Page 1 of 2
The New Seven Wonders
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:51 pm
by diogocanilho
Votting poll
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:55 pm
by diogocanilho
My votting poll:
Acropolis
Colosseum
Great Wall
Alhambra
Petra
Pyramids of Giza
Taj Mahal
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:37 pm
by micro
Why seven?
I'm choosing these:
Angkor
Easter Island Statues
Great Wall
Pyramids of Giza (though they belong to the real Seven Wonders already)
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:50 pm
by JP Simões
micro wrote:Why seven?
Because there were seven in the days of yore, and there is no reason to change that.
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:36 pm
by Dakkus
What on earth is supposed to be so miraculous in an opera house?
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:53 pm
by diogocanilho
Dakkus wrote:What on earth is supposed to be so miraculous in an opera house?
I agree with you. I suppose that the intention is include all five continents...
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:00 pm
by capitobi
Dakkus wrote:What on earth is supposed to be so miraculous in an opera house?
Well, that one has at least a spectacular architecture, but the Statue of Liberty??? WTF???
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:18 pm
by JP Simões
Dakkus wrote:What on earth is supposed to be so miraculous in an opera house?
Being actually useful, unlike statues and the like which can only be looked at.
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:40 pm
by Dakkus
eiffel tower.. Cool, but in the end nothing but a pile of steel. There are many things that equal that in wonderfulness. It's great but nothing completely unique in its speciality.
alhambra.. According to the image it's "quite normal", but unfortunately I don't know much anything at all about this. But doesn't look very wonderous.
Kiyomizu Temple.. Same as with alhambra.
St. Basil catherdral.. It's just a church, for frog's sake! I'm not sure of Hagia Sophia, either. But in the picture it does look quite cool, indeed.
Taj Mahal.. Naa.. Somehow it feels too "normal" after all.
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:45 pm
by androl
Easter Island, Chichen Itzu, Machu Picchu, Stonehenge...
shouldn't it be "the new seven wonders"?
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:52 pm
by Dakkus
androl wrote:Easter Island, Chichen Itzu, Machu Picchu, Stonehenge...
shouldn't it be "the new seven wonders"?
Well.. I think they mean "refreshed seven wonders". Some of the good old wonders have crumbled with time and some that existed already when the original listing was made were not discovered by the people writing the listing back then. Therefore, I see no reason why the age would be an important point. However, it is important choosing objects that are wondrous as for theirselves, not because of some extra knowledge our culture attaches to it.
A wonder should be wondroud also to someone who's lived all his life in a barrel.
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:49 am
by diogocanilho
Dakkus wrote:alhambra.. According to the image it's "quite normal", but unfortunately I don't know much anything at all about this. But doesn't look very wonderous.
You must visit this monumet. The picture probably isn´t the better, but it deserves to be one of the choosen!
I think that Sidney Opera House and Statue of Liberty could be substitute by others, like Vatican City or something else...
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:37 pm
by lazza
Four things for me that I have seen with my own eyes that surpassed their reputation (and their reputation alone is pretty awesome):
Angkor temples
Great Wall of China
Terracotta Warriors, Xi'An
Taj Mahal
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:16 pm
by Fjon
Timbuktu? A whole city?
There seem to be too many thrown in here just for the sake of it - who cares if they have to include every continent? You can't compare something like the Statue of Libery or Sydney Opera House to the Great Wall or the Taj Mahal.
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:17 pm
by diogocanilho
Fjon wrote:You can't compare something like the Statue of Libery or Sydney Opera House to the Great Wall or the Taj Mahal.
Why not?
