Soarin'=Lazy Idea

[sfgam2006]

I hate to say it but why the heck did Disney put the same exact Soarin' ride at Epcot that they have at DCA in California. In my opinion, it would be a very lazy move by Disney because they aren't even in California.

They should have done something that went through the whole country and visited all of the famous areas (Golden Gate Bridge, Grand Canyon, St. Louis Arch, Wrigley Field, New York City, White House, Cape Canaveral, and then finsh off at Disney World. That would be a really good idea.

What do you think, was Disney lazy with this ride or do you think it is a good idea that they put this video on the Flordia ride.

- ZachApplause, Applause!

[PeoplemoverMatt]

Could have been worse. At least it's without a movie-based theme...

-- PMM :cool:

[Kileli]

What I don't get is why they just call it Soarin'. In DCA, they have the "Over California" part. Since you are outside of Ca in WDW, why wouldn't they put the "Over California" there? To someone who has never been to EPCOT and does not know much about Disney may be confused.

[PeoplemoverMatt]

My guess is because someone thought 'Soarin' Over California' was an awkwardly long title much like 'Disney's California Adventure' is, so they dropped the Over California part.

But, you're right, A LOT of riders in Epcot have no idea that it's all scenes from California that they're viewing. They're not told anything about California, so they figure they're looking at various places around the country. East coast harbor, great plains fields, maybe a Texas desert? Who knows. They're lucky to not confuse the ending scene with Magic Kingdom, despite Cinderella Castle obviously not being there. It's funny to see.

-- PMM :cool:

[Disney_Guy]

With the ending, would many people at EPCOT even realize that it is Disneyland in Anaheim, or do most just figure it as the Magic Kingdom at WDW?
Sure both parks have some noticable differences, like castles. But I wouldn't think many would realize those differences right away. Especially when you're looking at the park in a aerial view. Things look different in those perspectives.

[Kileli]

^ I would bet WDW's, even though you can see the Matterhorn. At least, for the people who don't know what EPCOT stands for.

[Disney_Guy]

Lol, I forgot about Matterhorn being included, but still.
I think people would call it as their native park, as in not everyone that lives there know much about the other park across the country.

[DisneyParksFan]

Im sure there are many people that would not know the difference between the two...but, there are many WDW fanatics that DO know the difference between the two parks. Many of the people that visit the park are Disney fans from the East Coast, and many do not mistake DLR for WDW.
There is a sign at the attraction's entrance that does say you are flying over California.

They probably did not include 'Over California' for when/if a new film does come to the attraction...they would not have to change the attraction's title. Some probably disagree that a new film will be created but I still believe something could be in the works since there is a small rumor going on that Soarin' Over the World will be introduced at WDS in a few years.
Whatever the reason, it is still an enjoyable attraction...but I think the video footage does need to be changed.

~DPF

[tomserwin]

I don't think that it is "lazy."
I do think that it is easy to say "Disney should have done this or Disney should have done that," so I just usually don't. I'm sure that Disney didn't make that decision on a whim. Realistically, they would have put some thought into that decision. It probably would have been costly to to make a new video. Besides, a new video wasn't entirely necessary. Ultimately, I believe that Disney did what was best.

[Gigi-B]

I think the riders who go on Soarin in WDW know that the video is from Cali. The preshow splashes Napa Valley, Montery Bay, San Francisco etc... on the screen as you are waiting in line...

Best,
GB

[sfgam2006]

Well, I mean. They did use the same video as the California version but it is a little random for people visiting the park seeing something from California when nothing in the park even has to do with anything in California besides that ride.

That's why I think Disney was "lazy" in the construction of this ride. Now is it a bad ride, no, but it was just lazy using that video on the Flordia version of the ride as nothing in the park relates to it.

- Zach

[Kileli]

I think it was lazy. Just use the same film from DCA! Couldn't they have mad a "Soarin of Florida" instead? Plus...what does it have to do with the future or learning? It is in futureworld, after all.

[PeoplemoverMatt]

I think the riders who go on Soarin in WDW know that the video is from Cali. The preshow splashes Napa Valley, Montery Bay, San Francisco etc... on the screen as you are waiting in line...

Best,
GB

How many of those people do you think know that Napa Valley, Monterey Bay or places like that are in CA? They might recognize some from CA, but I guarantee you a lot of scenes in that film are not recognized to be from CA.


I think it was lazy. Just use the same film from DCA! Couldn't they have mad a "Soarin of Florida" instead? Plus...what does it have to do with the future or learning? It is in futureworld, after all.


Just playing devil's advocate here...what exactly would you soar over in FL? There are no mountains anywhere in the state. There are lakes, and beaches. Eventually all lakes and beaches look the same.

CA has a very diverse set of geographical features ranging from the national parks, beaches, crowded highways, wine fields, naval bases, etc.

I think the only viable alternative to soarin' over CA would be soarin' over the USA. But, with many shooting locations across the USA, it's production costs that really go soarin'. So, the answer was, use the same film as CA. 98% of the Epcot guests will most likely have never seen it before, so why not reuse it?

Was it really lazy to do that, or was it a practical way to 'import Disney magic from around the world'? You be the judge.

-- PMM :cool:

[tomserwin]

How many of those people do you think know that Napa Valley, Monterey Bay or places like that are in CA? They might recognize some from CA, but I guarantee you a lot of scenes in that film are not recognized to be from CA.



Just playing devil's advocate here...what exactly would you soar over in FL? There are no mountains anywhere in the state. There are lakes, and beaches. Eventually all lakes and beaches look the same.

CA has a very diverse set of geographical features ranging from the national parks, beaches, crowded highways, wine fields, naval bases, etc.

I think the only viable alternative to soarin' over CA would be soarin' over the USA. But, with many shooting locations across the USA, it's production costs that really go soarin'. So, the answer was, use the same film as CA. 98% of the Epcot guests will most likely have never seen it before, so why not reuse it?

Was it really lazy to do that, or was it a practical way to 'import Disney magic from around the world'? You be the judge.

-- PMM :cool:

Well said.

I think that 1) using the existing film would be more interesting than a Florida film and 2) it was a more logical approach to use the existing film.

[Disney_Guy]

I just think EPCOT needs to put California in its name. Or whatever the attraction needs to tell the riders that everything in the video is from areas in California.

I really don't care if Disney was lazy or not over this ride. The video is fine.
I just think visiters should know, as in the places shown is absolutely no fantasy world, but real places. Now where might they be located? As some may wonder.

[PeoplemoverMatt]

I just think EPCOT needs to put California in its name. Or whatever the attraction needs to tell the riders that everything in the video is from areas in California.

I really don't care if Disney was lazy or not over this ride. The video is fine.
I just think visiters should know, as in the places shown is absolutely no fantasy world, but real places. Now where might they be located? As some may wonder.

They do. There's a small sign at the entrance to the queues that says "Concourses 1 and 2 - Soarin' Over California" but the signs's so small that it largely goes unnoticed.

Here's a pic of it:

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/7564/img4988zl2.jpg

It's a little blurry but you get the general idea.

-- PMM :cool:

[Gigi-B]

I agree not having the mountains in FLA would not be as fun, but soarin over the keys and everglades would be kind of cool.... I would give the people going on the WDW ride some credit that they would know some of the locations from the ride....

Peace out!

[sfgam2006]

Just playing devil's advocate here...what exactly would you soar over in FL? There are no mountains anywhere in the state. There are lakes, and beaches. Eventually all lakes and beaches look the same.

CA has a very diverse set of geographical features ranging from the national parks, beaches, crowded highways, wine fields, naval bases, etc.

I think the only viable alternative to soarin' over CA would be soarin' over the USA. But, with many shooting locations across the USA, it's production costs that really go soarin'. So, the answer was, use the same film as CA. 98% of the Epcot guests will most likely have never seen it before, so why not reuse it?

Was it really lazy to do that, or was it a practical way to 'import Disney magic from around the world'? You be the judge.

-- PMM :cool:

Well, I mean, they don't have to do just a Flordia thing but they can do something like cross-country and see all of the monuments around the United States. They could theme it as some type of transportation device travels at high speeds and gets you from each place to place in a matter of moments while hopping from each important place in the country or around the world.

It would go with the whole EPCOT theme much better than just doing a thing for California that barely makes sense considering that there are probaly some people that might have not been to California.

- Zach

[Magic1]

Is it lazy?
There are a lot of rides similar between the parks in Orlando and Anaheim, not just this one. Why? It's cheaper to reuse existing ride footage/technology/design.
So, lazy? Sure.

Flexible? Yes.
The simplicity of the ride design means it wouldn't be terribly difficult to film a new version of the ride and reprogram (assuming those running WDW got a clue).

Would changing the film substantially increase most park visitors' enjoyment of the ride?
The potential is there. If they did a spectacular job of incorporating new images/experiences, who knows? Their best bet would be to go worldwide and not just stick to the US. I wouldn't mind Soarin' over the Pyramids, the Napali coast of Kaua'i, the Taj Mahal, Singapore, the Amazon, the African Savanna, Uluru (a.k.a. Ayers Rock), fjords, the Gobi desert, etc. finishing with a tribute to all the castles (DL, MK, TDL, DLP, and HKDL). Realistically, this would be VERY expensive to produce, but the lines would be there. If they pulled another Tiki Room remix effort ... BIG waste of money.

