Budget to Remove Wand Approved for this Fall

[sittle]

Arrogance is over abundant in that post.

Perhaps my idea of art is much different than yours...
Perhaps I feel SSE is nothing more than a silver golf ball...
Perhaps I think the wand is a glorious work of art, after all I guarantee artists worked on it...
Perhaps I feel that you are ignorant for not seeing the beauty of the wand...
Just because people disagree with someones opinion does not make them ignorant. Fact is some people like the wand and some do not, neither is ignorant nor more cultured than the other based upon a matter of opinion.

That's not arrogance, that's confidence and culture.

I'm sorry some people just don't understand.

When your talking about landmarks like the CN Tower, the Great Wall of China, the Eiffel tower, the London Tower, (and yes the Epcot Geosphere falls into this catergory) you can't "plus" those landmarks. They are already plussed. You certainly won't make them look any better by adding a little whimsy to them.

These landmarks are so well known and well designed they are above opinions. You can't make them better, you can enhance them, with lighting or better surroundings, but you can't just slap a mickey wand onto them. It's out of context.

These are not opinions, these are facts.

 

[jmvd20]

Somebody find a video of the old WDW commercial with the fly-over of Mickey waving from the top of SSE. Maybe it'll change some of the wand fanatics' minds.

This isn't that exact one but there is a quick fly by of SSE around 10 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb-jUlIRJHY

 

[SirNim]

you can enhance them, with lighting or better surroundings, but you can't just slap a mickey wand onto them. It's out of context.

Indeed, sound-and-light shows are all the rage at various landmarks around the world (Tour Eiffel, Giza Plateau, various European cathedrals, etc.). New lighting effects are just about the only safe, sane, and aesthetically-pleasing way to "plus" great architectural monuments.

 

[jmvd20]

These are not opinions, these are facts.

No, people always mis-use the word "fact".

2 + 2 = 4 is a fact

It is "your" opinion that landmarks cannot be "plussed" by adding things to them. That is not a fact, no matter how much you try to beleive it.

 

[Expo_Seeker40]

I agree with a few other posters and can relate to one of them. My first trip to WDW was in 1996, and even though I had grown up with the castle in video and images, I of course did see the castle-cake for my first time, but was rest assured that it was temporary and would one day be gone by the next time I'd visit, allowing the castle to be itself again. Same thing with the happiest celebration decorations.

The wand is finally coming down, and SSE will return to being beautiful, bold, and modern...EPCOT is magical all in its own. It doesn't need corporate branded pixie dust to show that the magic is already there.

I too remember the old WDW commercials with Mickey and SSE. It was those commercials, before my first trip to WDW that got me excited.

They truly showed how amazing SSE is all in itself. With the helicopter flying over the park's entrance, then up to the palm trees that were placed so that each one was higher than the other, and then finally to Mickey waving from the top of SSE. :sohappy:

 

[fizzle75]

But to answer your initial question of "How can you NOT love this....?"
Here is my answer....

Because you could have this instead!

Sweet! They're replacing the wand with a big hitchin' Mickey thumb!:lol:

That'll be awesome!!!

 

[marni1971]

Ding dong the wand is dead.....

 

[TinkerBell9988]

Sweet! They're replacing the wand with a big hitchin' Mickey thumb!:lol:

That'll be awesome!!!

It would certainly be better than what we have now... :shrug:

And I for one am an anti-Wand EPCOT person that is awake today! :lol:

I just hope this is true. The back-and-forth nature of these threads are driving me crazy!

I'll just need the Kleenex for when I see walls around the base of the wand and letters missing from "Epcot"... Happiest day of my life!

At least my dream will come true during the Year of a Million Dreams!

 

[Vernonpush]

Look at post#8 and #22:
http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showthread.php?t=192935

 

[DMC-12]

We need more wand threads in news and rumors.

 

[sittle]

No, people always mis-use the word "fact".

2 + 2 = 4 is a fact

It is "your" opinion that landmarks cannot be "plussed" by adding things to them. That is not a fact, no matter how much you try to beleive it.

It is your opinion that you can jazz up classic art and architecture pieces by slapping some shoddily made, genre-crossing elements onto it.

It is a well known FACT in the art community on a whole that you cannot do the same with classic art, design or architecture pieces.

You cannot improve upon Michelangelo's David, you cannot improve upon F.L. Wright's Guggenheim, you cannot improve improve upon Picasso's Guernica, you cannot improve the Sydney Opera House.

You cannot add cheaply fashioned bobbles trinkets to any of these. (Well any attempt to do so only cheapens them.)

These items listed are the pinnacle of art and design. The Geosphere falls into that category.

Maybe you do need a degree in fine art to know this fact?

 

[Captain Hank]

I'll admit it, I liked the wand during the Millenium celebration. It was new. It was cool. It was special, because it was only going to be around for the celebration.

Then, two years later, I came back. It was still there. But this time, it said "Epcot." I didn't dislike it too much, but at the same time I wasn't crazy about it.

Then, over the years, I started to like it less and less. I really started to try to remember what SSE looked like before the wand was there. Then, finally, last week I was backstage near SSE and looked up. I was at preciesely the right angle and distance to see SSE and only SSE--no wand. Not only did the sphere look cleaner, it looked much, much bigger. It just looked better. I really hope the rumors are true, and that the wand is finally coming down.

 

[jakeman]

Yeah sorry there sittle, I'm going to have to disagree with you. To estabilsh what you claim as fact you would need to "plus" the object and then conduct surveys to prove that it is an improvement or not to a statistically power to prevent a significant amount of error. Even then that gathering of data would just be the collection of people's opinion to come to a general consensus on whether an object is better or not.

Since the whole concept of art is subjective and the betterment of art is subjective you can't really have facts to support that.

Regardless of what the art community believes, it is not a fact. Just because it is in a book and many folks believe it does not make it true.

 

[CrashNet]

Just curious as I was not here on these forums in 1999/2000...what was everyone's reaction on these forums when they found out about the wand and it was under construction?

And since everyone is voicing their opinions: I really don't care either way. I liked it fine, but could care less if its gone. Either way, its still Epcot.

 

[sittle]

Yeah sorry there sittle, I'm going to have to disagree with you. To estabilsh what you claim as fact you would need to "plus" the object and then conduct surveys to prove that it is an improvement or not to a statically power to prevent a significant amount of error. Even then that gathering of data would just be the collection of people's opinion to come to a general consensus on whether an object is better or not.

Since the whole concept of art is subjective and the betterment of art is subjective you can't really have facts to support that.

Regardless of what the art community believes, it is not a fact. Just because it is in a book and many folks believe it does not make it true.

Oh, my gosh your right... your so right, and I am so wrong. What was I thinking?!?!

Oh well, silly me!

*SARCASM*

Sorry, it's basically etched in stone. Art is subjective, true, but just by your response alone you just don't "get it". If you disagree.. go ahead, try improving upon Michalangelo's david..

Here's an example. You can replace the two main characters in "American Gothic" with Mickey and Minne, and it's really cute (and it's been done), but you won't be seeing on the walls of any National art Gallery. It's whimsical, and clever, but it's not a masterpiece. Do you understand now?

 

[mousermerf]

Interesting thought...

Fact: You can't be an Architect without going through a proper process of testing and proving yourself and earning it. One cannot simply call themself an Architect. It's actually illegal. The terms Architect, Architecture, and Architectural are protected by law.

Fact: Spaceship Earth is a piece of Architecture. It is a historic Architectural icon.

Fact: The wand is not.

 

[jakeman]

Nope, I don't, because it is your opinion.

I personally think that David could use a pair of pants and a nice smoking jacket. Therefore David has been improved and your fact is proven false.

Now if it is a theroy that art cannot be imporved upon then that would be acceptable. However, this is not a fact nor will it ever be until there are conclusive, statistically powered studied to prove it.

I would also like to respectfully ask that you refrain from accusing me of not "getting it". The tone of your post are boarding on personal attacks. I am enjoying this discussion and would hate to withdraw because of unstructured insults and ramblings.

 

[mousermerf]

Nope, I don't, because it is your opinion.

I personally think that David could use a pair of pants and a nice smoking jacket. Therefore David has been improved and your fact is proven false.

Now if it is a theroy that art cannot be imporved upon then that would be acceptable. However, this is not a fact nor will it ever be until there are conclusive, statically powered studied to prove it.

I would also like to respectfully ask that you refrain from accusing me of not "getting it". The tone of your post are boarding on personal attacks. I am enjoying this discussion and would hate to withdraw because of unstructured insults and ramblings.

Well, noteably, we wouldn't hate it if you withdrew

 

[1disneydood]

I hope mousesurplus gets parts to sell. I'd have to buy a star to put on my roof for Christmas. And I'm actually NOT kidding.

 

[jakeman]

Interesting thought...

Fact: You can't be an Architect without going through a proper process of testing and proving yourself and earning it. One cannot simply call themself an Architect. It's actually illegal. The terms Architect, Architecture, and Architectural are protected by law.

Fact: Spaceship Earth is a piece of Architecture. It is a historic Architectural icon.

Fact: The wand is not.

That is an interesting take merf. Was the wand comissioned and built by architects? (not trying to be smarmy, I really don't know).

Again, because I don't know, are there criteria that a structure must meet inorder for it to be an icon?