"Soaring" taking away from Canada

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by manning
Spend the money to make a top notch film covering the world.

Yah.....that'll happen.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by YoHo
THe show building in Anaheim is intended to represent the old Desert aviation hangers where the Jet age came of age. Places like Bakersfield Barstow and Victerville. So, it actually looks 100% right.

Of course, that ain't the most appealing look in the world, but it is fairly accurate.

I know that it does fit in with the theme in CA, but I'm still pretty doubtful that they're going to do much to it. It's just my gut feeling, and I will eat my words if I'm wrong.

 

[KNWVIKING]

.... but the CA film being shown to all us East Coasters is actually better then showing it in CA.

the great thing about a 'Soarin attraction is that the film can very easily be changed. I'm sure cost is a reason we're getting the CA version for now, but just think how inexpensively 'Soarin could become an entirely new and fresh attraction in a couple years just by changing the flick. Ideally, I'd love to see them have 3 or 4 version at one time, so you won't know what ride you're getting till the movie starts.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by KNWVIKING
.... but the CA film being shown to all us East Coasters is actually better then showing it in CA.

the great thing about a 'Soarin attraction is that the film can very easily be changed. I'm sure cost is a reason we're getting the CA version for now, but just think how inexpensively 'Soarin could become an entirely new and fresh attraction in a couple years just by changing the flick. Ideally, I'd love to see them have 3 or 4 version at one time, so you won't know what ride you're getting till the movie starts.

Seems to me the old debate was Soarin' Over CA versus Soarin' Over FL. I agree Florida's not a good choice, but I think that they easily could have selected something that fit much better within Epcot. I'm not at all knocking Soarin'. I'm glad that they're bringing it to Florida, and I think that the entire concept and tone fit completely within Epcot. But really....California???

And as for the 3 or 4 movies - then definitely, California could work in some sort of rotation.

But to the original topic of the debate, an aviation shed doesn't fit within Epcot. It needs to be hidden by landscaping - be it trees, or a rock structure... and only time will tell whether or not that will happen.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***" It needs to be hidden by landscaping - be it trees, or a rock structure..."***

They could surround it with Redwoods.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by KNWVIKING
***" It needs to be hidden by landscaping - be it trees, or a rock structure..."***

They could surround it with Redwoods.

Are there redwoods in Canada?

 

[KNWVIKING]

I don't think so. Aren't Redwoods only located in a small area in CA ? Them and the Sequious (sp) ?

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by KNWVIKING
I don't think so. Aren't Redwoods only located in a small area in CA ? Them and the Sequious (sp) ?

So then that still wouldn't solve the broken Candian skyline problem.

 

[wtg2000]

There are redwoods and sequoias in British Columbia.

 

[KNWVIKING]

**"So then that still wouldn't solve the broken Candian skyline problem."**

Actually my Redwoods idea was a failed attempt at humor.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by KNWVIKING
Actually my Redwoods idea was a failed attempt at humor.

I got it ... if that helps.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
But to the original topic of the debate, an aviation shed doesn't fit within Epcot. It needs to be hidden by landscaping - be it trees, or a rock structure... and only time will tell whether or not that will happen.

An aviation shed doesn't belong in World Showcase -- but it wouldn't necessarily be out of place in Future World, if it's done right. Your problem here is that you're looking at Soarin' as if it's being attached to Canada, not as if it's being added to FW. But take a look at the other buildings in Future World. They're pretty non-descript, really. Concrete and metal -- some interesting form, but basically just boxes in which to hold attractions. Soarin' is a part of Future World, and so it shouldn't be themed out any more or less than the other buildings there. But, as is true of the rest of Future World, it shouldn't intrude on World Showcase either.

Sarcastic comments about how little care Disney is likely to take in masking the building aside, it needs to be tricked out with landscaping just as much to make it a part of Future World as it does to mask it from World Showcase. Eisner isn't personally in charge of landscaping and construction you know ... give the guys in Imagineering and Parks a little credit. It's in the budget.

