The Future of Disney Studios

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.
 
raidermatt said:
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.
 
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.
 
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
 

YoHo said:
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?
 
Another Voice said:
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
raidermatt said:
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.
 
MJMcBride said:
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.
 
dbm20th said:
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?
 
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.
 
YoHo said:
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Another Voice said:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
From Wikipedia...

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.
 

New Posts



Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE








DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top Bottom