News Bruce Vaughn Returns to Disney as Co-Lead of Walt Disney Imagineering

lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
JD80 said:
We're on a public message board, of course I used the term "ride system" as a generic reference to how the ride functions. No one in casual conversation is going to say "general ride movement concept".

Good grief.
Click to expand...
It’s a message board where many of the discussions are about rides in a thread about an organization most famous for building rides. “Ride system” is not some unusual, esoteric term.

But even if we go with your broad definition, the “ride system” still did not come first. There was story development and exploration of other ride types before they settled on the drop ride. Even other IP was tossed around as the collaboration with Mel Brooks started from the suggestion of a Young Frankenstein attraction.
 
Gusey

Gusey

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
It’s a message board where many of the discussions are about rides in a thread about an organization most famous for building rides. “Ride system” is not some unusual, esoteric term.

But even if we go with your broad definition, the “ride system” still did not come first. There was story development and exploration of other ride types before they settled on the drop ride. Even other IP was tossed around as the collaboration with Mel Brooks started from the suggestion of a Young Frankenstein attraction.
Click to expand...
So, just to clarify as the pendantry of what counts as a ride system seemed to have derailed the original conversation of if there were instances before Iger of Imagineers being given an IP to make an attraction based on, vs creating a new ride system, then creating the (for lack of better terms) "attraction theme". In the development of ToT, was it the IP or the ride system that came first? Was it decided that the next WDI project at MGM Studios was a drop tower, a Twilight Zone attraction or something else?

A more clearer example from that decade was Dick Tracy's Crime Stoppers, when Imagineers were given the budget to create a state-of-the-art Dick Tracy attraction, and they designed the EMVS after being given the IP.
 
TrainsOfDisney

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
Gusey said:
the original conversation of if there were instances before Iger of Imagineers being given an IP to make an attraction based on, vs creating a new ride system, then creating the (for lack of better terms) "attraction theme".
Click to expand...
I’m sure imagineers have always been asked to create attractions based on IP - but there were obviously attractions being developed without IP in mind as well.

Now…. It’s all IP. That’s the difference.
 
JD80

JD80

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
It’s a message board where many of the discussions are about rides in a thread about an organization most famous for building rides. “Ride system” is not some unusual, esoteric term.

But even if we go with your broad definition, the “ride system” still did not come first. There was story development and exploration of other ride types before they settled on the drop ride. Even other IP was tossed around as the collaboration with Mel Brooks started from the suggestion of a Young Frankenstein attraction.
Click to expand...

Yes, plenty of ride systems were considered along with different stories etc. However a drop ride experience was chosen prior to it having the Twilight Zone IP assigned to it.

But sure, keep putting "ride system" in quotes if it helps you get through your day.
 
JD80

JD80

Well-Known Member
TrainsOfDisney said:
I’m sure imagineers have always been asked to create attractions based on IP - but there were obviously attractions being developed without IP in mind as well.

Now…. It’s all IP. That’s the difference.
Click to expand...

It's all still Disney IP - the only difference is what division created it.
 
FerretAfros

FerretAfros

Well-Known Member
JD80 said:
If you haven't already, I highly recommend the two seasons of Behind the Attraction on Disney+. Easily worth one month of subscription if you're not a subscriber.
Click to expand...
Behind the Attraction is a lot of fun and tells a lot of stories about the development of the parks. Some of those stories are even true!

But almost all of them are intentionally misleading or factually incorrect, twisting history to fit the current corporate narrative. They can be a good introduction to behind-the-scenes stuff for how the parks were created for general audiences, but really should not be relied upon for the actual history or reasoning behind development for any meaningful conversations.

Although framed as a documentary, they’re about as accurate as Saving Mr. Banks, which even as a dramatization of the story misses the mark of understanding the relationship between its two main characters.
 
C

Comped

Well-Known Member
HMF said:
He writes good books but I have heard he is not that great as a person.
Click to expand...
It's interesting he'd leave Creative (and start teaching at UCF), a few months after Epic opened... Haven't heard much about him personally though. May explain a bit if what you say is correct...
 
D

DrStarlander

Well-Known Member
Comped said:
It's interesting he'd leave Creative (and start teaching at UCF), a few months after Epic opened... Haven't heard much about him personally though. May explain a bit if what you say is correct...
Click to expand...
Totally. He changed jobs??? Clearly an irredeemable a-hole. Rumor is he doesn't even call his mom every Sunday.

Sirwalterraleigh said:
So guess we can’t talk anyone then?
Click to expand...
If you have something to say, go ahead. An anecdote? A comment he made at a panel discussion? Some commentary about one of his projects...?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom