Evil cackles for the day

[taerowyn]

What can I say it's the simple things:

1) There's a big thing int the news that Ocean's Journey is closing because they can't afford to stay open. I'm sorry, you built an aquarium in Denver, filled it with at least 75% fresh water fish and charged $15 a pop to see what could be viewed in the course of a half hour. No sympathy for you.

2) I can't find a link as I'm in a hurry but it was in my Time magazine, one of the Olsen twins was nominated for a Daytime Emmy in a show they do together. First, you can tell them apart? And second, an Emmy?!?! Daytime or otherwise, come on! But how must the poor other twin feel *sniff, sniff* Oh wait, I don't care.

Comments

And So On.

[shinkuru.livejournal.com]

Have you ever been to the Platte with the boys to see trout? Sure you can, just like I could, but haven't in years. And then over to the ocean to check out a couple sea otters, and someplace warm and tropical for jellyfish and sharks and eels, not mentioning the scuba gear you would have to buy and get certified on. I think you can see where this is leading...

Of course the place only has a couple of exhibits, especially when compared to the Museum of Nature and Science. It isn't even two years old. The Museum of Science and Nature has been around for DECADES. I fully believe an aquarium could survive in Colorado, but it takes time to build up a devoted following of members and visitors, as well as corporate sponsors and donors. Just because we live in the Midwest, doesn't mean people should only be interested in cowboys, drag races, and stock shows. I imagine in another decade or two Denver will again see an aquarium, but this is just a sad step backward for now.

And I would most definitely blame this on the ignorance of the people of Colorado. History and science museums, art museums, aquariums, and other cultural institutions don't spring from a seed, fully grown and already self-sufficient, not even in other big cities (Chicago, New York, San Fransisco, etc.). It takes work and interest on the part of the community. The bulk of this population obviously wasn't up to the task.
--me

Re: And So On.

[funkbunny.livejournal.com]

Have you ever been to the Platte with the boys to see trout? Sure you can ...

No I haven't. But they didn't care for the trout exhibit so there wouldn't be much point. ;) My point was that when in Colorado, many people prefer to do things *outside*. We are an outdoors-y state, where people go hiking and rafting and skiing whether we as individuals do that or not. I find it hard to believe that someone would want to go to the aquarium that doesn't have Super-Nifty permenant exhibits that are always changing or being added to.

For the record, I love the part where they show you exactly what a flash-flood does. It relates to our region, something tangible. I dig walking up to the glass and having beautiful fish scuttle along. The presentation of the coolest parts of the exhibits were done exceptionally well. But after seeing it two or three times, I've seen everything. And the "new" exhibits are so paltry it hardly satisfies the palatte.

I imagine in another decade or two Denver will again see an aquarium, but this is just a sad step backward for now.
I fully agree. But they need to do it right. The building needs to accommodate *expansion* and better temporary exhibits. It would be really cool to see more fish from a variety of ecosystems, not just the Pacific Ocean and the Colorado River. If possible, more hands-on exhibits.

It takes work and interest on the part of the community.

It also takes a lot of work on the part of the aquarium to *attract* the public. If you have little flexibility or room for more, it's hard to attract people to something they've already seen. It would be like an amusement park that never added new rides or a natural hisotry museum that never looked at current events or had further-in-depth exhibits or an art museum that never added new works of art. Or if they did, it was shoved in a hallway somewhere.