Soarin' Expansion and new Soarin' Around the World film

Bacon

Well-Known Member
Is it just me or does the entire Taj Mahal scene look 100% CGI?
It is cause you can't fly over the Taj Mahal
Real:
iur.jpeg
Soarin':
hqdefault.jpg
 

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.
 

Ripken10

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.
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
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.
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.
 

tirian

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 transitions are incredibly cheesy, as if someone didn't learn the ART of film editing as opposed to gimmicks.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
Original Poster
Thanks for posting that.

That CGI looks horrible. Really horrible. So horrible that I have to wonder if that moron George Lucas was somehow involved.

I hope I'm wrong, but I cannot see how it will look any less fake on the big screen. I guess I'll know in a couple of weeks.

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.
 

PorterRedkey

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.
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
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.

I'd bet money you have no idea how much stuff you watch is CGI.
 

Cliff

Well-Known Member
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.
 
Last edited:

Jahona

Well-Known Member
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.

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
I'd bet money you have no idea how much stuff you watch is CGI.
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'd bet money you have no idea how much stuff you watch is CGI.
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.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom