Soarin' Expansion and new Soarin' Around the World film

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
It's going to take time to replace the projection system and reprogram the ride to the new film, not to mention how they plan to connect the new building with the existing one. Don't expect it to happen over night, and some Guests may be in for a big disappointment at the beginning of the year if they do it the way I've heard they will do it. I'm just not sure how the park will be able to take it.
Actually it is fairly simple and might just happen overnight or two nights tops. They are going to build the new theater right up to the wall that you face as you get ready to go to the current theaters. They will have the inside completely done and then just knock a hole in that wall as the entrance and do some dressing up of the connection and done. They probably will not use the new film until all the theaters have been upgraded projection wise. Then they will have to close it briefly to synchronize and set up the new film. That shouldn't be a huge time... maybe a month tops.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
It's not a case of not noticing it.

It's more a case of accepting it is there.
People cannot intentionally not notice it if they never knew it was there to begin with. It isn't noticeable for most because it is a color that can blend in with the sky and unless we have a reason to see it we don't. It's a fake horizon (not related to the now dead attraction). That isn't and never should be our focus. They knew that when they built it and it is an optical trick that still works from ages back.

What proves that point is that so many of us that complained and whined and bitched about it while it was being built can go to Epcot and never even once visually and consciously notice that it is there. Think about this crowd... if it were showing up like neon there would be an entire special category to register the complaints. If someone like an old Imagineer came on and explained that it is an intentional optical illusion, like the party room in HM, all of you folks would just fall all over yourselves in an effort explain how clever it was to do it that way.

That said, they could, I think, plant trees in front of it (if they haven't already) and over time the trees would hide the exterior just like they did with Haunted Mansion. Of course, depending on the angles and such, a hurricane, which has been known to happen in Florida from time to time, could wipe them all out and do other damage if the wind flow between the buildings is just right. I think that the way that the topographical area where Canada is elevated already would make that much more difficult also with the line of site being longer it is also less able to easily hide in the background. Considering all those things, I think it is amazing that it works to hide itself as much as it does. Even HM can be seen from some angle that has some distance and visual range.

hauntedmansionplan-500x493.jpg
 
Last edited:

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member
Look into the design of the Canada pavilions mountain range to see why simply planting trees wouldn't work.

Oh, by the way, we took two first timers last year. We Didn't mention it. They asked "what's that big blue building behind that country" when we got to Germany. Kind of shatters your idea of not noticing it until told.
 

Jahona

Well-Known Member
Yeah, I am really interested to hear who is composing it.

Is there going to be a new score or are they going to edit to the original score?
Jerry Goldsmith is going to be extremely hard to replace. I would love for John Williams but that is as likely as me winning the lotto. Michael Giacchino might not be a bad choice either.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
People cannot intentionally not notice it if they never knew it was there to begin with. It isn't noticeable for most because it is a color that can blend in with the sky and unless we have a reason to see it we don't. It's a fake horizon (not related to the now dead attraction). That isn't and never should be our focus. They knew that when they built it and it is an optical trick that still works from ages back.

What proves that point is that so many of us that complained and whined and bitched about it while it was being built can go to Epcot and never even once visually and consciously notice that it is there. Think about this crowd... if it were showing up like neon there would be an entire special category to register the complaints. If someone like an old Imagineer came on and explained that it is an intentional optical illusion, like the party room in HM, all of you folks would just fall all over yourselves in an effort explain how clever it was to do it that way.

That said, they could, I think, plant trees in front of it (if they haven't already) and over time the trees would hide the exterior just like they did with Haunted Mansion. Of course, depending on the angles and such, a hurricane, which has been known to happen in Florida from time to time, could wipe them all out and do other damage if the wind flow between the buildings is just right. I think that the way that the topographical area where Canada is elevated already would make that much more difficult also with the line of site being longer it is also less able to easily hide in the background. Considering all those things, I think it is amazing that it works to hide itself as much as it does. Even HM can be seen from some angle that has some distance and visual range.

View attachment 107048
There is no trick or illusion. It's a hope for the best with blue paint. The show building sticks up about 80', that is not going to be hidden by some imaginary trees. If this "illusion" worked as well as you claim the expense of sinking the attraction into the ground would have been avoided in California.
 
