Re: OT: Why stonehenge Sucks
On Tuesday 13 January 2004 16:29, Jim Higson wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:54:13 -0800, Nano Nano
> <40101.nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Stonehenge sucks!
>
> Seriously, don't visit it. You get to walk around a rope 10 meters or
> so from the stones, which have mostly fallen doen anyway. I spent
> most of my visit playing Sonic2 on a RedHat laptop.
> And then there's the people (mostly American) standing around filming
> the stones with their camcorder - huh?
Really, the main problem is that it is far too distant from London,
where most of the target audience (American or other) is visiting. Far
better would be a good replica close to London, complete with
underground cinema/planetarium and all the gimmicks to explain the
theories about what people might have done there. Then 95% of visitors
would use the replica for their filming and visiting. They would not
want to touch the stones because of the feeling of awe (however
misplaced). Many more visitors could be accommodated, and they would
pay for the convenience and ancilliary facilities. If that became
over-crowded, a second one could be built, perhaps near one of the
other main tourist attractions in Britain. Meanwhile, relieved of
pressure, the original could be freed of restrictions and returned to
being a set of old stones in a field with a signboard for the
interested, as it was when I first saw it. Doesn't solve the problem
of the neodruids, but they aren't much of a problem anyway...
Any investors here? Once we get "Stonehenge-plus" up and running, there
are a few other historic heaps that could be replicated so as to make
them more accessible. And imagine the boost to revenues if a city not
too many Americans visit constructed a stonehenge-plus, and a Windsor
Castle with access to the parts the public don't get to see, a Number
10 fully open to the public, etc. Oh yes, and a Broadmoor and a
Holloway womens prison with actresses as guards and prisoners, and...
--
richard
Reply to: