"Nice job, pal."

@@jeremyf493 *work

“Oh yeah… Have a nice flight.”

“That chick is wacked!”

smh he kind of looks like lemony snicket

I can't disagree enough. I really like how the new score is integrated in a way that makes sense for the scenes and often leads to really strong moments like the reveal of Iguazu Falls where the entire theater shakes. The original is a classic and is great for the California film, but the new interpretation was integrated really well.

I still have the main hook from Soarin' Over California stuck in my head. Hard to beat Jerry Goldsmith

You said it perfectly better than me in my comments!!!! I am so upset about it! This guy is wrong it is not that we miss it because of nostalgia it's because it was damn right breathtaking!!!!!!!

I’d have to agree here-maybe it’s because I grew up in California and had been to most of the locations in the film many times, but it felt like I was really gliding over the state. When they updated it to the World version, it felt like a more generic, CGI experience to me (I don’t even know if/where they employed CGI in the update, but it felt more artificial). Maybe it’s a failure of imagination on my part; I can suspend disbelief far enough to hang glide over California, but not to fly past Paris 😂

I see what you mean, in that the camera movements were often heading down towards the ground, giving the impression of gliding. In addition to the actual hang gliding scene and using a hang glider in the marketing seemed to have contributed to this as well.

Exactly this! While I agree with the video's conclusion that it ultimately comes down to personal preference, this is a major deciding factor for me that was not discussed (along with the score, but that is also subjective). Around the World is just the IMAX version of Google searching images of world landmarks. The major focus is usually on one object or icon. In Over California, the entire panorama offers something to look at. Each scene feels like a vignette from somebody else's larger adventure. California Adventure?

I think you hit the nail on the head. Never saw it that way, but I definitely do now.

This is exactly what I think. I worked there in 2005 so I’m not entirely impartial but soarin over California will always hold a special place in my memory because of the other cast members and the roaring applause at the end of every ride.

I hadn't visited DCA until 2018, but I didn't realize it was its own separate area. Still, it seems to make a lot of thematic sense as Grizzly Peak with SOC as the film.

I'm doubtful that there wasn't any additional CGI. Something looks off about the angler in Redwood Creek, and while he could perhaps be real, I tend to think he isn't. It also appears that the skier jumping off of the rock feels a bit unnatural in the way they move. Perhaps that person was real as well, but unless they were a stunt person, it seems dangerous for the film. I know that the Thunderbirds were real, but I've noticed elements here and there that I suspect were not other than just the hang glider. EDIT: I've just realized that I stated in the video that I suspected that the Thunderbirds were CGI and I'm not really sure why I typed that into the script, as I distinctly remember having the information available that they are in fact, real.

The helicopter was also CGI in that version.

@@Shag471 which one? The shot over San Diego was done with permission of the Navy and their helicopters were escort

@@mattheww2797 On the ship in Long Beach. The helicopters on the deck of the ship were real but the one that lifts into the air at the end of the deck is CGI. They actually filmed a helicopter doing the same flight but they opted to use CGI to manipulate it exactly how they wanted it.

I worked at soarin when it first opened at Epcot the hangliders and the golf ball are the only CGI they literally did go practical with everything else.

I agree.

I thought about mentioning the scores, but I like them equally. The Goldsmith original is of course a Disney parks classic, but I really like the way that the new film reinterprets it. It really shines when the camera reveals Iguazu Falls or when it travels up the Eiffel Tower.

Could be interesting, but could also be a logistical nightmare.

This is a good point

An interesting observation, but both films contain the same number of scenes at 13 and are both about the same length. I believe that the California film may appear to spend more time in its scenes because it focuses more heavily on just taking in the scenery and less on specific events happening within them. For example, three elements I can pick out from the Greenland scene are the Polar Bears, the crumbling glacier and the Orca. In contrast, Redwood Creek has a large number of people paddling in the river, but they all tend to be doing the same thing except for the angler. They all exist within the scene together as a cohesive entity, rather than existing to draw your attention to any one specific person.

Same here. I can respect this video in a sense, but I definitely disagree with it. I think the problem for me is that many of the arguments that were dismissed here could kind of apply to many other critiques provided on the channel, especially the nostalgia argument. Ultimately, you could make the argument that everything about Disney today comes down to a matter of taste, because there are definitely many people who care nothing about any of the arguments that might be made on this channel and only really care if they enjoy the thing or don’t enjoy the thing. And I can understand that kind of perspective, even though I don’t tend to agree with it. Additionally, I don’t actually think that nostalgia is always to be outright dismissed, and I’ll certainly admit that it definitely is a big part of my preferences for which of the two is better here. But nostalgia is a huge part of the Disney brand, so I’m not sure you can really outright dismiss people being “nostalgic” for something at Disney without considering what the larger Disney brand stands for in many respects. So, let start with the distortion issue. The distortion issue is still a valid criticism. I think we need to remember that the original version was done over 20 years ago, when a lot of postproduction work was still much more difficult and expensive than it is today. However, the thing to me is that the distortion issue certainly could’ve been fixed, especially on the new version. Even though it might be difficult to make it entirely disappear for every seat, they definitely could have used software to lessen the extent to which it was noticeable. And since I believe they’re using digital projection now regardless, they could definitely do the same with the original version as well, but the main point is that the newer version has no reason to have these distortions, and is certainly an issue they should’ve been able to fix to some degree. You could argue that the cinematography team should have also considered this and worked with the story folks to pick locations that would limit this issue, as was the case in the original film. But we ultimately don’t know what was or wasn’t done, So I’ll leave it up to everyone else to figure out what they think was the case. I also think that the cuts are definitely a problem in the new one. I suppose if you’re looking for it, then all of the sudden cuts in the original might seem a bit more abrupt than they did initially, but throughout its run, I don’t really ever remember people remarking about the transitions on the original. I guess the whole thing about editing, at least that I’ve heard from others (as a non-expert myself), Is that if you can notice the editing (as a casual observer), the editor is probably doing something wrong. So unless you’re kind of a film nerd or specifically looking for it, you really shouldn’t notice editing and how it influences your perception of the film, but the way that the transitions and editing work in conjunction with the CGI on the new version I think is very distracting. Lastly, as many others have mentioned, the music in the original I think definitely is a big part for me, as it’s just so majestic and grand and leaves you with some sense of awe or admiration. It also syncs up very well with all of the different gags and special events that they put in. For example, the music syncs really well with the golf ball, with the melody swooping upward in sync with the golf ball, and then a gradual float down again (while some come down from the scare and laugh about others getting scared), with the transition to the horns accompanying the cut to the orange groves (chills at this moment every time). Or the sudden calm in the music with little orchestration beyond a solo flute, when the glider is in Yosemite. Please provide a pause to allow the actual ride experience to have these gags and for the audience to react to them, but the music is still continuous and provides the audience with a moment to take in these special events that they’ve put in. The point is that the film has these moments and they work with the music so well. And as much as it works with the film, it is just a fantastic work without the film, even where the gags are supposed to go, and the two really compliment and only add to already great individual technical achievements. Jerry Goldsmith sure as hell understood the purpose of the music and did an outstanding job. Like, I can’t even fully express how well executed the music in the original is, but it bears repeating again, it’s just such a great piece of music that captures the majesty of the best parts of California and captures the action of flight, just in the form of sound. And when you compare it to what is essentially a remixed version in the new version, the new version sounds like the equivalent of when TV shows write versions of songs to avoid copyright issues that sound like a popular song (and you can tell what it’s supposed to be), but it’s different enough that it just sounds weird. I mean, I guess that it’s fine, it’s just not particularly memorable in comparison to the original, and I think is kind of just filler more than being an integral part of the ride itself. Ultimately, I think the big problem is that even if you were to break down the individual elements of the traction, the thing is that the original version is so much more of a cohesive experience. And the problem with the new one is that it is essentially a live action remake of the original. The overabundance of CGI, a reliance upon nostalgia for the original to carry (the shortcomings of) its own execution, and an overall lackluster execution really just make it like any of the other live action remakes of the current era. Except, of course, it’s just in ride form. I definitely do think that there could be updates made to even the original, and you could probably offer more of a randomized experience, like they did with star tours, and still make it work with the music, if you considered your locations and the kinds of shots you did carefully. And you definitely could’ve done that with the new one as well. But I guess the main problem for me with the new one is that it just lacks own sense of identity And tries to be a version of the original, but in doing so became a lesser version. I don’t think it feels like quite the natural spiritual successor that, say, the Paint the Night did for the Main Street Electrical Parade. I definitely enjoy both, and they’re both two of the few parades that I actually kind of like watching at Disney, but I still think the key is that they are still both very different if you really look at them, but share a kind of spiritual sense in terms of what they are trying to achieve and their overall executions. And so I Do you actually think that an updated version of Soarin could have been good, it’s just I don’t think that the version they did do was particularly well done. /end rant

