Philhardisappointment...? Timekeeper's Review
Here's my humble review of the new attraction. There are just my opinions, and everyone should see it for themselves.
**This review may contain some "spoilers." Although it does not give a detailed account of the entire show, I have pointed out some issues that I was disappointed in.**
I am a huge Disney fan and I actually chose to avoid reading anything about this attraction until I was able to see it. (Having read various reviews for Mission:Space, my expectations were not met.) Thus, I had no specific expectations for Philharmagic, only that it was a 3-D film featuring orchestrated music.
First, the pre-show area is weak. The queue continues once you step indoors, with nothing more to entertain the eye than a large mural and some colorful posters. This area's audio is too low to hear over the talking crowds. I have a problem with the posters in this area. They are attractive and somewhat humorous, but also very misleading. They show "featured" characters appearing "in concert," but the majority of the characters on the posters are not actually in the attraction show. This is misleading and surely generates disappointment when fans of Geni (Aladdin) - who has his own poster in the queue area - is not in the 3-D film. It would have been very easy for WDI to only create posters for characters who are actually in the film.
The next room that leads to the theater doors has no theming at all. Granted, most auditoriums don't have "themed lobbies," but this is not a regular auditorium, it's a Disney attraction. Just think about how heavily and cleverly themed pre-show area for "It's Tough To Be A Bug." Philharmagic is the opposite. There is no "actual" pre show, something that the Legend of the Lion King had - and quite an elaborate one.
Once the doors open and everyone is seated, we hear some voices talking form "behind the curtain." Minnie welcomes us, and the show sort of "softly begins." There's no real "bang" or excitement, it just begins. The show probably wouldn't have the attention of the audience if the theater lights didn't dim.
The "stage" is framed with traditional theater style pillars and arch, which "raise up" revealing the panoramic screen a few moments into the film. When this happens it goes almost un-noticed due to the way the film is edited, it's dark when the frame is lifted. This is a neat effect, or "should be" a neat effect. They should have put more emphasis on the fact that the screen was becoming much larger, and not softly eased into it. That way the "panoramic" view would seem that much more impressive.
The film itself - hmmmm, where to begin. The theme is weak. Donald puts on Mickey's magic hat and gets "sucked into" this series of various scenes from classic Disney movies. Mind you, this is all for no particular reason - there doesn't seem to be much motivation. In fact, Donald is asleep when the film begins. Then he wakes up and just feels the urge to put Mickey's hat on. I know they (WDI) could have done better than that.
The animation itself is probably my biggest issue with the attraction. The disney characters look quite different from their original - hand-drawn likenesses. In fact, the whole film feels like I'm playing a Disney Sony Playstation 2 game. The characters look horrible. They look "cartoony," with smoothed over features. The characters in Finding Nemo look 100 times better. If we had nothing to compare them too, it might not be as big of a problem, but we do have something to compare them to, the original movies, which many of the audience memebers have seen. I would expect to see characters rendered like this in a video game, but not in a feature attraction.
On a somewhat technical note, the "panoramic screen" is really the result of pairs of projectors split into 3 sections. Although the screen is all one piece, there are obvious "seems" between the 3 sections. In some clips they try to hide this by using illustrated dividers in the film, but even then it's still obvious. If they don't currently have the technology to seamlessly blend 3 3-D film sections together, they shouldn't have tried to do so. And with IMAX screens showing 3-D films nowadays, you know the technology is available. They should have either spent the money to do it right, or not have done it at all.
The "interactive" special effects are not new. Smells (apple pie), bursts of air, water, and an animatronic are all things we've seen before. They are "fun," not not particularly innovative.
Are all of my opinions of this attraction negative? No!
The attraction is fun and family-friendly. The best scenes in the film are during the Peter Pan and Aladdin segments (which are sequential in this film) because they involve flying through city streets and because it's in 3-D the sensation of motion is very realistic. I would have preferred that the entire attraction be based on a "carpet ride" through the city streets from Aladdin, as this is the obvious highlight of the film. The animators did a good job rendering the buildings and other exteriors for this section, so why couldn't they put the same effort into the appearance of the characters? Much of the film is static (not much "camera" motion), which makes the flying sections a highlight. The film would be a lot more exciting if they would have done more "flying camera" movements throughout the film. An example of this would be "floating" through the castle from Beauty and the Beast, or "swimming" through underwater caverns before we actually meet Ariel, etc.
The humor is a little on the "cheesy" side, but it's pleasantly funny nevertheless. With such a large auditorium they should have done more of a "stadium seating" effect so that everyone would have a good view of the screen. (3-D effects are grossly weakened if you have a large head in the way sitting directly in front of you.) And with a majority of movie theaters going to stadium seating nowadays, there's no excuse not to. The audio system could have been a little bit better. Maybe they need more speakers, maybe they just need to be louder, regardless, it could be a little bit more on the "powerful" side, especially with all that great music.
I would recommend seeing this attraction. It's fun and creative. Could the people at Disney have done a *much* better job? I personally think so. After seeing it once, I wouldn't wait more than 30 minutes or so in line to see it again. Muppets 3-D, despite its age, is an example of a 3-D show done "right." It is still impressive even today, and could easily compete with the much newer Philharmagic. Philharmagic makes me feel as though Disney has cut many-a-corner with what could have been a great attraction. Instead they created a "good" attraction, which leaves me wondering "why?"
Timekeeper
P.S. I saw the attraction on Saturday, September 27, when it opened to the public at around 5:00 PM.