The "Partners" Statue...a clarification
The "Partners" Statue...a clarification
Posted Sunday, August 19, 2007 at 9:49a Pacific Time
*A Fred Moore-style Mickey would have gone a long way towards making Mickey seem more alive. Picture the bouncy, expressive Mickey from "The Brave Little Tailor" and realize how far from ideal this sculpture really is. Roy Disney's statue at the front of the park is considerably better than Walt's--I'm guessing the sitting pose makes it much easier to convey a sense of comfort and life--though I don't think Minnie fares much better here than Mickey did.
Thanks for the link to the Henson statue. I've always liked the Partners statue just fine, but the Henson/Kermit was new to me, and I think it's terrific, and indicative of Henson's easy-going personality.
Posted By DomStarbuck Sunday, September 16, 2007 at 11:18p Pacific Time
I have a mystery for you regarding the statue "Partners" by Blane Gibson.
I will attest that Mr. Gibson did the statue but the insparation for it came from a design of mine.
Here's my story:
I was a castmember in the Parade Dept. in 1977 thru 1980 the Electrical Parade , Christmas, Easter, etc.
At the same time trying to break into the animation business I worked days for a small ani-house Fred Craig Productions
(later to merge with Don Bluth to form Don Bluth Productions) which is another story but important to note so you don't think im a nutcase.
During the time of my employmentat Disneyland the personel department started a program in which employees employees could turn in varios suggestions for attractions and improvements to the park.
For example a friend of mine suggested that they put in Gramins Chinese like footprints in the forecorte of the Fantasyland theater which actually was done and stayed at the theater untill Fantasyland was remodeled.
My Idea was to have a statue of Walt holding the hand of a child motioning up mainstreet, being placed in Town Square.
I drew up a drawing and took it to my other job and produced the drawing on a cell, painted it made a muticolored background, matted it and turned it into the personell department.
A couple of weeks later I got a letter with my payroll check turning down the project saying that "Many suggestions for a statue of Disney as well as audioanimitronic figures have been suggested" bla bla wa wa etc. So I chalked it up to experiance and forgot about it.
A couple of years ago on my last trip to the park and let me say LAST trip to the park I saw the statue....not in Town Square but on the Hub, not with a child in hand, but with Mickey. But the Walt was my Walt, same stance, same gesture,same expression.
I sat there and fumed for over an hour and then was dragged off by my family who was less concerened about my story than getting on Indiana Jones.
Ask yourself this: doesent it make more sence to have Walt showing a child into the park than to have Walt show Mickey the way out?
I am asking anyone who may have access to the archives to research this. The cell setup I produced and turned into the personell department probably was turned over to imagineering as part of the program they had going, and ended up somewhere in the archives.
I would love to solve the mystery. And no I dont think its couincedence.
Posted By gmaletic Friday, August 24, 2007 at 11:32a Pacific Time
Indeed you are right...I remembered it incorrectly. What I am remembering is a photo I saw of the Studios months before I actually visited it that showed Walt and Mickey from behind pointing up at the main building. My impression from that photo was that the statue was in the front court and that you saw them from the back when you entered the park, and I was struck by how much more interesting the statue seemed to me. That perception was wrong, but it obviously made such a strong impression on me that that's how I remembered the actual placement of the statue.
There was in the past several months an event at the Disney gallery where several Imagineers had their own art exhibitions. I remember that one of these was an impressionistic view of the Partners statue, seen from behind, looking down Main Street, and again, it seemed to convey far more meaning than the actual statue does in its physical incarnation. I've looked for this image but can't find it...anyone remember where it is?
Posted By LindsayC Friday, August 24, 2007 at 11:14a Pacific Time
[Walt Disney Studios in Paris does this...when you walk out of the "Main Street" interior section (whatever it's called) you see Disney's back, and it's much more effective.]
I'm a little puzzled that you think you see the back of the Partners statue when you walk out of Studio One - Walt and Mickey face you as you exit the building.
The second and third pictures on this page show this:
Posted By DlandDug Friday, August 24, 2007 at 10:42a Pacific Time
And just to clarify the clarifications... there is no "Roy sr. and jr." Roy O. Disney was Walt's business partnre. He died a few months after WDW opened. Roy E. Disney, his son, is still very much alive.
