"Clip Shows" like Fantasmic and Philharmagic, and : good thing or bad thing?

[Rowdy]

Interesting topic. I have always felt this way about Fantasmic, and its one of the reasons I think the show is overrated - especially with WDW's added "padding" like the long bubbles montage. "Hey, remember THIS part from this movie? and this one? and THIS one? Aren't Disney's movies great??

But, it's a movie... at Disney World. Isn't Disney's main focal point as a company making movies...?

That's like going to Busch Gardens and being upset that there's beer.

 

[CThaddeus]

That is one reason I don't love World of Color like a lot of people do, it is pretty much just a very fancy clip show.

This is the worst example of a clip show. No plot, no theme, nothing. Just 28 straight minutes of clips of Disney films, all of which I love. Unfortunately, the sum of the parts slapped together aren't interesting enough to make me wait 2 hours for it.
I'm also not a big fan of Philharmagic, but that's probably more because I'd rather see the actual animation, not computer versions of them.
Finally, Fantasmic! - I truly hate Disney World's. As has been mentioned, the bubble scene seems to go on forever. And do we really need six million bad guys laughing and, later, screaming? Egah. More does not always mean better. The whole show relies too much on mist screens there.
However, the one at Disneyland is, hands down, the best nighttime show I've ever seen. It isn't just clips strung together. Yes, there are clips, but they are beatifully blended with live action (love that Peter Pan scene!), fireworks, floats, fire, and a storyline. The use of the Mark Twain and Columbia also give it a grandeur that the pathetic boat and boring Pocahontas scene (also relying too much on mist screens) used at the Studios just can't compare to.
"Clip show" attractions aren't an inherently bad idea; they just need some kind of glue to hold them together or they lose me. I still enjoy watching Wonderful World of Disney episodes that are just shorts or pieces of movies strung together. The difference is, Disney always provided a common theme for the show that linked them all together, or they created a story using someone like Ludwig Von Drake talking about child rearing, science, flying, etc. World of Color could definitely use something like that. Trading out clips every few months just doesn't cut it.

 

[unkadug]

"Why do people on this forum feel the need to shoot down anything that isn't talking about how MaGiCaL everything is?

Look at the posters history to understand their motives.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I think a show like PhilharMagic could be modified so that it remains a clip show, but there's some variability in the transitions. In short, have a randomization similar to Star Tours where you can see multiple scenes. Even if each transition has one other option you can create a show that's that much more interesting.

 

[lazyboy97o]

So the parks have something for everyone, 'clip shows' for 'Disney fans' and other attractions such as Mission Space and Expedition Everest for 'thrill' seekers! It's a win win situation IMO!

I'm not sure where you got "'thrill' seekers" from but I think the win-win only remains with balance. I do think too much into the "clip show" variety becomes a lose-lose as it becomes difficult to justify a higher cost for an experience that can more and more be had elsewhere for much less.

In order to truly succeed I think a "clip show" needs to recontextualize the clips so that they become something new. Fantasmic! I think requires little prior knowledge to understand, Mickey's PhilharMagic some in order to get the context of the premise and scenes, The Great Movie Ride is apparently needing more and more familiarity based on all te threads about new scenes, and World of Color is apparently almost entirely dependent on knowing the films. I think the problem that Scheinder was more alluding to Disney's increasing use of passive and referential experiences. Even if based around a single film, something that does not take you to that world and is more about reminding you about scenes from the film is a "clip show" as the experience is just about clips from the film.

I think had Disney done Harry Potter places like the Three Broomsticks would have been decorated with images from the films, making it a "clip show."

 

[the-reason14]

I'm not sure where you got "'thrill' seekers" from but I think the win-win only remains with balance. I do think too much into the "clip show" variety becomes a lose-lose as it becomes difficult to justify a higher cost for an experience that can more and more be had elsewhere for much less.

In order to truly succeed I think a "clip show" needs to recontextualize the clips so that they become something new. Fantasmic! I think requires little prior knowledge to understand, Mickey's PhilharMagic some in order to get the context of the premise and scenes, The Great Movie Ride is apparently needing more and more familiarity based on all te threads about new scenes, and World of Color is apparently almost entirely dependent on knowing the films. I think the problem that Scheinder was more alluding to Disney's increasing use of passive and referential experiences. Even if based around a single film, something that does not take you to that world and is more about reminding you about scenes from the film is a "clip show" as the experience is just about clips from the film.

I think had Disney done Harry Potter places like the Three Broomsticks would have been decorated with images from the films, making it a "clip show."

Well isn't every ride based off a movie a 'clip show' then? The longest one I can think of right now is splash mountain, and song of the south wasn't a 17 minute movie. :shrug:

 

[Bairstow]

Well isn't every ride based off a movie a 'clip show' then? The longest one I can think of right now is splash mountain, and song of the south wasn't a 17 minute movie. :shrug:

I think the difference lies in the overall thematic intent of the attraction. Despite drawing its influence from a certain segments of a longer movie, attractions like Splash Mountain or Peter Pan at least try to condense these elements into a cohesive story that can be understood without added context. Attractions which re-contextualize events from a film in a way that makes more "sense" within the reality of the particular attraction, like It's Tough to Be a Bug or Buzz Lightyear's Space Ranger Spin do an even better job at this.

 

[ght]

The difference is, Disney always provided a common theme for the show that linked them all together, or they created a story using someone like Ludwig Von Drake talking about child rearing, science, flying, etc. World of Color could definitely use something like that. Trading out clips every few months just doesn't cut it.

I don't know if even that would fix it, part of the problem is location. The sight lines for WOC are so awful that even in the current form, unless you are in the front you can't see the bottom half of the show. Then what you see is uninspiring and clearly form over any substance. It really bugs me because besides not liking the show, all of the fountains have ruined the look of the lake and the payoff is poor. For all the hype it received it is a major letdown and if someone was going to DL and only had time to see one show I would tell them to go to Fantasmic every time, especially if they have only seen the WDW one.

 

[ChrisFL]

That's like going to Busch Gardens and being upset that there's beer.

I'm sure there are some people that have done that...wish I was at guest services when it happened :lol:

 

[lazyboy97o]

But, it's a movie... at Disney World. Isn't Disney's main focal point as a company making movies...?

That's like going to Busch Gardens and being upset that there's beer.

This notion of Disney as a movie company only began to grow in the 1980s with greater emphasis in recent years. Disney was a creative company that told worked in a variety of mediums, first animated shorts, then feature length animated films, then live action, then theme parks and television, and even briefly in urban planning and design. Just as one does not expect every Disney film or television show to feature animation or the same characters, there is no reason to expect the same of theme parks. It was clearly viewed as a new creative medium and not one of marketing by its creators. It started in the familiar and moved more and more towards independence. Even derivative attractions were given greater and greater recontextualization.

Well isn't every ride based off a movie a 'clip show' then? The longest one I can think of right now is splash mountain, and song of the south wasn't a 17 minute movie. :shrug:

I think Bairstow answered this well. Most people riding Splash Mountain have never seen Song of the South and I think even the original stories have largely fallen from the public consciousness. But it works so well because the scenes have been recontextualized to create something new that one can understand and fully experience without referring to a memory. "Clip show" should not be viewed as distinct, but part of a spectrum.

 

[jjharvpro]

I see what he means, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. In Phillarmagic, it's an original story with Donald and the Sorcerer Hate, but he's mixed up in a bunch of classic Disney scenes. It's a fun, memorable, immersive , and great attraction!

Same with Fantasmic!, World of Color, and more. But they are all amazing shows! So I don't really see a problem.