bgraham34
Well-Known Member
I did not mind the wand, but i do look forward to it coming down that is for sure. As long as Siemens is going to make SSE who cares if the wand is down.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The Best Wand Update "Hands Down" - 7/31
- Thread starter Hoop Raeb
- Start date
I did not mind the wand, but i do look forward to it coming down that is for sure. As long as Siemens is going to make SSE who cares if the wand is down.
cymbaldiva
Active Member
Then why in the world was it designed to appear so cheap and, well ... temporary looking? :veryconfu
Thank you fine people at Siemens :wave:
FloridaPhill
New Member
I would like some sort of clean to take place too. As a Mathematician I think it is important to preserve one of the best Pentakis Dodecahedrons there is on the planet.
CrashNet
Well-Known Member
Pentakis Dodecahedron...if I'm not rusty on my math...60 main faces correct?
Brian_B
Member
I completely disagree. As a kid I was immensely aware and appreciative of the look of Epcot. I loved the futurism and the way everything tied in to everything else, and how all the pavilions were unique in their way but also dealt with similar themes in a similar format. The icons are particularly missed - the design aesthetic of the entire park is what we're talking about. The whole point of theming is aesthetics; take it away, and you've got six flags great adventure; a bare-bones, confusing mess.
jmvd20
Well-Known Member
From a construction/engineering standpoint it was neither built cheaply nor built to be taken down in less than a year. Believe it or not some additional corners could have easily been cut if it were to be taken down after the millenium celebration.
I think what made the wand look cheap and temporary is that it was so out of place where it was built, heck it would have been out of place anywhere in Epcot.
I couldn't stand the wand at first, then I got used to it, then I kinda liked it... now that it is almost gone I re-realized why I didn;t like it in the first place - It really did *appear* to be cheap because it fit in with nothing around it.
Regardless of anyones opinion as to how it looked - it really was built quite well.
brianplace
New Member
sources?
If you _look_ at the thing it is cheap-looking and doesn't fit with the rest of the look of the park. It was temporary as in "birthday-cake-castle" temporary.
Perhaps it became permanent as time went on and budget priorities shifted - but whoever designed the thing clearly meant it to be a temporary structure.
The "budget priorities shifted" thing is what sucked, and why it lasted so long.
If you _look_ at the thing it is cheap-looking and doesn't fit with the rest of the look of the park. It was temporary as in "birthday-cake-castle" temporary.
Perhaps it became permanent as time went on and budget priorities shifted - but whoever designed the thing clearly meant it to be a temporary structure.
The "budget priorities shifted" thing is what sucked, and why it lasted so long.
brianplace
New Member
I agree - even when I was eight years old I "got it," of course not on the same level I "get it" now but I understood the basic message EPCOT was designed to send. "Here is the future. It's shiny, big, bold, spectacular, and will make your life better. Also notice how all of the nations are side by side in harmony, working together."
It's unfortunate that various Disney marketing execs over the years didn't "get" that same message from EPCOT and imposed what they _thought_ was the right thing to do (because it worked elsewhere or they learned it in school) on a place that was clearly very different from a "theme park."
EPCOT really is the main reason why I am such a fan of Disney - no other for-profit corporation would have the guts to gamble so much on such a risky, forward-thinking "beacon of progress"--much less keep it running for 25 years strong.
To those who say there was even an argument for _keeping_ the wand, I say "hogwash." There's no argument--You know how you have an innate sense of right and wrong? Taking it down was the right thing to do.
I AM NOT A PURIST - but I know what's right for EPCOT and what's wrong for it. Progress, innovation, new ideas and structures and attractions that support that message are always great But tacky looking plasticy wands that look like they're about to fall down during the next hurricane have absolutely nothing to do with the story presented there and thus should be removed.
If it doesn't support the story or message, get rid of it. That's good design.
jmvd20
Well-Known Member
Sigh...
Read my post right above yours...
Also it did not "become permanent as time went on"... It was built to stay until at least 2009 right off the bat and indefinitely after that. Budget priorities did not shift as it was the budget that caused them to plan on leaving it up until at least 2009 in the first place.
Whoever designed it most certantly did not do so for it to be up for a few years, it was designed and built to be up for decades.
Budget priorities shifting is what led to the wands downfall, not it staying longer and for that you can thank Siemens.
brianplace
New Member
Can you cite a source for that?
SSE is designed for decades. The wand did not look like it was designed for decades.
JML42691
Active Member
I'm sorry, but you can not possibly site sources as "the way a thing looked" and actually expect people to belive you. There is honestly no real major difference between building a temporary or permanent structure. If they were to build it temporary so it was not meant to remain standing properly for more then 2 or 3 years then there could be a potential crisis on Disney's hands. Think of it this way, if the support for the structure was only meant to stand for 2-3 years and if there were no budget to remove the wand after the 2-3 year period, then there would be a major risk of that thing falling on SSE or on the rest of the park. With the Hurricane risk in Florida, all things are built like they are to be ppermanent.
jmvd20
Well-Known Member
It is a fact that while the wand may *look* temporary to many people it simply was not built that way. It may have appeared to be temporary due to not fitting in with what is around it. Because of this we have 2 seperate issues:
1.) The wand *appeared* to be temporary because it stood next to SSE, and also in Epcot where it simply had no place.
2.) No matter how it looked, the fact remains it was built very well.
Both of those situations can and do co-exist at the same time.
Being that I earn a living dealing with commercial construction applications I can assure you it was not a temporary structure.
As far as the budget and the wand being scheduled to stay up until at least 2009 - that information is available from a number of very reliable and trustworthy people online, people that have a great record of being right about things, and therefore people that I trust.
brianplace
New Member
Imagine, if you will, that they _enclosed the sides_ of the steel support structure. This would have cost a lot more money, yes, but they probably would have gone for it if it was meant to be a permanent structure. They may have even opted for a 3D look to the arm and the wand.
What we had was a cheap metal tower with what appears from a distance to be "plywood cutouts" of Mickey's disembodied arm on the front and back of it. I've seen what they do in rides when budget gets slashed: they switch to cutouts (i.e. Horizons' 50/60s scene - when the budget was slashed the 3D audio animatronics went with it.)
Contrast this with the "Hat" at MGM - they obviously spent some time and money on it, because it doesn't look "temporary." There's no visible "structure" in it. It's fully 3D--it looks like a real-life version of a cartoon representation of a hat. Whether you like it or not, it's designed to stay up for a very, very long time.
This is Disney, if they build things permanently they look finished. Disney doesn't, as a rule, put naked steel towers next to timeless masterpieces.
Of course it was heavily built enough to please the insurance companies in case of a hurricane, but no more than that.
brianplace
New Member
It is a fact that while the wand may *look* temporary to many people it simply was not built that way. It may have appeared to be temporary due to not fitting in with what is around it. Because of this we have 2 seperate issues:
1.) The wand *appeared* to be temporary because it stood next to SSE, and also in Epcot where it simply had no place.
2.) No matter how it looked, the fact remains it was built very well.
Both of those situations can and do co-exist at the same time.
Being that I earn a living dealing with commercial construction applications I can assure you it was not a temporary structure.
As far as the budget and the wand being scheduled to stay up until at least 2009 - that information is available from a number of very reliable and trustworthy people online, people that have a great record of being right about things, and therefore people that I trust.
I have heard _recently_ that the budget was extended to 2009, but I can't find a source that says the budget was approved through 2009 when it was first _built_
sorry, I'm really cranky this evening. I never, ever want Disney to put anything so garish next to Spaceship Earth again.
jmvd20
Well-Known Member
I have heard _recently_ that the budget was extended to 2009, but I can't find a source that says the budget was approved through 2009 when it was first _built_
sorry, I'm really cranky this evening. I never, ever want Disney to put anything so garish next to Spaceship Earth again.
No reason to be sorry, I'm having fun talking about this!
Here's what I read from the same person who correctly broke the news that the wand was coming down before anyone esle did.
He stated that the wand was slated to be up until at least 2009 and indefinitely after that to defer construction costs. Since then numerous others have said the same thing.
By the way you just said it perfectly - "never, ever want Disney to put anything so garish next to SSE again" = That is why the wand *appeared* to be so cheap - because of what it was next to.
Imagine if the wand were above a billboard on the e-way, I bet people would have loved it!
JML42691
Active Member
Once again you cannot say that something is temporary because it looks temporary, or permanent because it looks permanent. As jmvd20 has been explaining to you, it is all in how it is built and not how it looks. A skyscraper in a city may look tacky and out of place, but that does not make it temporary (using a comparison). Both the hat and the wand were designed as permanent structures, as I said in my previous post, what if the removal budget was never approved and it was a temporary structure? The wand would pose a safety risk.
But overall I do slightly understand what you are saying, but I completely disagree with it. But that is all for tonight, I just realized that it is past midnight and I have a long day ahead of me.:wave:
brianplace
New Member
I understand what you're saying too... but you don't think they would have "finished" it if it was meant to be left up longer?
I know structurally it's the same - it _has_ to withstand hurricanes whether it was up for a year or 10. But you don't think they would have poured some more money in it to finish it if they meant to make it a permanent addition to SSE?