The transitions used to bother me because I thought they were gimmicky. Yet over time, I've come to appreciate that they add a sense of energy to the film that the first lacked. I can understand the argument being made that the California film is better paced and is crafted with more nuance, but I don't think that the new film necessarily suffers from being snappier and faster paced.

@@troykawahara4496 Pretty ambitious comment and I don't really have the time to fully address it, but I will add a few thoughts. 1. I certainly understand the power of nostalgia through Disney parks and I think that they're the best with evoking it. The Hall of Presidents, regardless of how it obviously steps around dicey issues, tends to evoke a sense of nostalgia for the early United States, despite not really remembering experiencing the attraction when I was little. Disney certainly knows how to create a false sense of nostalgia around historical topics and they do it masterfully. It's something that I actually wish they would do more often. In contrast, I've also found myself nostalgic for aspects of the parks that remind me of the Disney brand. Watching the rudimentary animatronics from 1971 back in Fort Langhorn or riding the various Fantasyland dark rides at Disneyland always continue to remind me of a better Disney, whether it really existed or not. However, viewing attractions with nostalgia because I once experienced them, such as the Universe of Energy or Alien Encounter, has led me to question whether these attractions were really as elevated as I remember. I was surprised to experience Soarin' Over California again and realize that I had hyped it up in my mind, but I ultimately came away after two ride-throughs thinking that it and the new film were both on equal ground. 2. Distortion is certainly an issue with both films, but I often see the new film panned as inferior because people claimed this wasn't an issue with the original. I don't really see how better methods of post-production would get around the issue. The only really solution would be to either spend an unreasonable sum on R&D, trying to invent a new immersive type of screen, or to just switch to landscapes with fewer prominent upright structures. Yet, I feel that traveling up the Eiffel Tower is a really strong moment of the film, regardless of the bend. I'm not entirely sure if eliminating the distortion is positive if it gets rid of effective scenes.

@@PoseidonEntertainment Well, i might have gotten carried away haha, so sorry for the tome. On point 1, I will say I definitely think it’s fair to be aware of nostalgia, assess its influence on our opinions, and the unrealistic expectations it can set. But the main point I guess I wanted to make was just that nostalgia isn’t necessarily bad or invalid. I definitely agree that nostalgia can set up unrealistic expectations about things we have seen in a long time and many folks have realized the horror of nostalgia ruined when trying to rewatch beloved kids shows only to find they aren’t really enjoyable or good as an adult. So I can see maybe how you could hype up OG Soarin to the point where it feel like a let down. Disney is actually generally very good at expectations management, so they understand this (eg inflating wait times so you feel like you got lucky and waited less than they told you). But nostalgia can definitely make this tricky. On point 2, the thing you also need to remember is deck of the Golden Gate Bridge does actual have a natural curvature to it, not as exaggerated as the film shows, but it’s still there. If you were expecting it to be flat, that is actually not how it is supposed to be. I will also say that there does appear to be a slight distortion to the towers, but it’s very small. The thing that also helps is the particular perspective and that the view is kind of an uncommon angle. If you every seen the Golden Gate Bridge, usually it’s in profile or an oblique of the profile, not usually from above. In comparison, the newer Soarin tries to bring all of these shots of very famous pieces of architecture and come at the from very well known perspectives that we’ve all seen. So when the Eiffel Tower is distorted, we can all see it and since nothing else is going on in the shot, it’s so obvious. Part of the thing is that the medium here has certain constraints and some things will work better than others. And that has to be considered when choosing locations and the actual shots you take. Also fixing distortion on photos is not some crazy postproduction trick. Most lenses have some kind of distortion, so most standard photo and video editing software (certainly those which Disney has access to) will have distortion correction capabilities. And it is a bit more challenging with the screens here, but given the projection mapping technology they have, experience with IMAX theaters, and widely available software, fixing the distortion of the Eiffel Tower should not be an issue. It’s just a matter of whether they choose to spend the money. And given current leadership, we know why they didn’t change. Anyway, ultimately this is pretty low stakes. Everyone can like the version they like. But I think you may be overthinking this and over correcting to unbias your nostalgia. That’s my guess any way. But if the end of the day, you really like the world one better, that’s okay too.

i completely agree with everything in this comment

This very much this.

