-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Budget to Remove Wand Approved for this Fall
- Thread starter ToTBellHop
- Start date
sbkline
Well-Known Member
I wonder if the debate will even end once it's down. There will probably be some that deny that it is even down; they will claim that it's still there and that they're using mirrors to create the illusion of being down. :ROFLOL:
Giraffe Lounge
Member
Led Sse
Yuck, I've done some shoot-outs recently and have to disagree with you on that one. The color rendering is mediocre, color mixing of a three color system (like all CK products) is surprisingly limited, and they tend to do AWFUL things to flesh tones.
I agree that we're not quite at a place where LEDs can produce enough output to light that large a structure from as far away as SSE is, being 5 meters away at the Empire State Building and skimming the wall is notably easier. But I've met Kevin Dowling from Color Kinetics, and I'm sure LEDs will get there soon enough.
Yuck, I've done some shoot-outs recently and have to disagree with you on that one. The color rendering is mediocre, color mixing of a three color system (like all CK products) is surprisingly limited, and they tend to do AWFUL things to flesh tones.
I agree that we're not quite at a place where LEDs can produce enough output to light that large a structure from as far away as SSE is, being 5 meters away at the Empire State Building and skimming the wall is notably easier. But I've met Kevin Dowling from Color Kinetics, and I'm sure LEDs will get there soon enough.
JCorduroy
Active Member
The music this past year at POFQ was fantastic at christmas time in 06 - all creole and zydeco inspired. I can't speak for anywhere else, though.
unkadug
Follower of "Saget"The Cult
Very true, the LED par cans (which I am familiar with) have come a remarkably long way in just a couple of years, although still not really THERE yet. The technology will catch up to the desire eventually, I do believe.
The above statement was made towards my comment below:
"You just don't mess with classic pieces...Anyone who disagree's with this is ignorant to the inherent beauty of the designers original intent, and frankly you should think about getting more cultured in respect to the arts... And I stand behind that..."
Ignorance by it's very definition means a person is uninformed or uneducated.
If you don't understand that you don't alter classic pieces of art (whether they are the Statue of Liberty, the Vimy Ridge Memorial, the Kremlin, or "The Scream" by E. Munch) with genre crossing razzle-dazzle (like adding the wand to the Geosphere) and if you don't understand how that alters the artist/designers original intentions, then you are in fact, ignorant towards art and design.
Sure Disney owns the Geosphere, and they can do what they wish with it, I guess that makes the people who made the decision ignorant to their own artistic gifts, but I'm digressing.
Before responding to this I would suggest reading it and let it process.
While the internet is a great tool, with lots of information, far too many people fail to read and understand, before they start shooting their mouth off.
EPCOT Explorer
New Member
Cool, It's about time SpaceShip Earth returned to it's futuristic glory.
SpenceMan01
Well-Known Member
Ugh! Why must work block YouTube! I'll have to check it out when I get home. Thanks for posting that!
CrashNet
Well-Known Member
The internet is also a place where 3/4 of the information it provides must be scrutinized and taken with a grain of salt. Stating that Spaceship Earth is an icon and a piece of art is in itself, an opinion. Calling someone ignorant because they don't agree with that statement is what shows ignorance. Comparing the Statue of Liberty to an attraction building is comparing apples to oranges. And no, that's not a fact, its an opinion.
Back to the topic: I can't wait to see some pictures of the disassembly. I'm a little curious how long it will take to dismantle it. Anyone remember how long it took to put it up?
Let me play devil's advocate here. If Edvard Munch (if he were still alive) decided to paint a mustache on "The Scream" who are we to decide that he shouldn't have done that? He's the artist, he created it, and its his artistic vision. Isn't he well within his rights to change his own work?
As far as the wand and spaceship earth go, I see it the same way. Unless I'm mistaken, John Hench was orginally behind most if not all of Epcot's original design, including Spaceship Earth and the entrance plaza. He was also behind the redesign for the millennium celebration, including the wand and leave a legacy. If the original designer/architect/artist felt that the changes were in line with the original artistic vision why shouldn't we? Its one thing to dislike the wand on a personal aesthetic level but its completely another to say that the wand doesn't fit the artistic vision when it was the original artist that added it.
