Comments on: The “New” Wonders of the World

By: Shannon

Shannon — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:58:09 +0000

Very disappointed in the results. The “wonders” elected (most of them) are not really wonders at all. Stonehedge – how, why is it there? Same with the Easter Island statues. Wonders. Big cross on a hill? Not so much.

By: Barbara

Barbara — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 03:45:33 +0000

If I had realized that I could vote multiple times, I surely would have! Christ the Redeemer? And not Stonehenge? Or Angkor Wat?

By: StckFigure

StckFigure — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:34:36 +0000

If I remember right, the Pyramids are “grandfathered” in by virtue of being still standing since the original list. So it’s really “The seven wonders + Pyramids”, was my understanding. I imagine they went for seven on the list for the same reason we pick the top 100 movies and Dave Letterman nightly lists the Top Ten whatever. It just sounds better that way.

By: Bill T.

Bill T. — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:30:29 +0000

If it’s okay to vote for new wonders, why is it mandatory that they stop at seven? Why not the Eleven Wonders of the World? Why not the entire original list of 200?

The whole exercise seems silly to me. Unless, of course, the seven winners get additional funding for maintenance and security or some similar award. Then it makes sense to limit it.

By: mrbenn

mrbenn — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:39:33 +0000

How can the pyramids NOT be one of the 7 wonders of the world? Christ the Redeemer is impressive, but cmon, its the PYRAMIDS!

By: Brenda Easter

Brenda Easter — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:16:48 +0000

the jump took me to a fox movies website

By: alan

alan — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:44:16 +0000

the voting for this list doesn’t sit right with me. in the faq itself it says that a person is allowed to vote as many times as they like! not that it would be easy or even possible to set it up to be unique across the world.

as jmchez said, it is very subjective. i, for one, would still like to see niagara falls on the list for example. and i think john was right when he said it was more of a result of marketing, because i know i have heard very little about it and didn’t even know it was being decided.

By: jmchez

jmchez — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:20:44 +0000

This list makes as much sense as AFI’s best movie list. It’s all up to one’s taste. I believe that a real “wonder” would have to be something that was a major engineering or artistic challenge that encompassed extreme difficulty or originality.

On a personal basis, I find it odd that the George Washington Bridge in New York never gets kudos alongside other “wonder” bridges like the Brooklyn Bridge or the Golden Gate. However, the GWB has one record that all experts agree can never be equaled in the future; the greatest percentage increase in span over the previous record holder. The GWB was almost twice as long as the previous greatest span. No other bridge since has even come close to that increase. To me, its builder, Ottman Ahmar (who built the 6 longest spans in New York City, including the Verrazano narrows) was a wonder maker.

By: John

John — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:55:26 +0000

I was unimpressed with the vote. Only one European site won, and that is a ruin (Colosseum) which has comparatives that are much better and in better condition in France and elsewhere.

The Alhambra in Spain (which I have visited) is amazing, and is more of a wonder of human achievement than Machu Picchu (which I have not seen except in pics.)

I found the results disappointing, and more a result of various countries good marketing than any sort of real value judgment.

By: Mariella

Mariella — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:47:06 +0000

As a peruvian… I felt overwhelmed when the announcers said Machu Picchu and the whole stadium started cheering… Man! That was INCREDIBLE!
And when they announced it as the fourth elected wonder… Everyone in my neighborhood celebrated it… It’s really amazing…