Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
The Taj Mahal scene is perhaps the one part I don't like at all. Aside from the heavy CGI, you're like 5 feet off the ground.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Soarin' Expansion and new Soarin' Around the World film
- Thread starter danlb_2000
- Start date
Bartattack
Well-Known Member
I believe that was done because there is a strict no-fly zone above the Taj Mahal...
Bacon
Well-Known Member
DisneyFans4Life
Well-Known Member
Just watched the video and it looks absolutely amazing. I'm really looking forward to riding it the next time I go to Epcot!
DonaldDoleWhip
Well-Known Member
Frankly, I think it was silly to include a scene that was 100% CGI - just pick another world landmark and actually film it! There are plenty of great locations that could've been included, with more natural wonders always on the table: the spectacular ruggedness of South Africa's Western Cape, the breathtaking scenery of New Zealand, perhaps the river deltas of Southeast Asia or an additional North America scene (I don't love the Monument Valley scene they chose), etc.
The new theme of Soarin' may be a step above California only (especially for Epcot and Shanghai), but some of the artistic and technical decisions still baffle me.
The new theme of Soarin' may be a step above California only (especially for Epcot and Shanghai), but some of the artistic and technical decisions still baffle me.
99% of people could care less if one scene was CGI or not. Most people that visit Disney probably wouldn't even notice it was CGI. I didn't say 99% of people on these message boards.
DonaldDoleWhip
Well-Known Member
Fair enough, but I happen to be part of the minority who finds CGI extremely distracting in what's supposed to be a live action scene. Whether in Avatar (which I can't sit through 5-10 minutes of), Marvel movies (I'm not a fan), or Star Wars (those rathtars in TFA? ugh), it typically kills my suspension of disbelief, and it's disappointing that so much of the new Soarin' is driven by it.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
No great experience is created by assuming the audience is clueless.
tirian
Well-Known Member
The transitions are incredibly cheesy, as if someone didn't learn the ART of film editing as opposed to gimmicks.
Which is really surprising when you consider they have access to some of the worlds best computer animation talent in ILM (despite what you may thing of the prequels the are still CGI pioneers) and Pixar.
Yep, Disney wouldn't have gotten to where they are today if they had. Things should never be dismissed with the excuse that the "audience will never notice"
Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
How else could you do it? The options are either a smash cut or a contrived transition. Being that this is a ride and not an art film, I prefer the transitions.
PorterRedkey
Well-Known Member
Tha Taj is an awesome site, but why not just pick another destination? FYI I had no idea it was CGI until I read up on this attraction, so I am trusting the people who have seen this live.
Mike S
Well-Known Member
It doesn't look bad at least to me but it is noticeable.
Then again I went in already knowing it was CGI so that might skew my opinion on this.
PorterRedkey
Well-Known Member
Still, Disney must have thought it was important to include India in the "World". Otherwise, why not just film another spectacular site.
The rose scent could be placed elsewhere.
MonkeyHead
Well-Known Member
I'd bet money you have no idea how much stuff you watch is CGI.
I think the CGI on this film is really hit and miss.
Polar bears? ehh...nah at bit weak
Orca...OK
Sydney Plane,..OK
Elephants...excellent!!
Camels & horses...OK
Taj Mahal scene...terrible
Hot air balloons...OK
TinkerBell...ehh...nah...could have been better.
General birds, kites, smoke, dirt and mist....OK, I guess.
Polar bears? ehh...nah at bit weak
Orca...OK
Sydney Plane,..OK
Elephants...excellent!!
Camels & horses...OK
Taj Mahal scene...terrible
Hot air balloons...OK
TinkerBell...ehh...nah...could have been better.
General birds, kites, smoke, dirt and mist....OK, I guess.
Last edited:
Jahona
Well-Known Member
This may be different for Disney and my knowledge comes from Sony. It's actually not as easy to use subsidiary companies. Sony ImageWorks was working on specific project that required the use of specific camera equipment. Due to regulations they couldn't purchase cameras from themselves. In the case of CGI, Disney Parks they would be purchasing creative work from themselves or parent company. You also have to take into account the budget. It probably wasn't very high in the grand scheme of things to produce this film. The majority of it probably went to production with a small percentage going to post work.
DonaldDoleWhip
Well-Known Member
Joke's on you then, because I barely watch movies or TV these days (am currently binge-watching The Office because I have roommates who enjoy it - that's about it).
I may be a unique case in that regard, but I know I'm not the only one who thinks CGI often crosses a line of being too blatant. The Force Awakens is a great example here (and the most recent Disney/'tentpole' film I've seen in theaters, ignoring things like Money Monster or The Nice Guys): entertaining production, but I can't really accept those rathtars, Yellow Yoda, or Gollum/Voldemort as believable when they're placed aside characters and an environment that are more convincingly real.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
I agree... sounds like a bunch of people looking for problems that are just spouting off BS, to make themselves sound like experts to me! Reminds me of a Wine Tasting during a tour in Europe I went on a few months back. I'm not a wine connoisseur, although I did drink a lot of Boone's Farm Apple when I was in the service. There was this extremely annoying woman that struck me as the most fake person on the planet. Anyway, at one point she held the wine glass up to her nose, took a large sniff and proclaimed that "this wine smells young". OK, with the exception that she had just been told 10 minutes before that it was a "young wine". What exactly does a "young wine" smell like. I'm sorry, but, I'm not buying any of that pretentious crap. I guess it would have been alright if that were the only jerky thing that she did, but, I will tell you that she was the reason why people in other countries hate us.
I have watched the Soarin' Video about 7 times now and the only way that I can tell what was a CGI is when it would have been impossible to do otherwise. The Orca, The dirt throwing Elephant, The airplane, the bird flying into the scene all put there probably because so many "experts" complained about the transitions in the old film. The Taj Mahal looked believable to me. I'm pretty sure that Tinker Bell was put in there and probably the fire works, Perhaps the hidden Mickey hot air balloons. If other things were, then instead of being negative I would have to say that they did a great job. I loved the original but I think this one kicks it in the butt. Why wasn't anyone crititcal of the Golf Ball in the original. All we ever heard about that was the rumor that Eisner was the golfer.
Even the Fireworks could have been real and filmed after the parks closed with them set up in the parking lot. However, even if they weren't, they really looked good. If the object is to make you believe that you are actually flying around in a hang glider then not worrying about whether or not something an artificial creation of an actual location should perhaps be appropriate.