MGM Studios...err...The Disney Studios?Did Disney make a mistake by aligning itself with its soon-to-be-ex-partner MGM on Disney World's Disney-MGM Studios? Should it have been "The Disney Studios" theme park from the get-go?
From Robert Swinarski Jr
I don't know if this has already been touched on but:Posted August 21, 2002 at 4:46 PM Disney's best theme park in terms of increased attendenced and guest enjoyment is now MGM Studios, which this year has buried AK and EPCOT, and in some ways, even Magic Kingdom. However, MGM is ending it's partnership with Disney in this venture at the end of the year, when it will become simply "The Disney Studios". That might explain the giant Mickey hat blocking the former Chinese Theater icon in the middle of the park, but is this a good thing? Should Disney have started it as "The Disney Studios" from the beginning, or is this something that is being lost in one of Disney's best parks? My opinion is that time will tell, but what are your thoughts about this change?
Comments in chronological order. Most recent at the bottom. Scroll down to respond. From Shane Falcone
What rides are MGM movies. Great Movie, everthing else. MGM's doesn't not make the greatest movies. Posted August 21, 2002 at 6:37 PM
From Carey Lynn Holtsclaw
MGM not making great movies? Hello? Remember "Gone With the Wind", "The Wizard of Oz" and "K-19". They also have had a part in "Alien", "Halloween" and "All Dogs Go to Heaven"Posted August 21, 2002 at 7:02 PM I think that Disney needs to keep the MGM contract, so they can also have an adult flair, to compete with Universal.
From J. Dana
Disney doesn't need MGM to have that adult edge. They've got Miramax, Touchstone, and Dimension. There's no longer any need for the MGM partnership now that Disney's multi-studio capabilities fill the bill quite nicely. When MGM came on board in the late 80s, Touchstone and the rest of the Disney properties weren't yet viable. Now they are. Good ridance to MGM.Posted August 21, 2002 at 7:49 PM
From Nate Hoose
Does this mean that attractions that refer to MGM movies will be removed or revamped? Or will they make arrangements to keep them. Posted August 21, 2002 at 8:14 PM Just to add: I would’ve liked to have seen a James Bond attraction. But I guess Bond isn’t Disney’s style.
From Ronald Schettino
Um ... I think United Artists make the James Bond films. ... Oh, that's right, MGM bought them out *years* ago : /Posted August 21, 2002 at 10:51 PM Hey! Why didn't Disney build a James Bond attraction while they had the opportunity? I could not understand why Disney called the park MGM in the first place, other than it's a popular film company's name. Heck, so's "Disney" for that matter. Sheesh! BTW -- where does Aerosmith fit into the whole thing? That's right, Columbia and Geffen are owned by MGM/UA ... Does that mean a new theme for that ride, too? Maybe we'll see more Lucasfilm Ltd. attractions like: THX1138, MANIAC MANSION, and/or an east coast "INDY" ride. What's in a name? As long as it's entertaining and CLEAN, I'll continue to go there.
From Kevin Baxter
We did touch on Disney having wasted the MGM license. Especially when it comes to James Bond. Posted August 22, 2002 at 12:18 AM But having almost ignored the license, it sure makes it easier to get rid of the MGM stuff in the park. One whole ride! So why did Disney bother going into a "partnership" with MGM for a single ride? "The Wizard of Oz" should have had its very own attraction! I agree that Disney does create enough "adult" properties to keep a bit of an edge, but we all know that Disney won't bother. If it isn't animated, Disney doesn't care.
From Joe Llorens
Where does 20th Century Fox fit into the whole ownership issue? I ask this because that's the studio (along with Lucasfilm) that put out the Star Wars films and I would hate for plans for a revamped Star Tours to come to a hault. (I also would hate for Star Wars Weekends to cease to exist for any reason. It's just a great special event.)Posted August 22, 2002 at 12:54 AM
From Michelle Pilling
As a family, we are all due to visit, Disney and MGM in the near future. Will it be closed soon or replaced with more Disney Shops or rides?Posted August 22, 2002 at 2:25 AM M.Pilling England
From Robbie Banks
If Disney is droping te "MGM" at the end of the year, great! I never understood why theu adding them to the name anyway. A few scenes on 1 attration shouldn't allow another studio to cash in. I hope the Great Movie Ride stays, but with better scenes.Posted August 22, 2002 at 6:30 AM
From Anonymous
The MGM name was tacked on when the park opened, because Disney didn't feel that they had a big movie base(besides cartoons) to pull people in when Universal Studios was going to open. Also, may people think that Disney-MGM Studios was just to make up for Universal, but Disney-MGM opened first and was in planning years before Universal was.Posted August 22, 2002 at 8:18 AM
From Anonymous
i have a better question. WHO CARES? IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT YOU CALL THE PARK. MGM GRAND IN VEGAS ISNT PART OF THE MOVIE COMPANY. YOU PEOPLE NEED TO FIND BETTER STUFF TO TALK ABOUT.Posted August 22, 2002 at 10:45 AM
From L C
Let's figure out that the CAPS LOCK isn't necessary the next time we anonymously flame a discussion topic, mmkay?Posted August 22, 2002 at 5:02 PM
From Carey Lynn Holtsclaw
Does anybody have an offcical link for this? If they annouced it,it seems like there would be a press release or something.Posted August 22, 2002 at 5:59 PM Otherwise, somebody could of heard this at a Dippin Dots stand.
From J. Dana
Just a reminder...the Great Movie Ride is going down soon for a revamp. Maybe they're changing out the MGM scenes.Posted August 22, 2002 at 6:44 PM
From Anonymous
I just checked licensing agreements. Disney does not hold the license for MGM *overseas.* >>"... which are owned by the Walt Disney Company and not EuroDisney SCA"<< THUS, Disney MGM @ EuroDisney has already been changed to just "Disney Studios" complete with everything Disney MGM Studios has to offer here in the states (they just cannot use the 'name.')Posted August 22, 2002 at 6:49 PM Also, Lucasfilm Ltd. and Disney have a contractual partnership with Industrial Light & Sound. FOX has nothing to do with this agreement, tho they allow certain merchandising rights. Yes, BOND would be a great idea for a ride. From 0 - 100 in 007 seconds!!! In conjunction: Disney MGM will only have to change the name if they continue to make films from the park (guests can 'look over the shoulders of animators as they work'). MGM has been stating, "No, no!" from the beginning.
From xavier xo
Last Oct. when asked why Disney no longer carried pins that said MGM on them, a cast member told me that MGM was upset with Disney for breaching a contract to not expand with out 1st notifying MGM. We then asked if this is why the new hat icon was built right in front of the Chinese Theater and if this meant that soon the name would be changed? The cast member said that it has pretty much been a done deal since at least the year 2000 and Disney is just letting there contract expire.Posted August 22, 2002 at 8:06 PM
From Carey Lynn Holtsclaw
I can remember Disney trying to leave the MGM off since 1997. They already stopped putting MGM on the brochures and the vacation videos.Posted August 22, 2002 at 9:28 PM
From Carey Lynn Holtsclaw
Somebody stated that Walt Disney Studios Paris once had the MGM name on it. It never has, its been the Disney Studios from the start.Posted August 22, 2002 at 9:33 PM
From Kevin Baxter
As for these Studios being planned long before Universal... I doubt it. If anyone visited Disney/MGM in its debut year, it was OBVIOUS that this park was thrown together at the last second. Universal, on the other hand, was clearly the result of a long thought-out process. Sure, Disney probably had ideas about it for years. That doesn't mean they had PLANS for it. Look how extensive the plans are for WestCOT or the DisneySea that was originally to be built in Long Beach. If Disney/MGM had REALLY been planned for years, like USF was, then we would have known a lot more about it before it was built. I don't dispute Disney had an idea for this park, but this idea didn't become plans until they found out about Universal. The sudden addition of MGM to the equation basically proves this. Even if there WERE plans prior to Universal's plans, Disney's plans ONLY came about because Universal Studios HOLLYWOOD was a raging success at the time.Posted August 23, 2002 at 12:46 AM
From Robert Niles
As I remember it, Eisner knew of Universal's plans to do something in Florida when he came over from Paramount. So when Universal announced a 1990 opening date, he ordered the company to have a Disney studio tour ready in 1989.Posted August 23, 2002 at 10:44 AM Notice that I said "studio tour." Eisner believed that Universal would simply be opening an east coast version of its Hollywood studio tour. (The lower lot hadn't been opened at this time, nor had CityWalk, and USH was known more as a tour than a theme park.) So that's what folks got when Disney-MGM opened: Studio tours. There was the main studio tour--including a tram portion and a walk-though. There was also a walk-through animation tour, a TV production show, a sound effects production show, the Indiana Jones stunt show and the Great Movie Ride. That's it. And there wasn't much to show people on the walk-through portion of the main tour, which took people through the studio's soundstages. It got so bad that the company ended up busing over the All-American College Orchestra from Epcot to rehearse on the soundstages, just so the guests would have something to look at. (Personal note: My wife was in the orchestra that summer.) Little did Eisner know that Universal would abandon the studio tour concept, and instead open Universal Studios Florida as a theme park.
From Anonymous
>> As the gates of the second theme park at the Disneyland Resort Paris opened officially on the 16th of March 2002 it had traveled a long road from first concepts - it all started in the 80s when a Disney MGM Studios Europe Park was announced to open in 1995 as expansion of the resort. <<Posted August 23, 2002 at 11:49 AM Never said the park was called MGM, only that is what the plans called for. Disney never got foreign licensing, therefor, the park opened as Disney Studios Paris (since then, they have even dropped the "Paris" off the end). http://www.dlp-guidebook.de/History/WDS.htm
From Kevin Baxter
Go over to PollyannaCOT if you want some extremely humorous RErememberings of Disney/MGM's opening. First you have the hundreds of people who think Universal stole the idea of a studio theme park FROM Disney and not vice-versa. (Universal Studios Hollywood has had studio tours since 1915 and became a theme park in the 1960s.) Then you have the people who refuse to believe that the tram tour, the sound effects show, the stunt show and the audience-participation show were ALL complete ripoffs from USH, discounting their "new" themes of course. (Even the Great Movie Ride traces back its origins to portions of USH's tram ride, namely the "Jaws" and "Kong" portions.) Of course you also find all the people that try to maintain that Disney/MGM has ALWAYS been a great park. (They conveniently forget that the only originals in the park are the GMR, Indy, the Backlot Tour and the now-gutted Animation Tour. And Indy was actually still in previews throughout much of the first year! People showed up that first year, but reviews were HORRIBLE!) Then you have all the people that see the date Disney/MGM opened and simply assume that they had the idea first. As if!Posted August 23, 2002 at 7:25 PM Nowadays, people look at parks like Animal Kingdom and California Adventure and say that Disney has "all of a sudden" lost its touch. People don't remember that over a decade ago Disney tried this "rush to open" concept on THIS park and it took a LONG time for people to finally accept it. The fact is that Disney hasn't created one good, COMPLETE park in this country since Epcot opened. That's just sad.
From Anonymous
Universal Studios Florida, was actually thought of by MCA (As they were then known) as a Studio Tour for many years after opening. Even when the Studio Tram Ride was not working very well, they did not want to get rid of it as it was such an integral part of USF being a 'Studio Tour'. They did not want to be a Theme Park. Which is what they were anyway!Posted August 27, 2002 at 4:32 AM
From Kevin Baxter
It's not that they didn't want to be known as a theme park. They just wanted to let the world know that they were a REAL studio, unlike what Disney/MGM was claiming. USF just finally gave up on it because it was there basically for bragging rights. It certainly wasn't very good or very popular.Posted August 28, 2002 at 3:29 AM
From JUSTIN ST. MARIE
WHAT DID HAPPEN TO THAT TRAM TOUR, I REMEMBER GOING TO USF IN 1995 AND SEEING THE TRAMS TAKING PEOPLE ON THEIR, I HOPE THEY BRING IT BACK AND TURN USF BACK INTO A WORKING STUDIOS AGAIN. THEY ALSO NEED MORE ATTRACTIONS ON HOW THEY MAKE MOVIES LIKE USH, Posted August 29, 2002 at 1:13 PM
From Carey Lynn Holtsclaw
STOP YELLING!Posted August 29, 2002 at 5:22 PM I would also like to see the tram tour back. But i would not think it would happen.
From Kevin Baxter
Enough with the caps. It is considered rude.Posted August 30, 2002 at 2:06 AM I have no desire to see the tram tour. USH already has the ULTIMATE tram tour and nothing anyone puts together will beat it. So why bother? Very few movies will ever be filmed at USF and they are one of the main draws of the USH version. Disney/MGM's pales simply because there is so little movie history back there. I agree that more behind-the-scenes stuff needs to be put into this park. But THIS is not the way to go.
From Steve Moore
I also would like to see more movie memorabilia and exhibits about films at both MGM and Universal Orlando.Posted August 30, 2002 at 9:20 AM It would be great to have reconstructed sets to walk through from classic films. Imagine being able to stand on the Bridge of the Nostromo spaceship or being able look at sections of the Titanic mock up, what about a display of all the MIB Monsters, weapons etc.
From Anonymous
MGM studios is a terrible representation of movies compared universal. Universal doesnt nly allow yu t live some of the greatest movies butt shows you how these movies special effects were constructed. You would think a mgm coaster would have a movie theme to it. but no disney decided to make a few neon signs and play some aerosmith music. Universal puts mgm to sham. Mgm theme has no real connection and the minus the chinese theater(which isblocked) and the tower of terror, the theming shatters in comparson to universal. TOT and fantasmic and GMR is great, but after that theres nothing.Posted August 30, 2002 at 3:03 PM
From Carey Lynn Holtsclaw
This is not an MGM vs. Universal thread. It is about the possible seperation of MGM from Disney. If you want a Vs. thread, submit one.Posted August 30, 2002 at 3:26 PM
From Kevin Baxter
Shane, either have something of VALUE to submit, or restrain from submitting! Someone was making a valid point and you were a rude little turd. Your sarcasm is tiresome.Posted August 31, 2002 at 2:15 AM
From Anne Evans
I Know in America, some things about film distributors are different, like JB films are distributed by 2oth century FOX. But will MGM going affect Star Tours and Indiana Jones. Anyway, why not replace MGM with 2oth Century Fox. Disney own them.Posted August 31, 2002 at 10:09 AM
From Carey Lynn Holtsclaw
Disney does not own 20th Century. It is owned by the News Corperation.Posted August 31, 2002 at 12:16 PM
From Robert Niles
Yes, Shane, it is a free country.Posted August 31, 2002 at 3:24 PM But it's *my* Web site. ;-) And I happen to like posts with value. That said, disagreeing with someone can provide plenty of value to the board. Just make sure you explain *why* you disagree, and back up your argument with a personal experience, or some other fact that you want to introduce to the thread. That goes for anyone else on the site, especially you "lurkers" who haven't jumped in to post yet. Feel free to add a comment about your personal experience to any discussion on this site. But stay off if all you want to do is poke and provoke people. We don't need that, I don't want it. And I'll just delete posts from anyone who's trolling. And now back to our regular programming....
From Robert Swinarski Jr
Some people in the Disney company told me that the basic reason they chose MGM was because...well, the other major studios were taken at the time, with tie-ins to other parks (Paramont, for example, had King's Dominion, and Universal...well, we KNOW the tie-in for Universal). The idea was to have "synergy" (what a Disney buzz-word) with an "established" name for creating a park that would double as a working studio. Posted August 31, 2002 at 11:54 PM For a short period (remember Thunder in Paradise?), it was just that, but the movie-making aspect of the park just faded into nothing. Now, there are unbelievable amounts of props and movie memorabelia in the back warehouse, rusting or rotting away in the dark. The direction of the park seems to have gone in a more "thrill-ride" theme park feel, which is fine, I guess. MGM has become a pretty good park. However, I can't understand why Disney would look for a "Brand" to give to the park, and then turn around and not really use it. Not to mention if they wanted great movies to incorporate into the park, they were riding a string of successful movies during the buidling of the park, as Touchstone was really coming into it's own. Now, they have some GREAT movies that no one knows is Disney, that they don't even bother to promote towards a young adult audience, which seems to be the group they are trying to bring in. Pulp Fiction, for example, is a Miramax movie, part of the guess what, Disney Conglomerate. Take any Miramax Film, Dimension Film, or Touchstone Film, and Disney has the rights to it. Does Disney need MGM (or ever need them)? I don't think so. However, I think that changing the name of this park is a mistake, as they have established a brand, and now they need to repackage an entire park. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
From Kevin Baxter
Not exactly sure how "Pulp Fiction" would play to the child-rearing masses. But it would be kind of entertaining if they replaced the boring mobster scene in the Great Movie Ride with something from that movie. I have long said that the new GMR should pay attention to the live-action movies that Disney loves to ignore. Even if something like the "Check out the big brain on Brad" scene were too scary, they could at least do the Uma/John dancing scene. Or maybe even the Ving/Bruce ball-gag scene. Well, maybe not THAT scene. ;-)Posted September 1, 2002 at 7:36 PM
From Anonymous
I think its a bad idea. It is known as MGM and will always be....thats all i gotta say about it.Posted May 7, 2003 at 9:26 AM God bless!!!!
From Steve Shaw
I would love to see them get rid of The Great Movie Ride. It 's the worst thing in the park.Posted May 7, 2003 at 10:36 AM
From Anonymous
This rumor has been going around for years. When I worked there back in 1998 they were saying that the MGM name was being dropped at the end of the year...then in 1999...then in 2000. As of 2003, it's still Disney-MGM Studios. Posted May 7, 2003 at 12:15 PM Does anyone have an actual link to the Disney press release or should we file this under......2003?
