The Future of Disney Studios

[2Xited4Disney]

Hi everyone. I was just browsing Screamscape when I found this... Just thought I'd post

Park News - (4/4/06) It was confirmed to Cast Members that Lightning McQueen and one other vehicle (possibly Bob Cutlass) would be added to the Disney Stars and Motor Cars parade later this month. The animated cars would also be pulling double duty for the rest of the day in a meet and greet area, most likely near the Lights, Motors, Action stunt show. We’ve also heard that the rumored return of the character Breakfast/Lunch has been delayed as they work on some new ideas for the theme.

Block Party Bash - Semi-Confirmed - (4/4/06) We’ve heard that the VP of the park confirmed to Cast Members that a “new entertainment offering” was confirmed for the park in 2007, most likely referring to the rumored Block Party Bash

2008 - Star Tours 2 - Rumor - (4/4/06) The park VP reported to Cast Members that a new “family oriented attraction” would be added to the park in 2008. Could this be the long awaited Star Tours 2 project or something entirely new?

[MJMcBride]

The studios could use a more family oriented project. My understanding is that they have the theme park rights to Harry Potter and certainly the rights to Narnia, both of which would lend themselves to family attractions.

[2Xited4Disney]

I forgot to add in a disclaimer Screamscape is usually right about 50% of the time so these don't really have any REAL merit... just thought I would share

[dbm20th]

The studios could use a more family oriented project. My understanding is that they have the theme park rights to Harry Potter and certainly the rights to Narnia, both of which would lend themselves to family attractions.

My memory is failing me, but I don't think the Harry Potter thing was actually confirmed. But you can bet your mouse ears that Narnia will make an appearence in a big way. AK, Fantasyland, MGM can all find a place for it

[MJMcBride]

But I think the Studios is the most logical choice, no?

[YoHo]

Depends on whether Animal Kingdom still wants a beastly kingdom. In that case, it would most logically go there.

I don't see how it fits into the theme of the studios unless you're willing to admit that the theme of the studios has become

SYNERGYLAND! Stuff we can't fit anywhere else.

[dbm20th]

Well, I think the theme of the studios may be...ummmm...movies? Considering that Star Tours put an end to the idea of making attractions about the nuts and bolts of film making, the idea of using films to base an attraction has precedent at MGM already.

Having said that, YoHo is on to something. Narnia as the basis of the Beastly Kingdom? That is a terrific idea! :thumbsup2

[DannyDisneyFreak]

Forget the Beastly Kingdom name just call that section Narnia! That would be great. I don't think Narnia would fit in MGM that well.

[MJMcBride]

Beastly Kingdom would be a fine place for Narnia. I assume that idea was dead, considering the "Yeti" attraction is in Asia.
The Studios is an obviousl choice since it is a movie.

[dbm20th]

As YoHo said, MGM is Synergyland. They can put anything there. It is where they put stuff they can't fit anywhere else and can tie in to merchandising. Like filling the demand for great TWilight Zone stuff and Aerosmith stuff. :thumbsup2

MGM is a park that uses Movies, TV, and Music to launch ideas. Narnia fits that bill just as well as a journey through the Star Wars Galaxy, a drop down a Twilight Zone elevator, a Muppet movie, or a screaming fast limo ride. That's why I love MGM.

Again, to me this depends on the content of the ride you want. A slower ride through the land can fit in Fantasyland or MGM. Something more intense can fit in MGM or AK. Basically, the right idea fits everywhere but EPCOT, because they can't fit Narnia in the UK

[pedro2112]

Basically, the right idea fits everywhere but EPCOT, because they can't fit Narnia in the UK


Sure they can! If they can fit it in a small wardrobe, then they can certainly fit it in the UK!

:thumbsup2

[DrTomorrow]

[...] Rumor - (4/4/06) The park VP reported to Cast Members that a new “family oriented attraction” would be added to the park in 2008. [...] I think you misunderstood. The new "family oriented attraction" will be "Sopranos - The Ride"....

[dbm20th]

Sure they can! If they can fit it in a small wardrobe, then they can certainly fit it in the UK!

:thumbsup2

Excellent point :banana:

[MJMcBride]

I think you misunderstood. The new "family oriented attraction" will be "Sopranos - The Ride"....

How cool would a Sopranos ride be. Or better yet, a Sopranos themed character breakfast (at Mama Melorse's of course). I would love "Paulie Walnuts" shaped waffles.

[2Xited4Disney]

Ticket / Narnia - Rumor - (4/7/06) While talking to the press this week about how Disney ties in their media properties to the theme parks, Bob Iger heavily hinted that The Chronicles of Narnia could become the next film project to become a theme park attraction.



This is from today's screamscape update

[YoHo]

Well, I think the theme of the studios may be...ummmm...movies? Considering that Star Tours put an end to the idea of making attractions about the nuts and bolts of film making, the idea of using films to base an attraction has precedent at MGM already.

Having said that, YoHo is on to something. Narnia as the basis of the Beastly Kingdom? That is a terrific idea! :thumbsup2


Well, the original theme, even with Star Tours was the hollywood that never was and always will be. Hollywood tower of terror fits the theme. Star Wars is definatly a stretch, but then, the best laid plans of Artists and imagineers can be utterly destroyed by a fool in a dark suit.
Even Indy (being a stunt show) fits the theme of Hollywood. Heck, Rock n' rollercoaster could with a little more work fit that theme. All the old attractions took the theme a bit more seriously. As they got replaced with synergy or bust things like Playhouse Disney and Drew Carey, the theme became irrelevent.


I don't think we really have an argument here, I agree that MGM is the dumping ground for Disney tie-ins that they can't make fit elsewhere. Which is pretty sad if you ask me.

[dbm20th]

Well, the original theme, even with Star Tours was the hollywood that never was and always will be. Hollywood tower of terror fits the theme. Star Wars is definatly a stretch, but then, the best laid plans of Artists and imagineers can be utterly destroyed by a fool in a dark suit.
Even Indy (being a stunt show) fits the theme of Hollywood. Heck, Rock n' rollercoaster could with a little more work fit that theme. All the old attractions took the theme a bit more seriously. As they got replaced with synergy or bust things like Playhouse Disney and Drew Carey, the theme became irrelevent.


I don't think we really have an argument here, I agree that MGM is the dumping ground for Disney tie-ins that they can't make fit elsewhere. Which is pretty sad if you ask me.

I always thought that centering the entire park around that one theme was a bit silly to begin with. I mean look at EPCOT, 2 sperate themes, MK has how many? Even AK has "lands", but MGM was supposed to be that whole theme. That never seemed like it would be broad enough to appeal to enough people and would stifle creativity just a bit. It works all the way down to the hat and up to the ToT. Aerosmith is out of place, only because the band is modern, but the idea certainly fits the Hollywood idea, just too modern. Therefore, it is now this jumbled up mess, but the rides are so good it is hard to not like it.

A little re-themeing of the left side of the park is all it needs. Call that area what it is, a place where movies come alive, with Muppets, Star Wars and now Narnia and Narnia fits. I would think that would make a good section to begin with. Any film themed attraction would fit.

[YoHo]

I always thought that centering the entire park around that one theme was a bit silly to begin with. I mean look at EPCOT, 2 sperate themes, MK has how many?


Ooo, You've just taken your first step out of the Dis (Disney 101)
To advanced Disney theory (Disney 405)

Epcot and DL/MK have exactly 1 theme/Story.

For DL/MK it is the following:

To all who come to this happy place – welcome. Disneyland is your land. Here age relives fond memories of the past and here youth may savor the challenge and promise of the future. Disneyland is dedicated to the ideals, dreams and the hard facts that have created America… with the hope that it will be a source of joy and inspiration to all the world." Walter E. Disney, July 17, 1955


The theme/Story of Disneyland is very specifc, but the chapters/acts of the story are all very broad.

For EPCOT Center, the Theme is as follows:
Opening Day Dedication

'"To all who come to this place of joy, hope and friendship, welcome."

"Epcot Center is inspired by Walt Disney's creative genius. Here, human achievements are celebrated through imagination, the wonders of enterprise, and concepts of a future that promises new and exciting benefits for all."

"May Epcot Center entertain, inform and inspire. And, above all, may it instill a new sense of belief and pride in man's ability to shape a world that offers hope to people everywhere."'

E. Cardon Walker
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Walt Disney Productions
Oct. 24, 1982

One theme/Story for both.

I expect that for most of the people here, we've just gotten a bit more in depth then they've ever thought about before.

[MJMcBride]

They are very broad themes. The Studios theme should just be the entertainment industry, which would cover it all.

[YoHo]

the advantage of those other themes is also that they tie into a sense of imagination. Of things that don't exist. Things we can't do.

going to a park that's based on entertainment industry is mondane. That's not a theme or Story. That's decoration.

The theme of the Hollywood that never was and always will be on the other hand is a theme. It's the hollywood and entertainment industry that exists only in the roseycolored imagination.
Which is not to say there's no room for attractions based on specifc movies, but you really need to create attractions that speak to the theme. Encounters with famous movie stars, the glitz and glamor.

[mrsR123]

Most excellent syopsis, Yoho; it could be used as the syllabus. Extra credit for the use of both bold and italics. Now you just need to add color. :thumbsup2

[Planogirl]

I think that MGM HAD a great theme at one time. The glory days of Hollywood are very compelling and interesting, and I wish that the powers that be would have stuck to this theme. Putting modern classics in the mix didn't bother as these are Hollywood history in the making. However adding in pointless TV stars and a car show seems completely irrelevant. Disney unfortunately lost its focus in this case.

[Archie Andrews]

Am I the only one that thinks the Muppet show blows, to me its annoying and irreatating. JMHO

The left side of the park is totally lost and something needs to be done. The Potential is endless

[YoHo]

I don't think it blows, but I could stand to be replaced. Of course, I'd rather they add more then replace existing.

[ThurlFan]

"hollywood that never was and always will be."

MGM isn't nearly as far away from this ideal as Epcot is from Walt's original concept, but I guess that's neither here nor there. If it's about Movies or Moviemaking I don't mind it's inclusion in the Studios too much. But I agree on Drew Carey and Playhouse Disney.

The swift careening ride on the Southern California freeways is close enough to this theme for me, as is the Muppets (but then I've always been a diehard Muppet fan), although the 3D show I'll admit could be better. The CGI 3D critter is definitely irritating, and a shame that it's the focus of the show.

The thing I'm stunned nobody has mentioned is the game show - Who Wants to be a Millionaire - Play It. This is a tribute to all that's crass and exploitative in television and frankly is an insult to Hollywood Past, Present, AND Never Was.

[MJMcBride]

I actually like the Muppet attraction. Although rumor has it that since Disney obtained the rights to the Muppets they will change and/or add to the existing attraction, but who knows? I like it the way it is and like YoHo think they should just add.

[MJMcBride]

"hollywood that never was and always will be."

MGM isn't nearly as far away from this ideal as Epcot is from Walt's original concept, but I guess that's neither here nor there. If it's about Movies or Moviemaking I don't mind it's inclusion in the Studios too much. But I agree on Drew Carey and Playhouse Disney.

The swift careening ride on the Southern California freeways is close enough to this theme for me, as is the Muppets (but then I've always been a diehard Muppet fan), although the 3D show I'll admit could be better. The CGI 3D critter is definitely irritating, and a shame that it's the focus of the show.

The thing I'm stunned nobody has mentioned is the game show - Who Wants to be a Millionaire - Play It. This is a tribute to all that's crass and exploitative in television and frankly is an insult to Hollywood Past, Present, AND Never Was.

Its actually dead on in recreating present Hollywood.

And Playhouse Disney was a smah hit with my toddler so I say definately keep that. I thought it was a cute little show for the littler kids. As for Sounds Dangerous, it could go. I'm kind of surprised its not a Sounds Dangerous with the cast of Lost or Desperate Housewives actually.

[exDS vet]

The thing I'm stunned nobody has mentioned is the game show - Who Wants to be a Millionaire - Play It. This is a tribute to all that's crass and exploitative in television and frankly is an insult to Hollywood Past, Present, AND Never Was.

Sounds a bit like today's Disney to me.

[wwtbamrob]

The thing I'm stunned nobody has mentioned is the game show - Who Wants to be a Millionaire - Play It. This is a tribute to all that's crass and exploitative in television and frankly is an insult to Hollywood Past, Present, AND Never Was.

Based on a theme of movies/Hollywood, you are correct that Play It really doesn't fit. It is an attraction based on a television show and one taped in New York at that.

However, at least at present, there is no better attraction to give you a feel for what it is like to be part of a "film production". As a former contestant on the television program, I can tell you first-hand that the whole look and feel of the show is captured quite well. If you let yourself, you can really feel like you are part of the television show.

Other attractions such as the Monster Sound Show also let you feel like you were part of the creative process, but the only other one that does that now is the backlot tour and that has been scaled way back since the addition of Lights, Motors, Action.

Rob

[dbm20th]

Ooo, You've just taken your first step out of the Dis (Disney 101)
To advanced Disney theory (Disney 405)

Epcot and DL/MK have exactly 1 theme/Story.

Thanks for presenting probably the single most used quote from Walt about DL ever. If that is what you consider Advanced Disney, perhaps its time for the the Board of Ed to come up with a new syllabus :thumbsup2

But seriously, I was speaking more in the nuts and bolts of it. It seems that MGM's idea of "the Hollywood that never was", yada-yada-yada, was always going to be somewhat limiting and that is why we get these out of place attractions.

Take a look at AK. It seems on the surface that it too would be somewhat limiting, but by adding a Dinosaur area, you open the imagination of the guest and that allows you to do something like a Beastly Kingdom, which EE comes awful close to in content. MGM doesn't have that kind of flexibility, and all it takes is to give it a "land" layout like everything else

[MJMcBride]

MGM studios has long since fudged its "Hollywood that never was" theme. Even from the get go, the Backlot tour never really fit into it. That was more a working studios theme.

They could still use the general "look" of old Hollywood. But then how does New York Street fit into that. Or Light Motors,etc., or MuppetVision, or Indy, or Star Tours, etc. I feel it was always basically rides about various movies, TV shows, etc. Granted Tower of Terror fits nicely into that theme but how does Fantasmic.

As an aside, when are we getting an attraction based on "Lost"?

[Another Voice]

The real theme of the Disney/MGM Studio was "beat Universal" - the only reason the park exists at all is because MCA announced it was opening just up the road and Michael Eisner was going to do anything to ruin that project. Disney/MGM was hastily thrown together and that’s caused problems since the beginning.

But the “theme” of the park was supposed to be a “celebration of all forms of entertainment”. The park opened with a working radio station, the “you’re in a television show” show and a replica of the Hollywood Bowl to present stage shows. Yes, it wasn’t really a lot – but again there wasn’t a lot of deep thinking that went into the park. The place was never to focus just on movies, but since most of the areas were copied from Universal Studios Hollywood and that it was supposed to be an actual film making location, “movies” tended to dominate.

And what’s really funny was that at the time the studio was built, Disney management thought so little of Disney’s reputation that they went out of their way to avoid “Disney”. They leased the “MGM” name because they thought more people associated it with movies than Disney, they filled the park with all kinds of non-Disney movies and TV shows, and they hired a gaggle of Hollywood stars to provide “street cred” to the place.

[DannyDisneyFreak]

The real theme of the Disney/MGM Studio was "beat Universal" - the only reason the park exists at all is because MCA announced it was opening just up the road and Michael Eisner was going to do anything to ruin that project. Disney/MGM was hastily thrown together and that’s caused problems since the beginning.

But the “theme” of the park was supposed to be a “celebration of all forms of entertainment”. The park opened with a working radio station, the “you’re in a television show” show and a replica of the Hollywood Bowl to present stage shows. Yes, it wasn’t really a lot – but again there wasn’t a lot of deep thinking that went into the park. The place was never to focus just on movies, but since most of the areas were copied from Universal Studios Hollywood and that it was supposed to be an actual film making location, “movies” tended to dominate.

And what’s really funny was that at the time the studio was built, Disney management thought so little of Disney’s reputation that they went out of their way to avoid “Disney”. They leased the “MGM” name because they thought more people associated it with movies than Disney, they filled the park with all kinds of non-Disney movies and TV shows, and they hired a gaggle of Hollywood stars to provide “street cred” to the place.
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f366/ImageReality/HammerandNail.gif Couldn't have said it better.

[MJMcBride]

Well, part of the reason to get MGM was that they had a huge library of films. At that time, there weren't many non-animated disney movies that people really knew.

Also, I had heard that originally they were planning on making a Movies themed pavillon in Epcot that just grew into a whole theme park. Disney would tell taht the idea was too big for a pavillon, and that the announcement of Universal Florida was happenstance. Uh-huh. ;)

[Another Voice]

I had heard that originally they were planning on making a Movies themed pavillon in Epcot that just grew into a whole theme park.
That's a little corporate fib which was created after the fact when Universal started screaming that Disney was copying their business plans. EPCOT Center already had the Imgination pavilion with a various movie exhibits in it. Eisner thought theme parks were a horrible investment - he'd rather put the money into actually making movies. But he took Universal's move into Orlando as a personal insult by the CEO of Universal at the time (a feud that became really, really nasty). And like everything else that Eisner took personally, he was willing to throw company money around to keep his ego intact.

Not a lot of money, of course, becasue this was still Eisner (and most of the big bucks went to Eisner's architect friends to build massive hotels, office buildings and other momuments to Eisner's granduer). The park was intentionally created to be as small as possible to keep going off property. And the "working studio" was added in an effort to improve the economics of the project (Eisner hated theme parks, but understood the profit potential of a real studio).

[MJMcBride]

How do you know that its a little fib?

[Greg K.]

Does anyone else find that Sorcerer's hat to be a design disaster? :furious:

I can understand plopping it down, briefly, for the 100 Years of Magic celebration. But its 15 minutes are UP. It doesn't fit. It shatters the "old Hollywood" design of the main entryway, and completely obliterates the Chinese Theater. :crazy:

The original park, as it was laid out years ago, is a masterful piece of engineering -- you ever see the world's biggest hidden Mickey, photographed from above? --and the park really captures some of the elegant old architecture of LA. It also achieves what the designers intended, which is a nice, warm feeling of intimacy, similar to the original Disneyland (a feeling sadly lost in translation, when that park was enlarged into the Magic Kingdom, and it's completely missing from Epcot.)

[Greg K.]

I couldn't resist. If you haven't seen it, here it is: the world's largest hidden Mickey, at MGM! How cool is that??? :cool1:

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f46/gkandra/mickey1.jpg

[MissTink]

I couldn't resist. If you haven't seen it, here it is: the world's largest hidden Mickey, at MGM! How cool is that??? :cool1:

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f46/gkandra/mickey1.jpgWOW! Great pic! I never knew about this hidden Mickey. IMHO, MGM need MAJOR improvements. It's not a park I visit anymore with my play 3 days FL pass. Wish I could find a new reason to visit.:sad2:

[raidermatt]

How do you know that its a little fib?


I think his post explained pretty well about Eisner's intentions, which would make the alternative reason a fib, or at best a convenient coincidence. You can choose not to believe him of course.

But then there's the timing and how things were done. Kinda hard to ignore that even without knowledge of the inner workings.

[YoHo]

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with AV, because I'd be a fool to do so, but I want to distinguish between The corporate impetous behind the park (Eisner's a @#$%&%$#).
and the Imagineering "logic" that was done.

Sure, the park was put in as a money grab, but the Imagineers did create a theme from which to work.

[MJMcBride]

I think his post explained pretty well about Eisner's intentions, which would make the alternative reason a fib, or at best a convenient coincidence. You can choose not to believe him of course.

But then there's the timing and how things were done. Kinda hard to ignore that even without knowledge of the inner workings.

I just want to clarify. You guys just believe its was a fabrication? I don't necessarily disagree, I just was curious if you have any facts on this subject or is this just conjecture.

[Planogirl]

I think that it's a safe to assume that the Epcot pavilion story is a fabrication. Some people know a lot about the background of WDW.

That is a cool picture! It's interesting that at least some consideration went into layout in some ways. The Studios normally just seems like a convoluted maze.

[Greg K.]

This is an "unofficial" fan site for the studios, and the page below tells the history behind the park. What goes unmentioned here is the oft-repeated story that Eisner, when head of Paramount, visited executives at Universal, who unfurled for him their plans for their own Florida theme park -- just weeks before he agreed to become CEO of Disney. The rest is history.

http://www.mgmstudios.org/history.html

[dbm20th]

Sure, the park was put in as a money grab, but the Imagineers did create a theme from which to work.


But wasn't that theme abandoned as soon as Star Tours was constructed?

[Sylvester McBean]

The real theme of the Disney/MGM Studio was "beat Universal" - the only reason the park exists at all is because MCA announced it was opening just up the road and Michael Eisner was going to do anything to ruin that project. Disney/MGM was hastily thrown together and that’s caused problems since the beginning.

But the “theme” of the park was supposed to be a “celebration of all forms of entertainment”. The park opened with a working radio station, the “you’re in a television show” show and a replica of the Hollywood Bowl to present stage shows. Yes, it wasn’t really a lot – but again there wasn’t a lot of deep thinking that went into the park. The place was never to focus just on movies, but since most of the areas were copied from Universal Studios Hollywood and that it was supposed to be an actual film making location, “movies” tended to dominate.

And what’s really funny was that at the time the studio was built, Disney management thought so little of Disney’s reputation that they went out of their way to avoid “Disney”. They leased the “MGM” name because they thought more people associated it with movies than Disney, they filled the park with all kinds of non-Disney movies and TV shows, and they hired a gaggle of Hollywood stars to provide “street cred” to the place.


I've also read that the idea for a movie based theme park was shopped to a few other studios in Hollywood before Universal bit. one was Paramount, where Eisner was an exec at the time. he loved the idea, but was shot down. the race for Disney MGM was in part fueled by this.

they opened the park with just the backlot tour (lifted from USH) and the GMR as the only functioning attractions just to beat USF to the punch.

[raidermatt]

You guys just believe its was a fabrication? I don't necessarily disagree, I just was curious if you have any facts on this subject or is this just conjecture.

Its very possible that there were some ideas for a movie pavilion floating around. I want to say somebody confirmed that at one point, but as usual my memory is fuzzy...

But there are lots of ideas, concepts, drawings, plans, etc. floating around Disney at any given time, some for years, even decades.

What I'm saying is a fabrication is the idea that the movie pavilion was a go, but they had so many ideas they decided to do a park. The park was done in response to Universal. If there were plans floating around for a movie pavilion, I'm sure they used those in designing the park.

And like YoHo said, that addresses the reasons Disney the company built the park.

As to the theme, quality, etc. of what was built, that's a different issue. I think they had some decent ideas, but the park was rushed and has definitely lost the focus it once had. Even now it lacks the scope a Disney theme park should have, and when it opened, it had even less.

[wdwfreak]

I remember seeing a piece of concept art for the proposed Epcot "movie pavilion". I can't for the life of me remember where. I have been searching all over the net to see of I can find it, but no luck. I swear I've seen something ... somewhere. It was a large rectangular buliding with a marquee on the front and it was painted with I believe a panorama of LA with the HOLLYWOOD sign in the background. I know this adds nothing to the debate and even if I could produce it, wouldn't prove anything, but I can't have been the only one to see it -- anybody?? :rolleyes1

[MJMcBride]

Its very possible that there were some ideas for a movie pavilion floating around. I want to say somebody confirmed that at one point, but as usual my memory is fuzzy...

But there are lots of ideas, concepts, drawings, plans, etc. floating around Disney at any given time, some for years, even decades.

What I'm saying is a fabrication is the idea that the movie pavilion was a go, but they had so many ideas they decided to do a park. The park was done in response to Universal. If there were plans floating around for a movie pavilion, I'm sure they used those in designing the park.

And like YoHo said, that addresses the reasons Disney the company built the park.

As to the theme, quality, etc. of what was built, that's a different issue. I think they had some decent ideas, but the park was rushed and has definitely lost the focus it once had. Even now it lacks the scope a Disney theme park should have, and when it opened, it had even less.

So its just conjecture. Logical, agreed but conjecture nonetheless.

[YoHo]

So its just conjecture. Logical, agreed but conjecture nonetheless.


Former employees have made the claim in the past, so I wouldn't call it conjecture.

[YoHo]

But wasn't that theme abandoned as soon as Star Tours was constructed?

Star Wars was at the time of construction, the second highest grossing film of all time. It ushered in a new age of hollywood and represented the glories of hollywood storytelling in a way no other contemporary film could.

Sure it's not a ride about Hollywood literally, but it represents everything that's great about the movies.


Of course, it was really put in, because they had one in DL and they wanted one in Fl. but it definatly belongs.

What great aspect of Hollywood do Playhouse Disney represent?

[dbm20th]

Star Wars was at the time of construction, the second highest grossing film of all time. It ushered in a new age of hollywood and represented the glories of hollywood storytelling in a way no other contemporary film could.

Sure it's not a ride about Hollywood literally, but it represents everything that's great about the movies.

Thanks for stating the obvious, but even though it is a down-right incredible film, it doesn't fit the theme of the "hollywood that never was..." So therefore, it breaks that theme, which is my point. That theme was tossed aside long ago, and these other attractions, Muppets, RR, etc., followed suit.


Of course, it was really put in, because they had one in DL and they wanted one in Fl. but it definatly belongs.

What great aspect of Hollywood do Playhouse Disney represent?

Wow, you contradict your own point all in one post, and are convinced that they are both right! That really is impressive. So was it put in because it fits the theme of "the hollywood that never was and will always be" or because they had one in DL? I'm suprised you left out the often overstated, "because they wanted to sell merchandise" reason.

