Psycho Set Going Away - Page 2

Alex · 12-10-2006, 08:55 AM

Yeah, we can disagree. I never though it was all that exciting to see any particular movie set on the Universal tour. The interesting thing about the Universal tour is to see a working backlot and a permanent set installation is the antithesis of that. And considering the quality of construction likely used for the initial construction (when it was assumed the set would be struck within the year), even if they did physically pick up and move the version of the house that existed at the time I doubt there is much original in those two walls.

It's only the most famous movie set in history because it has been left there for 40 years. Tear it down and leave the rest unchanged for 30 years and Whoville will be the most famous movie set in the world.

For the first 30 years of its existence, the house continued to be used as a working set. For the last decade it has hardl been used at all and when it is, it is self-referential. It no longer serves any purpose other than as something for people on trams to look at. While I'm not saying that means it should be removed I think it makes it a good candidate for removal.

But since they've apparently said they are going to move it, our disagreement seems academic. And if they're not, I'm sure you'll see some group trying to force some kind of "historic landmark" designation on it to force Universal's hand.

RStar · 12-10-2006, 09:35 AM

I think the phrase "Rebuilt" can mean one of two things. Taken apart, and then "reasembled" rather than moved as a whole (possibly due to it's age and fragile condition), or torn down and rebuilt. Since I saw nothing about it being torn down I mostly agree with ISM. But it could be the wording of the author that confuses the matter.

12-10-2006, 08:55 AM	#11
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Yeah, we can disagree. I never though it was all that exciting to see any particular movie set on the Universal tour. The interesting thing about the Universal tour is to see a working backlot and a permanent set installation is the antithesis of that. And considering the quality of construction likely used for the initial construction (when it was assumed the set would be struck within the year), even if they did physically pick up and move the version of the house that existed at the time I doubt there is much original in those two walls. It's only the most famous movie set in history because it has been left there for 40 years. Tear it down and leave the rest unchanged for 30 years and Whoville will be the most famous movie set in the world. For the first 30 years of its existence, the house continued to be used as a working set. For the last decade it has hardl been used at all and when it is, it is self-referential. It no longer serves any purpose other than as something for people on trams to look at. While I'm not saying that means it should be removed I think it makes it a good candidate for removal. But since they've apparently said they are going to move it, our disagreement seems academic. And if they're not, I'm sure you'll see some group trying to force some kind of "historic landmark" designation on it to force Universal's hand.
	Submit to Quotes

12-10-2006, 09:35 AM	#12
RStar Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Me & Manyard hangin out! Posts: 5,433	I think the phrase "Rebuilt" can mean one of two things. Taken apart, and then "reasembled" rather than moved as a whole (possibly due to it's age and fragile condition), or torn down and rebuilt. Since I saw nothing about it being torn down I mostly agree with ISM. But it could be the wording of the author that confuses the matter. __________________ Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup! www.StarTownGifts.com
	Submit to Quotes