As for what Soarin' is now, there's enough diversity of images & experiences that most people don't walk off going: "Gee, that would've been so much better if it wasn't scenes of California." Nor does the average guest (who aren't sticklers) complain that the park seen is Disneyland instead of MK or Epcot, in holiday overlay in July (not as much of a problem during December), and at night during the day. More common complaints I've heard first-hand are about the film quality showing its age and slow queues.

One of the major problems of DCA is that, unlike DL, it constantly reminds you of what's "outside the berm", while in DL all you have for reference that you are in CA is the weather and the sales tax on receipts. So Soarin' transports you to CA for a few minutes - this isn't incompatible with the World Showcase which transports you everywhere else. Perhaps a better question is why isn't Soarin' part of the American Adventure pavilion?

The real thing to be thankful for is that there isn't a "Disney's Florida Adventure" park begging for a $1B makeover.

[PeoplemoverMatt]

One of the major problems of DCA is that, unlike DL, it constantly reminds you of what's "outside the berm", while in DL all you have for reference that you are in CA is the weather and the sales tax on receipts. So Soarin' transports you to CA for a few minutes - this isn't incompatible with the World Showcase which transports you everywhere else. Perhaps a better question is why isn't Soarin' part of the American Adventure pavilion?

Part of where the confusion Epcot guests have with Soarin' is that it's found in Future World's Land pavilion, which isn't so much future as it is present. As in, the present (and future) ways to edutain people about all that goes on that involves dealing with 'the land'. Soarin' provides a scenic way guests that can view 'the land', even though it's all CA.

It's as if WDW Imagineers knew that FL guests wouldn't realize that the scenes are all from CA and sorta banked on that.

It doesn't have anything to do with World Showcase since it's not a part of World Showcase. Epcot's Soarin' isn't about any place, like DCA's Soarin' Over California is meant to be a view of CA. You kinda have to be there to realize that the emphasis in Epcot's Soarin' is not CA at all, but more to how it fits in with The Land pavilion.

-- PMM :cool:

[LoehnWolf]

I totally agree. I think they just had the space open up where Food Rocks used to be and they threw it in there. I dont know if there was ever an intent to make it permanent or if it was just part of the 50th celebration like Lights in MGM and Cinderellabration. Just doesnt seem like they planned it to be a permanent fixture.

[ryguy222]

^How do you know when something is a permanent fixture? They don't put a ride down in hopes of closing it in 2-3 years, only if it has really empty lines for 2-3 years will they get rid of it.
I don't think this is lazy at all, think of it this way. You invent a device that shows many paintings that you made, and people like it around your hometown, so you say well i want lots of people to pay me to see this, so you make another with the same paintings. If you change the paintings you don't know if people will like them as much. Disney made this ingenious system, and now they want it to make them some mula, whats wrong with that? I know they could of made a florida video, but there isn't anything major that i know of. People know what the golden gate bridge is coast to coast, minus a few thousand people, but i certainly don't know of anything in Florida.

[quinteros235]

Well, this may be just a rumor, but in the "Unofficial Guide to the Walt Disney World 2005," the author claims that there was plans to scrap the California film even before the attraction opened. The new film will actually have scenes from around the world and it will possibly arrive around fall 2007 for Epcot's anniversary.

[PeoplemoverMatt]

I totally agree. I think they just had the space open up where Food Rocks used to be and they threw it in there. I dont know if there was ever an intent to make it permanent or if it was just part of the 50th celebration like Lights in MGM and Cinderellabration. Just doesnt seem like they planned it to be a permanent fixture.

One clever thing they did with Soarin' is that Epcot's Soarin' has just as big, if not a larger building than DCA's Soarin' Over California has. But you would never see it unless you knew exactly where to look. If you saw Soarin's building...then it would look like a rather large permanent fixture to you.


Well, this may be just a rumor, but in the "Unofficial Guide to the Walt Disney World 2005," the author claims that there was plans to scrap the California film even before the attraction opened. The new film will actually have scenes from around the world and it will possibly arrive around fall 2007 for Epcot's anniversary.


Sounds like idle speculation. As has been described before, the production costs would be even more insane than a Soarin' over the USA possible movie would. As of right now, there is nothing planned for Epcot's 25th anniversary. However, word is that Epcot management is trying to change that somehow.

-- PMM :cool:

[Chris]

Remember that producing a new film for Soarin' would also mean finding a new composer, since Jerry Goldsmith has passed away. Producing these films is VERY expensive because of the multiple locales. I think they kept the film the same because people in Florida had heard good things about the attraction and Disney figured it may as well just duplcate the attraction to save money since it was already a "hit" in California. I can't see them going to the expense of producing a new film unless they really had to. We see the same situation with other cloned film attractions like Star Tours, Honey I Shrunk the Audience, Muppetvision 3D, Tough to be a Bug, etc.

And as others have noted; most people simply don't care and enjoy the attraction anyway. Perhaps when the time comes, both films will get changed out, although I just can't think of a new film missing the Jerry Goldsmith music...

[BCC]

I can never understand the deal with people bashing rides for Disney's laziness or the PIxar taking over thingamabobs. I mean, is it really worth bashing the ride based on THEME? Why have a concern on a ride just for its theme. Clearly, safety is not #1 on the ride's priority list.

The only time worth bashing a ride is for its SAFETY reason! Not it's theme. Since when does THEME harm a person? Disney needs these kind of themed rides so they can generate more revenue. No theme=no money because there is no affiliation with any of the movies. If they built some ride not themed to anything.... I wouldn't have any interest in it. The reason why I LOVE Disney rides because I feel like I'm interacting with a star!

[ryguy222]

When you go to a Disney Park you usually expect very high standards, safety is a low standard, everybody wants safety and they know disney does that. So there concern isn't safety, its theme. They go to other parks to see new rides and shows, with the expectation of seeing little or no rides exactly alike to Disneyland's.

[PeoplemoverMatt]

I can never understand the deal with people bashing rides for Disney's laziness or the PIxar taking over thingamabobs. I mean, is it really worth bashing the ride based on THEME? Why have a concern on a ride just for its theme. Clearly, safety is not #1 on the ride's priority list.

Safety is #1 on everyone's priority list. Themeing has no effect on how safe/unsafe a ride is. It is worth bashing a ride on its theme when the theme, or lack thereof, indicates a decline in quality, imagination or both AND goes against 50 years of Disney storytelling magic that used to be what set Disney apart from everyone else.

Disneyland was never meant to be Universal Studios under a different brand name. Disneyland was special, unique, timeless and magical. Now it's become bland, cloned, stale, and mindless. One glaring indication of that, among others, is the effort or lack thereof put into the themeing.

The only time worth bashing a ride is for its SAFETY reason! Not it's theme. Since when does THEME harm a person? Disney needs these kind of themed rides so they can generate more revenue. No theme=no money because there is no affiliation with any of the movies. If they built some ride not themed to anything.... I wouldn't have any interest in it. The reason why I LOVE Disney rides because I feel like I'm interacting with a star!

Loving Disney rides is great. Rides are fun & enjoyable & all, but you gotta check your history here. Themeing indicates quality. Good themeing brings about a high quality. Mindless themeing lessens the quality of the product. Taking the easy way out by themeing the next attraction after the latest box office hit movie is a degradation of the quality of what once was the Happiest Place on Earth. Why? For reasons stated above. Disneyland was never meant to be Universal Studios under a different brand name.

Attractions like Haunted Mansion, Pirates of the Caribbean (original), Space Mountain, Thunder Mountain, Autopia, Matterhorn, Jungle Cruise, Disneyland Railroad, Disneyland Monorail, Carousel of Progress, It's a Small World and others weren't based on anything. Does anyone complain about those attractions not being worthy because they aren't based off a movie? No.

Disney prides itself on having every attraction telling a story. That story indicates effort put in, which in turn indicates quality, which in turn draws people to want to have this quality product if it's within their means. That's when cost becomes a non-factor. Disneyland is the only theme park that's ever successfully done this so well that they've never needed a give-the-gate-away pricing scheme promotion to get people in the door.

That's the key. Walt knew if he put out a good enough product that the people will come. He didn't need to sucker them in. In fact, one of the reasons why he hated carnivals is because of their need to dupe and manipulate people to the point they're being cheated out of their money. So when Walt built his Disneyland, he made sure that it was an all-around quality product. Unfortunately, nowadays, that thinking has been all but abandoned.

-- PMM :cool:

[LoehnWolf]

Well I mean wasnt the original point in bringing the attractions together was to kind of sample a little of whats available at Dinsey around the world. I thought the stunt show was brought in from overseas, and WDW got to see Soarin' from California, it wasnt originally meant to be for that park it was just the idea of bringing a sample of things from other parks together for the 50th Celebration. Thats why its themed to California its just kinda that attraction sampled in Florida.

[HMF]

It should be Soarin over the World. That would fit Epcots theme better.;)

[debijeanm]

I think a "Soarin' Over the USA" would be terrific (Nantucket, Statue of Liberty, Niagara Falls, Florida Everglades, Great Smokies, Central Plains, Canyon de Chelly, Yosemite, Pt. Lobos). However, having just spent 3.5 weeks driving to, around and from the Midwest I can tell you that California has a remarkable range of geological/natural wonders to feature. I'm OK with them sharing at other parks. I do agree, though, that the ride should specify where all the locations are.