Philharmagic on The Way Out?

[GhostHost1000]

Because it was blurry there's an assumption it's on the way out???

 

[Jbres_]

Because it was blurry there's an assumption it's on the way out???

Well when the other 3D entertainment in the parks is up to par and one falls flat, one takes note. Doesn't mean it's in the way out, was just asking if there were any plans.

 

[marni1971]

I know this isn't anything new persay, but I went on Philharmagic yesterday and the entire thing was blurry as heck and it doesn't seem to have been updated at all recently; are there any plans to update it? Or maybe even replace it?

Updates by 2021 with more modern films such as tangled, frozen, moana etc
But you should have really put this in discussion

@marni1971 @danlb_2000 @MisterPenguin Any thoughts or input?

@marni1971 or others may know more but they were looking at redoing the CGI work in the film it seemed to go cold like a morgue though so who knows.

Right now there's no plans to change or close it. Or any of the above.

Let alone by 2021 as @Bacon said.

 

[NeedMoreMickey]

In March one person in our group thought it was blurry. Since it was his first time seeing it we switched glasses and it was the 3D glasses. You can get a bad pair. Just saying

 

[Minthorne]

In March one person in our group thought it was blurry. Since it was his first time seeing it we switched glasses and it was the 3D glasses. You can get a bad pair. Just saying

Yeah there are a lot of old glasses and these are the non-rigid lenses that have been warped by years of people rubbing them waiting for the doors to auto-magically open.

 

[Dead2009]

Because it was blurry there's an assumption it's on the way out???

Yes

 

[Timothy_Q]

If they added elements from new films, which I also think it could be done quite cheap, since all the newer films are already in CGI compared to the original version,

The styles don't match though.

The CGI animated movies are super detailed and realistic, while philharmagic has a clean cartoony look to match the flat colors of the 2D animations

 

[Jahona]

The styles don't match though.

The CGI animated movies are super detailed and realistic, while philharmagic has a clean cartoony look to match the flat colors of the 2D animations

So just a few comments on this. The look of PhilharMagic is because of the time it was created. 3D animation hadn't replaced the 2D style at the time and lighting and rendering technology was fairly behind what we can do today. The film to me looks dated because of this.

At the same time you can recreate anything to match the art style in "CGI." Instead of adding new scenes I would say update the overall film. You can keep a stylized look but enhance the animation and visuals.

 

[Zipadeelady]

The problem with it has always been repeatability, as it has been with all the 3D shows and a good chunk of guests are repeat visitors. I haven't been in Philharmagic in a long time because it's one of those things where you can only do it every so often and it's been overdone, but it would be a shame to see Disney give up on the concept.
.

This is definitely a matter of opinion. Philharmagic is and always has been something that we do every trip. It never gets old to our family. Although we're not one of those families that gets to go to Disney every year. We're more of an every other year type of family.

 

[Timothy_Q]

So just a few comments on this. The look of PhilharMagic is because of the time it was created. 3D animation hadn't replaced the 2D style at the time and lighting and rendering technology was fairly behind what we can do today. The film to me looks dated because of this.

That's 100% not true.

When philharmagic was made we already had Nemo, Monsters, and a bunch of other incredibly realistic CGI animations.

The look they went with has to do with trying to maintain the aesthetic of flat 2D character animation.
They could have made Ariel's hair look as realistic as Sulley's fur, but that wasn't their intention.

 

[thomas998]

I know this isn't anything new persay, but I went on Philharmagic yesterday and the entire thing was blurry as heck and it doesn't seem to have been updated at all recently; are there any plans to update it? Or maybe even replace it?

If everything was blurry it may have been a bad pair of glasses. I know some of the glasses that get pushed back through should really be retired so probably a better quality control in the cleaning process is all that is needed.

 

[drizgirl]

Were you wearing the glasses?

 

[The_Jobu]

Right now there's no plans to change or close it. Or any of the above.

