Soarin' Expansion and new Soarin' Around the World film

[TP2000]

Anybody familiar with the geography would have recognized many of the places as being specifically in California. The name is also not the only place where the California connection is made obvious. The queue video features the names of various California locales featured in the film before the spieling starts.

True.

But I've always assumed that they chopped the name to "Soarin'" for the Epcot clone because the Imagineers thought they might get the funding to create a new movie just for Epcot after the 50th Anniversary was over in 2006. But now it's a decade later and they are still showing Soarin' Over California, with no new movie coming through at least 2016.

Interestingly, WDI filmed all new flyover segments of the Disneyland Resort a couple years ago. And now Soarin' Over California at DCA is undergoing a major five month closure, retheme, and upgrade to digital 4K format. I can't imagine they'd rub salt in the wound at Epcot and slap the new grand finale' of flying over DCA and Disneyland.

The original Soarin' grand finale scene was filmed at Disneyland in December, 1999, before California Adventure even existed, much less had a 1.2 Billion Dollar expansion adding Cars Land, Buena Vista Street, World of Color, etc. When the new grand finale' is grafted onto Soarin', there must be a new ending for Epcot's version as well.

 

[TP2000]

I live 1 minute from the Blue Ridge Parkway and you're trying to tell me it's flat and boring there?

It's lovely. I did that drive a couple times in the 1990's. Truly lovely. But it's just gently rolling hills, and I don't think it could give the same sense of grandeur on a 20 second movie clip as soaring over Yosemite or the Golden Gate.

If WDI ever does a Soarin' film about the American East Coast, it's going to need to focus on man-made wonders like the great cities and federal monuments, with occasional shots of gentle hills and broad beaches. Most of the topography just doesn't lend itself to stunning aerial vistas, unfortunately.

There's a lot of Americans who are used to 10,000-15,000+ foot mountains framing their every view. Here's an amateur shot taken by someone riding Mickey's Fun Wheel, showing the Soarin' Over California hangar and various Disneyland rides framed by the San Gabriel Mountains just north of Los Angeles. This is a very minor, rather ignored, and rather bland West Coast mountain range. The 1,000-2,000 foot hills in the mid-ground of the shot are just suburbs, and not even worth a name.

Just to give you a point of reference for what audiences disembarking Soarin' in Anaheim are used to seeing daily....

FYI - The snow capped mountain down in front is the Matterhorn. Walt had that one built himself in 1959. The other mountains in the background are older.

 

[Mike S]

True.

But I've always assumed that they chopped the name to "Soarin'" for the Epcot clone because the Imagineers thought they might get the funding to create a new movie just for Epcot after the 50th Anniversary was over in 2006. But now it's a decade later and they are still showing Soarin' Over California, with no new movie coming through at least 2016.

Interestingly, WDI filmed all new flyover segments of the Disneyland Resort a couple years ago. And now Soarin' Over California at DCA is undergoing a major five month closure, retheme, and upgrade to digital 4K format. I can't imagine they'd rub salt in the wound at Epcot and slap the new grand finale' of flying over DCA and Disneyland.

The original Soarin' grand finale scene was filmed at Disneyland in December, 1999, before California Adventure even existed, much less had a 1.2 Billion Dollar expansion adding Cars Land, Buena Vista Street, World of Color, etc. When the new grand finale' is grafted onto Soarin', there must be a new ending for Epcot's version as well.

They did film over WDW too recently. Hmmmmmmmm.............

 

[TP2000]

They did film over WDW too recently. Hmmmmmmmm.............

Oh? That's good!

Now the question becomes.... Do they graft these updated finale shots on to the end of Soarin' when they do the digital conversion? Or do we have to wait for all-new movies to be introduced? Soarin' at DCA reopens May 15th, so perhaps the updated finale could be edited on for the 60th Anniversary celebration that starts May 22nd.

But when Epcot undergoes it's digital conversion rehab in 2016, how do they make the jump from California to a finale that flies over WDW I wonder? Maybe the new WDW finale' for Epcot does have to wait until some sort of new film, Soarin' The World, debuts at Epcot?

I bet there's a lot of strategizing over this at Imagineering and TDO!