From Chuck Allen
All things change over time. Disney sees this and makes the changes that work for them. I think that in a couple of years it will be just fine as people get used to it. Besides the park will grow and getting MGM out of the loop may be just the thing that Disney needs to do to be competative with Universal.While we are on that subject how will it be when It's Paramount's Universal Park? People go to have fun who cares what they call itPosted May 7, 2003 at 12:17 PM
From Ben Mills
Generally I think people get names of parks right. When we were in Disneyland in Orlando, virtually everyone we spoke to got the names right.Posted May 7, 2003 at 2:19 PM
From Kevin Baxter
Steve, have you not seen Beauty and the Beast? I'd ride the GMR ten times in a row with the worst CM before seeing that cheese-athon again.Posted May 7, 2003 at 3:19 PM
From Anthony Murphy
Disney should keep MGM with it because it connected the entire park together. All things there are either Disney, MGM, or Both. They should keep it all together because the Great Movie ride is the greatest and it gives MGM Studios the "magic" over Universal.Posted July 10, 2003 at 8:23 AM
From Andrew Spada
Doesn't anyone remember that MGM also produced Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal, and Red Dragon? If you ask me, those films have made MGM even more irreplaceable like that of Gone With The Wind and the Wizard of Oz.Posted August 9, 2003 at 5:08 PM
From Ben Mills
Yeah, but that's part of the problem. Apart from the Twilight Zone (which I'm sure is owned by MGM, despit not being able to find any reference of it on the MGM website) and one whole scene in a pretty crappy ride, Disney have ignored the MGM license. It is because Disney are ignoring all these fantastic opportunities for attractions that a lot of people are getting annoyed.Posted August 10, 2003 at 12:41 AM Oh yeah, one more thing... Disney MGM @ EuroDisney has already been changed to just "Disney Studios" complete with everything Disney MGM Studios has to offer here in the states. Err...you might want to rethink that last bit.
From Robert OGrosky
I like the Greta Movie ride but wouldnt mind if they did change some scenes every now and then to keep the ride fresh.Posted August 10, 2003 at 10:12 AM I also think TOT is a excellant attraction, isnt crappy in the least and wish every park had a attraction aas crappy as this ride!!! It combines all the elements be it thrill/theming to make a truely outstanding attraction. As for keeping MGM in the name i dont think it matters in the least and has no affect in how people judge the park.
From Brett Abrams
I'm pretty sure that CBS has the rights to the twilight zone, or at least from things i have read about the ToT I have gotten that impression. As for keeping the MGM name I think they should add some rides themed to MGM movies, I mean wasn't that the point of partnering with them in the first place?Posted August 10, 2003 at 11:22 AM
From Josh Counsil
MGM should definitely NOT leave Disney. Disney is a little soft, and they need hardcore movies to spice up the park. If only Disney would listen ... Posted August 10, 2003 at 2:31 PM
From Anthony Murphy
Disney wouldn't have to change anything because they bought licensing rights to a certain time of each MGM ride. I believe the Wizard of OZ part would be longer, but it cost too much.Posted August 19, 2003 at 6:23 PM
From Anonymous
I'd love to see The Great Movie Ride revamped to include a scene where an animatronic Michael Eisner and an animatronic Jeffrey Katzenberg have their infamous "falling out" in a recreated version of Eisner's Burbank office(obscenities and all)!Posted August 19, 2003 at 6:52 PM I"D BUY THAT FOR A DOLLAR!
|
Search Theme Park InsiderReader Reviews, by Theme ParkUnited States Top 10 *
International parks
Readers' Top Themed Rides
Top Roller CoastersTop Live ShowsTop Movies/Animated Shows
Theme Park Insider on Twitter
Which would you prefer when staying on-site at a theme park: Early entry, front-of-lines access or free dining? Vote: http://bit.ly/b6Ng0s RT @DisneyParks: BREAKING: We’re extending “Disney’s Main Street Electrical Parade” at Walt Disney World http://bit.ly/9TO6Mu RT @FLallday: If you're looking to buy Disney tix, try doing so before Aug 1st (this Sunday) as tickets might increase that day! RT @goddard_group: Here's an exclusive first look at SIX FLAGS DUBAILAND. Designed to be the first Six Flags branded park to be built... ... Theme Park Reviews, Features, Advice
Theme Park News Archive2010Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul.
2009Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
2008Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
2007Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
2006Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
2005Dec.
2004-2005Staff column archive
|
