42

[Guest AG/DC]

I know we've touched on this lightly, but I'm more than a little concerned that the "larger than life" statue of Jackie Robinson's "42" in the Citi Field Jackie Robinson Rotunda will soon be seen as silly and/or get ignored.

First of all, you can make numbers as big as you want, and they won't be "larger than life," because they're an abstraction.

Second of all, you've got a handsome, athletic legend of a guy, who dressed in the classic baggy flannels associated with the era that the architecture is trying to invoke, and you choose not to make a representational tribute? What's that about?

I don't want to be too conservative here. When the Vietnam War Memorial plans come out, folks were horrified that, among other things, there wasn't a representational triubte to the fallen servicemembers. Statues were added, and the wall became a hit but the statues were ignored. The wall is now the standard for memorials --- everybody gotta have a black marble wall of rememberence.

[metirish]

I didn't hear this , in the rotunda will be a giant sized #42 and not a life size Jackie statue?

I'll reserve judgment until it]s open but I do wonder who's history will be celebrated here and if I were a clueless tourist would I think that this new stadium is for the Dodgers.

[soupcan]

See it behind the escalators...?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I also think the big blue 42 is pretty lame.

That spot would be a good place for the Shea Stadium apple.

And you could put a statue of Jackie Robinson in a more prominent spot.

[soupcan]

I understand Robinson's impact and importance and legacy and I completely respect it but I think that MLB retired '42' more for the legacy than for the man. Erecting an abstraction makes people think more.

I think the Mets are doing the right thing - celebrating the ideals of the man rather than the player. If you put the statue there I think the message gets lost and people focus on the player.

The statue should be the Dodgers deal.

[seawolf17]

What's with the home run apple high on the wall, top left corner of the picture? I'm going to guess that it's supposed to be a big-screen TV showing game action/advertisements.

[Guest AG/DC]

Definitely, with a round room, you expect a monument in the middle. Else, perhaps an unoccupied middle with monuments on the periphery, like the US Capitol Rotunda has.

But the escalators feeding into the middle dominate the room and obscure the monument, which I fear will be weak under any circumsttances.

Jack in bronze and other materials:

Here he is being greeted by the inhabitants of Cassiopeia 6 on a friendship visit to their planet in 1957.



Here he is coming out with his companion Christopher:



This is an image of him from the unfortunate period where he was experimenting with ass enhancement drugs in an effort to iniject some Ruthian home run power into his game.



Jackie parts the sea:



Remember when the alien beam turned him into a 40-foot mindless monster, mercilessly attacking the city while sitll in uniform? This statue commemorates that!



I'm pretty sure the beheading wasn't historically accurate. If the Mets were to put a giant disembodied Robinson head in the middle of the Rotunda, I would want them to make it talk, just to make it that much more terrifying.

His chiseled chin looks like a cute life-sized butt.



"I bow before you, Zod."



This isn't Jack at all, but Freddie Mercury. Wouldn't this look great in the middle of the rotunda?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I remember seeing a statue of Robinson in Stamford, CT. Is it the one where he's standing on the mushroom?

[metirish]

One of my favorites. Done right the life size statue looks great.

[Guest AG/DC]

Yeah, Robinson spent the last 12 years of his life and died in Stamford.

(After he freed himself from the power of General Zod.)

[Guest themetfairy]

I know that Freddie Mercury statue. It's in Montreux, Switzerland.

[Benjamin Grimm]

My ideal statue of Jackie Robinson would have him sliding hard into home, in a cloud of dust. (And it takes a talented artist to sculpt a cloud of dust!)

[HahnSolo]

Shouldnt the 42 be in red?

[Guest AG/DC]

Good point.

See, that's how much thought I think is missing from this.

[Fman99]

Shouldn't it be in the stadium the DODGERS play in?

This Wilpon-driven Brooklyn Dodger nostalgia makes me want to puke. How about paying homage to the team that, you know, we all root for? The Mets, anyone? The team whose hats and shirts I wear all the time?

AARRRRRGH!!! Where's the tylenol?

(Sorry, damn 80's movie contests have skewed my sarcasm and online vitrol to retro-reference mode.)

[metirish]

="soupcan"]See it behind the escalators...?

Never seen this , looks quite horrible , maybe that stands for escalator #42?

[soupcan]

metirish wrote: Never seen this , looks quite horrible , maybe that stands for escalator #42?

Yeah, that's it - Escalator #42.

My bad.

[Guest Iubitul]

Fman99 wrote: Shouldn't it be in the stadium the DODGERS play in? This Wilpon-driven Brooklyn Dodger nostalgia makes me want to puke. How about paying homage to the team that, you know, we all root for? The Mets, anyone? The team whose hats and shirts I wear all the time?

don't get me started...

[Guest AG/DC]

="Fman99"]Shouldn't it be in the stadium the DODGERS play in? This Wilpon-driven Brooklyn Dodger nostalgia makes me want to puke. How about paying homage to the team that, you know, we all root for? The Mets, anyone? The team whose hats and shirts I wear all the time? AARRRRRGH!!! Where's the tylenol? (Sorry, damn 80's movie contests have skewed my sarcasm and online vitrol to retro-reference mode.)

This I don't mind. Jackie Robinson's legacy is not a Dodgers legacy but an American one, and it launched from the outer boroughs in New York. It's a tribute to a culture that transends the Dodgers. And New York should be a place it's commemorated.

David Falkner wrote a bio of Jackie that I liked a lot called Great Time Coming. Despite his "warts-and-all" story-telling, he opens by saying that Martin Luther King was the most important African-American of the 20th century, and Jackie is second, and that the gap is narrower than you might think. That's debateable (Clive James, who has positioned himself as gatemaster of the canon of 20th century biography, rates Louis Armstrong as one of the most towering figures of any race or nationality), but it's still compelling. Continuing to build on Robinson's legacy is a good and important thing for anybody to do and I'd be glad to see the Mets do it and do it well.

It's the "and do it well" part I'm concerned about.

[Vic Sage]

Maybe its really a tribute to "Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy" author Douglas Adams.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Iubitul wrote: ="Fman99"]Shouldn't it be in the stadium the DODGERS play in? This Wilpon-driven Brooklyn Dodger nostalgia makes me want to puke. How about paying homage to the team that, you know, we all root for? The Mets, anyone? The team whose hats and shirts I wear all the time? don't get me started...

I realize that this ship has already passed, but I'm extremely offended at the mere notion of honoring Jackie Robinson. The Mets themselves have a very rich history, spanning almost half a century. To my thinking, I cannot rationalize the celebration of an athlete that belongs to the tradition of a Met adversary, an enemy.

Jackie Robinson was, is, and will always be .... a Dodger. I think that the Wilpons, but mainly Fred here, have abused their special privileges as the trustees of the Mets franchise, and all of the attached history, records and memories that go with it, just to stroke Fred's warm childhood memories.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

="metirish"]One of my favorites. Done right the life size statue looks great.

Is this Phil Lynott from Thin Lizzy?

Wow! I had no idea he had a statue.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="Iubitul"] ="Fman99"]Shouldn't it be in the stadium the DODGERS play in? This Wilpon-driven Brooklyn Dodger nostalgia makes me want to puke. How about paying homage to the team that, you know, we all root for? The Mets, anyone? The team whose hats and shirts I wear all the time? don't get me started... I realize that this ship has already passed, but I'm extremely offended at the mere notion of honoring Jackie Robinson. The Mets themselves have a very rich history, spanning almost half a century. To my thinking, I cannot rationalize the celebration of an athlete that belongs to the tradition of a Met adversary, an enemy. Jackie Robinson was, is, and will always be .... a Dodger. I think that the Wilpons, but mainly Fred here, have abused their special privileges as the trustees of the Mets franchise, and all of the attached history, records and memories that go with it, just to stroke Fred's warm childhood memories.

I understand your point, but I don't mind Jackie being honored. He's an American hero, and did what he did in New York. The Mets are the spiritual descendents of the Brooklyn Dodgers. If the team changed its name when it moved to LA, we wouldn't even be having the discussion. Honoring Jackie in LA would be like if the Nationals had a Gary Carter statue outside the stadium in DC.