I'm not sure that the issue could be fixed without a rebuild of the theaters. In addition, the R&D that would go into creating a more convincing effect must also be quite expensive. Usually I'm quite critical of Disney running cheap, but fixing these issues would be impractically expensive. They could have gone with landscapes that led to less distortion, but it would have also compromised many of the scenes that remain impressive regardless of the bend.

The fix that doesn't involve a rebuild of the theaters is actually the other major complaint about Soarin' (though I personally have no issue with it): CGI. CGI has been used to distort and un-distort images for a long time to add wanted or remove undesirable effects present or not on whatever lens is used to capture the film. Disney was already willing to go forward with CGI with (arguably) contentious fluff; they could have actually used it to great effect. This would have likely gotten some praise by some people who were careful or savvy enough to pick up on the Banana Gate Bridge from the original Soarin' Over California. But this assumes they were willing to spend the time and resources to do that. And again, that's the underlying issue. They're not willing. And for something like Soarin' Over California where it's only relatively less egregious and at least "new" (for the time), fine, a pass. So they should have sat down and improved upon it; they made it worse--not "just as bad as it was," WORSE. It's Soarin' Over Bananas, with wondrous sights like the Banana Mahal and Banana Tower and Mt. Banana. Disney's defense, such as it is, is that they're at least consistent; they don't have a history of testing a new attraction, seeing problems, and delaying it further until they redo it; they just double down and release it anyway because time is money.

I don't really relate to your perspective. I quite like how the score is played with in the new version.

@@PoseidonEntertainment World's score feels like they played the main theme of Soarin on loop and then swapped the instruments on garageband for each scene to me. Meanwhile over CA's feels like an actual fully composed piece

That's a common sentiment I'm seeing and while I agree that the original score was executed masterfully, I can't help but like the new one. It's not as cohesive, but there are specific moments where it's used incredibly effectively.

I would definitely describe the World version as epic. That's part of what I like about it. I can see people appreciating the nuance of the California version more, but I think it all ultimately just boils down to preference. That's why I wish it would just stay as the original version in DCA. It works well for that park.

@@PoseidonEntertainment I totally respect your opinion, love your channel, and I love hot takes even if I disagree.

I think they may have used CGI on the Taj Mahal for example because the real one could be dirty with pollution, covered in scaffolding for restoration, or packed with tourists etc.

While it certainly is true that many of the shots were expertly staged for the California version, there are moments that do definitely seem to be CGI. Some of the skiers don't leave tracks and I have a feeling that the one that falls from the rock may not be real either. The angler in Redwood Creek also seems a bit off as well. The level of coordination that went into those shots is most certainly impressive though, so I do think it is a boon to the original film.

I worked overnights at Epcot when they filmed it too. They told those of us working in Future World to stay indoors or underground between certain times.

I wished that the original DCA had been a better park. It could have been something truly interesting with the right money and effort put into it.

It would definitely make the most sense to keep each in their respective parks where they fit best thematically.

I think that SOC only plays during the DCA Food and Wine Festival. If you're going later this year, I'm under the assumption that they'll switch it back to the World version. I think it's worth experiencing, but I'd still rather have SOC in DCA.

I thought about addressing the music, but I kind of avoided it because I didn't want to speak about it and not actually play it. It appears that both versions will provoke a copywrite strike. While I agree that the original score is a masterpiece, I actually really like how the new film played with it. It's used to great effect when the camera approaches Iguazu Falls or flies up the Eiffel Tower. I also enjoyed the new instruments in other various scenes, such as Kilimanjaro. Perhaps it may be less cohesive, but the original score wouldn't have worked for the new film I think. Adapting it for the new theme also seemed to be the right move to me, better than creating a new but different score.

