PDA

View Full Version : Soarin' the way Walt probably would do it



Pages : [1] 2

vnell61
02-20-2003, 08:48 PM
I really enjoyed SOC when I went to Disney Ca. But if Walt had anything to do with it I bet it would have been much better. Picture this a huge showroom hang gilder type vehicles using the Peter Pan Or E.T. technology. If there would have been some real cash spent on this attraction it could have been the best thing since Indy. But we all know why that didn't happen(EISNER)more then likely he wanted the extra cash it would take to make this an extremly well themed and thought out attraction to put in his fat pocket. When will Disney get a new CEO that cares about Disney more than the almighty dollar. Is it possible?

Laffite
02-20-2003, 09:25 PM
So is your post about the potential of SOC or are you just looking to bag on Eisner?

tabacco
02-20-2003, 10:20 PM
How would a vehicle on a track be better than what we have now?

It really annoys me when people say things like "If Walt had done it, it would be better." After all, we have no way of knowing that. Maybe Walt wouldn't have liked the idea of a flight simulator and we would have missed out on a great attraction.

Germboy
02-21-2003, 12:38 AM
I agree with you to a certain extent, vnell61. I don't think Walt would have bought it from a Canadian company, then slapped a Disney label on it. But the idea itself is pretty original!

And it's one of the only reasons I've gone to DCA. I'm not a Magic Mountain/Knott's Berry Farm type of person, and most of that park seems geared towards that; so SOC is the highlight of the park for me...

vnell61
02-21-2003, 09:44 AM
I know everyone thinks SOA is the best thing in DCA and you are all propably right . But haven't we had enough simulator tpye rides there everywhere. Don't you expect more from Disney. They already did the Simulator for Star Tours . And yes this post is part SOC part Eisner bashing.

refurbmike
02-21-2003, 10:36 AM
IMO, the only way it could've been better would be the transitions. They're two abrupt from scene to scene. They need some Star Wars wipes and such.

Germboy
02-21-2003, 11:27 AM
Ho ho vnell61, you are preaching to the choir with me. Yes, I would expect ALOT more from Disney in just about everything they've been doing. The park is merely a reflection of what the company is currently capable of. They gave their all, and look at what we got. There is no shortage of Disney-type talent out there, but little reason to exploit it when the bottom line takes priority. They are chipping away at the very thing that put them in the position they are in. What makes me laugh is they consider themselves a "brand", like Tide Detergent. Please...

Tigertail777
02-21-2003, 11:32 AM
While we did enjoy Soarin' the first time, the second time wasnt as thrilling...maybe if they had like 5 different ride films that changed randomly, there is certaintly enough interesting stuff in California to make 5 films, and they could end each film over DL on a differnt holiday.
One thing I really hated about soarin' was the que: it was boring and lifeless, as was the interior of the actual ride building I felt like I was in a costco warehouse.
Another thing that would have been neat is if they had given more of a feeling that you are actually taking off either via a runway, (if its supposed to be airplanes) or off a cliff (if its supposed to be hang gliders) I still can't tell if the ride vehicle is supposed to an airplane, or a hang glider... the pre-ride film would make it seem its a airplane, but it just doesnt feel like an airplane.
And perhaps if they added a few more interactive elements: maybe some fog that actually fills the theater in the san francisco part, some more wind whipping at out faces and feet, to make it more convincing. that kind of thing to add final touches... and make the smells actually work more often, the first time we went on we only barely smelled oranges, the second time nothing.
For me the true magic lies in the details, and there wasnt much extra details on this ride at all, especially considering some of hte original design sketches that showed each ride car looking like a hang glider with differnt sails (is that the term?) on each car. It would have been real easy to add a spot in the ride that looks like its outdoors in front of a cliff then when you get on, the ride cars move forwards and down for a little while like you are jumping off a cliff in a hang glider. But that would have cost extra theming money, and a slight modification to the cars and the position of the theater screen (the screen would be down inside a trench that the cars would go down into). They did as bare bones as they could on this ride and it shows.

innerSpaceman
02-21-2003, 12:21 PM
Like most movie-based attractions, even Soarin' gets borin'.


I think it is perfectly fair to take pot-shot guesses at "what Walt would have done" based on the known products of his amazing career in the entertainment field. And so basing, I venture to say that Walt would never have a motion simulator attraction at a Disney theme park.

I will not buy the argument that such technology did not exist in Walt's time. Walt knew all about movies. He was tired of movies. Disneyland is his expression of that. Movie motion simulator attractions would not pass muster with Walt. Note how Soarin' gets tired after 2 years while Pirates of the Caribbean still works after 30. Any four year old could predict that outcome. Walt would have known that, and furthermore would not have wasted his or the imagineers' creative energy on such insipid projects.

cstephens
02-21-2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by innerSpaceman
And so basing, I venture to say that Walt would never have a motion simulator attraction at a Disney theme park.

So we should bag on Star Tours as well and complain how cheap it is and how it could have been so much better if only Disney would be willing to spend some money and not be cheapskates because of Eisner?

JeffG
02-21-2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by innerSpaceman

I will not buy the argument that such technology did not exist in Walt's time. Walt knew all about movies. He was tired of movies. Disneyland is his expression of that.

So how do you explain Circlevision/Circarama? How about Rocket to the Moon, which was pretty much a crude, 1950s version of a flight simulator attraction? I believe the Main Street Cinema was also there pretty much from opening day.

Walt didn't seem to have any big problem with using film as an element of attractions.

-Jeff

innerSpaceman
02-21-2003, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by cstephens
So we should bag on Star Tours as well and complain how cheap it is and how it could have been so much better if only Disney would be willing to spend some money and not be cheapskates because of Eisner?
Absolutely! I have always bagged on Star Tours for being a cheap simulator ride. Assuming for a moment (and pardon me while I gag) that Walt would use someone else's movie as the basis for a Disneyland attraction, Star Tours would have seemed more like Space Mountain with an actual comet ride-thru, and a huge model of the Death Star, etc. In other words, a physical and immersive experience necessitating the construction of actual sets and a ride system by which guests would experience the journey into another of Walt's marvelously created and physically realized fantasies. Walt would not try to replace the actual Disney-devised ride experience with a movie of that ride experience.

CircleVision is a different animal entirely. It is not the immitation of a ride by a movie; it simply is a movie. And I would not go so far as to say that Walt would never feature film technology as part of an attraction. As an example of what I would imagine Walt doing with film in theme park attractions, I point to Epcot - where just about every attraction incorporates film in an interesting way - - but the films do not replace the ride experience, they augment it.

Ok, I will admit that the Rocket to the Moon argument kind of pokes holes in my theory. It was indeed a prototypical movie motion simular attraction. It was a cheapie solution just like everything in the original Tomorrowland. Though there's no way to prove it, I believe that the forever-in-the-works Space Mountain, which Walt had hoped to be a part of the 1967 Tomorrowland revolution, was meant to replace the low-budget Flight to the Moon, not stand side by side with it. But we'll never know. What is known is that, from the moment Disneyland opened, Walt Disney moved methodically through the Park, from land to land, updating and radically improving everything in his path.

I will contend that, at his untimely death in 1966, Walt was barely getting started.

Laffite
02-21-2003, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by JeffG

Walt didn't seem to have any big problem with using film as an element of attractions.


lol. In fact, MANY rides utilize projectors and films to create certain effects! :p

Disneyfreak
02-21-2003, 06:33 PM
The ride is the best thing in DCA. The only problem is that they dont upkeep it well enough. Let me tell you that the screen is very dirty and there is a noticable grid on the screen with black spots appearing on the video. That is what im concerned about. They put alot of money into this ride whether you think so or not. The ride was in prime condition when they built the thing. Thats why im mad with disney on this one. If they would only take care of things like they used to.

YellowMan
02-22-2003, 12:40 AM
The only problems I see with Soarin' is the queue and the feel of the ride before it starts. The queue, as was stated earlier, is indeed quite boring. While very nice looking in the main hallway, the other hallways leading to the preshow areas are most certainly boring. Also, there isn't all that much queue that is indoors, a problem that leads to boring switchbacks outside.

Also, I don't like the way the large screen is lit with blue lights as you enter the theater. They want us to know that this is just a simulator and nothing more? That doesn't seem like Disney style to me (not Walt Disney style, but the Disney company as a whole). It seems that the preshow (and the queue to some extent) try to make you feel like you are about to take off on an actual flight, but then once in the theater there is nothing done to stop the idea that this is just a simulator, in some cases they actually reinforce that (example: keeping the screen lit with blue lights while you board).

Tigertail777
02-22-2003, 01:18 AM
Thanks Yellowman, thats exactly what I was trying to point out of whats wrong. Plus someone please tell me are those ride car things supposed to be airplanes, (doubtful with that open design) or hang gliders??? Talk about reinforcing the fact its just a simulator... they took no trouble at all to clarify the detail of the ride cars to augment the experience.
And as I said earlier there is no illusion of "taking off" you are lifted up to a lit screen, then the film turns on....

innerSpaceman
02-22-2003, 07:54 AM
I don't think they mean for Soarin' to be a simulator at all.

It is really just presented as a movie, and so I won't fault the design process for not disguising it as a hang glider or such.

The movie itself, as many have complained about, does not have "wipes" between scenes, but simply has cuts. It makes no move to disguise itself as an actual experience, and I will not fault it for not pretending to be something that it is not.

It is simply a unique film exhibition - sort of like CircleVision. It is not simulating a flight over California. It is simply presenting a birds-eye view movie in an interesting way . . . just like CV presented a look-around view of America in an interesting way.

A different but similar ride with a hang glider ride vehicle might be nice, too, but it would hardly be able to take you all over California in 3 minutes while retaining the fantasy that you were in a hang glider.

