Ever wanted to know what Walt is pointing to...

[crazyj4488]

Nice little factoid...thanks for this.

 

[cleo]

I've done the KTTKT and the story we were told matched the one the Imagineers told.

I'm certainly not trying to shred anyone's magic and I'm not sure why asking for a link or a source is 'shredding magic'. Yes, I'm a moderator. I've been here a very long time and I've seen misinformation turned into 'fact', then I've seen the arguements that result because a pretty story was accepted at face value even though it was absolutely incorrect. If this is true, great! I'm right there with the misty-eyed millions.

Enjoy your magic in any way you like; I'm not interested in stopping that. However, this is a discussion board and I AM interested in discussing things. But I want to be able to discuss them intelligently rather than just saying 'Oh, that's so nice!" and believing it ever-more.

Pixie dust is fine with me, but there's nothing difficult about pointing to your source. If it really WAS the KTTK tour, I will certainly email my contact there and ask for verification, since the people who should know have already published a different version.

 

[SimonV]

What's wrong with the Imagineers' own story that Walt is pointing to the future and that Roy is finally getting the recognition he deserves? That strikes me as pure Disney magic. Don't you think it heart-warming that Marty Sklar should be the man to commission such a distinctive and emotional statue of Walt and Mickey in the first place? And that Blaine Gibson should come out of retirement to do it? These were two of Walt's most trusted lieutenants, and their devotion to his cause long after his death is truly moving, to my way of thinking. The simple fact is, the original commission was for the Partners statue, and the Sharing the Magic statue was added six years later. It's nice to try to tie them together, but they are entities in their own right. Frankly, I'll choose to believe the Imagineers as, even if this did come up on the KTTKT, it's not unheard of for CMs to get things wrong or for people to misunderstand the things they are told.

 

[WEDway2002]

Hi gang ...

I chimed in earlier being misty-eyed over the interpretation of Walt pointing to Roy to "carry the torch". Love it. Makes sense to me ... very touching. I've also loved the stand alone Partners interpreted as Walt pointing toward the future (something he loved to ponder) and/or pointing to all they have accomplished. Dontcha just love it?! I mean the greys of life ... and especially art being open to interpretation ... no need for black and white.
How wonderful that this amazing sculpture has provoked so much thought and discussion!

Just my 2 cents

Dave

 

[curiouser]

Now, flame me away, but I don't think there is any reason to flame Cleo for asking for more facts on the story. She knew a different version and was looking for clarification as to which one was true. She wasn't saying her verision was "#1 absolutely the truth 100% correct". She even stated in her original post:

Still, point to where the story came from and if it's credible I'll very happily be a convert to the 'new' version.

For some, sweet stories like the OPs and others are what make Disney magic. For others (like me) its knowing every intricate detail about how the park operates and how things came to be that make the Disney magic. To each their own.. no harm done on wanting more information on if this story is really true!

 

[cleo]

Thank you, curioser. You are exactly right in saying I am not telling anyone the story is NOT TRUE, I'm just asking for the source because I want to know if it IS true. The two sources I refer to don't match the interpretation given here and, since this is a discussion board open to every person who posts here, I asked the obvious question.

While 'art' can be subject to interpretation, 'intent' cannot (at least, not if it is going to remain factual). If an artist paints a picture intending to glorify the beauty of a blooming rose, then someone observes that painting and says the artist intended to show the beauty of unfolding femininity, that observer would be incorrect. It's a lovely interpretation but it isn't the intent of the artist. Both are beautiful and worthwhile 'thoughts' but they are different. The artists intent is 'correct'; the observer's interpretation is mearly 'thought provoking'.

That's my intent. Please don't read anything more than that into what I've said.

 

[MickeyBabe]

It is truly a touching story.

I recently took the Keys to the Kingdom tour with a very knowlegable (and sincere) cast member. He promised at the beginning of the tour to provide only facts and no "embellishments" on the information provided to tour operators.

At one point he gave information on the Haunted Mansion and The "Harry Packer Mansion" the real mansion it was based on, placing it's location in the Hudson River Valley of New York state. I happened to know that the Harry Packer Mansion is located in Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania. I discreetly told him this and he said the information he had was from the "official" Keys script and wondered why they would get it wrong. I told him that they might have miscommunicated it since the architecture was reminicent of turn of the centurry Hudson River Valley Mansions. I gave him the web address of The Harry Packer Mansion. Obviously, even "official" sources have been known to be wrong.

My point is that there are many sources of Disney trivia out there, including the "official" party lines that contradict one another. That is why people who enjoy Disney Trivia ask one another thier sources, to add to the knowlege they have themselves. Disney has been known to contradict itself before.

I truly believe no harm was intended when people began asking for sources. Just a curiosity and desire to add to our own list of sources of information.

So add me to the list of those who are interested in the source. For the sake of expanding my knowlege (not for flaming anyone).

This post is a flame free zone...

 

[cleo]

Are you ready for the definitive answer?

After sending an email to the best contact we could think of, Disney Historian Jim Korkis, we have received an answer. Jim has very kindly granted his permission to quote his email, so I offer you the following:

The Partners Statue first appeared at Disneyland. The final design (done by Blaine and John Hench) is to indicate Walt pointing down Main Street as if saying "Mickey, look at all the happy people coming to visit us today". The Roy statue is based on a publicity photo from the opening of Magic Kingdom and is in the exact location where Roy gave the dedication speech. Retroactively, the company has suggested that Walt is now pointing down to Roy to "continue the final dream" of the Epcot concept beginning with the first step, the opening of the Magic Kingdom. That is why Roy is holding Minnie's hand from underneath...he is supporting her hand just as he supported Walt.

So we have yet another version, and to my great delight it is a mixture of the OP's version, the Imagineer's version and the DIS's very own Sylvester McBean's version! LOL!!!

Isn't that wonderful? So we're left with 3 'official' versions and one 'astute observation'. I guess Blaine Gibson and John Hench are the final word, but I don't have their email addresses and I think it's probably best that way.

See? Discussion can lead to knowledge.

 

[Sylvester McBean]

and no one's fantasy is shredded. of course my idea was in jest, but I was merely trying to point out how an interpretation can get clouded. think of the legend of the ring outside of the HM. it's a great side story, but it doesn't make it a fact. I like the story in the OP, and I'll share it with my daughter. but when you know the details of the facts, like Roy supporting Minnie's hand, it usually blows the side stories away.

thanks cleo, I knew Roy's statue stood where he gave the opening speech, but didn'y know the significance of the details. and for all that are inspired by Walt, do yourselves the favor of reading up on Roy. he's just as fascinating.