Playhouse Disney is not about Hollywood, neither is RR for that matter. The mistake here is not expanding to open the park's theme to the entire entertainment industry and/or trying to put in something that kids go nuts for, the mistake is in placement. In other Disney parks, these two attractions would have been set in a "land" apart from the old-school Hollywood thing.

[MJMcBride]

What great aspect of Hollywood do Playhouse Disney represent?


Hollywood is not necessarily just movie studios. A lot of TV studios are there as well. And kids shows were produced there. When MGM first opened it was working studio which probably (I don't recall) had TV shows going. You might not like Playhouse Disney but my toddler sure as heck does and loves that show. For kids, its cute.

[Sylvester McBean]

USF's tagline is 'ride the movies'. Jimmy Neutron and Fear Factor have attractions but are television shows. I don't care if the line is blurred as long as the parks are of quality. I've got a serious love/hate relationship with Disney MGM. there's really no point of walking past sunset blvd. anymore, except to go to one man's dream or muppets 3D

[Another Voice]

The only existing piece of "artwork" for the alleged movie pavilion shows a large flat building painted to look like the sky with clouds – it’s essentially a duplicate of the “sky painting” that sits over an outside water tank on the Paramount lot (you’ve see it a hundred times on television). In the middle of the background painting is an old fashioned movie ticket booth and would have been the building’s entrance. It's wedged between ‘The Land’ and ‘Journey Into Imagination’. That's about it - a bit of "blue sky" artwork with the pun was more than a little intentional. You can find substantially more artwork and planning on other pavilions – such as the Education pavilion for IBM or a computer pavilion for Intel – than you can for any “movie” pavilion for an unidentified sponsor.

The corporate fib was that Disney implied they were hard at work in their vast secret labs developing a stupendous movie studio tour when those evil trolls from the Black Tower in Universal City pillaged those wondrous plans for their own evil purposes. In fact, the only project in the works at the time were Dolphin & Swan Convention Centers, the Yacht and Beach Club resorts and efforts to find a way of turning World Showcase into a stronger nighttime attraction (to feed all those hungry conventioneers).

The idea of a “studio tour” began in when Walt started at the old Hyperion facility. Since the era of silent films, all of the studios allowed the public to come watch movies being made. Universal, I believe, started sometime around World War I. The public had always been interested in Disney animation and Disney had produced several shorts over the years explaining the process. As Los Angeles grew into a major tourist destination, people expected to get a look at Disney as well. Walt, however, was more interested in telling stories rather than factory tours – hence Disneyland was born.*

Paramount Pictures, the former home of Michael Eisner, had a tour of their lot for decades. Eisner, when he ran the studio, made no effort to expand the tour, let alone bring in Disney style attractions, or Universal style trams and shows. When he started at Disney, one of his first goals was to buy the CBS television network. Their production facility in Los Angeles, Television City, had tours and hosted shows taped in front of an audience (yes – get in line now for ‘The Price is Right’). But there’s no indication Eisner considered that an important part of the deal. There is simply no evidence that Eisner cared about building a studio tour of any sort.

Nor did Disney need additional production space. Not only is L.A. dotted with studios and other non-Los Angeles locations already established (Toronto, Vancouver) – but the Disney lot itself was half filled with unused backlot sets. These included a small American town (Something Wicked This Way Comes), a Western set (The Apple Dumpling Gang) and even some old sets left over from Zorro. The fib that Disney needed to go to the other side of the country to build another back lot is – well, a fib. All these sets were torn down and replaced with soundstages and a parking garage, but only years after the Disney/MGM Studio opened.

Even worse for the fib was that Disney seldom used any of the production facilities it built in Florida, save for a couple of Earnest movies. Nor was there a real need in Florida for any more production space – a fact both Disney and Universal would painful learn rather quickly. Florida is just a really, really bad place to make movies because you can’t shoot outdoors (you stand in the center of a zillion volts of stage lights during an afternoon rain shower if you don’t believe me).

So – there is no evidence that Eisner wanted to build a movie tour, Disney did not need production space in Florida, WDW was already expanding without another theme park and the movie pavilion is questionable at best. The reality is that the Disney/MGM Studios was a quick reaction to Universal’s plans. It was made small to both limit the project’s budget and to allow the park to open before the competition.

In my opinion, given the amazing constraints put on them, the Imagineers did a credible job at creating a park. It was still half sized, but being the first to open was the goal. Having anything inside the gates was an afterthought.

[MJMcBride]

In fact, the only project in the works at the time were Dolphin & Swan Convention Centers, the Yacht and Beach Club resorts and efforts to find a way of turning World Showcase into a stronger nighttime attraction (to feed all those hungry conventioneers).




Where was this fact obtained?

[Sylvester McBean]

what I don't like about MGM is that it serves as a permanent reactionary project to Universal. and I love UO/IOA and MGM. but it's like the red-headed stepchild of WDW. so much potential, so much wasted space.

[dbm20th]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the idea of touring the studios goes all the way back to Walt who thought about such a thing at his Burbank facility.

[MJMcBride]

Even if we want to believe the "fib", that WDW only did the Studios in reaction to Universal's announcement, this type of theme park probably would have happened at some point anyway.

It was the next logical theme park. Walt contemplated it at one point, it was done by Universal in LA, I just think eventaully they would have wanted a 3rd park and it probably would have been a "movie" based park. Just like a Zoo was the next logical choice.

[dbm20th]

From Wikipedia... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney-MGM_Studios)

The idea which led to the Disney-MGM Studios began at its sister park, Epcot. A team of Imagineers led by Marty Sklar and Randy Bright had been given an assignment to create two new pavilions for the park's Future World section. The fruits of the brainstorming sessions were the Wonders of Life pavilion (which closed in 2005), and the Great Movie Ride pavilion. The second of the two was to have sat between the Land pavilion and the Journey Into Imagination pavilion, and was to look like a soundstage backdrop, with a movie theatre-style entrance in the middle. The actual attraction is very similar to the plans for the equivalent at Epcot, only, when newly-appointed CEO Michael Eisner saw the plans for the pavilion, he requested that, instead of placing the ride in an already existing park, it should be surrounded by a brand new theme park which extended the showbiz, Hollywood and entertainment theme.

[Another Voice]

If you're going to start sighting Wikipedia, you might as well just say that the Yeti in 'Expedition: Everest' is a real animal and Walt is stuck in a freezer behind the ice cream store on Main Street.

It's amazing how interested Eisner became in "movie" items after Universal announced the plans. That's the whole point. The Disney/MGM Studio was built in reaction to Universal's move into Orlando.

By the way - the "Wonders of Life" pavilion was actually called the '"Life and Health" pavilion, was originally planned as an opening day facility and the show elements for 'The Increadible Journey Within' had already begun construction. The pavilion was sidelined when Disney couldn't line up a sponsor and the resources were transfered to Kodak's "Imgination" pavilion instead.

[dbm20th]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the idea of touring the studios goes all the way back to Walt who thought about such a thing at his Burbank facility.

I know it's weird to quote myself, but I found this on mgmstudios.org... (http://www.mgmstudios.org/history.html)

The idea for the Disney-MGM Studios goes back some 40 years ago. One of Walt Disney's dreams was to build a theme park that was devoted to showcasing the wonders of movie making. At the time, rival Universal Pictures had a wildly successful studio tram tour going on. Walt considered using the backlot of Disney, but due to land costs as well as traffic problems, Walt looked to Anaheim, where Disneyland was built. Disneyland, however, did not fully envelope the true dream Walt had of allowing the public to witness the movie making process.

[Another Voice]

One of Walt Disney's dreams was to build a theme park that was devoted to showcasing the wonders of movie making.
Except there is no evidence that Walt ever wanted to to do. The original concept for Disneyland was for "Mickey Mouse Park" - a place where the company employees could gather with their families. The park quickly expanded to include a train (Walt's favorite hobby) and other typical amusement park rides. But none of these ideas - nor any of the early concepts for Disneyland itself - ever included a movie studio tour.

This is part of the corporate fib, to make it seem like Disney had some decades old desire to build a movie studio tour and that it was only Michael Eisner's business genius that willed it into reality. It's a story, a company myth just like so many other stories and myths that companies tell about themselves. And this is Hollywood, a town where Tom Cruise jumps on sofas to "prove" he's in love with Katie Holmes (and all that implies), where Barbara Streisand says she "feels the pain" of people living paycheck to paycheck and where there are more "natural" blondes than there are in Sweden. Fibbing (a polite term for "bold faced lies") is part of the culture and accepted business practice.

P.S. Anyone who has actually had to spend a day on a movie set will understand the phrase "the wonders of movie making" is pretty much of fib itself.

[DannyDisneyFreak]

Except there is no evidence that Walt ever wanted to to do.
Well acording to this there is:
The idea for the Disney-MGM Studios goes back some 40 years ago. One of Walt Disney's dreams was to build a theme park that was devoted to showcasing the wonders of movie making. At the time, rival Universal Pictures had a wildly successful studio tram tour going on. Walt considered using the backlot of Disney, but due to land costs as well as traffic problems, Walt looked to Anaheim, where Disneyland was built. Disneyland, however, did not fully envelope the true dream Walt had of allowing the public to witness the movie making process.

[DancingBear]

mgmstudios.org is just some unofficial fan site. No real evidence there to support this statement about Walt's desires.

And as to the Wikipedia entry, how exactly does that timing work? Epcot opened in 1982, and MGM was announced in 1985; I assume Universal was announced right around that same time. So when exactly after Epcot opened were the Imagineers instructed to spruce up Future World with additional attractions?

Clearly Living Seas was a response to Sea World and MGM was a response to Universal. Although of course Sea World and Universal Studios both existed elsewhere well before this time, so I have no doubt that "sea life" and "Hollywood" themes were bandied about at Disney over the years.

MGM has suffered from having been rushed in, poorly laid out, and opened "half-sized." I have a good time there (and I like the new stunt show), but getting around it is completely non-intuitive, and the tram ride and movie effects elements that were central at its opening have been stunted or closed.

[YoHo]

From the Art of Disneyland page VI

However burdensome it might have been for him at times, the Studio he completed in Burbank in 1940 had been another unexpected creative blessing for Walt. He threw himself into every detail of its design and execution, just as he had with his filmaking endeavors. Everything from building sitting to floor finishes saw Walt's influence and approval.

He was very proud of his new Studio: the Kern Weber-designed buildings and funiture and pristine landscaping made his "movie campus" the envy of the moguls. He contemplated studio tours, but couldn't imagine anything more dull than watching people make movies, especially animated ones. Still he keep receiving requests from kids who wanted to see where Mickey Mouse and Snow White lived.

[MJMcBride]

No real evidence there to support this statement about Walt's desires.


Which is a good description for a lot of posts on this thread so far, dontcha think?

[MJMcBride]

Although of course Sea World and Universal Studios both existed elsewhere well before this time, so I have no doubt that "sea life" and "Hollywood" themes were bandied about at Disney over the years.


Of course, they must have been. To think that once Universal announced plans to build a theme park in Florida and then Eisner or another muckity-muck said to himself "Hey a theme park on movies, Wow, what a great idea, we shoulda thought of that" is silly.

Was Universal's announcement the final impetus? Seems like it. Did they actually have plans to build a movie pavillon for Epcot? They probably at least had an imagineer pitch the idea. Is Animal Kingdom an attempt to keep people from going to Busch Gardens? Sure as hell is.

[MJMcBride]

This is part of the corporate fib, to make it seem like Disney had some decades old desire to build a movie studio tour and that it was only Michael Eisner's business genius that willed it into reality. It's a story, a company myth just like so many other stories and myths that companies tell about themselves.

Have you somehow obtained the minutes to all corporate meetings? Or audio tapes of various corporate "closed doors?" It seems to me since Universal had a Hollywood theme park for such a long time and Disney was in the business of making movies, the idea would have crossed someone's mind at some point.

Did they have real plans before Universal Florida? I don't know, probably not. Would they have eventually built a theme park based on Disney movies anyway? Considering their love of self promotion, I'm willing to think they would have. Will I ever stop answering my own questions? Damn, no!

[Another Voice]

I think you're starting to see it. Sure, people had talked about a studio tour. It's not a new idea, but one of millions that float around the company. And it may have eventually happened in Florida, in Anaheim, maybe even in Tokyo. But Universal got funding (through a deal with the Lowe's hotel chain) and *poof* Disney was facing real competition in Florida for the very first time. The company reacted by announcing their own plans. For public and political reasons, they fibbed about the timing, stretched the truth here and there about the project becasue they thought they could gain some advantage - and carried on.

It was nothing compared to the fight over the Disney/MGM Studio Backlot in Burbank where both Disney and Universal created phony "citizen" organizations to lobby against each other plans.

Out of this history comes a lot that still influences WDW today - the fact that the studio is still a small park. That it doesn't have a lot of room to natural expand. That a lot of what was original built now sits unused because it wasn't thought out well enough. The mismash of themes and frantic bursts of corporate synergy. And why Disney felt they had to hide the Chinese Theater with that big awful hat thing.

A lot of Disney fans want to believe that what Disney does is "magic". That there's some unknowable force that makes everything Disney "good" and everything not Disney "ungood". That somehow the "magic" will always be with Disney and the all you have to do is shut up and appreciate what is given to you. You can find those people all over the Internet and on the other forums of this site.

Truth is the magic is nothing but the result of thousands of people going about their jobs. They make decisions, some great and some dreadful. As much ego, politics and greed is involved as imgination, whim and fantasy. There might be a few people out there interested in seeing how things really work - the good and the bad.

Have you somehow obtained the minutes to all corporate meetings?
:)

[wdwfreak]

Star Wars was at the time of construction, the second highest grossing film of all time. It ushered in a new age of hollywood and represented the glories of hollywood storytelling in a way no other contemporary film could.


Not to nitpick, but SW is actually regarded, along with Jaws, as one of the movies that ushered in the age of loud, mindless entertainment with lots of explosions. It largely brought an end to the era (for a while) of the epic, character- and story-driven films of the 1970s, such as the Godfather movies, the Deer Hunter, and Apocolypse Now, which were the last remnants of "old Hollywood".

I'm actually a big fan of Jaws and SW, and don't believe for a second that they fit the description of "mindless". On the contrary, they are well-told stories set against an action-packed backdrop (although many regard ESB as the best of the SW films in terms of story and character development). However, they proved to Hollywood that there was a huge audience for action, adventure, and special effects, which evolved into the "Summer Blockbusters" of recent times, such as Armageddon, Van Helsing, and even the SW prequel trilogy that are more about "how many CGI vampires or robots can fit into a scene?", as opposed to "can we tell a great story that will be valid 10, 20, or 50 years from now"?

As an analogy, I believe you could argue that SW is indirectly responsible for the demise of "Old Hollywood", just as Star Tours ushered out the "Old Hollywood" theme of D/MGM.

[DannyDisneyFreak]

A lot of Disney fans want to believe that what Disney does is "magic". That there's some unknowable force that makes everything Disney "good" and everything not Disney "ungood". That somehow the "magic" will always be with Disney and the all you have to do is shut up and appreciate what is given to you. You can find those people all over the Internet and on the other forums of this site.

Truth is the magic is nothing but the result of thousands of people going about their jobs. They make decisions, some great and some dreadful. As much ego, politics and greed is involved as imgination, whim and fantasy. There might be a few people out there interested in seeing how things really work - the good and the bad.
This is well said. It's kinda funny how what so many love about Disney is the "magic" of the place when really it is the farthest from any real "mystical" or "supernatural" magic. One definition for magic is "the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces" Disney has no power over natural forces, if they did they would have just stoped Univeral from being built. I think the "magic" of Disney is more like this definition: "the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand" or even "something that seems to cast a spell" The sad thing is no matter how you define it MGM has lost most of its magic, if you want to admit it ever had any at all.

[DancingBear]

Of course, they must have been. To think that once Universal announced plans to build a theme park in Florida and then Eisner or another muckity-muck said to himself "Hey a theme park on movies, Wow, what a great idea, we shoulda thought of that" is silly.

Was Universal's announcement the final impetus? Seems like it. Did they actually have plans to build a movie pavillon for Epcot? They probably at least had an imagineer pitch the idea. Is Animal Kingdom an attempt to keep people from going to Busch Gardens? Sure as hell is.

Now that's a sensible post!

[DancingBear]

Out of this history comes a lot that still influences WDW today - the fact that the studio is still a small park. That it doesn't have a lot of room to natural expand. That a lot of what was original built now sits unused because it wasn't thought out well enough. The mismash of themes and frantic bursts of corporate synergy.Exactly. The evidence that MGM was rushed and poorly executed (add to the above the fact that there is no logical traffic pattern to the place) is right there for all to see. There's still a lot of fun stuff there, but I don't think anyone falls in love with the place. I know you (A-V) are not a fan of AK, but it makes a lot more "sense" than this place does.

[YoHo]

Not to nitpick, but SW is actually regarded, along with Jaws, as one of the movies that ushered in the age of loud, mindless entertainment with lots of explosions. It largely brought an end to the era (for a while) of the epic, character- and story-driven films of the 1970s, such as the Godfather movies, the Deer Hunter, and Apocolypse Now, which were the last remnants of "old Hollywood".

I'm actually a big fan of Jaws and SW, and don't believe for a second that they fit the description of "mindless". On the contrary, they are well-told stories set against an action-packed backdrop (although many regard ESB as the best of the SW films in terms of story and character development). However, they proved to Hollywood that there was a huge audience for action, adventure, and special effects, which evolved into the "Summer Blockbusters" of recent times, such as Armageddon, Van Helsing, and even the SW prequel trilogy that are more about "how many CGI vampires or robots can fit into a scene?", as opposed to "can we tell a great story that will be valid 10, 20, or 50 years from now"?

As an analogy, I believe you could argue that SW is indirectly responsible for the demise of "Old Hollywood", just as Star Tours ushered out the "Old Hollywood" theme of D/MGM.

The films aof the seventies are not considered by any film buff to be part of the golden age. In fact, it was the story driven films of that time that
killed old Hollywood.

George Lucas revived the Hollywood of his youth. The hollywood of silent film stars. The legacy of Star Wars isn't all it could be, but that isn't the fault of Lucas and Star Wars directly.

[raidermatt]

Not to nitpick, but SW is actually regarded, along with Jaws, as one of the movies that ushered in the age of loud, mindless entertainment with lots of explosions.
Not to get too far off topic (again), but that's misplacing the blame. The blame lies with the filmmakers who look for the "formula" or "trick" to make movies popular. They see Star Wars and say "If I can have space and explosions, my movie can be popular too!"

They don't see the real things that made the movie (or any movie) popular and look for the quick fix.

That's got nothing to do with the movies themselve, but with the overall Hollywood mentality, which has moved further and further down that "looking for the trick" path.

[wdwfreak]

Not to get too far off topic (again), but that's misplacing the blame. The blame lies with the filmmakers who look for the "formula" or "trick" to make movies popular. They see Star Wars and say "If I can have space and explosions, my movie can be popular too!"

They don't see the real things that made the movie (or any movie) popular and look for the quick fix.

That's got nothing to do with the movies themselve, but with the overall Hollywood mentality, which has moved further and further down that "looking for the trick" path.

I agree with you. I wasn't blaming SW. I was blaming the copycats (coming from the misguided mentality of execs and some filmakers).

I said:
"I'm actually a big fan of Jaws and SW, and don't believe for a second that they fit the description of "mindless". On the contrary, they are well-told stories set against an action-packed backdrop (although many regard ESB as the best of the SW films in terms of story and character development). However, they proved to Hollywood that there was a huge audience for action, adventure, and special effects, which evolved into the "Summer Blockbusters" of recent times, such as Armageddon, Van Helsing, and even the SW prequel trilogy that are more about "how many CGI vampires or robots can fit into a scene?", as opposed to "can we tell a great story that will be valid 10, 20, or 50 years from now"?"

[wdwfreak]

The films aof the seventies are not considered by any film buff to be part of the golden age. In fact, it was the story driven films of that time that
killed old Hollywood.

I'll give you this -- to a certain extent. I guess what I was trying to say was that SW and Jaws (not the movies themselves, but what they created in the minds of studio execs) ushered in the age of the popcorn movie and the summer tentpole movie.

George Lucas revived the Hollywood of his youth. The hollywood of silent film stars. The legacy of Star Wars isn't all it could be, but that isn't the fault of Lucas and Star Wars directly.

Again, if you read my post, I wasn't blaming any one filmmaker or film. It was the mentality (that continues to this day) that, because SW and Jaws were so popular and became such huge money-makers, the studios could duplicate their success by making the action and the special effects the center of the film, as opposed to the story. The formula has proven to be somewhat successful -- how else would you explain Armageddon making over $200 million or Hulk making over $130 million? Both were critically derided (not the be all and end all, of course) and proved, over time, to be lame and forgettable to many.

[MJMcBride]

I think you're starting to see it. Sure, people had talked about a studio tour. It's not a new idea, but one of millions that float around the company. And it may have eventually happened in Florida, in Anaheim, maybe even in Tokyo. But Universal got funding (through a deal with the Lowe's hotel chain) and *poof* Disney was facing real competition in Florida for the very first time. The company reacted by announcing their own plans. For public and political reasons, they fibbed about the timing, stretched the truth here and there about the project becasue they thought they could gain some advantage - and carried on.

A lot of Disney fans want to believe that what Disney does is "magic". That there's some unknowable force that makes everything Disney "good" and everything not Disney "ungood". That somehow the "magic" will always be with Disney and the all you have to do is shut up and appreciate what is given to you. You can find those people all over the Internet and on the other forums of this site.

:)

But what is this alleged "fib" you keep referring to. First, you indicated that it was the fact they ever had plans for a Epcot pavillon. Now, you seem to be saying it was the timing of the park itself or some "stretching of the truth". It's my opinion (a word ya might want to throw out there every once in awhile- its fun, try it) that they had at least some loose plans for a movie pavillon, had discussed a possible studio sometime in the past, and frantically threw a park together after Universal laid out plans.

Here are the facts we know: 1. Universal announced their plans first. 2. Disney announced their plans second. 3. MGM beat Universal's opening date by 18 or so months 4. MGM opened with (unbelievably) 2 rides and a handful of shows. 5. Disney has been operating in a mode to keep every tourist dollar they can away from everyone else (all the hotels, Magic Express, etc.)

There are a lot of fans who think what Disney does is "magic." Good for them. I think there's a lot of "magic" there myself. Its a great place to go and spend time talking about/reading about. I don't think everything Disney does is "good" and everything else is "ungood." I just think Disney generally does it better. Sometimes a lot better. Thats the "magic."

[Sylvester McBean]

Here are the facts we know: 1. Universal announced their plans first. 2. Disney announced their plans second. 3. MGM beat Universal's opening date by 18 or so months 4. MGM opened with (unbelievably) 2 rides and a handful of shows. 5. Disney has been operating in a mode to keep every tourist dollar they can away from everyone else (all the hotels, Magic Express, etc.)

There are a lot of fans who think what Disney does is "magic." Good for them. I think there's a lot of "magic" there myself. Its a great place to go and spend time talking about/reading about. I don't think everything Disney does is "good" and everything else is "ungood." I just think Disney generally does it better. Sometimes a lot better. Thats the "magic."

I'm comfortable with this. however, the only WDW park I feel the 'magic' in is the MK. I'm 36 and still get excited to turn the corner and see the castle. I prefer the coasters at UO, SW, or BG, but a spin on space mountain still makes me giggle like a little kid. my wife and I keep making plans to visit DL, but I don't want to lose the 'magic' that is left in my favorite WDW park.

[Another Voice]

But what is this alleged "fib" you keep referring to.
Specifically that corporate tale that Disney had the plans for the park and was going ahead with the project - but that Universal stepped in and "stole" Disney's ideas.

Your right about the rest of it. After Universal announced their funding a whole bunch of stuff got thrown together into a blender. It's the kind of fib you have to tell when your girlfriend reminds you of some obscure anniversary and you have to pretend you have the whole eveing planned out (and then have to figure out a way to make the cell phone call to Le Expensive Cafe without being caught). Disney did try to have Orlando block Universal, part fo the justification was Disney's own "long held plans". There was huge financial incentive for Disney to "expand" the truth a bit.

Plus the whole story about the movie pavilion. It's just another tale used to boost Eisner's self image. His lowly designers can to him with this puny "movie pavilion" - but SuperMike was able to see it's grand potential and championed the company onto ever increasing heights! Gee, this man even took personal credit for designing the parking garages at Disneyland. Eisner was a man who read his own press and he took every opportunity to push himself as a Big Swinging Media Mogul. The fib about the Disney/MGM Studios is just another bit of the myth.

And don't fret, Universal got Disney back.

[MJMcBride]

But maybe just maybe Disney was telling the truth as unlikely as that seems. How do you "know" they were fibbing?

[jenr812]

Interesting thread. I read most of it but skimmed through some of it, so forgive me if I am repeating something... I just watched a show that discussed this issue several weeks ago. I am pretty sure it was on the travel channel or something. It said that they had not only announced plans for MGM prior to Universal, but that they had already started construction. :confused3

[jenr812]

double post

[flatline]

Interesting thread. I read most of it but skimmed through some of it, so forgive me if I am repeating something... I just watched a show that discussed this issue several weeks ago. I am pretty sure it was on the travel channel or something. It said that they had not only announced plans for MGM prior to Universal, but that they had already started construction. :confused3

the idea for a theme park based on the movies was pitched to Paramount Studios when Eisner was on the board. he liked the idea, but the board passed, and Universal Hollywood was born.

when it came to WDW, Eisner wanted to prove he was right all along. when Universal announced their intentions on an Orlando park, he scrambled to build MGM and open it ahead of Universal. the mess that is MGM Studios is part of his legacy.

[kimbamickey]

Didn't Disney use some of those studios to film Disney Channel shows like MMC? Are those studios being used for anything now?