 

[DisneyCane]

True.
And now Soarin' Over California at DCA is undergoing a major five month closure, retheme, and upgrade to digital 4K format.

Other than the removal of dust (which I still don't understand why they have it now since normal IMAX film doesn't have the issue), changing from IMAX 70mm film to digital 4k is not an upgrade. IMAX 70mm is equivalent to at least 12k digital and film has MUCH better contrast than all non-laser digital projection technologies. I don't believe they did laser projectors at DCA, but I'm not positive.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Sacramento is flat, but not nearly as boring as Fresno. Not surprisingly, Sacramento and Fresno were left off the flight path for Soarin' Over California.

Those types of small, inland, river cities are truly the boring armpit of California. And were rightly ignored by the Imagineers developing Soarin'. Who cares about a mundane and unattractive locale like Sacramento?

Sacramento - Keep Driving, you're only 90 minutes from San Francisco!

I lived in Massachusetts for a number of years, and travelled extensively throughout the New England states. With the exception of a small area in New Hampshire, New England just seems "hilly" in spots rather than mountainous. From my years living around DC and the Carolinas, the inland hills get even more gentle the further down the East Coast you get, until they disappear entirely around the Carolina border. Lovely people though, and endlessly interesting diversity in local accents and cuisine from Savannah to Boston.

I can understand, however, how the folks who have only seen the East Coast would think their local hilly region were "mountains".

But California is really the only state you could make a 4 minute movie about for a theme park ride and impress riders with the natural sights, vistas and topography. The wild popularity of the attraction at Epcot proves that, and on behalf of Californians I say "You're Welcome!"

Yeah, and my point was that although California may have a number of those things condensed in one area and they may have designed the ride BECAUSE it was in California does not mean that those things don't exist in one or more of the 49 other states in the union. Arizona has some of the same desert scenes, Colorado makes Cali mountains look like ant hills, even in New England it was believed that those "hills" as you call them were huge until centuries of erosion wore them down and rounded them off. Still a pretty active ski business though. There is coastline all up and down the east coast and even a considerable amount above California. There are rivers and rapids in all of the states of the union. Military Sea Ports? Ever heard of Norfolk, VA. Golf courses... I think there are a few around. Big Cities... would New York qualify? As I said, the Golden Gate and Disneyland are unique to California and since once in a while it seems like Cali does belong to the union they would also be included.

There is nothing in the film, in the Florida show that positively identifies what you are seeing is just California unless you know that ahead of time. The fact of the matter is that except for a few people the exact terrain of California is not obvious. It works if people would just stop explaining that it's all California, others just wouldn't know. It really is representative of so many places within this country. Don't get me wrong, I think that there needs to be a new one done. There are so many other things in the country to see that are marvels. The Grand Canyon, Yellowstone Park, Pikes Peak, The Great Lakes, The Rocky Coast of Maine, The Everglades, Mount Rushmore, just to name a few. I want to see it as a whole country scene, but, in the meantime, without having to change anything, the current one does represent a certain cross section of what there is out there. And believe me not everyone knows that what they are seeing is just California. We do because we are Disney Fans, but, the rest of the world is not that intense when it comes to stuff like that.

 

[FutureWorld1982]

I don't blame all those East Coasters and Midwesterners one bit who scramble for Fastpasses and wait for hours for the chance to fly over California for a few minutes. Plus, the grand finale' of the attraction is Walt Disney's Magic Kingdom of Disneyland! How can you top that?!?

I see Soarin' every day I go to work. I rode the actual ride a maximum of ten times (extremely overrated, by the way). That said, you can count me among those who CAN'T WAIT to see the film changed. I would love to see France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Egypt, China, South America, and more different countries from the air! I am counting down the days until we get Soarin' Over the World.

 

[Californian Elitist]

The way I see it. It is known as Soarin over California in California and it is about the place and in a park called California Adventure. Either by design or lucky happening, just by dropping the California reference when it got to Florida, it then easily became a cross section of things that might be seen from many areas within the country. California has a lot of it bunched up in one place, but, spread out across the nation you will find those same scenes, sans the Golden Gate and Disneyland. If people didn't get all bent out of shape about the California connection with the film, it would have stood on it's own. If the original hadn't been named Soarin over Cali, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Cali is a city in Colombia.

In regards to the state called California and Soarin' Over California, while I do agree with you that some scenes aren't too obvious, the Golden Gate Bridge and Disneyland aren't the only ones that are. You can clearly see Half Dome in the Yosemite scene, something not seen in other national parks and is famous for being in Yosemite. There's a shot of Downtown San Diego in the naval base scene. Napa Valley has a pretty distinct look to me, not to mention Downtown Los Angeles.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Anybody that is familiar with California geography sure. Do you have a head count on what percentage of the US or Foreign population has that familiarity? Pre-show Video's are not only not taken seriously, it is usually not even heard because everyone is talking about what they want to do next, whether it be the golf ball or fast track!

Designing for an ignorant audience never results in a good product.

Oh? That's good!

Now the question becomes.... Do they graft these updated finale shots on to the end of Soarin' when they do the digital conversion? Or do we have to wait for all-new movies to be introduced? Soarin' at DCA reopens May 15th, so perhaps the updated finale could be edited on for the 60th Anniversary celebration that starts May 22nd.

But when Epcot undergoes it's digital conversion rehab in 2016, how do they make the jump from California to a finale that flies over WDW I wonder? Maybe the new WDW finale' for Epcot does have to wait until some sort of new film, Soarin' The World, debuts at Epcot?

I bet there's a lot of strategizing over this at Imagineering and TDO!

The new footage, even the new Disneyland Resort stuff, is all for the new film that must first debut at Shanghai Disneyland.

Other than the removal of dust (which I still don't understand why they have it now since normal IMAX film doesn't have the issue), changing from IMAX 70mm film to digital 4k is not an upgrade. IMAX 70mm is equivalent to at least 12k digital and film has MUCH better contrast than all non-laser digital projection technologies. I don't believe they did laser projectors at DCA, but I'm not positive.

The single IMAX 70mm projector will in all likelihood NOT be replaced by a single digital 4k projector but multiple, synchronized 4k projectors.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Designing for an ignorant audience never results in a good product.

I'm not sure what you are saying, but, it sounds pretty elitist to me. And why, wouldn't it be good considering the vast majority of the population is way to busy trying to feed themselves to worry about what California looks like. I'm also sure that attractions like Small World were not exactly designed with genius level in mind. That did pretty well.

In order to understand the ride one has to consider what the focus is. It has nothing to do with the scenery that you are looking at or the location of that scenery. The focus is that you are suspended over that scenery in a glider. The background needs to be attractive, I'm not sure that intelligence or ignorance has different definitions of what looks nice or that it matters, at that point, where that is located. Actually one of the most important parts of the success is to not have big globs of lint running loose on the film taking away the "imagined" reality of it all. Fortunately on the first run through, those little globs actually resemble birds in flight across the screen, so I guess it was designed for the visually impaired.

Not to mention that if you don't include the ignorant you are going to have a very small group interested in it. This country isn't exactly overloaded with reasonable intelligence.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'm not sure what you are saying, but, it sounds pretty elitist to me. And why, wouldn't it be good considering the vast majority of the population is way to busy trying to feed themselves to worry about what California looks like. I'm also sure that attractions like Small World were not exactly designed with genius level in mind. That did pretty well.

In order to understand the ride one has to consider what the focus is. It has nothing to do with the scenery that you are looking at or the location of that scenery. The focus is that you are suspended over that scenery in a glider. The background needs to be attractive, I'm not sure that intelligence or ignorance has different definitions of what looks nice or that it matters, at that point, where that is located. Actually one of the most important parts of the success is to not have big globs of lint running loose on the film taking away the "imagined" reality of it all. Fortunately on the first run through, those little globs actually resemble birds in flight across the screen, so I guess it was designed for the visually impaired.

Not to mention that if you don't include the ignorant you are going to have a very small group interested in it. This country isn't exactly overloaded with reasonable intelligence.

Talk about completely missing the point. Ever see a movie that is acceptable for young kids to watch but is not a preschool television program?

 

[maxairmike]

I'm not sure what you are saying, but, it sounds pretty elitist to me. And why, wouldn't it be good considering the vast majority of the population is way to busy trying to feed themselves to worry about what California looks like. I'm also sure that attractions like Small World were not exactly designed with genius level in mind. That did pretty well.

In order to understand the ride one has to consider what the focus is. It has nothing to do with the scenery that you are looking at or the location of that scenery. The focus is that you are suspended over that scenery in a glider. The background needs to be attractive, I'm not sure that intelligence or ignorance has different definitions of what looks nice or that it matters, at that point, where that is located. Actually one of the most important parts of the success is to not have big globs of lint running loose on the film taking away the "imagined" reality of it all. Fortunately on the first run through, those little globs actually resemble birds in flight across the screen, so I guess it was designed for the visually impaired.

Not to mention that if you don't include the ignorant you are going to have a very small group interested in it. This country isn't exactly overloaded with reasonable intelligence.

Designing for an ignorant audience means you're talking down to them, and it really creates a dull experience for everyone. Small World wasn't designed for an ignorant audience, it is simply...simple. There is a definite difference between the two. It really isn't much different than the issue of the details and little things that many constantly bemoan disappearing. Even though a guest may not be able to tell you what has changed/is missing, or that anything has, they'll perceive it and it will affect their experience.

ETA: While I understand what you were saying and can somewhat agree, the suggestion does indicate "designing for an ignorant audience." That, of course, is a Bad Idea™.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Talk about completely missing the point. Ever see a movie that is acceptable for young kids to watch but is not a preschool television program?

I guess you will have to tell me what the point is then. I'm talking about a movie in a theme park attraction that must be acceptable to everyone and you are talking about children's movies. Are you saying that Soarin is targeted for children and not the normal person without your superior intellect? Apparently, I'm one of those "ignorant" people that you are referring too, because in that case, your right, I am missing the point.

In my opinion, unless the purpose of Soarin is to sell people on California, as in a travel promotion, then there is nothing wrong with it as it is. Why? Because unless your in California, it has no significance to either the point or the enjoyment of the show. I know of no one that has gone to that attraction because they just couldn't get enough of the scenic views of California. They have gone because of the ride itself, it could be over a junk yard. Wouldn't be as pleasant to look at, but, the ride would still be basically the same. It's a combination of the two, a fun ride with nice scenery. It doesn't require a 200 IQ to be enjoyable. Everything in our culture is targeted to the lowest common denominator, especially in the entertainment field. That's the only way to insure its success. Not to many Rhodes Scholars were seen leaving Frozen. That is the business that they are in.

 

[RSoxNo1]

One of the points of Epcot (or was) is to see things you don't know about.

I think WDW should tie in soarin with the world showcase by making a film show some parts of each country in the showcase. If nothing else it shouldn't be a film retread from another park.

Doesn't matter to me I may never be back to Epcot so????

Agreed, I think thematically it could have an entry point to the queue in Showcase Plaza instead of the land.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I guess you will have to tell me what the point is then. I'm talking about a movie in a theme park attraction that must be acceptable to everyone and you are talking about children's movies. Are you saying that Soarin is targeted for children and not the normal person without your superior intellect? Apparently, I'm one of those "ignorant" people that you are referring too, because in that case, your right, I am missing the point.

In my opinion, unless the purpose of Soarin is to sell people on California, as in a travel promotion, then there is nothing wrong with it as it is. Why? Because unless your in California, it has no significance to either the point or the enjoyment of the show. I know of no one that has gone to that attraction because they just couldn't get enough of the scenic views of California. They have gone because of the ride itself, it could be over a junk yard. Wouldn't be a pleasant to look at, but, the ride would still be basically the same. It's a combination of the two, a fun ride with nice scenery. It doesn't require a 200 IQ to be enjoyable. Everything in our culture is targeted to the lowest common denominator, especially in the entertainment field. That's the only way to insure its success. Not to many Rhodes Scholars were seen leaving Frozen. That is the business that they are in.

I'm saying that just because something is accessible to a group doesn't mean it is aimed only at that group. Assuming the audience is only ignorant and appealing only to the ignorant never generates good design. Never. That is a basic principle of the long established and celebrated Disney philosophy. A detail is not an Imagineer's birthday, but something only a person with knowledge of the subject would recognize. Most people couldn't explain the rules of Victorian architecture, but that wasn't taken as a license to build a strip mall with superficial trim as is so commonly seen. In the case of Soarin' it means not lying and pretending it is places other than California.

Soarin' Over California is all about the scenery. The initial idea was a travelogue following in the footsteps of previous Disney travelogue films that had been expanded on by others with the IMAX format. The ride gimmick came later. The ride also doesn't really have a whole lot of ride to it either. Vekoma's Panoramic Flight Simulator, which offers far more of a ride, hasn't been a huge seller because the huge expense in such an attraction is not the ride systems but the actual footage of the scenery that you dismiss.

 

[TP2000]

The new footage, even the new Disneyland Resort stuff, is all for the new film that must first debut at Shanghai Disneyland.

Ah, yes. It's coming back to me now, and this very topic was covered in a Miceage Update last year.

Still, I would think when they reopen Soarin' Over California at DCA in May with the 4K digital format, they could just slot in a new 20 second finale' using the new DLR footage they took a year or two ago. The rest can stay the same, although the San Diego skyline now looks pretty different than it did in 1999, and that stretch of downtown LA along the Harbor Freeway also looks different with new skyscrapers and such.

 

[TP2000]

Talk about completely missing the point. Ever see a movie that is acceptable for young kids to watch but is not a preschool television program?

This little quote springs to mind...

"You're dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway." -Walt Disney

 

[DisneyCane]

The single IMAX 70mm projector will in all likelihood NOT be replaced by a single digital 4k projector but multiple, synchronized 4k projectors.

They do this for brightness. It doesn't improve resolution or contrast. The projectors are overlapped, not tiled. It cuts down the "screen door effect" somewhat because they slightly offset the projectors to fill the space between pixels.

 

[lazyboy97o]

They do this for brightness. It doesn't improve resolution or contrast. The projectors are overlapped, not tiled. It cuts down the "screen door effect" somewhat because they slightly offset the projectors to fill the space between pixels.

They can be tiled. It is what was done for The Simpsons Ride.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I'm saying that just because something is accessible to a group doesn't mean it is aimed only at that group. Assuming the audience is only ignorant and appealing only to the ignorant never generates good design. Never. That is a basic principle of the long established and celebrated Disney philosophy. A detail is not an Imagineer's birthday, but something only a person with knowledge of the subject would recognize. Most people couldn't explain the rules of Victorian architecture, but that wasn't taken as a license to build a strip mall with superficial trim as is so commonly seen. In the case of Soarin' it means not lying and pretending it is places other than California.

Soarin' Over California is all about the scenery. The initial idea was a travelogue following in the footsteps of previous Disney travelogue films that had been expanded on by others with the IMAX format. The ride gimmick came later. The ride also doesn't really have a whole lot of ride to it either. Vekoma's Panoramic Flight Simulator, which offers far more of a ride, hasn't been a huge seller because the huge expense in such an attraction is not the ride systems but the actual footage of the scenery that you dismiss.

I understand that completely, but, there are exceptions to every rule. Disney never once said it wasn't California. Why? Because, in Florida, the fact that it was in California is not relevant to the ride. California isn't what it is all about. It is a plus factor shown in California, but, means nothing when shown elsewhere. It doesn't insult the intelligence of anyone because they would, like we do, know it's California. It is not the focus of the ride in WDW. "I would love to know were that is so that next year instead of coming to WDW, we should go there" has been said by no one.

That's especially true in the entertainment industry. Most everything on film originates from California. It's no longer a point of interest. In California it fits because of local interest. In Florida it represents anyplace on the planet really. All it says by pushing the California connection to the rest of the nation and the world is no other place on the planet is worthy of being shown here. Everything else is trash. It has no local significance at all, it is neutral to everyone except someone from California and they already know where it is located.

What it is, is a fun ride with beautiful scenery. It matters not one iota where that scenery is located. There is no personal interest to anyone outside of California, unless, like I stated, the purpose is to promote California tourism. In this case, in my opinion, they made the smart decision that by blatently identifying it was not in the best interest of the ride in general. It would serve no purpose at all.