Report explains Pixar name at the Disney-MGM Studios
Here is a bit of information I should have posted last week, but let slip my mind. However, considering we’ve talked about this subject quite a bit here, I thought we should mention it anyway. The Orlando Sentinel reported last week in a very short one paragraph piece about the Pixar name being added to the Disney-MGM Studios.
Since early last year, when Walt Disney Co. began its acquisition of Pixar Animation, industry insiders have speculated that Disney-MGM Studios would get the Pixar name worked into it. Disney officials denied it. Then a couple of weeks ago, Disney rekindled speculation when it filed a legal notice with Orange County that referred to a place called “Disney’s MGM Studios-Pixar Studios.” Turns out the name merely designates a small area around an upcoming ride, Toy Story Mania. Disney says it has no plans to rename the entire Disney World theme park.
This certainly would clarify things, and perhaps put an end to the “Disney-Pixar Studios” renaming rumor that has been circulating and re-circulating forever. But I can’t help but wonder if this means even more Pixar related items will be added to the area. I mean we can’t really call one attraction a “studio”, now can we?
Eric said,
June 18, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
I believe it was Shakespeare that said “A theme park by any other name would stagnate as much.” Or something like that. I personally don’t really care what they decide to call that park, as long as they start doing something with it. In my mind, the Studios park is really getting stale. It has lost it’s theme and overall direction. Sad, because years ago it was my favorite park. Now, it may be my least favorite.
Ray said,
June 18, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
I have to agree with Eric. When I went last September, it was my first trip to MGM Studios. I remember all the hype and press I read about it since it’s opening and it really didn’t seem to live up to what I was expecting.
My wife and I have come to the conclusion that it’s a half-day park like Animal Kingdom (crowds permitting).
David said,
June 18, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
I for one do not care at all that the “working studios” aspect is gone. It was nice to see once, but after that it became as exciting as a factory tour. But Eric is correct, in that while losing that focus it was never replaced with a new focus.
Eric said,
June 18, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
I don’t think it has to be a “working studio” but the park should at least present more of a fictionalized studio feel than it does. I’m thinking more trailers, “movie stars” in costume walking around, various props scattered here and there, and a better sense of themeing with the attractions. Tot, RnRC, MV3D, Star Tours, etc. are all very good attractions, but they don’t exactly present the illusion that you as a guest are walking around a studio set.
And can we PLEASE pull the plug on Sounds Dangerous?!
Matt said,
June 18, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
I agree with Dave. While I enjoyed the real production, and wouldn’t mind it returning, I did get sick of the shameless plugs for anything the Disney company was hawking. Again, I’m going to be interested to see how they actually incorporate a Pixar Studios area since on one side of Toy Story Mania is the Narnia attraction and the other is the Backlot Tour, so not like they have a lot of area to work with.
Biblioadonis said,
June 18, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
I was actually excited about the potential name change. With the Disney acquisition of Pixar, it reminded me of a marriage–especially with the long courtship and chase.
It seems to me like changing the name of the Studios would show a commitment to the Pixar name and brand. Unless, of course, Disney is hoping all of the Pixar magic will transfer to Disney.
David said,
June 18, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
And I know they are not planning on pulling the plug on Narnia, as it seems they will update it with the new movie. So where exactly will Pixar Studios begin and end?? This has the potential to be really…silly
Mike said,
June 19, 2007 @ 1:26 am
To make this park truly great it is time to blow up the Backlot Tour. The ride thru and walking segments are old and boring. Redesign the area with a few new attractions, perhaps a Roarin 20s Broadway feel, and off ya go.
Lou Mongello - DisneyWorldTrivia.com said,
June 19, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
I sometimes find it curious how Pixar still seems to be referred to as an outside company, when it is now a part of Disney. Some still find the use of the name (or characters) in and around the parks to be borderline heresy, but it is what it is. Pixar is Disney, and to many fans, a nice addition. One could argue that the infusion from these films and characters could breathe new life into a portion of the park that may be in need of just such a “freshening-up.”
That being said, I, too, would love to see the original “studios” portion of the park return to being just that. Whether it be film/TV production, 2D animation studios, etc., I think it would help return this section of the park to what the original intention was - a real, working studio that Guests could visit, learn from, and interact with. Whether it may be co-branded with the Pixar name is relatively immaterial.
Just call it the “Disney Studios” and be done with it.
Biblioadonis said,
June 19, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
But Lou (real whiney voice)…so many people don’t associate Pixar with Disney…or they see all animated films and think Disney (the horrors!)
I agree that it should just be named the Disney Studios. Disney needs to integrate Pixar into itself as an equal partner in WDFA.
But the suits smell success with Pixar. I can see rebranding a section of the park as Pixar Place. I know that my family would spend a lot more time there! And isn’t that exactly what Disney wants? Me spending more time and money there?
David said,
June 19, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
Personally, I think learning about film making should be done at the actual studio, not a theme park where they throw some second teir production to give guests something to look at. But what’s more, it just isn’t that exciting to me. Seeing people walking around desks and drawing a picture is not my idea of great fun. I would much rather see the space at the Studios used for great movie-related attractions and shows. Not something that seems like a museum.
Ray said,
June 19, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
When Disney “acquired” (or whatever the relationship is), the Muppet franchise, I was excited. But I was much younger and interested in other things at the time (aka dating) to recall if there was a similar level of disdain for the integration of the Muppet characters into Disney as there is for Pixar
David said,
June 19, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
No there was not, but that’s because Disney wasn’t in the puppet business. For the Disney purists (sorry Lou, I know you refer to yourself as one) relying on an outside company for animation was too much to bare.
Denise said,
June 20, 2007 @ 1:43 am
I am heading out to California in a few weeks and signed up for the Universal Studios VIP Tour. I have not been there yet, but it sounds like they marry the ideas of theme park and studio just fine. I am very much looking forward to walking behind the scenes.
I’d like to see animators back at MGM. I’m also curious as to why they’d keep the MGM name.
Denise
Jeff Pepper said,
June 20, 2007 @ 2:30 am
To label Pixar an “outside company” is really a stretch. They have been in partnership with Disney since the first Toy Story, and they have been spiritually and philosophically closer to the traditions of Disney animation than anything that came out of WDFA during the stagnant David Stainton years. Many of their creative folks began at Disney and/or were schooled at CalArts. IMO, John Lasseter is the closest there has been to a spiritual successor to Walt, and I believe the next few years will bear that observation out.
David said,
June 20, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Yes, I agree. It is a stretch. I’m only commenting on what the purists may have been thinking.
Also, “in partnership” is something of a stretch. There were some…bumps in that road.