YellowMan
02-22-2003, 01:43 PM
It is really just presented as a movie, and so I won't fault the design process for not disguising it as a hang glider or such. According to the Disneyland Resort Video Guide, when referring to Soarin' Over California the host says, "Your state of the art flying machine is the ultimate sensation in free flight." And according to Spring 2001 issue of Disney Magazine, where it is stated in the article when referring to Soarin' Over California, "Feet dangling freely, wind and the illusion of sea spray hitting your face, you are swept away on a 'hang gliding' tour of the state." Aside from these two official sources, it was said on various TV specials and in articles I read about DCA before and recently after it opened that Soarin' Over California was meant to be a hang gliding experience over California. However, I have not heard mention of it being a hang glider as of recent. The Video Guide makes it seem like they want you to think that you are on some kind of new fangled flying machine. Either way, the ride experience is supposed to be actual flight, not just a film.

All I'm saying is that they need to decide what theme they are going with and keep it. If they are going with a themeless ride like Circle-Vision, then they need to:
A) Not have it be the only attraction in a land themed to an airfield.
B) Not reinforce the idea that you are actually supposed to be going for a flight by theming the show building to a hangar and filling the main hallway with educational pictorials about great points in aviation history.
C) Remove the spoken lines from the preshow enforcing the fact that you are going for a flight (Examples: "Soon you will be airborn...", "Enjoy your flight...", etc.).

danyoung
02-22-2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by innerSpaceman
...Assuming for a moment (and pardon me while I gag) that Walt would use someone else's movie as the basis for a Disneyland attraction,....Walt would not try to replace the actual Disney-devised ride experience with a movie of that ride experience...And I would not go so far as to say that Walt would never feature film technology as part of an attraction...

Wow! It's truly amazing that you can tell so much about what Walt would have done. How many years did you work with him? And the fact that you can predict what Walt would have done with technology in use 35 years after he died - well, that's just incredible!!!

Sorry, sarcastic mode off. Speculate all you want, but PLEASE don't state these kind of specifics of what Walt would or wouldn't have done. Generalities - YES. We all know that Walt would never sacrifice quality for budget, show for bean counting. But how he would have handled the technology of the 80's and 90's? Ain't nobody knows that.

cindanzr
02-22-2003, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by danyoung
Wow! It's truly amazing that you can tell so much about what Walt would have done. How many years did you work with him? And the fact that you can predict what Walt would have done with technology in use 35 years after he died - well, that's just incredible!!!

Sorry, sarcastic mode off. Speculate all you want, but PLEASE don't state these kind of specifics of what Walt would or wouldn't have done. Generalities - YES. We all know that Walt would never sacrifice quality for budget, show for bean counting. But how he would have handled the technology of the 80's and 90's? Ain't nobody knows that.

I agree with the above. And I'll go on the record and say that when I ride SOC, I feel as if I am truly soaring over California. Then again, I still like Star Tours and HISTK!!! :D

tabacco
02-22-2003, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by danyoung
Wow! It's truly amazing that you can tell so much about what Walt would have done. How many years did you work with him? And the fact that you can predict what Walt would have done with technology in use 35 years after he died - well, that's just incredible!!!

Sorry, sarcastic mode off. Speculate all you want, but PLEASE don't state these kind of specifics of what Walt would or wouldn't have done. Generalities - YES. We all know that Walt would never sacrifice quality for budget, show for bean counting. But how he would have handled the technology of the 80's and 90's? Ain't nobody knows that.
Thank you, Dan! I've been waiting for someone to say that so well.

Tref
02-22-2003, 07:59 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by danyoung
Wow! It's truly amazing that you can tell so much about what Walt would have done. How many years did you work with him? And the fact that you can predict what Walt would have done with technology in use 35 years after he died - well, that's just incredible!!!

Well, I do know ONE thing Walt WOULD NOT have done, and that's be such a damned crank! Lighten up, kids!

Buck up ole Vnell! Say what you want! I agree with you, whatever it was you said.

I only wish more people in the Disney Org would ask themselves that question.

i.r.

vnell61
02-22-2003, 09:26 PM
THANKS TREF

Germboy
02-22-2003, 11:12 PM
If the Disney Company can't figure out what Disney would have done...how the HECK can YOU possibly know??? ;)

danyoung
02-23-2003, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by Tref
quote:
Well, I do know ONE thing Walt WOULD NOT have done, and that's be such a damned crank! Lighten up, kids!


Well, on that one I have to chime in again. From extensive reading of the many biographies of Walt, I'd have to say that he WAS a pretty big crank. He rarely complemented his staff, and quite often ridiculed them openly. It was his way of motivating them to do better. He was one of those bosses that rewarded his people by letting them keep their jobs, feeling that they should be grateful to be working in such an innovative and creative company. He paid poorly, and worked his troops mercilessly. And with all of that said, I truly wish I could have worked for him back in the day!

Everybody has their hot buttons, and one of mine is when people say "Walt would have done it this way" or "Walt would never have approved of . . .". Maybe it's just a semantical difference, but speculating on how Walt might have responded is different than stating catagorically "here's how Walt, now in his grave these 36 years or so, would have wanted it." It was that thinking that got the Disney company in trouble in the late 60's and thru the 70's, and made them so ripe for takeover in the 80's.