Heppenheimer
Well-Known Member
18% of the world's population, perhaps that's why?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Soarin Over the World, percentage of CGI?
- Thread starter ChrisFL
- Start date
I don't think it is a matter of not thinking they are worthy, it probably has more to do with whether they can get permission to film something like the Taj Mahal without jumping through too many hoops. And then assuming you get that permission you would have to hope that the weather was how you wanted it and everything looked right... So at the end of the day someone probably said why waste time trying to the real thing when we can throw in a CGI version that for a large segment of the viewers will not be noticed as being fake. Most likely if you were familiar with the Taj Mahal you would notice very quickly it didn't look quite right but if you had never seen it before you might never notice it at all.
As for other things, how many days, weeks or months would you need to be flying a drone over the ocean in the hopes of getting a shot of a whale surfacing at just the right angle in just the right light... sometimes common sense says you are better off faking it.
HongKongFu
Well-Known Member
We don't need a whale shot; we don't a dust throwing elephant either. And we don't even need the Taj......there are countless other sufficiently magnificent sights around the globe ready to go without the need for embellishments.
Queen of the WDW Scene
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Its well known that most if not all of Soarin' Around The World is CGI.
I'm not sure why it bothers people so much.
Your precious movies have tons and tons of CGI in them.
I'm not sure why it bothers people so much.
Your precious movies have tons and tons of CGI in them.
Have a gander at this table.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
And there were 5 others they could have chosen from instead of having to do a CGI Taj.
donaldtoo
Well-Known Member
From one of my Disney Imagineering books...
This is one of the setups used by Disney to film “Wonders of China”...no digital and no CGI available at the time, so I’m pretty sure this is how they had to do it...
This is the setup Disney claims they used for more than a year to film the new “Soarin’” show...
Below is an excerpt from a D23 article regarding such...what’s the truth...?!?!?!
https://d23.com/the-technology-of-soarin-over-the-world/
This is one of the setups used by Disney to film “Wonders of China”...no digital and no CGI available at the time, so I’m pretty sure this is how they had to do it...
This is the setup Disney claims they used for more than a year to film the new “Soarin’” show...
Below is an excerpt from a D23 article regarding such...what’s the truth...?!?!?!
https://d23.com/the-technology-of-soarin-over-the-world/
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The truth of what? Nobody is claiming that there is no actual footage. The problem is that too much of the attraction focuses on animated additions that look like animated additions.
donaldtoo
Well-Known Member
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Soarin around the world has more CGI enhancement that the original version, but most of the scenes are not CGI.
WDW Monorail
Well-Known Member
Time and time again you are one of the handful of reasonable and intelligent posters on this site.
Queen of the WDW Scene
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
I disagree but my point seems to be lost.
My point is that so many people are bothered by the CGI when in reality it's just that it's not the old Soarin' which had CGI elements as well mind you.
How much CGI is in FOP? Isnt that attraction the new standard for what a ride should be? So it makes no sense for people to complain about how much CGI is in the new Soarin'.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
You disagree with fact? Flight of a Passage is not a travelogue. Context and quality are the issue.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
I don't want to do a scene by scene breakdown, but the new one clearly has far more CGI then the previous one.
Personally, the only CGI that bothers me is the Taj stands out as CGI to me. It bothers me because the whole point of the ride is to show you the worlds great land marks, so there should be no reason to re-create them in CGI when the real thing can be filmed. FOP is totally different since it's a fictional world, there is nothing they can actually film.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
It's been well established that the Taj Scene was done with CGI because they were not permitted to do a flyover of it.
The discussion is happening, because this is a Disney fan site, so it makes sense that people will analyze every detail of what Disney does. If you just want to hear positive things about Disney, there may be message boards on other sites that you would like better then this one.
Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
It's not most, but it's a significant amount. The real scenes are also filled with visual enhancements such as intense color saturation which gives them a fake look whereas the footage in the original film was relatively untouched. The ride is supposed to be about showcasing the natural real beauty of the world, not fake recreations of it. That's the whole point, and the reason it isn't a thrill ride.
I used to be in favor of the new film but after recently comparing them back to back again, and the "newness" of the new film having worn off, I now prefer the old version. It accomplished the mission of the ride to a greater effect for several reasons, not just limited to the lack of CGI:
- In the original, the camera mimicked the flight of hang gliders much more realistically. You were constantly diving or ascending and seeing the horizon tilt as you turned left and right. The speed of the camera was also more dynamic and more closely resembled realistic hang glider flight. In the new version, you are almost always going the same speed and almost always in a straight line. The shots run together by having the same approach to the majority of them. It feels like very controlled drone footage. Compare both of them back to back on YouTube and all of this is pretty noticeable.*
- The musical score of the original was one cohesive piece, the new one is segmented into themed sections.
- The transitions - I'm in favor of them over the straight cuts of the original, but almost every one attempts to startle you on a ride that is supposed to be relaxing and soothing.
* The one exception is the original's LA flyover scene, which is sped up, wobbly, and looks terrible and should never have been used.
I don't hate the new version but I wish we were given a choice of which one to experience or that the original would periodically return to Epcot.
Last edited:
Heppenheimer
Well-Known Member
A flight simulator at an amusement park shows things that aren't real. Internet breaks. News at 10.
Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
A flight simulator that's entire purpose is showing you real landscapes.
We don't need to even go to Disney or have the ride if you want to talk about what is needed. That isn't really the question to begin with, the simple fact is the imagineers had a vision for what they WANTED in Soarin' ... so they did what it took to make their vision come true. You have to remember the ride isn't about just going out and getting shots that happen to be easy to come by or interesting to you they are supposed to be what the imagineers imagined and wanted for the ride.