at Disney coming up with a 3D movie and only placing it at EPCOT. Remember when that happened with Captain EO. Now Disney has 3D movies in each park. I just want the one at MGM to be a new Star Wars type ride. Get rid of the simulator. It could be as if your inside of a giant transformer walking around some forest while being attacked by the Emperor's forces. The simulators are now "old" technology. Time for something more way kewl.
Originally Posted By Disneymom443 It was kinda nice, I also like the idea of soarin over America. There are so many beatiful states that we should show case them.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Oh come on ChiMike. We are talking about technology. It would be like someone at Disney coming up with a 3D movie and only placing it at EPCOT. Remember when that happened with Captain EO. Now Disney has 3D movies in each park.<< Now on another day I might argue that having 4 3D films at WDW or 3 at DLR have certainly diluted and devalued the medium, but I will argue the same point today with what could happen to the Soarin' technology. Where bus-bar dark rides and omnimovers are often cited as proof that ride systems can be duplicated with ease I would say that Soarin' is different. When it comes to Fantasyland dark rides the ride system is a simple conveyance allowing the guest to experience the show, the "attraction". For me, the ride system for Soarin' IS THE attraction. It's not a simple conveyance. I really didn't like that Soarin' was brought East because I thought it would be good for DCA to have a one-of-a-kind attraction. But in the days of Disneyparks.com it's not a good attiude to have. No doubt that Soarin' has been widely popular at EPCOT and I don't think anyone, including myself, would have thought otherwise. But I would say this time around that the line should be drawn. I think you really hurt the medium of a Soarin, or a simulator, or even a circle-vision when there is more than one nearby. Look at the BodyWars/Star Tours dynamic. Once Star Tours opened Body Wars took a significant hit. I think it is in Disney's best interest to stick with one Soarin' installation per resort. Anything more really will depreciate the novelty of the ride system. >>I just want the one at MGM to be a new Star Wars type ride. Get rid of the simulator. It could be as if your inside of a giant transformer walking around some forest while being attacked by the Emperor's forces.<< A very good example. Something that would be very neat. But using my comments above, just as Star Tours and Body Wars, it would cripple the Soarin' installation at EPCOT. My POV. >>The simulators are now "old" technology. Time for something more way kewl.<< I'm for all thing Kewl. Holla'!
Originally Posted By leemac <<For me, the ride system for Soarin' IS THE attraction.>> Then it was pointless for Disney to drop millions of dollars to bring you visuals of landscapes, many of which it is very difficult to film aerially, right? To suggest that the movie and its breath-taking score add nothing to the ride system is laughable. <<I really didn't like that Soarin' was brought East because I thought it would be good for DCA to have a one-of-a-kind attraction. >> Because Heaven forbid people who go to WDW shouldn't be able to experience a E-ticket attraction just because it came from DCA. Those millions of people that don't go and probably never will go to DLR should be hindered from seeing an incredible attraction. Even one that is the most popular attraction in WDW right now. This logic has no place at Disney parks. If it is popular and gives millions more people the opportunity to experience it then it should be cloned without question. It is flexible enough to be changed to a different movie unique to Epcot at a later stage.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Then it was pointless for Disney to drop millions of dollars to bring you visuals of landscapes, many of which it is very difficult to film aerially, right? To suggest that the movie and its breath-taking score add nothing to the ride system is laughable.<< The movie is a nice circlevision film with hard cuts and a good score. If it was about the movie it should have gone into a theater. Mark designed the ride system AND then WDI did the film. Not the other way around. Without specifically the Soarin' ride system the movie can't stand. Without a bus-bar ride system, Snow White could still succeed with boats in a flume or an Omnimover. That is my point. People ride Soarin' to ride the ride system. Just as almost everyone rides ToT for the drop. It would be foolish for Disney to build a ToT in AK with just a different theme. Wouldn't you agree? I hope you wouldn't laugh! >>Because Heaven forbid people who go to WDW shouldn't be able to experience a E-ticket attraction just because it came from DCA. Those millions of people that don't go and probably never will go to DLR should be hindered from seeing an incredible attraction. Even one that is the most popular attraction in WDW right now. This logic has no place at Disney parks. If it is popular and gives millions more people the opportunity to experience it then it should be cloned without question. It is flexible enough to be changed to a different movie unique to Epcot at a later stage.<< I was being honest in what I felt was best for DCA. I then followed up with: >> No doubt that Soarin' has been widely popular at EPCOT and I don't think anyone, including myself, would have thought otherwise.<< It didn't take a rocket scientist that it was going to be a great addition to the Land and EPCOT in general. A much better addition then M:S. It certainly was going to have a larger exposure. I simply lamented that DCA lost it's marquee attraction on a worldwide basis.
Originally Posted By leemac <<That is my point. People ride Soarin' to ride the ride system. >> I wholly disagree. The pure joy of Soarin' is a combination of ride system, visuals and the greatest score ever written for a Disney attraction. The thought that people just ride it for the ride system is just weird. The whole reason that the ride system has been tempered to a degree is to prevent it being solely about Mark Sumner's technology. And you are wrong on the technology coming before the movie. They were planned in synchrony. They just didn't know how to execute the technology until Mark stumbled across the concept during his famous Thanksgiving weekend. It took Rick forever to get the relevant permits for the attraction.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>The thought that people just ride it for the ride system is just weird. << But I'm not saying that Lee. Again, without the ride system the film and the GREAT (I Agree) score would be useless to Disney. I'm not that dense in thinking it is the combination that makes the attraction viable. My point is a distinction. That Soarin' depends on it's ride system like ToT does. And thus, would be a poor clone with a different "overlay" to be placed within the same resort of an existing Soarin'. I hope we're not arguing because we are Lee & Mike. I hope you are understanding my exact point, even if you disagree with it. >>And you are wrong on the technology coming before the movie. They were planned in synchrony. They just didn't know how to execute the technology until Mark stumbled across the concept during his famous Thanksgiving weekend. It took Rick forever to get the relevant permits for the attraction.<< And I believe that. But my general point is that it's not a chicken and the egg thing. The ride system came first. It enabled the project.
Originally Posted By leemac ^^ In the same way that The Seas with Nemo & Friends has taken so long to happen because they didn't have the technology to execute the final scene (or something with equal punch). For everyone that thinks that R&D has had no focus since the heddy days of Ferren they need to take a look at what WDI are still creating today.
Originally Posted By leemac <<And thus, would be a poor clone with a different "overlay" to be placed within the same resort of an existing Soarin'.>> Sorry I must have missed this one. They are building another Soarin' at DLR and WDW? Where is the evidence that another one is even been considered? If not then your point is moot and I don't understand at all what you are trying to say. I hope Soarin' pops up at both TDS and DLP soon so that millions more guests can experience an attraction that IMHO is one of the finest created by WDI in the last two decades.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Sorry I must have missed this one. They are building another Soarin' at DLR and WDW? Where is the evidence that another one is even been considered? If not then your point is moot and I don't understand at all what you are trying to say.<< That was the topic/point you jumped in on. My purpose at this time is not to be critical of Soarin'. It was to say to Tom in the response you originally quoted that due to Soarin's ride system that it would, IN FACT, be a bad idea to clone the same ride system within the same resort. DLR or WDW. Hence, the Body Wars Star Tours historical analogy. >>I hope Soarin' pops up at both TDS and DLP soon<< Now that the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, w/ EPCOT then yes I agree it would do well at those resorts. >> so that millions more guests can experience an attraction that IMHO is one of the finest created by WDI in the last two decades<< Out of personal preference I would disagree. Certainly not better than ToT, Everest, KS.