Soarin' Around the World is certainly flashier and I agree with your observation. That being said, I don't feel that the difference in design is necessarily a detractor. That's partially why I wish both films would just exist in their most thematically appropriate parks. It's nice to have variety.

Is that for the DCA location? I distinctly remember the Epcot queue playing film scores from films that had anything related to flying in them. The theme from The Rocketeer comes to mind, and they were definitely playing it when it was still the original version.

​@@PoseidonEntertainment I'm talking about the loading/unloading music in the actual theater itself, not the queue; when you were boarding/unboarding the ride they used to play a quiet version of the Soarin' theme in the few minutes before the ride started and after the ride ended. You can hear it in the beginning of this video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gLiBpr2pqdSxloU.html Now as far as I know it's just ambient wind noise, which is a downgrade IMO. I'm talking about the Epcot version BTW

I like both. The original is fantastic, but I like how it was played with to fit the theme of the new film. It's not as cohesive, but I prefer the way it was used in contrast to creating a whole new score.

@@PoseidonEntertainment rechecking my songs’ Play Counts today, I realized that I play the Soarin’ Exit Theme waaaay more than I do the main theme. 😆

Also, as has been mentioned by others, I think the score in the CA version is objectively better. The new one doesn’t seem as high energy overall, and without the secondary melody that plays over the orange fields and Anza-Borrego, by the end it feels too repetitive. But it is cool hearing the different variation that fit each location, I will give it that! In the end I think you raise a great point, I think nostalgia does play a huge part, and growing up in California probably adds another layer of bias for me.

That's an interesting point. Many of the transitions in the new film almost come at riders like startles. Not quite to the same degree as a horror film, but abrupt enough to cause a recoil.

I suppose that seasonal attractions like Haunted Mansion Holiday and Hyperspace Mountain are used to keep things fresher around there. Bringing back SOC appears to be another case of this, though I really do think it should stay.

Most of the new film is real footage as well. Perhaps the CG elements take you out of it because you know the shots aren't possible without it, but I think it's actually integrated really well.

@@PoseidonEntertainment Hey man…. I know it is, but as I’d said on your previous (excellent) videos comments, I am admittedly a bit more involved in theme park things than just as a “guest.” And from what I’ve personally seen, largely, for the most part, people from all backgrounds and knowledge levels just do not react with the same excitement and emotion to the new version. From a business perspective, the fact that they changed one of the two back, regardless of what they said to the public is the reason, tells me their data is not split, but that it suggests the original is better rated as well. From a creative perspective, I’d say the new one feels like a situation we’ve all seen happen time and again in the movie industry. Where an original film that was made on a brilliant creative spark and developed “purely” becomes a huge hit, and immediately the studio takes note that “a sequel is needed,” and this time the suits demand and promise it will have “more” of “all the things we loved from the first one!” Then they make the sequel, attempting to make it “bigger and better” on every level, but in the process, they completely miss something: the actual spirit and magic combination of lucky factors in the original that is actually the secret formula of what made it so indescribably good.

@@PoseidonEntertainment And don’t get me wrong, I love your takes. I think a most all of what you say is hugely necessary and presented better than anyone out there.

@@PoseidonEntertainment Also, when they switched (“upgraded”) the projectors a few years back, right before the first movie switch, they played the original for a final run on the new projection system. It actually greatly harmed the way the the film “read,” and made the original a FAR less pleasing experience than it was with the old equipment. Something about the change in crispness of detail intensely dramatically affected the peaceful feeling of motion, and made the entire experience far more nauseating. I and another colleague felt slightly motion sick after riding. That had never happened before. So what you saw in California, with the new projection system, actually was not the original experience!

An interesting but unexpected metaphor.

I very think you're spot on with that observation, though I have to say that the CG elements don't bother me in the World version. They're integrated into the environments really well, but perhaps appear fake because we know that the shots wouldn't be possible otherwise.

The negative videos bring in the money for sure, but I generally like to produce whatever I'm feeling. I hate that people conflate me with other channels that manufacture outrage just for the money.

I mean, the answer is easy there. They thought they could update a DCA attraction on the cheap. Iger and Chapek have been pretty open about cloning attractions because of the cost saved.

