News EPCOT's Harmonious to be replaced with new nighttime spectacular Luminous

GhostHost1000

GhostHost1000

Premium Member
I’m not convinced this will be a long running show like illuminations was

The barges seem too close where the lighting effects look jumbled at times. The music and flow feels like something is missing to me but that may change over time. Too much narration as well. They really needed to have fire effects somewhere. I ended up liking harmonious more than I thought I would after many views and not liking it at all at first so who knows where this will end up. Time will tell.

Regardless I still think an amazing Epcot fireworks show would use some music from illuminations and have new fireworks and effects tech as we see today…but they want to make Epcot like magic kingdom where they can
 
W

WoundedDreamer

Well-Known Member
Talk about being exposition heavy at the beginning. Illuminations: Reflections of Earth had a few punchy sentences that got you excited and then straight into the action. You were hooked and the story was going. And Illuminations didn't need to say everything explicitly to communicate its message. One of the things I loved about Illuminations was taking in the music, dialogue, and pyrotechnics and finding the story. When I was younger I appreciated Illuminations because it was visually stunning and the music was impactful. But as I grew older new layers came into focus.

Having to cram all the dialogue and story early into the composition of the show probably reflects the fact that the creators knew they had only a few minutes of time to actually say anything before rushing into the generic Disney nighttime spectacular. Whereas the creators of Illuminations were blessed with time to build the story, the creators of this show were time-starved. And Illuminations only got to "We Go On" after having drawn the audience along for the journey. It was the finale. It felt earned. This feels kind of uncomfortable and like they're laying it on too thick early on.

At a certain point I might need to accept Illuminations was one bizarre accident in the history of entertainment. It was unique and wonderful. It also might just not be replicable. Which is sad, but Disney has tried repeatedly to recapture the magic of that show. That either demonstrates how wonderful Illuminations: Reflections of Earth really was, or an institutional malaise that has taken hold at the parks segment of the company. Or both.

I can appreciate this show for being better than Harmonious. It doesn't ruin the view of the lake and it has some good moments. It's alright. I'll take it.
 
stuart

stuart

Well-Known Member
DreamingwithNick said:
I truly think SSE becoming the globe is the only homage they added last minute.

Everything else, like the hello from each country, seem to be remnants from previous unfinished or short lived IllumiNations shows pre-Harmonious.

Nobody has mentioned the absolute chills inducing moment when the narration says "voices echo back, in chorus" and the pavilions light up in call/response with the music.
Click to expand...
That in chorus moment is great, just wish it was louder, it sounds that good.

Other very random thoughts:

I thought the flame effect red/orange and electric blue fountain and their movement made me think of the two characters, Ember and Wade from Elemental, and their movements.

I also thought, the mass choral echo, and the bit at the start where the fountains lit in different colours reminded me, slightly, of 'play the notes' and 'the chant' from Close Encounters.
 
osian

osian

Well-Known Member
MisterPenguin said:
The whole IP v. non-IP debate is mired in bad nomenclature -- it's all IP.

The two sides are better called:
  • *pre-existing* IP (that has appeared in a movie, TV show, or some other context), and,
  • *newly-created* IP.

Both have their pros and cons.

The *pre-existing* IP is being recontextualized for a new attraction. The recontextualization could be "shoe horned in" or "rammed down our throats." In this case, it's used simply because it's popular. It's a tangent to a story that doesn't fit. This can happen when your new show needs a certain theme, e.g., you want two people singing about how their friendship brings them joy and makes them a family.... and all you got is Friend In Me, which is oversued, or, Friend Like Me, which really isn't the message you want (since it's not about two people singing about the joy of their friendship).

On the other hand, it could be done quite well when the original context fits the new context. "I See the Light" fits very well for any context of a new, budding romance.

And so, it is the newly-created music that has a much better chance of getting across the theme and message one wants to convey. It can be tailored specifically for the context. BUT... it's brand new. And is the song itself... *good*? A new song hasn't had the chance to be tested with crowds. It could be wildly popular. It could be a dud.

And that's the advantage of the pre-existing IP... you already know it's popular. Put a bunch of popular songs in a show and you're much more likely to get a popular show.

As time has passed, Disney has amassed a pretty hefty 'Disney songbook' of hits that it didn't have 20, 30, or 40 years ago. People want the band on the stage to play their famous hits, not their new songs... that's why the came to their concert. And so it's what many people expect. And it's what management encourages for that sweet synergistic merchandising franchise.

Luminous was made with pre-existing and new music. And did some clever things like using only the lick from Into the Unknown, without any of its lyrics. It unfortunately overused the two 'friends songs.'

Anyhoo, I'll leave you all with a mind-blowing thought: Epcot Forever recontextualized the music from previous attractions, so, it rammed IP down our throats!!
Click to expand...

