The Future of Disney Studios

[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...

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.