 

[YoHo]

First of all, Redwood=Sequoia
They are the same tree.

Second of all, WHo said it would be themed as an Aviation hanger? is that in a press release somewhere?

 

[exDS vet]

Originally posted by WDSearcher
Eisner isn't personally in charge of landscaping and construction you know ... give the guys in Imagineering and Parks a little credit.

I was trying to find my own sarcastic comments to make on this subject. But the truth is in the Imagineers. I trust that they will do the right thing. If you want to see Canada without the skyline obstructions then go to Canada.

I have never seen so many people complaining about something that has not even happened yet. Would you have been happier to see a three story high wall built around the construction site so that you couldn't see what was going on?

I have seen Soarin' over California many times, and I am originally from California. The attraction fits well at DCA. I have said before that I feel this attraction is a Disney masterpiece, and it will also be a great fit at The Land, since a vast majority of the film focuses on nature.

But for the critics out there, consider this;
Maybe they should re-arrange the countries of World Showcase to make it more geographically correct. Shouldn't the U.S.A. pavillion be sandwiched between Mexico and Canada?

The view of Future World from World Showcase really hampers the skyline. Who want's to see Spaceship Earth from Japan?

And why doesn't Morocco light up during Illuminations?

Just some thoughts.

 

[wtg2000]

Shouldn't the U.S.A. pavillion be sandwiched between Mexico and Canada?

There is a subliminal reason for the layout.

Firstly, America is in the middle with Mexico and Canada on each periphery. This is to point out that the U.S.A. is the centre of North America with insignificant Mexico and Canada on the edges.

Secondly, America is in between Germany/Italy and Japan, indicating that only the U.S. stood between Axis world domination during World War II.

I'm kidding.

Geographically though, France and England are separated by a waterway so they got that right.

And why doesn't Morocco light up during Illuminations?

Could be religious reasons. Islam has a thing against flashiness.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"First of all, Redwood=Sequoia
They are the same tree."***

I think your wrong dude. I'm pretty sure there is a distinction between the two. Redwoods are taller ????

Maybe not.

 

[wtg2000]

First of all, Redwood=Sequoia

Coastal redwood (Sequoia), Giant sequoia (Metasequoia). It sounds like they are sisters.

 

[YoHo]

redwood
Sequoia sempervirens, (D. Don) Endl.
Cupressaceae

The family name is linked to descriptions of the family and its genera, and tables of all North American species in the family. For taxonomic information above the family level for this species, click on the family name, above.


Species summary:
Redwood is the tallest tree in the world, reaching 368 ft. It is a relict species confined to a narrow coastal fog belt from c. California and s. Oregon, never more than 35 miles from the sea. Primarily found on alluvial flats in pure or mixed stands.

Meanings of names:

Genus name: for Sequoiah, who invented the Cherokee alphabet

Species name: everliving

Common name: for the deep red heartwood

Other names in use:

Common name: coast redwood, california redwood

Taxonomic notes:Because there are no other species in this genus, the use of the term "coast redwood" is unnecessary, and this tree should simply be called redwood.

 

[YoHo]

Giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum), or "bigtree" as it is often called, is among the largest and oldest of living organisms. While taller trees do exist, including its closest of kin the coast redwood, no species of tree matches its girth, and only a few species of any type manage to survive longer than these colossal giants. While the oldest accurate account of the age for a giant sequoia is 3200 years, it is suspected that specimens have survived for as long as 5000 years.

Kay fine, Redwood is a TYPE of Sequoia.



Heh, ya learn something new everyday.

 

[wtg2000]

Is this the first ever DisBoard thread to discuss the genus of redwoods and sequoias? Anybody!

I liked the fake forest at the entrance to Universal's E.T. ride. That was the favourite part actually.

Just curious, and keeping this on topic, are redwood/sequoias featured in the Soarin' film?