Disney songs would only be popular in one segment of the population. Those who watch Disney cartoons.

There might be an intersection of people on the Disney Theme Park Venn Diagram who love theme parks and who love Disney cartoons, but to target people only in that intersection for Disney Theme Parks is what alienates the others.

Your post assumes that the only people who come to Disney theme parks are those who love Disney cartoons, their songs and their characters.

"People want the band on the stage to play their famous hits, not their new songs"

Precisely. You conflate Disney parks to be a manifestation of the Disney cartoon. People go to Disney parks because they want to see the Disney cartoons played in real life. The analogy is that the movie is like the band's recorded album, now they want to see the album played live. (Buit actually, true fans do like new songs to be played too, so your analogy doesn't really hold up).

Some people see theme parks in a different way, they see them in their literal form. Theme parks are a form of amusement park that is centered around a central theme, or has themed areas. One of those themes could in fact be about movies and cartoons. But there is nothing intrinsic about a theme park that means it has to have pre-existing movies to base all attractions on.

For those people, they just see more and more attractions that don't mean anything to them. Those attractions are assuming prior knowledge, or interest in, existing cartoons.

The beauty of EPCOT is/was that it doesn't/didn't pander exclusively to that segment of the population. It is/was a pure theme park and inspired by Walt's ideas that had nothing to do with movies and cartoons. More to do with other arms of the company.

In order to argue for IP, you first need to explain why theme parks have to be based on existing movies as opposed to any other theme.

BTW Epcot Forever blowing its own trumpet about Epcot attractions is fine, it's within context. What would be more of a problem is if IP from EPCOT then appeared out of context in other parks. Has that ever happened? And why doesn't it happen?

There have been many vciews and opinions on Luminous, each has their own idea of what works and what doesn't. But I get the feeling that the general opinion of the weakest part is indeed the parachuted-in IP songs that have been made to fit with the story. At best, they are really dreary ballad-by-numbers songs for people that don't know them, and even those who do know them think they don't fit, the "they are popular with everyone" argument doesn't work. That is why imported-in IP dilutes and cheapens the message, it's very very difficult to make it work and it generally doesn't. Nothing would have worked better in Luminous that custom orchestral works, composed especially to convey the exact feelings and coordinated with the pyro and fountains. Just like RoE! Maybe if they'd just left the rearranged and reimagined music for the songs to stand on their own and not bothered with the vocals it would have worked better.
 
Last edited:
D

doctornick

Well-Known Member
GhostHost1000 said:
They also can’t be wasting money designing some that last 2 years or less
Click to expand...

The hardware is the expensive part. If they are able to continue to use this same delivery system, changing to a different show in the future should be significantly cheaper. That is, as many have suggested, the best thing about Luminous in that they developed hardware that can be used long term and in different ways.

That said, I don't see why this show could last for a number of years. Maybe some tweaks here and there but I think it is likely a keeper. We will have to see how guest ratings correspond and whether restaurant bookings improve.
 
D

doctornick

Well-Known Member
Brian said:
Money.
Click to expand...

Well, duh. Obviously they aren't going to have two shows a night at Epcot because they don't want to bother running them. But I'm just suggesting that if they found that having two shows could lead to a positive correlation in attendance (and food/merch sales, etc) that doing EF as an earlier show and then Luminous as a nightcap could actually work potentially well just due to the different natures of the shows. And EF would probably be viewed very differently as a secondary offering compared to the main show of the night.

Just an off hand thought.
 
Den Carter

Den Carter

Well-Known Member
I mean, Epcot could have two shows. It would help to disperse crowds. DHS often has two performances of F! as well as WWOA. The low pyro demand makes this more feasible.
But even though EF was relatively light on pyro, there's still a lot more dollars wrapped up in that show than WWOA.
 
TheEPCOTHistorian

TheEPCOTHistorian

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
As much as I love EPCOT Forever, I'm not sure that's the wisest move.

Part of why Luminous works is that it keeps it's cards close to its chest. It unveils its technical ability bit by bit through the show, building anticipation to it's explosive finale. Showing off the firepower of the barges before Luminous would take away it's wow factor.
 
wdwmagic

wdwmagic

Administrator
Moderator
Premium Member
Original Poster

EPCOT Unleashes two spectacular, previously unseen pyro effects in 'Luminous the Symphony of Us'​

www.wdwmagic.com

EPCOT Unleashes two spectacular, previously unseen pyro effects in 'Luminous the Symphony of Us'

EPCOT Unleashes two spectacular, previously unseen pyro effects in 'Luminous the Symphony of Us'
www.wdwmagic.com www.wdwmagic.com

Luminous-the-Symphony-of-Us_Full_54321.jpg


 
ToTBellHop

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom