Originally posted by Bairstow
The most compelling features to me are not so much the features that the Jaffray Plan shares in common with EPCOT but the configuration. Both have the geodesic dome in the center of the entrance to the park and curved building(s) enveloping it (Communicore/Innoventions) The Lagoon forms the center of the park with boats ferrying people across to the various exhibits and countries. The pavillions of the park form a ring around the shore of the lake, and as in a World's Fair these pavillions are sponsored by foreign governments or corporations in return for permanent advertising space. Each country will have scaled-down reproductions of notable landmarks like an Aztec pyramid and the Eiffel Tower. A train on raised tressels travels around the park. Directly opposite from the geodesic dome is an American-themed pavillion and an ampitheatre.
Except that the Innoventions building
s are actually behind Spaceship Earth both spreading out far behind it rather than a single building that as you said, envelops the shpere in the drawing while streatching out in opposite directoins along two sides of it.
… and I guess that you could say the lagoon forms the center of the park… as long as you take out the half of the park that sits between Spaceship Earth and World Showcase.
Even if the configuration were as close as your description makes it sound, wouldn’t everything you described actually be what Jaffray’s plans had in common with Epcot? You say that the features that his plans share with Epcot aren’t what is compelling to you. Did I miss something?
I’ve always found it amazing that when a person focuses entirely on the similarities of two things, how much more they seem to have in common than when they focus on what is different. It also helps when those similarities are stretched just a bit, don't you think?
Also, I find it interesting that the family decides start this whole ordeal less than twelve months after the man’s death during one of Epcot’s most profitable years ever. You see, if they had sued back in the years that Epcot first opened – you know, back when it wasn’t doing so well because they were having trouble defining an audience, it is highly unlikely that they would be rewarded anywhere near the amount of money that they would be likely to get in a settlement or winning suit against Disney today. Funny how that all worked out, no?
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with your sentiment and if they can prove that someone within Disney stole his design they deserve something from it but what that is I don’t know. The biggest difference between his idea and Epcot is how limited his design was. The countries were all to be small models. They wouldn’t have even been large enough to house attractions. As a matter of fact, I’m not aware of there even being any rides in his park besides the train that would apparently go around World Showcase and some boats. There certainly wasn’t any mention of a ride inside the geodesic sphere and in the illustration it certainly doesn’t look like it was to be suspended in the air by support arms. So IF they could prove that Epcot were a derivative of his work, how much should they get? I mean, clearly the creative talents of a lot of other people obviously went into the design of that park.
And that leads to the other big question. How can they prove anything? Again, they have no record of the meeting – just a statement made by someone who has now been dead for two years and a drawing with some similarities. It is enough to make a person wonder but it isn’t exactly proof of anything, is it? I mean, in the end do their motives even really matter? What if they are just after the money? That isn’t even the real issue. The real issue is if they actually stand to win and I honestly don’t see how they could unless they have something more than what they have presented so far.
