Soarin Over the World, percentage of CGI?

[LittleBuford]

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.

You're missing my point. The filmmakers clearly wanted to show things beyond the scope of even the best nature documentaries. You cannot fly a camera over a herd of charging elephants and expect one to shoot earth at precisely the right moment. It's simply not possible. The use of CGI in such cases was a consequence of the aim itself, not an alternative way of achieving the same result, because such alternatives don't exist. This goes for the Taj Mahal too: once the decision was made to include it, the only way to do so was through CGI.

One can criticise the filmmakers for their creative choices. Most in the forum would clearly have preferred a more spontaneous, less souped-up approach, featuring only that which can be filmed in real life. This approach would have deprived us of the Taj or the effect of an elephant intercepting our flight, but such losses would have been gains from the perspective of the majority of posters here. I fully respect this opinion, even if I don't agree with. What I cannot respect, however, is the claim that the film is the result of laziness. It is not. Criticise it all you will, but at least be fair and accurate in what it is you're criticising.

 

[LittleBuford]

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

Some of the shots involved would not have been possible to capture in real life. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

 

[twilight mitsuk]

Another factor is avoiding collisions with the filming helicopter

 

[TotallyBiased]

Some of the shots involved would not have been possible to capture in real life. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

My point is those shots don't justify the corner cutting via CGI. I appreciate the debate but we're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[LittleBuford]

My point is those shots don't justify the corner cutting via CGI. I appreciate the debate but we're going to have to agree to disagree.

My point is that they're not cutting corners, but rather using CGI to achieve something otherwise impossible. The problem (if there is one) is with the aim itself, not the method.

But yes, I don't think the discussion is going to get anywhere.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You're missing my point. The filmmakers clearly wanted to show things beyond the scope of even the best nature documentaries. You cannot fly a camera over a herd of charging elephants and expect one to shoot earth at precisely the right moment. It's simply not possible. The use of CGI in such cases was a consequence of the aim itself, not an alternative way of achieving the same result, because such alternatives don't exist. This goes for the Taj Mahal too: once the decision was made to include it, the only way to do so was through CGI.

One can criticise the filmmakers for their creative choices. Most in the forum would clearly have preferred a more spontaneous, less souped-up approach, featuring only that which can be filmed in real life. This approach would have deprived us of the Taj or the effect of an elephant intercepting our flight, but such losses would have been gains from the perspective of the majority of posters here. I fully respect this opinion, even if I don't agree with. What I cannot respect, however, is the claim that the film is the result of laziness. It is not. Criticise it all you will, but at least be fair and accurate in what it is you're criticising.

The creative decisions are very much influenced by the amount of work required to execute them.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

You're missing my point. The filmmakers clearly wanted to show things beyond the scope of even the best nature documentaries. You cannot fly a camera over a herd of charging elephants and expect one to shoot earth at precisely the right moment. It's simply not possible. The use of CGI in such cases was a consequence of the aim itself, not an alternative way of achieving the same result, because such alternatives don't exist. This goes for the Taj Mahal too: once the decision was made to include it, the only way to do so was through CGI.

One can criticise the filmmakers for their creative choices. Most in the forum would clearly have preferred a more spontaneous, less souped-up approach, featuring only that which can be filmed in real life. This approach would have deprived us of the Taj or the effect of an elephant intercepting our flight, but such losses would have been gains from the perspective of the majority of posters here. I fully respect this opinion, even if I don't agree with. What I cannot respect, however, is the claim that the film is the result of laziness. It is not. Criticise it all you will, but at least be fair and accurate in what it is you're criticising.

I understand they wanted to include things that were impossible or at least close to impossible to actually film. What I don't understand is why they bothered filming any of it if they were just going to fake whole sequences that were too hard to film. It's a little like watching a nature documentary and realising halfway through that some entire sequences are computer animated. They may as well just do the whole thing in CGI if they're going to go that route, because you cease to be impressed by or even really appreciate the effort that went into filming it.

 

[Po'Rich]

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

I said that, but I was joking (and made a reference to the skewing that takes place when one sits on either of the sides). I really have no clue what is or is not CGI in Soaring.

 

[LittleBuford]

I understand they wanted to include things that were impossible or at least close to impossible to actually film. What I don't understand is why they bothered filming any of it if they were just going to fake whole sequences that were too hard to film. It's a little like watching a nature documentary and realising halfway through that some entire sequences are computer animated. They may as well just do the whole thing in CGI if they're going to go that route, because you cease to be impressed by or even really appreciate the effort that went into filming it.

I absolutely understand why you feel this way. Again, my issue isn't with people disliking the current film, but with the untenable idea that we're dealing with a low-grade lazy product. Whether one likes the new version or not is really a matter of personal taste rather than of quality. For you, the CGI elements are unwelcome intrusions, whereas I think they (mostly) add an enjoyable twist and make the film more engaging and interesting. The interspersing of reality with fantasy strikes me as quintessentially Disney. All in all, I consider Soarin' one of the best, most impressive rides out there, and I'm sorry that so many people (at least here in the forum) have lost their love for it with the change in film.

 

[trainplane3]

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.

That's the exact reason why I loved California. Everything felt natural because a good chunk was or whatever was added in felt right. None of this "oh a whale jumped at the right time", "elephant threw dirt at us as we passed by", etc. The plane (performing a mid-air collision ) in Sydney felt fine and so do the China kites honestly. Golf ball and hang glider in Cali were slightly cheesey but still fit right-ish.

The Thunderbirds scene in Cali was the true wow moment. Lining the horseback riders up to be in the right spot when passing over, having the hikers in the right spot to add scale to the scene, cresting the hill while gaining altitude, and the Thunderbirds flyby. There's nothing in World that makes me have a "wow" moment. But that's just me.

 

[danlb_2000]

. This goes for the Taj Mahal too: once the decision was made to include it, the only way to do so was through CGI...

... and that is the problem, they should not have decided to include it if they couldn't film it.

 

[LittleBuford]

... and that is the problem, they should not have decided to include it if they couldn't film it.

Which is a fair point if one feels that the film should have been entirely real. For me (and others like me), that isn’t a concern.

 

[Yert3]

One of the main problems I have with CGI these days is it takes all the “wow factor” out of everything. Instead feeling mystified thinking “Wow! How did they do that?” You’re now thinking “Oh, it was just done in a computer.” Few examples would be look at the original Star Wars trilogy vs the modern movies or the scene in the wizard of OZ when they meet the wizard. Now that would be all CGI and not impressive in the slightest.

 

[GenerationX]

I had no idea so much of the new Soarin' was CGI. I haven't felt this way since I heard that the J. Geils Band song "Centerfold" was a complete work of fiction. Sometimes it's just better not to know.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I had no idea so much of the new Soarin' was CGI. I haven't felt this way since I heard that the J. Geils Band song "Centerfold" was a complete work of fiction. Sometimes it's just better not to know.

If it helps, a Disney park is nothing but fiction. It doesn't exist anyplace else in the real world. It's just better to accept that, I think! For me, if I can watch and participate in something that is huge, in my face and very closeup and yet, it is as realistic as real life then I am going to be impressed. I'm just not sure what others expect or why? It isn't a non-Disney thing because it is a relatively new technology that can seamlessly work that stuff into a scene with clarity and no obvious film change that points it out.

 

[Gitson Shiggles]

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.

FlyOver Canada, FlyOver America > Soarin’ Around the World

 

[larryz]

I had no idea so much of the new Soarin' was CGI. I haven't felt this way since I heard that the J. Geils Band song "Centerfold" was a complete work of fiction. Sometimes it's just better not to know.

Nothing wrong with a little fiction now and then...

 

[Fox&Hound]

I truly do not enjoy the new Soarin' film at all, which just breaks my heart. I feel like Epcot lost a lot of love from me when they degraded Soarin and Test Track. Two favorite rides that I could not miss became "meh" to me. I so wish you could choose from the old Soarin film to the new Soarin' film. That would be IDEAL.

 

[Kaelsma]

I wish they would figure out a way to show both the ORIGINAL "Soarin'" AND "Soarin' Around the World". I miss the scene in Malibu where you dip down near the ocean. I always felt like I wanted to put my feet in the water.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Just in case anyone hasn't watched them back to back in a while...





It isn't just the CGI that makes the new version worse, or the segmented musical score. The shots in the original are SO much more interesting. They both capture the joy of flight and the majestic landscapes below. Though it does also feature some majestic landscapes, the shots in Around the World are more focused on what is ahead of you than what is below you, and are often about simply flying near a famous landmark than about the landscape or the act of flight itself.

The original changed up what you're doing constantly. One moment you're cresting a mountain and shooting higher and higher above a majestic chasm below. The next, you're just a few feet above the ocean waves. You turn, swoop, speed up, slow down, and raise and lower in altitude.

The shots in Around the World are almost always flying straight, at the same speed, very few dips and turns other than the notable Great Wall of China dive. The camera does much less to mimic the flight of a hang glider.

I don't hate the new version but it's somewhat odd that it failed to capture the simple techniques that made the original work so well. The "Around the World" concept is perfect for Epcot, but it should have been focused on landscapes from around the world, and camera shots that are not so much like drone footage.