And it's not like this is a recent thing. Back in 1997 the big ceremony honoring the 50th anniversary was at Shea -- granted, with the Mets playing the Dodgers.

My only beef with it is that if we are going to honor Jackie, I want to see statues of Tom Seaver, Gil Hodges and so on.

The Cardinals have a statue of Cool Poppa Bell outside their stadium, but it stands along with Lou Brock, Ozzie and friends.

It's OK to pay tribute to others as long as you are respectful of your own history, and that's where I think the Mets fall down time and again.

[metirish]

Yeah it's Phil , I bet Duan sees that statue quite a bit. Very cool I think to see a statue with an afro.

Maybe Duan can answer this ,I'm thinking the guitar picks are left by random people?

[seawolf17]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: It's OK to pay tribute to others as long as you are respectful of your own history, and that's where I think the Mets fall down time and again.

That is so true... and I just don't get why. It's almost like they're embarrassed that they don't have the history of the Yankees or the Dodgers or whatever. But you're right; they have plenty of history now. It's insulting to their younger fans.

[Vic Sage]

i think folks are being a little ungrateful, when here is Fred giving us all the answer to life, the universe, and everything... right there, in the rotunda.

[Guest AG/DC]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I realize that this ship has already passed, but I'm extremely offended at the mere notion of honoring Jackie Robinson. The Mets themselves have a very rich history, spanning almost half a century. To my thinking, I cannot rationalize the celebration of an athlete that belongs to the tradition of a Met adversary, an enemy.

I think you're trying too hard to be extremely offended here. Jackie Robinson's Dodgers were never a Met enemy or adversary. They never played one game against the Mets. It was the disappearing of Jackie Robinson's Dodgers in part that created the void that made the Mets possible.

[HahnSolo]

Once I know my way around Citi, I'm sure I will be using the rotunda entrance less and less.

[G-Fafif]

The 42 sculpture strikes me as two digits too many, but I sort of like the Mets wrestling the legacy of Robinson back from one of the National League franchises that abandoned New York. It's a helluva statement to make, in line with the declaration on April 15, 1997 at Shea Stadium that one man was bigger than the game. Jackie Robinson transcends team identity as a historical figure. As much as the Dodgermania of Ebbets Faux offends me, this doesn't, at least not on CGI paper. Forego the Cal Abrams peanut stand and the Dolph Camilli first base line and so on and I can respect the Jackie Robinson Rotunda...provided some Mets get some real estate down the line.

Honestly, I've tried to be down on this, but I'm not.

[batmagadanleadoff]

AG/DC wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"]I realize that this ship has already passed, but I'm extremely offended at the mere notion of honoring Jackie Robinson. The Mets themselves have a very rich history, spanning almost half a century. To my thinking, I cannot rationalize the celebration of an athlete that belongs to the tradition of a Met adversary, an enemy. I think you're trying too hard to be extremely offended here. Jackie Robinson's Dodgers were never a Met enemy or adversary. They never played one game against the Mets. It was the disappearing of Jackie Robinson's Dodgers in part that created the void that made the Mets possible.

I'm not trying. I really am offended. I understand all the points you and MGIM were making in what I guess is support of the rotunda, have considered those points on my own as part of this debate that has manifested in my earlier post, and even agree with them. By the way, what would you say to a Babe Ruth wing at the new Citifield? The Mets never faced the Bambino, either.

I don't know that there's a right or wrong here. Fred's exercising his right to create the Jackie Robinson Rotunda: to the spoiled owners, the spoils. Where one falls on this issue is really a matter of preference. This is no different than what's your favorite pizzeria?

As of now, the rotunda appears to be the main attraction to visit at the new stadium. I was hoping that it would've been Met-themed. But maybe I was being unreasonable. Let the Dodgers build a Jackie Robinson rotunda. Or a Branch Rickey one. Or perhaps, they'd reciprocate by building a Tom Seaver wing. Tom's a Californian, so I heard.

At least it's not the Mike Sciosia rotunda.