Soarin' Expansion and new Soarin' Around the World film

hpyhnt 1000

hpyhnt 1000

Well-Known Member
Had the chance to see the World version yesterday. As a concept, it's a better fit for Epcot and The Land. As a ride, though, the California version was much better.

My biggest problem with this version is the lack of movement. Too often, you just sort of float in front of a landmark. And that's partially a result of this film being more man-made monument heavy than the California version, which was geared more towards natural wonders and vistas. Also, the reimagined score is pretty forgettable, but it did have a tough act to follow.

All in all, still a fun ride, but not as enjoyable as its predecessor.
 
Marlins1

Marlins1

Well-Known Member
I will be there MLK weekend and unfortunately what you wrote is about what I expect. Just like Test Track 2.0 - better fitting theme, still good but less fun than before. I was lucky enough to ride Soarin with the old film when it re-opened briefly with improved quality - that was a treat.
 
Jones14

Jones14

Well-Known Member
Marlins1 said:
I will be there MLK weekend and unfortunately what you wrote is about what I expect. Just like Test Track 2.0 - better fitting theme, still good but less fun than before. I was lucky enough to ride Soarin with the old film when it re-opened briefly with improved quality - that was a treat.
Click to expand...
This does pose a serious question for Epcot as a whole. Modern WDI seems to be incapable of producing attractions that are worthwhile AND fit Epcot's overarching theme. For example, Test Track 2.0 and Soarin' Around The World are perfect fits in their respective areas, but objectively, they're worse attractions than what they replaced. On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have Nemo and Frozen, which are better attractions than their predecessors, but have loose ties at best to their respective areas.

If this continues, we're left with the option of good attractions in the wrong place or mediocre attractions in the right ones. I hate to say it, but the mandates from above to continue pushing IP in Epcot are making more sense all the time. WDI's latest efforts with IP are outclassing their non-IP work, and if I were an executive, I'd probably take one look at their track record and go, "Nope, IP's it is. I don't trust you without them."

I know we (rightfully) rag on the suits for their synergy craze, but when was the last time WDI actually stepped up to the plate when they were given the opportunity and hit a genuine home run in the stateside parks? The first thing that comes to mind is Everest, but when your signature E-Ticket has been missing its most marketable and impressive feature since shortly after it opened, you tend to lose points, and even that was 10 years ago.

I would love to see Epcot's glory days restored, but as time goes on, the less I hate the idea of IP intrusion. It seems to be the only thing Imagineering can get right these days.
 
KikoKea

KikoKea

Well-Known Member
hpyhnt 1000 said:
My biggest problem with this version is the lack of movement. Too often, you just sort of float in front of a landmark.
All in all, still a fun ride, but not as enjoyable as its predecessor.
Click to expand...

Swooping down above the river in the original is one of my favorite parts, along with following the riders over the desert. Both made me feel like I was actually there, gliding above them.
 
disney4life2008

disney4life2008

Well-Known Member
I finally rode soarin over the world tonight. And i miss the old film. While i like the concept, it is kind of boring. Though i did enjoy seeing the backside of several elephants lol. That would have been a better smell lol. Anyway, the soarin/flight is not really there, in fact it now feels more like a imax movie than actual movement. The original had more excitement, i don't recall much of anything from the new except the elephants and lots of water. Oh yea, the wall of china was nice.
 
disney4life2008

disney4life2008

Well-Known Member
Luxe said:
I like the new version for a few reasons but I'm not sure that it captures the original version quite as well. Obviously the projection quality is incredible and truly immersive compared to the old tech. Everything is super clear and crisp, until you notice the CGI. In today's age of digital technology, I was really surprised with the quality... it didn't sell it for me. Surely they could have spent some more time creating hyper realistic graphics to match the real footage with some clever editing. Even my digitally challenged parents were able to spot the fake Taj Mahal and a few other moments.

As for the smells, I liked the grass smell but it was beyond subtle. The worst one is Fiji. It smells like an "Ocean Breeze" hand soap.

I appreciate the transitions better than the old one by using some creative cuts but why would they leave out a transition going from Fiji to the falls? Every other scene has a screen covering effect to transition except that one. Talk about jarring...

Overall I think it's an improved experience but it's far from perfect.
Click to expand...

That is what the problem is for me. Cgi! It looks fake. Whereas, the old film assuming it was real principle photography, was truly amazing the Cgi looks fake. Which i know it is but its so bad.
 
disney4life2008

disney4life2008

Well-Known Member
Coaster Lover said:
Have to agree! Each version of the ride only includes scents in maybe 3-4 of the scenes. In the first version, the three scents were very unique, very distinct, very scene appropriate, and very appealing (all scents that any "normal" person might buy for a candle). In the new version, having not read much on the scents in advance, I was almost surprised/taken aback at, what came across to me, as the smell of dirt in the Africa portion. I mean, of all of the scenes, they choose to highlight the smell of dirt (which I'm told I should believe is the smell of grass... but I dunno). On top of that, they choose two sweet scents for the other two scents which (in my opinion) are too olfactorily similar.
I mean, they had lots of other options... the smell of fresh baked bread for Paris, the smell of salty sea water Greenland, for the smell of beer/pretzels for Neuschwanstein Castle? (okay, maybe not that last one)
Click to expand...

The africa smell is the killer. As i mentioned before, they may as well did a elephant smell. In no way did it smell like grass. We have a pretty good comparison, the safari at ak. The other smells were wasted, the water smells like soap. Bring back the oranges
 
Kman101

Kman101

Well-Known Member
It's ironic that they finally do a world version that fits Epcot better and most prefer the California version. Lol. I don't mind the things that everyone complains about. But the other version was better. Just sort of a funny situation.
 
Disney4family

Disney4family

Well-Known Member
It's probably been said before on 156 pages. Heck, maybe I said it many moons ago, but I wish they would at least use one of the three theaters in Epcot to show the old one. Let people choose which one they want to see. Maybe it'll cut down on the wait time for the new one if those who favor the old just go to that one.
 
Tom Morrow

Tom Morrow

Well-Known Member
The new version has some odd choices, like overuse of CGI, the left turning camera scene, fireworks in Epcot's parking lot, etc, but most of your complaints can be summed up as "it's different from the original, which I am used to and have nostalgic feelings for."

- Curved Eiffel Tower = the Golden Gate Bridge and the naval ship did the same thing in the original.
- Less "monumental" = flying over world famous landmarks is somehow less monumental than mostly nondescript landscapes of California?
- Scene transitions = the lack of them was always a complaint about the original but now suddenly you guys regard it as some sort of film school masterpiece now that the new one has thrilling transitions (appropriate for a theme park ride and not a student's art film)
- Movevment of seats = if you think the original had more movement, you are remembering it wrong.
- "The scents smell like air freshener" = and they did before, too. (being around blossoming orange groves would actually smell like flowers, not oranges)
- "The original had more excitement/was more thrilling" = no, it absolutely did not.
 
R W B

R W B

Well-Known Member
Tom Morrow said:
The new version has some odd choices, like overuse of CGI, the left turning camera scene, fireworks in Epcot's parking lot, etc, but most of your complaints can be summed up as "it's different from the original, which I am used to and have nostalgic feelings for."

- Curved Eiffel Tower = the Golden Gate Bridge and the naval ship did the same thing in the original.
- Less "monumental" = flying over world famous landmarks is somehow less monumental than mostly nondescript landscapes of California?
- Scene transitions = the lack of them was always a complaint about the original but now suddenly you guys regard it as some sort of film school masterpiece now that the new one has thrilling transitions (appropriate for a theme park ride and not a student's art film)
- Movevment of seats = if you think the original had more movement, you are remembering it wrong.
- "The scents smell like air freshener" = and they did before, too. (being around blossoming orange groves would actually smell like flowers, not oranges)
- "The original had more excitement/was more thrilling" = no, it absolutely did not.
Click to expand...
Your last point is very subjective. I rode the new one last month and I do agree the new show has more movement but I don't think the scents are as good as before.
 
Tom Morrow

Tom Morrow

Well-Known Member
R W B said:
Your last point is very subjective. I rode the new one last month and I do agree the new show has more movement but I don't think the scents are as good as before.
Click to expand...
You're right, "more thrilling" is subjective, however, I would argue that there is more excitement in the new version with the transitions and several more drastic swooping motions than the original.
 
Mike S

Mike S

Well-Known Member
Tom Morrow said:
The new version has some odd choices, like overuse of CGI, the left turning camera scene, fireworks in Epcot's parking lot, etc, but most of your complaints can be summed up as "it's different from the original, which I am used to and have nostalgic feelings for."

- Curved Eiffel Tower = the Golden Gate Bridge and the naval ship did the same thing in the original.
- Less "monumental" = flying over world famous landmarks is somehow less monumental than mostly nondescript landscapes of California?
- Scene transitions = the lack of them was always a complaint about the original but now suddenly you guys regard it as some sort of film school masterpiece now that the new one has thrilling transitions (appropriate for a theme park ride and not a student's art film)
- Movevment of seats = if you think the original had more movement, you are remembering it wrong.
- "The scents smell like air freshener" = and they did before, too. (being around blossoming orange groves would actually smell like flowers, not oranges)
- "The original had more excitement/was more thrilling" = no, it absolutely did not.
Click to expand...
For me it's the flow and the music. Also the CGI. The Eiffel Tower scene is also weird to me because gliders can't move completely vertical. They can only move forward, right?
 

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

Back
Top Bottom