General Grizz said:
It may be nice and clean, sleek and modern, attractive and streamlined...
[/list]
...but is it The Land?
A better question may be how is it not related to the Land? Forget the preconceived notion that an airport theme was being overlaid on the pavilion. The reality is only the Soarin’ addition took on an airport theme. One which, by the way, is exceptionally done with natural wood ceilings, wooden wall decorations, curved and flowing lines along the walls and along the ceilings, blue natural lighting and one room with a beautiful, almost cloud-like ceiling. Not to mention the five large panoramic views of Earth’s biomes in the Great Hall with its ever-changing number of questions and factoids about them to entertain and educate guests waiting in line. Is the airport theme that embraces these natural elements any less appropriate than a rock n’ roll concert theatre/venue that was part of the former pavilion? I find it hard you could argue it did.
Back to the rest of the pavilion. The entire central portion now has a greater, more cohesive theme of “ the land” than ever before. Is it a little less "earthy", perhaps, but is that all that would make it appropriate? I realize we all agree the atrium/ceiling works very well, so I’ll spare the regurgitation of how it works for the Land pavilion. The bottom floor though is no more an airport terminal than the old food court was something you could see in a dated shopping mall. If you went in looking for it to be that way, you could easily find evidence of it on both sides. After all, in the former pavilion, the farmer’s market theme dealt more with the “food” and less with “the land”. Now let’s look at the new pavilion for what it presents as a total package. Forget the biased idea it looks like an airport and for a second stop trying to see how it does, because there is SO much more there. We now have an entire experience from the food to the seating areas to the atrium that all deal with the land’s four seasons, integral to the way the land is shaped on a yearly basis and affecting how man can interact with it. The seating areas are decked out in bright bold colors representing each season. The tables further that themeing as they are imprinted with various images depicting that particular season. Fall leaves decorate the autumn tables and suns on the tables in the summer section depict the summer. Coupled with the curved lines used throughout, dark, natural looking wood chairs that actually have a back to them surround all tables. This is in stark contrast to the small, backless, stools of the former pavilion. These new chairs and the surrounding benches may actually let guests sit back and relax for once and take in the beautiful atrium. And then there is the food, continuing the experience of the seasons and the land with tastes and smells representative of each season. How did the food at the old farmer’s market extend the theme of the land beyond the food and the notion it was grown from the land? I'm not convinced yet it did.
The central part of the pavilion then takes the experience to a new level and gives the pavilion its “Future”/modern look, as it is part of FUTURE world afterall. Modern art representations and bright open colors are complemented with representations of green tree trunks along the pavilion’s columns and lighting structures that represent either clouds or trees….whatever the eye wants to see, it all has to do with The Land in the end.
Please understand I see, respect and undertand your points of view. Vaild arguments have been made. I only ask that you forget trying to prove it looks like an airport terminal by using fragmented, one-sided quotes from mostly forum members here, one-sided views and deceiving “photos” and talk about the theme that’s there. I even saw something in the recent D-troops article that is a DIRECT quote from something I said here regarding the hope for more seasonal themeing to indicate which food serving area is what. It's true, I do, but it comes nowhere close to representing my true feelings on the new look of the pavilion and, for me, proof of the one-sided bias nature of the review and even may bring into the question the credibility and reliability of the D-troops for good reviews (for me at least). Its only my background knowledge of many of the founders of that site (mainly from our history here) that keep me knowing you all want to have the best intentions. I don't expect for us all to share the same viewpoints, but it wouldn't hurt to provide a balanced perspective at the forefront and not just in an editorial down the road. The pavilion has more to do with the land than you seem to want to give credit for.