Personally I like the wand and would like to see it stay.
Lee
Adventurer
Again, read before react.
I did not say that. I said this: "..You just don't mess with classic pieces...Anyone who disagree's with this is ignorant to the inherent beauty of the designers original intent..."
There is nothing to agree with.
There is a reason, why nobody has painted the White House a different colour, there is a reason no one has colourized Picasso's Guernica.
Epcot is considered a classic piece of the modern age, much like the Guggenheim.
Again, what if James Hoban decided after the fact that the White House should be painted blue or Picasso later decided that the Bull in Guernica should be red? Frank Llyod Wright could have easily had the Guggenheim repainted a color other than white if he had wanted to. Those choices may have changed the way we as viewers felt about the object but clearly if the artist himself made the choice it would be in line with the artists vision.
DisneyLeo18
Active Member
im sorry but thats just your opinion. and the geosphere is in no way a classic piece of art such as the Guggenheim or the white house or the statue of liberty as much as you may love it. It's an amusement park and if the owner feels it should be altered to look better and people like it they will. Im sorry but thats just my OPINION.
There are no "What-Ifs". These things are they way they are because somebody had the vision to make it so, and they are generally well versed in their chosen field.
Agreed...this is a ride. The world does not revolve around Disney World. This is simply yet another beautification project in the parks so that things don't stagnate. Epcot is surely artistic, but I have never seen anyone standing in the entry plaza, weeping over its beauty. Some of us take things a little too seriously. There is a reason you need to go through extensive security checks and often a series of metal detectors to see the Statue of Liberty, the White House (well, it's not open to the public anymore...but if your Senator makes a call on your behalf...), or the Empire State Building and not Spaceship Earth.
yodathefrog
Member
I think that sittle is trying to say that they didn't. Why would you change something that is loved and admired by millions of people...that decision would be "ignorant". We are all dealing in if's and but's here. Apparently, Disney has decided that what they did to SSE was a mistake, and they are going to correct it.
kcnole
Well-Known Member
Except that's not exactly how things worked. The designer didn't just look at it and say, you know what this geosphere is missing that I should have added earlier? A wand. The marketing division decided something needed to change and so WDI was ordered to come up with something. I truly don't think their heart was in it which is why we received something so crappy.
It would be like a marketing division for a museum calling up Munch and saying there's not enough pizazz and zing in "The Scream" you are hearby ordered to paint a mustace onto it otherwise we'll destroy the painting completely. He might still do it, but its not because he thinks it needs to be done.
Just to clarify, because maybe I'm not understanding... Are you saying John Hench wasn't well versed in his chosen field?
SDav10495
Member
I understand wanting to play devil's advocate, but there's a big problem with that example. John Hench is not a painter who woke up one day and decided to paint a moustache on his work because it was necessary. He is a designer who answers to a huge corporation--a corporation that needed a marketing scheme to pull guests into Epcot for the year 2000. Hench may have been "behind" the designs for the Millennium Celebration, but that in no way means that he dreamed up the wand as a natural and appropriate addition to Spaceship Earth the way you are suggesting in your hypothetical examples. The wand was much more a child of marketing than it was of creativity--and as far as I know, the situation behind the scenes at the time of the wand didn't (doesn't?) favor great creative leaps. The wand, while an impressive feat of engineering, was conceived as a temporary marketing ploy. You may like it all you want, but it was never anything more than that...and it was certainly not a concious effort to permanently build upon the architectural statement of Spaceship Earth.
There is much to the story of the wand’s conception that simply cannot be accounted for by “artistic vision”, so it makes little sense to claim that the wand was originally intended just because John Hench happened to be “behind” it (whatever that means). I don’t mean to get back into the ludicrous debate over fact vs. opinion, but it should be obvious that the wand was never part of any greater aesthetic vision for Spaceship Earth, no matter who designed it and no matter how much people like it.
EDIT: Typed this at the same time as kcnole, I guess...