Excellente.

 

[BasiltheBatLord]

Last few times I've seen it it's looked very unclear and blurry. I have no idea what the film's resolution is or anything like that, but it didn't look anything at all like HD resolution to me. I'm assuming it hasn't been changed since 2003?

 

[Jahona]

That's 100% not true.

When philharmagic was made we already had Nemo, Monsters, and a bunch of other incredibly realistic CGI animations.

The look they went with has to do with trying to maintain the aesthetic of flat 2D character animation.
They could have made Ariel's hair look as realistic as Sulley's fur, but that wasn't their intention.

One thing to take into account is budget between an attraction and a feature film. Monsters Inc. cost about $26k per second and Nemo cost about $21k per second of film. This attraction came after the downturn because of September 11th, and while I don't know it's full budget I can't see it being that big for this attraction.

I can get into technical knowledge of 3D animation from having worked in that industry. To sum it up lighting and rendering, and fur are two separate things. Fur was a dynamic simulation that taxed PIXAR's render farms. Roz and Boo were the only other characters that I can remember that used hair and Roz's was static.

Going back and looking at scenes from Monsters Inc. and Toy Story 2, they lack some of the finer details and dynamic lighting that is shown in current 3D films. This leads to just flatter imagery in general.

 

[JohnD]

Were you wearing the glasses?

Beat me to it.

 

[JohnD]

It's a good show but being that it's based on older IPs (BATB, Little Mermaid, Peter Pan, Lion King, Alladin), it's bound to be updated at some point

 

[PizzaPlanet]

If the film is indeed blurry, I find this interesting because Muppet*Vision is looking crisper than ever, and that attraction is almost ten years older than Philharmagic.

 

[Timothy_Q]

One thing to take into account is budget between a ride and a feature film. Monsters Inc. cost about $26k per second and Nemo cost about $21k per second of film. This ride came after the downturn because of September 11th, and while I don't know it's full budget I can't see it being that big for this attraction.

I can get into technical knowledge of 3D animation from having worked in that industry. To sum it up lighting and rendering, and fur are two separate things. Fur was a dynamic simulation that taxed PIXAR's render farms. Roz and Boo were the only other characters that I can remember that used hair and Roz's was static.

Going back and looking at scenes from Monsters Inc. and Toy Story 2, they lack some of the finer details and dynamic lighting that is shown in current 3D films. This leads to just flatter imagery in general.

Well, you can go into as many technical deitals as you want.

Regardless, the Little Mermaid ride opened in 2011 and it used the same smooth simplified CGI style for Ariel, for the same reasons I specified before. And it only has a few seconds of animation on loop, so money is not the problem, and neither is the time it was made, so. It was a stylistic choice.

But you can believe whatever you want

 

[Jahona]

Well, you can go into as many technical deitals as you want.

Regardless, the Little Mermaid ride opened in 2011 and it used the same smooth simplified CGI style for Ariel, for the same reasons I specified before. And it only has a few seconds of animation on loop, so money is not the problem, and neither is the time it was made, so. It was a stylistic choice.

But you can believe whatever you want

.... The brief sections I remember from The Little Mermaid ride were 2D animation that was representing a silhouette. You're comparing two separate styles and formats. As for the money discussion. Everything has a number and a budget. While PhilharMagic was under Eisner, who didn't have a problem spending money at times, it was also during a travel downturn. The largest thing that Disney did in the early 2000s was Mission Space at $150 million. POP century never got finished and was abandoned, other projects were put on hold.

So our argument came from you saying that CGI looks different then PhilharMagic, yet the attraction is entirely CGI. If they wanted to add new content to the show they could create it to fit the current look. I'm saying is that to me the current animation looks dated compared to newer shows. I believe it could be redone better but still keeping a stylized look.

Having worked in and around the animation and vfx industry has ruined me a bit on movies and similar mediums. Once you know how the magic trick is done it's hard to be amazed by it at times.