I personally think that the California film was crafted with more nuance and the new version is certainly flashier, but overall they're still both solid experiences.

I've never heard of it and just watched a video. It's certainly interesting and looks worth going out of the way for, but I can't say that I liked it better than either of the Soarin' films. Much of it is well done, but there are aspects that feel clunky.

I can't say that the CG has ever really bothered me in the new version. I will give props to the coordination needed to execute the first film effectively though.

I think the expansion of Disneyland into "Disneyland Resort" was for sure aimed at attracting visitors from out of state. In that sense, the theme of DCA absolutely makes sense. Yet, I don't think that complaints of the theme would have arisen had the park been executed well from the start. Given the right budget and effort, DCA could have been considered a classic park with great attractions.

@@PoseidonEntertainment I can't argue you with you that DCA had a rocky start. There was definitely a lot of unused potential for the park. I suppose we can only dream what could have been!

Also, this is the first video where I think you really missed the mark with regards to DCA. I agree that it made no sense in Epcot.

@@ZeedePlus Missed what specifically? I like the park, but its lack of thematic cohesion really bothers me.

@@PoseidonEntertainment sorry, what I meant was that I disagree that Soarin' California is inferior to Soarin' World, with regards to DCA. I didn't realize that Epcot got Soarin' California originally. That definitely makes no sense there. Yeah, DCA is a mess now, but it seems like all of the Disney keys are headed that way. :-(

It's only been a week because this was a shorter video that didn't require any research. Before that, it was more than a three week gap.

Perhaps the real evolution of Soarin' was Flight of Passage. Soarin's flying theater isn't even unique to Disney anymore.

@@PoseidonEntertainment~ Interesting…. I do love Flight of Passage. But mostly I miss the “old” Disney that used to be creative. After being a major fan, going every year for 30 years, I won’t be going again.

I've never experienced it, nor have I ever sought out a video on it either. It sounds a bit under-rated though, so I'll check it out when I have the time.

I first experienced it when I was 7 years old (tells you how old I am). It wasn’t a thrill ride, it was simply a 360 degree film (like China and Canada in EPCOT). It was like a Ken Burns film in the round. Great images, superb narration, and then you let your mind run with it. There’s no movement, no smells, just images, music, and narration, and your mind does the rest. I guess it’s why I really like Impressions de France.

I could speak about this, but it's just a really broad topic. I was perhaps thinking about doing a more focused video on how poorly executed the Epcot food festivals are and why there's much better alternatives, but that's about as far as I might be willing to go. There's so much good and bad when dining at WDW, that it's difficult to really make anything other than broad conclusions.

@@PoseidonEntertainment id be interested in that.

I have to imagine that the orange scent would connect well in that context. When the attraction opened at Epcot, I was too young to register that the film focused on California. I never occurred to me that the orange grove wasn't in Florida.

Except orange blossoms don’t smell like oranges. It’s a more distinct sweet smell that fills the air here every year in the early spring. Still can’t even find a candle that smell exactly like orange blossoms.

I know that Shanghai and Tokyo have some differences, but I was under the impression that it was just the ending scenes of the parks. I'll have to check them out.

@@PoseidonEntertainment the movie is the same, its just the cue in shanghai which blew me away and the sorin over the world there (the same everywhere) wasent too bad

I like that the film goes outside of what the World Showcase offers. I'd prefer it to even be extended with more landscapes and landmarks as well.

I think for even the people who would like an updated version, it has the potential to really go wrong. As much as I think that Soarin' Around the World's transitions are acceptable and their criticism over-blown, it would actively detract from the experience of the original California film. Could the transitions be cleaner? Sure. Yet changing it would change the DNA of the film.

@@PoseidonEntertainment Fair, alot of people wouldn't be happy about that, but you could also apply that argument to updating an old dark ride with new animatronics or an upgraded ride system. The success of it might be hit or miss, but it's better than having it stand out because it's an aging relic in comparison to newer attractions. Plus, as you pointed out, it's now virtually the same ride experience on both coasts. Reworking or creating a new film for the ride exclusive to DCA would go a long way to creating a unique experience for DCA.

Same! I just wish each would sit in their respective park thematically.

I really hope not. There was an idea floating around a few years ago asking Disney to retheme it to an Aladdin carpet ride and I just absolutely hate it.