Soarin Over the World, percentage of CGI?

[Demarke]

Off the top of my head

World CGI:
Polar Bears
Whales
Africa
Elephants
Taj Majal
Any and all Transitions
Great Wall of China is edited from filmed footage to look cleaner and remove people
Paris
Fireworks

Original film CGI:
Golf Ball
Hang Glider in Yosemite
Tinkerbell
Fireworks

The CGI doesn’t really bother me all that much, but I also never got to ride the original.

To add to the list though, I don’t think anyone has mentioned the balloons. The hidden Mickey lining up seems way too perfect to not be CGI.

 

[Yert3]

My eyes are seeing it differently, which is why I asked! I can believe they neatened up the scene, removing the crowds one would expect to find there, but the pyramids themselves look real to me.

Someone upthread said the Eiffel Tower was clearly fake, but is that another guess?

Yeah, from what I’ve heard, Paris is CGI as well, but it looks decent. Probably because it’s at night.

 

[Rosanne]

I think it's pretty well known that the whole Taj Mahal scene is CGI and possibly others are as well. Anyone know more about which parts are CGI?

I know a lot of the animals like the elephants, killer whale, etc. either had to be CGI or added separately. The hot air balloons probably as well.

I dont care how they do it. I LOVE Soaring. Most of the movies made today are computer generated. So what? It's all about good entertainment.

 

[OG Runner]

I dont care how they do it. I LOVE Soaring. Most of the movies made today are computer generated. So what? It's all about good entertainment.

I was going to state the same thing. Soaring is a great ride. Are you really riding the ride and suddenly not enjoying it because
there may or may not be a CGI animal or item in frame. Though I am sure the fireworks are absolutely real.

 

[TotallyBiased]

I was going to state the same thing. Soaring is a great ride. Are you really riding the ride and suddenly not enjoying it because
there may or may not be a CGI animal or item in frame. Though I am sure the fireworks are absolutely real.

A little actually, yeah. It's an attraction that is focused on an immersive visual experience of the world. The wife loves it regardless. I felt like it was a cop out. The old "Good enough" mentality I suppose. It's an interesting attraction regardless but didn't live up to expectation or hype for me.

 

[Oddysey]

The old one, I felt for the most part like I was experiencing a hang glider ride over California, this new one, I felt like I was watching a very good 4d movie. One took me out of my moment at times and felt like I was in another place, this one, was far more passive, I felt like I was watching a movie the whole time.

Exactly! The two versions are different experiences that provide a very different feel. As I said before, I think the new version is a good attraction. I just don’t enjoy it as much as the more natural, free flowing, and relaxing version that was the original (IMO).

 

[OG Runner]

A little actually, yeah. It's an attraction that is focused on an immersive visual experience of the world. The wife loves it regardless. I felt like it was a cop out. The old "Good enough" mentality I suppose. It's an interesting attraction regardless but didn't live up to expectation or hype for me.

Well then next time you are on the ride, (I know you are going to ride it again, even if just for your wife.), relax and remember you
are on vacation and don't let the CGI animal ruin your experience.

 

[TotallyBiased]

Well then next time you are on the ride, (I know you are going to ride it again, even if just for your wife.), relax and remember you
are on vacation and don't let the CGI animal ruin your experience.

I'm sure I will but that won't change the experience I'm afraid.

 

[JustAFan]

I still enjoy it. It's one of my favorites.

I mean this is Disney. Do we know how much of the flight scenes in Mickey's Philharmagic aren't real?

 

[Heppenheimer]

Next, you people are going to tell me that they didn't film a real witch shooting actual lightning bolts out of her hands in the old Magic Journeys film!

I'm pretty sure the toddlers in the audience crying in reaction were real, though.

 

[TotallyBiased]

No need to be condescending, I'm certainly not trying to be and you're as entitled to your opinion as everyone else is. I love CGI, but not in this application. I love CGI where it's something impossible to recreate live or where practical effects wouldn't achieve the desired impact.

High-def drone flyovers have been done more than effectively for decades, and they're absolutely breathtaking. There's entire programs built on the format and they're visual wonders. IMO, it's something that doesn't need CGI, nor does it benefit from it. 'Lazy' is a good term I'd use. If this was a flyover of Disney movie environments, (Agrabah, Pride Rock, Toy Story, etc) TOTALLY different story and expectation. Just feels cheap / lazy to me.