Last edited:

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
There is no trick or illusion. It's a hope for the best with blue paint. The show building sticks up about 80', that is not going to be hidden by some imaginary trees. If this "illusion" worked as well as you claim the expense of sinking the attraction into the ground would have been avoided in California.
Think about it. You could sink it into the ground in California. If they sunk it into the ground in Florida it would be a boat ride.
In spite of your decision to not believe it... it works as well as anything else might due to it's location. Me, I'm going to enjoy the ride and you can grow ulcers worrying about the fact that occasionally it gets noticed. Life's too short to worry about everything.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Think about it. You could sink it into the ground in California. If they sunk it into the ground in Florida it would be a boat ride.
In spite of your decision to not believe it... it works as well as anything else might due to it's location. Me, I'm going to enjoy the ride and you can grow ulcers worrying about the fact that occasionally it gets noticed. Life's too short to worry about everything.
Paint is always going to be cheaper than excavation. If it worked so well the added expense in California would have been avoided.
 

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member
Think about it. You could sink it into the ground in California. If they sunk it into the ground in Florida it would be a boat ride.
In spite of your decision to not believe it... it works as well as anything else might due to it's location. Me, I'm going to enjoy the ride and you can grow ulcers worrying about the fact that occasionally it gets noticed. Life's too short to worry about everything.
I suppose they could have coated it in rock work, but the cost-benefit ratio there would be a hard sell.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Paint is always going to be cheaper than excavation. If it worked so well the added expense in California would have been avoided.
Whatever! Keep denying reality. I'm afraid the it is only blue paint, but it is a very effective blue paint and it doesn't stand out like a flashing light, so, it is indeed an optical illusion whether you care to acknowledge it or not.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Oh whilst in park.

After that I showed them how the HTH was designed to blend with Morocco.
I never said it wasn't visible nor did I say that no one ever noticed it. It depends a lot on time of day, direction of the sun, whether or not the sky is overcast. Many things affect that, but, in spite of it being a humongous building it goes unnoticed for the majority of the people. That is all that can be expected considering the size, location and topography of the area. If they could build an attraction in the middle of the lagoon that blocked that view, much like what happens in the rest of the parks, it would be hidden. It's the same argument that happened here concerning the archway that framed SSE from the other side of the lagoon. Trees grew up and blocked that intentional placement according to the complainers. Yet, you could have put a framing object anyplace along that side of the lagoon and if you looked through it toward SSE you would have the same view. It was not an intended framing, just a coincidental one that would have happened no matter where along the lagoon it was placed.

I don't ever argue that if Disney lets an obvious thing stop working and doesn't fix it that they shouldn't be called out on it. They certainly should be called on it. But, when people refuse to accept the realities of the world we live in and expect that reality will never interfere with the ability to do that perfectly, then I get upset. I was just told that the building was 80 feet high. there is no way to cover it up better then to attempt to blend it in with the horizon. It may be blue paint, but, it is specially chosen blue paint that was supposed to make that blending happen and for the most part it does. Remember that no other park has an almost 1/2 mile unobstructed view across the lagoon. What everyone is asking is totally unnecessary and unreasonable to asks for. I always hate to say this, but, it is indeed, the epitome of a First World Problem and as as such deserves the lack of credibility that it gets.
 

Marlins1

Well-Known Member
Does anyone have a drawing of the interior layout of Soarin' including the queue? I get turned around in there and I'm having a hard time picturing where the line will break off for the third theatre.
 

Haymarket2008

Well-Known Member
I enjoy the score more than I do the attraction, to be honest. I sincerely hope they don't get rid of it. Just reorchestrate it to fit the different locales/styles. It's a new modern classic Disney composition. Don't screw this up!
 

DisneyRoy

Well-Known Member
Does anyone have a drawing of the interior layout of Soarin' including the queue? I get turned around in there and I'm having a hard time picturing where the line will break off for the third theatre.

I don't have a drawing but it's my understanding that the queue would continue where it currently splits. Instead of splitting in two like it does, there would be third leg where you go straight ahead for the new theater.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
I don't have a drawing but it's my understanding that the queue would continue where it currently splits. Instead of splitting in two like it does, there would be third leg where you go straight ahead for the new theater.
That is correct. Now when you get to the ride part, you go to the left or to the right to actually get in the "your next" numbered queue. When completed, at that point, you will be directed to the left or to the right or straight ahead.
 

Next Big Thing

Well-Known Member
Look into the design of the Canada pavilions mountain range to see why simply planting trees wouldn't work.

Oh, by the way, we took two first timers last year. We Didn't mention it. They asked "what's that big blue building behind that country" when we got to Germany. Kind of shatters your idea of not noticing it until told.
I don't want to say that you're wrong about people not noticing it, but simply because you went with people who did means very little and is incredibly unscientific.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom