Soarin’ Around the World Review
This post offers a mostly spoiler-free review of Soarin’ Around the World, which debuted recently at Epcot and Disney California Adventure, comparing it to Soarin’ Over California, and providing general thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of the attraction. If you want to get technical, it’s actually a review of Soaring Over the Horizon at Shanghai Disneyland, since I haven’t been on the new stateside Soarin’ attractions. They’re all the same, though, minus the pre-show and finale scene.
Let’s start with the good: the core of the experience that made Soarin’ a new classic remains unchanged. The free flight simulation of soaring above the land and epic score still make this attraction a must-do. Those two things are the heart and soul of Soarin’, and are what made the original one of the best attractions of modern Imagineering. I don’t care if you swap the ride video out for “Soarin’ Over Indiana”, so long as the two core elements of Soarin’ remain, you have at least an 8/10 attraction.
I think that’s important to keep in mind for the rest of this review. The starting pointing here is an 8/10 score, and can only go up from there. Yes, a 5-minute view of the Hoosier state’s golden cornfields swaying in the breeze with deer galloping across the frame might not go up much, but certainly flying over the world’s most beautiful and iconic places holds more potential than cornfields.
That’s true in theory, and it’s true in practice. Some of the locations here are jaw-dropping, and you’ll have a “can’t believe your eyes” feeling marveling at some of the footage (I assume the same would hold true when seeing some of these places in real life). While I joke about the greatness of California, opting for locations that are far more grandiose and aspirational was a wise move. With no shortage of beautiful places in the world, it’s difficult to quibble over what was or wasn’t chosen here (especially since the Chinese government no doubt had some input on what could not be included).
The problem is that the visuals in the Around the World incarnation of Soarin’ are a mixed bag in what is very much a departure from the documentarian style of Soarin’ Over California. Although it debuted in Epcot at Walt Disney World later, Soarin’ was a circa-2001 film from the opening of Disney California Adventure. Think back to the most visually-stunning nature documentaries you’ve seen.
When I do that, almost everything that comes to mind is post-2000. I would say that Planet Earth (2007) redefined the concept, and raised the cinematographic bar in a number of ways. Disney has followed suit with its Disneynature series, and further advances in technology have made it easier for hobbyists to produce stunning films (just check out this time lapse by a pair of backpackers).
Of course, Disney has the distinct advantage of incorporating its film into a theme park attraction, so no direct comparison can be made between Soarin’ and other travelogues that you just sit and watch. Nonetheless, it’s probably fair to say that the Imagineers didn’t want guests shrugging and saying, “I’ve seen better on YouTube” as they left Soarin’ Around the World.
This is evident in the end product, and clearly more shooting was done during at the beginning and end of days when natural lighting is best, and less during the middle of the day when lighting is often flat. That’s definitely an improvement upon the original, with some footage that gave a surprisingly bland impression of places that are actually pretty stunning. It’s also demonstrated in post-production, where the film has a decidedly more polished, vibrant, and hyper-realistic look.
As someone who similarly takes an aggressive approach to photo editing, I get the appeal of this. I also think such a punchy style with exaggerated detail doesn’t work in every setting. Photojournalists could never edit in such a manner because authenticity would be questioned. It’s fair to say a theme park attraction isn’t an exercise in journalism, but probably somewhere in between. Ideally, the visuals should push the envelope as far as they can without pulling guests out of the moment by questioning whether what they are looking at is real.
There are several scenes in which this is not a noticeable issue during Soarin’ Around the World. Unfortunately, there are several places where it is a problem. Save for one glaring exception that I doubt was even filmed on location at all, this isn’t entire scenes. It is due to the addition of little details to the scene, such as people, boats, balloons, or–mostly–animals. I assume these are meant to be icing on the cake, but the visuals could have stood on their own without being “plussed” like this.
The CGI animals don’t necessarily look fake. They don’t have that early 2000s Scorpion King kinda cheesiness, but you do get the feeling that someone at WDI learned CGI and got a little carried away. Fortunately, the technology has evolved enough that even heavy-handed CGI isn’t necessarily noticeable. With the animals, it’s more a sense you get as a viewer that these are not serendipitous moments, they are after-effects. This knowledge, as a viewer, takes you out of the moment. There’s a reason why so many film-goers complain about the overuse of CGI, and that’s it. (Additionally, it’s easier to stomach CGI when you’re watching Godzilla destroy a city–something you know isn’t real–than it is when you’re flying over real world locations.)
On the plus side, the animals do provide transitions, the lack of which was a common complaint about the original Soarin’. This probably feels like a no-win scenario for Imagineering: people complained about the lack of transitions, and now people complain about contrived ones. It just feels like they went from one extreme to the other. There is one scene during the new Soarin’ where a visual symmetry approach was used to transition, and for me, that works incredibly well. Likewise, ascending into clouds and swooping out of them also works for transitions, and also reiterates the whole ‘hang gliding’ pretense of the attraction that has more or less been abandoned on everything except signage at this point.
If you want overly critical, you could lament how the attraction doesn’t simulate hang gliding. The thing is, it’s close enough. (Probably?) I don’t think I’m going out on a limb or exaggerating with an estimate that 99%+ of Disney-goers has never gone hang gliding. If there were a Venn diagram of “hang gliding enthusiasts” and “Disney enthusiasts” not only would there be zero overlap, but the sets would be so diametrical that they’d have to be on different sheets of paper.
Hang gliding is for thrill seekers who obtain a sense of exhilaration from participating in one of the world’s deadliest hobbies. Disney fans are exhilarated “racing” to Frozen Ever After at rope drop (mortality rate not yet available). Just as those bros who free-climbed El Capitan’s Dawn Wall aren’t going to the climbing walls at a local wall and complaining that the experience isn’t authentic, “famous” hang gliders aren’t complaining that Soarin’ isn’t the real deal. It’s not meant for them. It’s a simulation of free flight for us mortals within the theme park constraint of needing to be operationally efficient. From that perspective, it is most definitely “close enough.” In fact, the sensation of flying, coupled with that enchanting score and cool in-air visuals–no matter what the visuals–will always make Soarin’ a winner, even if it does have some shortcomings.
Overall, Soarin’ Around the World retains the core elements that made its predecessor such a success with guests. In the sense that it doesn’t try to fix something that isn’t broken by altering the fundamental formula of what worked, I guess it’s a success. The thing is, I think we should have hoped for more than “don’t screw it up” with Soarin’ Around the World. I know it’s difficult for the rest of the world to stack up to California in terms of beauty, but there is a ton of natural beauty out there. So much CGI wasn’t necessary. The vast majority of guests will never see any of these places in their lifetimes–let alone fly over them–so why not let the majestic awe of that experience speak for itself? It’s disappointing that the Soarin’ Around the World team felt the need to get so heavy-handed with “producing” this attraction, but at the end of the day, it’s still an incredible, must-do experience at Epcot or Disney California Adventure. Even with all of my complaints, I’d still give this version a 9 or 9.5/10.
Planning a Walt Disney World trip? Learn about hotels on our Walt Disney World Hotels Reviews page. For where to eat, read our Walt Disney World Restaurant Reviews. To save money on tickets or determine which type to buy, read our Tips for Saving Money on Walt Disney World Tickets post. Our What to Pack for Disney Trips post takes a unique look at clever items to take. For what to do and when to do it, our Walt Disney World Ride Guides will help.
For comprehensive advice, the best place to start is our Walt Disney World Trip Planning Guide for everything you need to know!
For Walt Disney World news, tips, discount info, and free eBook downloads sign up for our free monthly newsletter.
If you enjoyed this post, we’d really appreciate it if you’d share it via social media! We put a lot of work into making this site a helpful planning resource, and hope it’s useful to you. 🙂
Your Thoughts
Have you experienced Soarin’ Around the World? Do you agree or disagree with our assessment? What did you think of the original? Share any questions, tips, or additional thoughts you have in the comments!
I’ve only seen the online videos, so I was hoping to discover that the animals (and certain scenes) appeared less fake in person. Apparently that isn’t the case. I’m sure that it’s still a great experience, but what I’ve seen and heard makes it feel like a lesser version. I expect to still really enjoy it, but I’m on the same page as you with the added CGI. Were transitions really that big of a problem?
I agree with your comments, but you are not nearly critical enough of the GGI. I was sorely disappointed. Half way though the ride, I began to wonder if ANY of the “video” was real.
They ruined a classic. They should change the name to Soarin’ over CGI.
Our favorite ride! My single question: do they still have the smells? We always looked forward to that single moment over the citrus fields!
The first time I went on Soarin, I was seated in the top row and it was awesome. It seemed like a completely different ride the second time, when all I could focus on was the people swinging their legs in front of me. I was hoping when they closed, they would find some way of blocking out the people in front.
I’m going to miss the original, most definitely, but I’m looking forward to seeing the new one when I visit WDW this fall.
The original Soarin over California film was actually filmed in 1999…I remember the carrier flyover scene in San Diego was filmed in July of 1999 because it made our local newspaper, where I was working at the time
I just watched a POV video – while obviously the physical aspects of the ride are lost in a youtube, it did give me a decent idea of what it’s like.
I don’t know if it’s the CGI that was bothering me, or the lack of those hang-gliding effects done in the original, but something definitely didn’t measure up for me in this new version.
That together with what seemed to be a glaring absence from the film. I have to wonder if they skipped Jerusalem for security reasons. Aerial views of Jerusalem and the surrounding hills are absolutely magnificent and certainly belong in a soaring over the world film of this kind.
Can’t wait to see this attraction but, you’ve got a bit of overlap in your Venn diagram. I’m a Disney fan who enjoys hang gliding!
As The original Soarin is my favourite ride in the whole of Florida I will definitely be checking it out this September.
As someone who is booking FastPasses soon I would be interested to hear what has happened in terms of queue times at Epcot now that Frozen Ever After is a new Tier 1 ride and Soarin has a new screen. My instinct as I’m going to Epcot 4 or 5 times out of my 15 days at Disney is to book Frozen Ever After as a FastPass on one day, and Soarin on the others. as a childless couple I doubt we want to do Frozen Ever After multiple times!
As a childless adult who’s done both attractions multiple times, I would lean towards two and two for FP. Take Frozen when you can get it – it’s a very, very well done attraction. It does remind you of the good dark ride attractions, in length, storytelling etc. Also note – Soarin’ tends to drop off to <1/2 hour wait by 8:30 pm. I'm local, but we did a RD of Test Track, Frozen with FP+, and Soarin' during fireworks without a problem.
I’m curious about the score (since it didn’t rate any mention beyond it being a “core” component of a successful Soarin’) and while I’d assume they replaced the original Jerry Goldsmith score, I’d like to know for sure. The music was always one of the standouts so I’m hopeful the new music isn’t as bland as Disney’s more recent efforts.
The “new” score is by Bruce Broughton, but it’s virtually the same as the original, except with some new instrumental pieces layered on that fit the locations. It is very similar to the original, which is why I more or less treated it as being unchanged.
Cool! Thanks for the info! 🙂
I’m intrigued by the pre-show at Soaring in Shanghai. From what I have seen and heard it looks more than a bit bananas…and I can certainly dig it. It’s kind of fun to see that Disney can still do something fairly weird.
Having seen it all in person, does the Shanghai pre-show provide a context that helps the new film’s look and flow make more sense?
People seemed to be chuckling at the pre-show, and I guess maybe it makes sense in the context of the queue there (which is awesome) and the attraction being located in Adventure Isle, but if anything, it’s even more at odds with the film itself than the regular Soarin’ pre-show.
If anything, I think the pre-show for Shanghai helps transition from Adventure Isle to the film itself, bridging the gap a bit.
Very fair review.
I agree with you that the lack of hang gliding realism is not a problem at all. I don’t think the term “Soarin'” necessarily has to mean “hang gliding”.
I’ve also always been amazed by the “feet dangling in my face” complaint. That just seems like something people found to complain about. True, 2/3 of riders will have someone above them, but to say feet are in their face is ridiculous.
However, the CGI use, specifically the entire sequence that uses it……..
….is completely unforgivable.
As you stated, they should have just chosen another location.
SO – this sounds pretty pedestrian, from the description you give, with a fairly large bungle thrown in. The beauty of Soarin over California was that it took a familiar place and showed us seldom seen landscapes from it. Neuschwanstein, and the Matterhorn are very well known. Perhaps they save the experience with seldom seen views? I am wondering if this is worth the effort.
Keeping in mind that Soarin’ Over California was created for Disney California Adventure–a park frequented primarily by Californians–I wouldn’t say much there was seldom seen. Save for the orange field (which is now a subdivision, as I understand), I’ve seen all of those locations after living in California for a year and a half. I suspect lifelong Californians were all pretty familiar with the places featured.
Floridians or tourists to Walt Disney World, probably not so much, but the ride wasn’t created for them in the first place.
I don’t want to spoil to much but the GCI animals were just to over the top for me. I prefer authentic and I recall watching circle vision movies in Epcot World Showcase (i.e. France or Canada) and still find them more interesting than this. I know its just one Disney fan’s opinion here in the midwest but I think this deserves a far lower rating compared to its original counterpart. Is this a simple case that an original holds nostalgia or people simply hold it such high regard because of its longevity and love for the original? I don’t think so here. I would give it a 7 out of 10. I also hope for a two screen split at DCA showing both. It would be very interesting to see how that would play in terms of interest.
Mike D
Impressions de France was my favorite film in Epcot before this, and it remains my favorite after this. Aside from some minor issues with outfits, it is pretty much timeless, with top-notch cinematography, a beautiful score, and stunning visuals.
I still can’t believe they created this ride such that you can see people’s feet hanging if you are on the lower level.
I see that mentioned a lot, but it really doesn’t bother me. Seeing the people in front of you is a fact of not being front row in everything at the parks. The difference here is that they could’ve (presumably) engineered the ride differently to eliminate that, but I’ve never found it overly distracting. YMMV, maybe?
Why all the bashing from everyone? Enjoy it for what it is! A place filled with pixie dust, animated characters, and audio-animatronics and you’re complaining about CGI or authenticity of the hang gliding experience? How sad for you all.
The regular, sad readers of this blog are constantly subjected to my non-stop barrage of critique and analysis of these pixie dust-filled places. You have a keen eye in spotting this, and being able to save yourself. Let this serve as warning for all others: it’s too late for the regulars–get out before it’s too late for you!
Tom,
Your wit and sense of humor is a big part of why I keep coming back for more. I personally find your reviews to be the most balanced of any Disney fan sight. I am happy to be a regular reader 😉 Keep up the great work!
I did the Orlando version last week and there are multiple scents. It was one of my favorite things about the new version. My favorite was a floral smell that definitely reminded me of India….even if we weren’t there.
I thought the ride in DCA was ok, but for me the one entire scene that is entirely CGI killed the experience for me. CGI animal transition, sure. Adding CGI people, ok. But creating a CGI version of the ENTIRE scene? What’s the point of including it then? Why not pick something else that you would actually be allowed to fly over and film, and including that in the ride, instead of creating a CGI version of something? That and the massive distortion of the images that result if you sit on the side ride arms, make this ride a one and done for me. It just seemed like Soarin over CA was so much more…..authentic. Oh well, one less tier 1 Epcot FP I have to worry about for my next trip to DW.
Yeah, that scene *really* bothered me (I probably downplayed it here, but it’s egregious), as well. Maybe they couldn’t secure the necessary permission for a flyover? If that was the case, why not choose a new location?
Part of me hopes this version is less popular with DCA guests, causing Disney to run both versions there. Not because I love and miss the original, but because it fit the park’s theme so much better and I think running both would make sense there.
I’ve heard another scene (the one with the really tall structure with flashing lights) was entirely CGI too. It’s not as egregious as the other scene, but if true, it’s really disappointing.
I have seen videos posted online and agree that there is just a bit too much CGI for realism. But, perhaps that is not what they were going for. And I assume most people love to see animals they would not normally see…so it’s all good.
My question is…does the ride have any new, memorable scents? This may be a spoiler…but EVERYONE I know thinks “orange groves” when they think of the original Soarin.
There were not scents in the Shanghai version, but I also know it was behind schedule and has experienced technical difficulties there, so I’m not sure if that holds true on the other versions.
There were definitely scents in the Shanghai version! I was there this weekend.
Overall I wasn’t too disturbed by the CGI. What I found extremely underwhelming was the way the screen distorts straight lines if you’re sitting to the side. This was especially painful in the final Shanghai scene, where the straight lines on all the skyscrapers looked really really bad.
I can’t say I’m too surprised that the effect wasn’t working during our ride, but that’s better than it just not having scents at all!
You’re right about the sides. A seat in the center is definitely much more preferable. I’m surprised they chose so many locations with architecture. Distortion is a lot easier to hide in nature…
There are three scents – a grass, jasmine, and ocean waves scent.
I think that Soarin’ Around The World abandons all pretense of being a hang glider. Yes, there are allusions to it (the swoop down the Great Wall of China) but in Bavaria, you make a helicopter pivot to the left that would be impossible because it has no forward momentum.
This is not a bad thing. By abandoning that, they’re able to get over the top of the Matterhorn, or scale the Eiffel Tower. Whereas Soarin’ Over California was a whimsical trip through the Golden State, Around The World is an experience meant to blow you away with incredible sights all around the world.
About those sites (it’s wordplay, yay!): I love all of the Disney mirroring in them. For example, the Matterhorn mimics the Matterhorn in Disneyland, and the castle seen in Bavaria was the influence for Cinderella Castle here in Orlando. We actually see Mt. Kilimanjaro, which lends its name to a Safari in Animal Kingdom. It’s little touches like this that show people were thinking this through.
I love both versions, for their own reasons.
Aside to the allusions in the original, the attraction was never really about mimicking the hang gliding experience. That was always just a pretense, and I think it makes sense to minimize it further. The free flight experience was (and is) so strong that it doesn’t need that contrivance.
Good point about the Disney mirroring in sites.