Posted By tynkrbell1977 Friday, August 24, 2007 at 10:27a Pacific Time
I saw Roy Disney Jr at the POTC 3 premiere. Very cool. He waved at me! I just about died! HAHA
Posted By gmaletic Friday, August 24, 2007 at 3:47a Pacific Time
>There should be another Partners stature somewhere with just Walt and Roy.
...and a statue like that, even I could appreciate.
Posted By Goofyernmost Friday, August 24, 2007 at 3:28a Pacific Time
>>>Just to clarify, ROY Disney is still alive, he did not die right after WDW opened as was posted in the first few posts.<<<
Just to clarify further...Roy Disney Jr. is still alive and in his 70's I think. Roy Disney Sr. was older than Walt so in order to still be alive would have to be well over 100 years old.
Roy Disney Sr. did, indeed, die shortly after WDW was opened. I don't think it was more than 2 months or so. Roy Disney Sr. could certainly not be called creative. He was the money man. He was against many of the projects that Walt wanted, Disneyland, for example. Walt's power would convince Roy that he was going to do the projects whether or not Roy liked it so do his job and get the money. He usually always did. Walt could not have realized most of his dreams if Roy hadn't been there to figure out a way to finance it.
There should be another Partners stature somewhere with just Walt and Roy.
BTW, Walt Disney had very little use for his nephew, Roy Jr.
Posted By Pirate Mickey Friday, August 24, 2007 at 2:12a Pacific Time
Roy Disney jr. is Walt's nephew.
Posted By Pirate Mickey Friday, August 24, 2007 at 2:11a Pacific Time
I think they meant Walt's brother Roy Disney Sr.
Posted By Pirate Mickey Friday, August 24, 2007 at 2:09a Pacific Time
"...which is that the statue as constructed is too much "Uncle Walt" and not enough "Walt Disney, American."
What can be more American than a tribute to Walt and Mickey in front of the castle?
How many people under 10 or 20 for that matter even know who Walt Disney was? Some people even think that Disney is just a brand name. All they know is the Disney Company.
Some people say, "Disney was a real person?" The statue is great right where it is. 80 to 90 perecent of Disney fans like the statue and who are we to say they are wrong?
Tell your kids and your grandkids who Walt Disney was. Tell them to read a book about him. Do kids still even read?
Walt Disney was a pioneer of movie and tv history and he belongs in the history books just as much as any other person in the film industry.
If anyone deserves a statue at all why not Walt and Mickey? They were partners. Walt was the creator and Mickey was his creation along with the studios, Disneyland etc.
The statue is in a good place, it's a positive thing, and it fits there, people like it so why bash it?
Just my opinion.
Posted By pirategirlscully Friday, August 24, 2007 at 2:06a Pacific Time
Just to clarify, ROY Disney is still alive, he did not die right after WDW opened as was posted in the first few posts.
Posted By Pirate Mickey Friday, August 24, 2007 at 1:50a Pacific Time
Thank God it is not an Eisner statue with Chicken Little.
Posted By DlandDug Thursday, August 23, 2007 at 11:15p Pacific Time
I really wasn't sure I would comment on this blog. After reading what others have said here, I must chime in with my opinion.
That one doesn't care for the Partner's statue is certainly their privilege. But the "support" offered in the original blog entry is, in my opinion, simply wrong headed.
The most egregiously wrong headed statement of support is this :
>>...this particular statue is what I think I have the problem with. For me, it fails on a sculptural level: Walt looks uncomfortably stiff, and Mickey's body is so rigid that it fails to convey any life whatsoever.<<
Anyone, even those unfamiliar with classical statuary, should find this statement baffling. The figures not only appear at ease and naturalistic, they have been carefully designed to do so. Note that one of Walt's feet is resting slightly ahead of the other. His outstretched arm is counterweighted by the slight backward thrust of the opposing shoulder.
Mickey is also rendered with the same care. This is no small feat, nor was it approached lightly. Mickey is a creation of two dimensional lines and circles. This figure captures that, and realistically renders him with weight and scale.
Speaking of scale, the size of the figure was determined by Walt himself. There is a well known story that relates how Walt, in describing Mickey during a story session, held his hand out level, just above his waist. Those present understood exactly what that meant; Walt not only viewed Mickey as a "real" personality, he even knew just how tall he was.
Technical skill aside, it should also be pointed out that sculptor Blaine Gibson was creating more than just three dimensional hagiography. He knew Walt Disney in life, and felt it was his duty to create a piece that was both completely realistic, as well as inspiring.
I find other objections in the blog equally specious. The area where the sculpure has been placed was, and is, a beautiful flower bed. Citing John Hench on this topic is, again, wrong headed. (>>That famous [and possibly apocryphal] quote attributed to John Hench regarding DCA always springs to mind--"I liked it better when it was a parking lot"--well, I liked this better when it was just marigolds.<<) In point of fact, John Hench consulted on the Partner's statue. The following is excerpted from the LP article about John Hench's memorial service. It concerns Marty Sklar, after hearing Disney Legend Blaine Gibson discuss consulting with John Hench about the Partner's staue:
>>Marty mentioned spending an evening listening to Blaine Gibson and John Hench discuss a detail of the Partner's statue. He was astonished at how the two of them could spend so much time on a single detail: the joining of Walt's hand with five fingers to Mickey's hand with four.<<
As if the original article didn't offer enough fodder for criticism, there's this wrong headed assertion in post #37:
>>I don't think Mickey--or even the field of "animation"--begins to describe who Walt Disney was.<<
Many, many of Walt's associates agree that Walt viewed Mickey as his alter ego. Walt himself originally provided Mickey's distinctive voice. Walt constantly sought ways to keep Mickey in the public eye. The innovative Fantasia was sparked by the desire to create a showcase for Mickey. In Walt's first Disneyland television program he famously said, "My only hope is that we never lose sight of one thing, that it was all started by a mouse." As late as 1955, after Walt had "moved on" to other fields of endeavor, he launched the daily Mickey Mouse Club.
>>...I don't think the Partners statue captures the broadness of Disney's imagination that we saw across all of his endeavors...it narrows it down into one specific area that I don't think is the most accurate one.<<
To the contrary, the Partner's statue perfectly captures exactly what it is intended to be: a concrete evocation of something that Walt himself clearly believed. Walt Disney and Mickey Mouse were, and are, partners.
Posted By TMICHAEL Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 7:58p Pacific Time
And I'm also 100% in agreement with you knightnfrees. I was about to post the exact same thing about the Partners Statue needing to be in Town Square facing the castle.
Although, to some, the center of the HUB could be seen as a place of prominance or even honor if you want to get that deep.
Posted By TMICHAEL Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 7:47p Pacific Time
Thanks for the link Jim, I absolutely love the Jim Henson Statue!
Posted By Goofyernmost Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 2:47p Pacific Time
>>>I'd have to disagree with that. To me, it's not Walt showing Mickey merely Disneyland, but the wonders of all his dreams and aspirations.<<<
I couldn't agree more. Everyone is trying to figure out what Walt is pointing too but it is merely a sweeping motion, IMHO, showing Mickey all that they created. It is a very appropriate piece of art and it's location in front of the Castle is without a doubt the best place for it. In fact, I cannot even imagine it anyplace else. For those that haven't' been to WDW it is located in the same place. Perfect, and it says it all.
Posted By tynkrbell1977 Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 1:52p Pacific Time
Cant go wrong with Mickey and Walt!
Posted By tiki tiki tiki tiki Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 1:50p Pacific Time
I ´ve loved the statue since the first time I saw it. I think it ´s very nice, touching, in just the right place and plus they both deserve it. And that ´s all, no more. I think it ´s so nice that I never bothered to really look into its "faults". Never studied the stiffness, the rigidness, Walt being in 2-D, I don ´t miss the flowers, etc.
<<It's mickey! It's Walt! It's just right.>>
It ´s that simple... imo.
Posted By tynkrbell1977 Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 11:54a Pacific Time
I think it is perfect too! =)
Posted By tonyanton Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 11:00a Pacific Time
I think "Partners" is perfect.
Posted By utahjosh Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 9:51a Pacific Time
I think it's a perfect. It's just a nice "park" statue. It's mickey! It's Walt! It's just right.
Posted By Jim in Merced CA Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 9:11a Pacific Time
For those interested, here's a picture of the Jim Henson statue on the University of Maryland campus.
Posted By trekkeruss Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 9:04a Pacific Time
<<I don't think the Partners statue captures the broadness of Disney's imagination that we saw across all of his endeavors>>
I'd have to disagree with that. To me, it's not Walt showing Mickey merely Disneyland, but the wonders of all his dreams and aspirations.
Posted By danyoung Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 8:24a Pacific Time
I'm not sure it's a great statement for those coming into the parks to be greeted by Walt & Mickey's back sides. . .
Posted By gmaletic Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 8:22a Pacific Time
knightnfrees--yes, I agree, posing the statue backwards from its current orientation makes it a better statue. (Posing people from behind is an old trick that always tends to deepen the emotion...it's better for people to "fill in the blanks" themselves.) Walt Disney Studios in Paris does this...when you walk out of the "Main Street" interior section (whatever it's called) you see Disney's back, and it's much more effective.
Posted By gmaletic Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 8:19a Pacific Time
Kermit--I just took a look at the Henson statue via Google Image Search and actually, I think it's fine. Though the statue clearly represents a fantasy in that Kermit is "alive," its incongruity isn't nearly as strong as in the Partners statue since it showcases precisely how people saw Henson in most every instance: talking to Kermit. It's better because I think it's a more flattering and engaging pose for both figures, and partially because the image fits precisely in with our mental image of Henson...and the image I'm guessing he would have wanted to project.
I think Kermit more accurately represents who Henson was. Henson was, fundamentally--and no disrespect intended--a puppeteer. I don't think Mickey--or even the field of "animation"--begins to describe who Walt Disney was. Disney wasn't nearly as enamored of cartoons as Henson was of puppetry...it's clear in every biography of Disney that he lost a lot of interest in the medium after World War II, after most of the exciting technological challenges (sound, color, feature-length) had been overcome. Henson's life never got far away from Kermit, but Disney's certainly got farther and farther away from Mickey.
Of course, that's not to say that Disney "hated" Mickey, nor that he purposely wanted to distance himself from animation...it just wasn't what interested him later in life. And I don't think the Partners statue captures the broadness of Disney's imagination that we saw across all of his endeavors...it narrows it down into one specific area that I don't think is the most accurate one.
(Greg looks around warily, watching for thrown tomatoes.)
Thanks to everyone for putting up with what, I admit, is a very minority opinion. (And thanks to Magnet for showing up to agree!)
Posted By knightnfrees Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 8:12a Pacific Time
<<but less photogenic.>>
What's more photogenic that have the train station as the backdrop? Afterall, Walt was know for liking trains.
But, I do see your point, the castle is a more colorful backdrop.
Posted By trekkeruss Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 8:04a Pacific Time
<<shouldn't Walt and Mickey be turned around>>
That would make it more realistic, but less photogenic.
Posted By knightnfrees Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 7:58a Pacific Time
I remember the times before the Partners statue in the land of long ago. ;)
While playing devil's advocate, without the statue, there was a better photo spot of the castle and surrounding areas from Main Street. So, if you just want the best possible pic of the castle, you now need a wide angle lens and stand on the other side of the statue to avoid it.
Don't get me wrong, though. I like the statue and maybe I'm not getting the whole meaning of it, but shouldn't Walt and Mickey be turned around (pointing towards Fantasyland, et al and not just at Main Street) and placed where the Christmas Tree goes at the beginning of MS? Since it is supposed to represent Walt saying, "This is what I created". Although, now that I think about it, most of the attractions left from Walt's time are on Main Street.
Posted By kermit Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 7:33a Pacific Time
Sheesh, if that what Greg feels about the Partners statue, I hate to hear his thoughts about the Jim Henson statue at the University of Maryland.
Posted By ChurroMonster Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 12:56a Pacific Time
"I like the statue. It never appeared "stiff" to me..."
There ya go knox. It was referenced in post #9.
Posted By JohnS1 Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 8:13p Pacific Time
I can understand why someone might say they don't like the idea of the Partners statue serving to bring the "reality" of Walt into the "fantasy" of the parks, but this statement-- "posing Walt with Mickey strikes me as a little too cute." --really made me chuckle.
For decades, all things Disney have been regarded by many critics as "a little too cute." Other words I have seen used are "sappy, sentimental," and "syrupy." It's always been sort of a Disney trademark, hasn't it? Especially when compared to the edgier humor of other supposed family filmmakers and theme park creators.
I can't count how many times I have read the "too cute" phrase in film critics' reviews of classic family Disney fare. I have seen it used to describe the narratives in Disney attractions, too. And for years, Disney's true-life nature shows were criticized for making the animals look too human, too "cute."
So, in some respects, if the statue looks "cute" to the writer, it's almost fitting, given who Walt was and the ongoing critiques of his creations, right?
Posted By Jim in Merced CA Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 8:06p Pacific Time
Oh well then, in that case...
Posted By magnet Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 7:39p Pacific Time
Now, now, Jim, don't be captious and petulant -- after all, in the end it's just a statue. Ub made significant contributions to Walt's early career, and he is all but forgotten by comparison to Walt's own fame. I was being semi-facetious in suggesting that Ub should replace Mickey. Roy is also very important too. I'm just siding with Greg and having a little fun taking the heat along with him!
Posted By GalDisney Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 7:31p Pacific Time
ok who cares what this guy thinks of the statue. I certainly don't. And why he has to write an article about it is beyond me. But that is my opinion. I like the statue and am not reading anything into it I take it for what it is. Nuff said.
Posted By knoxvelour Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 6:59p Pacific Time
<<OK, so what happens when you view it from a certain angle?>>
Walt looks happier than most
Posted By trekkeruss Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 6:48p Pacific Time
I would guess it has something to do with Mickey's nose.
Posted By Goofyernmost Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 6:46p Pacific Time
<<<"what? No one has mentioned what happens when you view the statue from a certain angle?">>>
OK, so what happens when you view it from a certain angle?
Posted By trekkeruss Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 6:07p Pacific Time
<<Partners, indeed! Harrrumph! Where's the statue of Ub Iwerks? Now there's a partner>>
I respect what Ub did when Walt was just starting, but if there was to be a non-toon partner respresented, it should undoubtedly be Roy.
Posted By Jim in Merced CA Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 5:04p Pacific Time
<Ub Iwerks was the creator of Walt Disney.>
And God created Ub Iwerks.
What's your point?
Posted By doombuggy Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 4:45p Pacific Time
"what? No one has mentioned what happens when you view the statue from a certain angle?"
We had a sweeper CM go out of his way to show us this. We still to this day have no idea why he thought we needed to know this.
Posted By magnet Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 4:44p Pacific Time
Ub Iwerks was the creator of Walt Disney.
Posted By knoxvelour Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 4:37p Pacific Time
what? No one has mentioned what happens when you view the statue from a certain angle?
I'm disappointed in you people!
Posted By tynkrbell1977 Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 4:34p Pacific Time
I believe it is supposed to be that Walt and Mickey were partners. Without either one we would have no Disneyland. Yes Ub Iwerks is fabulous as well, but he was not the creator of Disneyland. Maybe they can put a statue of him somewhere though. Hmmm....Wonder where?
Posted By magnet Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 4:07p Pacific Time
Well, I agree with Greg. I read his column and was a bit confused, but when I took a look at the statue in the picture I completely agree. It's abysmal, abominable, and just downright awful. Mickey looks like an undead version of himself, and Walt looks like he was flash frozen while trying to hail a taxi. Partners, indeed! Harrrumph! Where's the statue of Ub Iwerks? Now there's a partner....
Posted By Jim in Merced CA Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 10:46a Pacific Time
I would agree that the 'Partners' statue works extremely well.
Beatifully crafted, and really rather touching and sweet. It's very subtle, and adds to the 'park' setting in Disneyland.
There's a thread somewhere that mentioned someone's 10-year old neice didn't know Walt Disney was a person.
So, anything that might spark that conversation for future generations is a good thing.
Posted By tynkrbell1977 Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 10:29a Pacific Time
I agree Dan! =)
Posted By danyoung Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 10:16a Pacific Time
I think Admin is going to be alone in his (her? Who wrote this article?) dislike. I've never studied the sculpture long enough to give any kind of detailed analysis of its value as a sculpture. But it's the perfect statement in the perfect spot in the park.
Posted By tynkrbell1977 Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 9:17a Pacific Time
Do you mean when I referenced "the man"? Yes-Walt! He is THE man! LOL =)
Posted By Goofyernmost Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 3:10a Pacific Time
>>>Ummm...I think you mean Walt, right?<<<
?????????? To what are you refering?
Posted By DisneySuiteFreak Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 2:14a Pacific Time
Ummm...I think you mean Walt, right?
Posted By tynkrbell1977 Monday, August 20, 2007 at 8:39a Pacific Time
I love this statue. Partners is one of my favorite places in the park. Lets not forget that we would have no Disneyland without the man and the mouse. I even have a replica of it in my living room. It is not life size, but it is a mantle size clock. =) I LOVE IT!
Posted By tonyanton Monday, August 20, 2007 at 8:21a Pacific Time
I would think for Roy, having the whole project renamed Walt Disney World was tribute enough at the time. Besides, Roy only lived a couple of months after the WDW opening.
Posted By trekkeruss Monday, August 20, 2007 at 8:17a Pacific Time
<<I always thought it should have been Walt with his girls>>
That would be more sentimental, but it would be less marketable.
I like the statue. It never appeared "stiff" to me, and the choice of Mickey, well, he has had so many different looks. On the statue he looks fine to me as well.
Posted By gmaletic Monday, August 20, 2007 at 6:49a Pacific Time
I don't doubt that most people love the statue. But here's a question I'd like an answer to (and it's probably unanswerable)...why didn't Roy erect a statue to Walt at Disney World? It certainly must have been discussed.
My reason for asking isn't to suggest that the fact that Roy didn't include a statue means that having a statue is wrong...I'd just be curious to hear what his logic was.
Posted By Goofyernmost Monday, August 20, 2007 at 3:52a Pacific Time
"Never forget, this all started with a mouse!"
In my mind, nothing could be more appropriate then that statue. I always saw it as Walt showing Mickey what it all became, what they, together, had created. It has humor and a message. What more could anybody want. The location is perfect and the fact that a flower garden has been displaced because of it is not even mentionable when you consider how many flowers there are around it and near it.
It is perfect as is Roy's in the front. A wonderful tribute to both of them. Without the two of them we would all be going to 6 flags for vacation. Ewwww!
Posted By doombuggy Monday, August 20, 2007 at 1:19a Pacific Time
I always thought it should have been Walt with his girls...not Mickey. After all he made the park for them.
Posted By GMLSKIS Monday, August 20, 2007 at 12:43a Pacific Time
I love it and have a replica of it on top of my curio cabinet that is filled with Disney collectibles.
Posted By MadAboutMickey Sunday, August 19, 2007 at 8:57p Pacific Time
You don't like the partners statue?!?!?! I LOVE it!!!!!
Posted By 8 ilovemickey 8 Sunday, August 19, 2007 at 8:07p Pacific Time
Hmm. I find it kind of hard to believe that one could actually dislike the statue but here are my thoughts. I really like the statue because of the simple connection between Mickey and Walt, without either of them Disneyland probably wouldn't exist or it would be very different. Perhaps my real love for the statue comes from my love of Mickey. I also see it as a sort of welcoming from both Walt and Mickey.
Posted By outcastjon2 Sunday, August 19, 2007 at 7:52p Pacific Time
I cannot bash a person for their own feelings for something at the parks, but i just wanted to say my feelings about the statue. I like the statue, i think its great. I look at it as if it goes with theme of what main street is suppose to be, which is an interpretation of childhood home of Marceline, and in these small towns you will find in the middle of town down main street is a statue of the founding father of said town. yeah the statue may not be the best, but i look at what i think it is suppose to represent. thank you.