Originally Posted By bayrr326 One of my complaints about WDWMagic is that anytime you complain about things at WDW you are tagged as some nostalgic fanboy not someone who expects more from Disney since they used to give you more bang for your buck and didn't allow the parks to get so runned down at times. Of course god forbid you bring up the wand. I really hope it comes down just so it will shut up some of the naysayers on that site.
Originally Posted By danyoung >As of this fall, that hideous monstrosity that has tarnished the grandeur of SSE since 1999 will be headed to the trash heap of history.< Spirit, some days you're just my general all around hero. And then some days you really come through and make a difference to an ol' Texan! Now I have yet another reason to look forward to my next trip in December!
Originally Posted By danyoung >The point I was making was that I don't believe Walt would have compromised his dreams to make some corporate bean counter happy...< Who said the Wand was in any way one of Walt's dreams? The Wand was a HUGE mistake, and finally someone with some decision making power is acknowledging it. Nowhere in Spirit's post did it say that Seimens in any way had any kind of veto power over the wand. They simply expressed their dislike, and that combined with the almost universal disdain for the wand that you can find on any web site finally changed some corporate minds. It's a win for Seimens, and a huge win for us. And to say that Walt wasn't influenced by corporate desires is to show a complete lack of understanding of early Disneyland history. You can bet that Small World never would have been built if UNICEF didn't like the design. Nor would we have the Carousel of Progress if GE hadn't given it the OK. Disney parks and Walt have a long history of cooperation with corporations. And if someone is going to kick in the massive amounts of cash that Seimens has, they sure oughtta get something that they're happy with. Just as long as the Imagineers are still in the design seat, I'm a happy guy.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Why no Beastly Kingdom? Because it doesn't fit in, that's why. Already 'Camp Minnie Mickey' and Dino-Rama stick out like a sore thumb. The Beastly Kingdom would be just as bad, but on a much larger (and more costly) scale. Thank God someone at Imagineering (perhaps Rohde himself?) realized that first ideas are not always the best ideas, and mercifully pulled the plug.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "Because it doesn't fit in, that's why." Wait, so we have two real world continents, a Dinosaur museum and carnival, a summer camp, a conservation area and a tropical oasis. How exactly does a land of mythical animals not fit in with the rest of that hodge-podge?? If you ask me, Animal Kingdom is already a mixed-up mess as far as "land" themes go -- I don't think Beastly Kingdom would have made it any worse.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>You can bet that Small World never would have been built if UNICEF didn't like the design.<< Actually, Pepsi was the World's Fair sponsor of iasw. UNICEF was their beneficiary. But I understand what you are driving at. Based on my understanding, during the time that Walt at the helm, corporations wanted to be associated with the good will that the Disney name had generated over the years. For the most part, sponsors would go along with whatever the creative minds at WED devised. Today this is, sadly, not exactly the case. As the Disney "brand" has been eroded, sponsors have proven to be quite fickle. So corporations may, indeed, have much more say when it comes to creative and aesthetic decisions.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Wait, so we have two real world continents, a Dinosaur museum and carnival, a summer camp, a conservation area and a tropical oasis. How exactly does a land of mythical animals not fit in with the rest of that hodge-podge?? If you ask me, Animal Kingdom is already a mixed-up mess as far as "land" themes go...<< I respectfully disagree. Animal Kingdom has a clearly delineated theme. Africa, Asia, the Oasis, and Conservation Station are obvious. The camp represents another aspect of the animal world, one that many American children find quite familiar. Dinoland deals with prehistoric animals, albeit in an unorthodox (ie: non-stuffy) way. Beastly Kingdom would simply present another aspect of the animal world, specifically the realm of animals in myth and legend.
Originally Posted By mickey_ring So now any Epcot SSE merchandise from 1999 to 2007 will be Wand-era collector's items... ?
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>And to say that Walt wasn't influenced by corporate desires is to show a complete lack of understanding of early Disneyland history. You can bet that Small World never would have been built if UNICEF didn't like the design. Nor would we have the Carousel of Progress if GE hadn't given it the OK. Disney parks and Walt have a long history of cooperation with corporations. And if someone is going to kick in the massive amounts of cash that Seimens has, they sure oughtta get something that they're happy with. Just as long as the Imagineers are still in the design seat, I'm a happy guy.<<< And to think that Walt was CREATIVELY influenced by corporate money is a vast overstatement. He took on assignments for a reason. The worlds fair was a corporate financed venture into a new area of animatronics that Walt was interested in. They asked for his creative ability to put the message across that they wanted to showcase. Yes, it had a commercial side and I am sure that Ford or GE would not have been willing to spend the money if their product were not showcased. That isn't the point I am making nor is it relevant to the present day happenings of the Disney Corp. That is because no one but Walt really knew what motivated him But since, historically speaking, he almost lost his empire many times over because of his stubborn insistence that things be done his way, I doubt that he would have allowed Pepsi or any other sponsor to determine the scope of his imagination. He was commissioned to CREATE an attraction based around the general concept of their needs but I am as sure as I am sitting here that they had no more influence over the end design the he had of telling them how to make Pepsi, Cars or appliances. The wand is not his creation it is just an example of how a design of the Disney Group can be, if it is true, abandoned because one corporation doesn't like it. And don't kid yourself. The majority of the people that post on these things on these Disney boards might find the Wand a mistake, you can take to the bank that the vast majority of the visitors couldn't care less and have absolutely no opinion one way or the other. Therefore, it is not the public demanding the removal, it is one single corporation that somehow thinks that the wand is not appropriate. Why doesn't that scare you? How easy would it have been for Seimans to say, we don't like the show in SSE so if you want our money you need to gut it and put in, oh, I don't know, a pooh playground maybe? If all of you can live with that, fine, I will stay with Disney for as long as they do what is needed to make me happy. If they don't they they will lose my financial support. I'm sure many an executive lays awake at night worrying about that prospect.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Actually, Pepsi was the World's Fair sponsor of iasw. UNICEF was their beneficiary. But I understand what you are driving at.< Thanks for that correction. I didn't think UNICEF sounded right as the money behind the attraction, but my tired brain couldn't come up with anyone else. As to the concept that Walt was or wasn't influenced in a creative way, well, that's something we'll probably never know. I agree with you, goofy, that Walt tended to go his own way, often times to the detriment of his own company, when he believed in the creative direction that he'd chosen. But one only has to look at the World's Fair's Magic Skyway, and the Ford cars that were the main conveyance of the ride, to get a hint that Walt was allowing the sponsoring corporations to provide some creative input. I can't imagine that Walt would look over the vast possibilities of how to do this attraction and decide on his own that Ford cars were the way to go. It was Ford's nickel, and the cars were chosen. Was Walt pressured into it, or was it just a sensible decision? I don't think there's any way to know. And I'd also bet you that there have been many many complaints at Epcot's Guest Relations about the wand. It's been almost universally reviled here online, and I'm guessing that the average tourist did indeed have an opinion on it, and has expressed it quite often. I have no inside knowledge on this - just a guess. Anyway, I'm still super happy that it's coming down (I wish the webcams still worked so we could see it coming down piece by piece!).
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> And I'd also bet you that there have been many many complaints at Epcot's Guest Relations about the wand. It's been almost universally reviled here online, and I'm guessing that the average tourist did indeed have an opinion on it, and has expressed it quite often. << I doubt this very much. If the average guest doesn't like the "look" of something, they just ignore it or go somewhere else. It takes too much energy to complain about something when you just can ignore it. The average guest will complain if something bad happens to them, some accident, some food problem, some active ride issue. Especially when they can be sometimes compensated for their problem. But who gets compensated for "not liking the wand?" Very few, I suspect. The only people who complain actively about the "look" (and rightfully so) are Disney detail and history people, like those of us who feel compelled to post on boards like these. But we are in a minority. An important minority, but a minority.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy PS. I can go either way with the wand, but probably will not lament it's passing. I am intrigued by the engineering. And I feel that it breaks the vertical symmetry of the sphere by itself in at least an interesting way. The Castle is not symmetric, even though it is the centered focus of the view down Main Street. The Tree is not symmetric. The Hat is not symmetric. But SpaceShip Earth without the wand, is. But then that was probably the original intent.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost ^^^That's the way I feel about it too. I kind of like it but I don't really care if it exist or not. What I didn't like was the "pixie dust" on the top of SSE. If they lost that I would be fine with the whole concept. To me it ties Epcot in with the rest of WDW and for those that complain so much about people expressing that they are at Epcot and are going to WDW it should be welcome.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy You know where the wand would be cool? Relegated to the boneyard over at Studios, way in the back. It could be a nifty addition to the BackLot Tour. I doubt that that would ever happen. It would be a VERY costly thing to do, to effectively be an additional tweak to an existing attraction. But it is cool to think about it.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy Or even scarier. How about alongside and arching over the hat? (ducking for cover!......)
Originally Posted By MPierce >> Let us hope the wand dies a horrible painful death. << Good to see you over here Merf, welcome. >> Or even scarier. How about alongside and arching over the hat? (ducking for cover!......) << Remember people know where you work.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "Animal Kingdom has a clearly delineated theme. Africa, Asia, the Oasis, and Conservation Station are obvious." Well, not really. I understand that they all center arounnd animals, but I think they could have done a better job deliniating the lands. It would make a lot more sense if the park were divided into three areas - the present world, extinct animals, and animals that never existed. And maybe have Discovery Island to tie them all together somehow. As it is, you have two continents as "lands", but then a museum/fair "land" and a camp "land". Like I said, kind of a strange hodge-podge. But don't get me wrong - as much as I think the area is a mixed-up mess of themes, I would still LOVE to see Beastly Kingdom thrown in.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "To me it ties Epcot in with the rest of WDW and for those that complain so much about people expressing that they are at Epcot and are going to WDW it should be welcome." Again, why do we need Mickey to tie Epcot in with the rest of WDW?? Back when there were only two theme parks at WDW I could understand the confusion. But now WDW has FOUR theme parks - I think everyone gets the idea now that Disney owns all of those parks. We really don't need a giant mickey arm to make that point clear. Or a giant Mickey hat either. Or maybe I'm wrong, and we should have Mickey's other arm over Cinderella's Castle, and a giant Mickey face carved into the front of the Tree of Life...
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror The two resident "experts" on WDWMagic are still denying that there's any intent to pull this thing down. Funny thing is, in a couple of months, all the little luddites are still going to kiss their feet and think they're still so connected that they know everything that's going on. Gonna be fun and tragic to watch - like when those lemmings fall into the sea.