 

[Oddysey]

Next, you people are going to tell me that they didn't film a real witch shooting actual lightning bolts out of her hands in the old Magic Journeys film!

I'm pretty sure the toddlers in the audience crying in reaction were real, though.

I just covered my eyes as opposed to crying. Especially when the masks started getting closer and closer. It was genially scary stuff. LOL!

 

[LittleBuford]

Just feels cheap / lazy to me.

Surely the use of CGI involves more time, effort, and money than just sticking with unaltered helicopter footage.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Okay everyone attempting to be funny and clever by reminding us that rides are fake:

Soarin' is different. The entire point of original Soarin' was that the landscapes were real and not CGI-enhanced, save for the golf ball and hang glider guy and, you know, Tinkerbell. So a scene that is 100% CGI defeats the purpose of the ride. That's why it's barely a ride to begin with and almost more of a film.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Surely the use of CGI involves more time, effort, and money than just sticking with unaltered helicopter footage.

Not really. Read the article linked to earlier or find some interviews with Rick Rothschild (creative director of Soarin’ Over California, FlyOver Canada, FlyOver America and FlyOver America), a lot of work and coordination goes into getting unique permissions and meticulously planning very precise shots, sometimes only have one chance. An animated scene doesn’t require any of that work. It can be whatever.

 

[LittleBuford]

Not really. Read the article linked to earlier or find some interviews with Rick Rothschild (creative director of Soarin’ Over California, FlyOver Canada, FlyOver America and FlyOver America), a lot of work and coordination goes into getting unique permissions and meticulously planning very precise shots, sometimes only have one chance. An animated scene doesn’t require any of that work. It can be whatever.

I'm talking about the addition of details that would have been impossible to capture in real life. It would have been easier and cheaper to just leave the footage as it was rather than introduce elements like the whale jumping in front of us or the elephant spraying us with dirt. People may find the results too gimmicky and artificial, but the accusation of laziness makes little sense to me.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'm talking about the addition of details that would have been impossible to capture in real life. It would have been easier and cheaper to just leave the footage as it was rather than introduce elements like the whale jumping in front of us or the elephant spraying us with dirt. People may find the results too gimmicky and artificial, but the accusation of laziness makes little sense to me.

That’s two different scenes you are describing. If you want something happening in the scene you can either plan it out and all of the work that goes into the perfect shot or just add it in post.

 

[LittleBuford]

That’s two different scenes you are describing. If you want something happening in the scene you can either plan it out and all of the work that goes into the perfect shot or just add it in post.

I know I'm describing two different scenes. How does that undermine what I'm saying?

The details I described would be impossible to capture in real life. You can't tell a whale to jump at the precise moment you're flying over it or an elephant to spray you with earth. It seems that most people here would have preferred the scenes in question to be left without these CGI additions. That's fine. But to call the additions themselves lazy makes little sense given that they involved unnecessary time and effort.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I know I'm describing two different scenes. How does that undermine what I'm saying?

The details I described would be impossible to capture in real life. You can't tell a whale to jump at the precise moment you're flying over it or an elephant to spray you with earth. It seems that most people here would have preferred the scenes in question to be left without these CGI additions. That's fine. But to call the additions themselves lazy makes little sense given that they involved unnecessary time and effort.

Nature documentaries do capture amazing scenes of animals. It requires patience and a lot of work to finally get the shot. You don’t see how that is harder than just adding in anything? A bragging point of Soarin’ Over California was the effort made to get each shot, not how they just animated it.

 

[TotallyBiased]

Surely the use of CGI involves more time, effort, and money than just sticking with unaltered helicopter footage.

I don't have the metrics but low-quality CGI isn't all that time consuming.

I know I'm describing two different scenes. How does that undermine what I'm saying?

The details I described would be impossible to capture in real life. You can't tell a whale to jump at the precise moment you're flying over it or an elephant to spray you with earth. It seems that most people here would have preferred the scenes in question to be left without these CGI additions. That's fine. But to call the additions themselves lazy makes little sense given that they involved unnecessary time and effort.

"Record nature flyovers until we find the perfect shots? Nah, that's a lot of time and effort. Fake it. It's a ride."

That's the definition of lazy and "good enough." Feel free to like it, I don't because of the clear shortcuts. And that's ok.