Is the clock ticking on the Sorcerer Mickey Hat icon at the Studios? YES!

[lazyboy97o]

That would be great...Would love Oswald in it standing next to him...But, that's just me...

Why Oswald? Disney only made Oswald cartoons for about a year. People act like he was Disney's star from 1923 until November 1928, and he wasn't.

i hate this. i love the hat! it has been there since i started going to disney. now i'm twenty and it's just gonna be gone?! that's like taking away cinderella's castle or the tree of life!

No, it'd be more like clearing away something that had obstructed them for 15 years.

Even with the story about the BAH blocking the theater being just an internet rumor, you have to wonder if they are re-imaginering the entire park or at least most if it, would it not make since to put a new Icon in the the center to symbolize that change in direction. Might not happen, but I would not start the celebrations of seeing the theater as you walk up Hollywood Blvd just yet.

Even if the front will also be reworked, it would still be a comprehensive design. That was never the case with the Hat.

If it went south early? How did WDW hold on to Disney MGM Studios-the name till 2008?
Interesting thought, Most of the Vacation Planning Videos from the 90's had just Disney Studios While every Resort TV Video that I've seen from back then had the full name Disney MGM Studios

Like with the Marvel deal, contracts do not just disappear because somebody decides they no longer like it.

 

[champdisney]

I wonder since GOTG is a sci-fi fantasy like Star Wars, if WDI plans on just meshing the attractions together in one "land". I'd call the area, Galaxies Far Far Away.

 

[ProfSavage]

Nothing precludes Disney from changing the façade of the theatre, tearing it down or dumping the GMR. Other than our cries of despair if they did so.

My favorite kind of crying...

 

[zarpman]

There's going south and then there's the end of the formal relationship. If I remember from my research, it was never a love fest between Disney and MGM, since MGM sued Disney in 1988, claiming Disney violated the agreement signed in 1985 giving Disney the right to use the MGM name and logo. And Disney countersued, claiming MGM violated its abilities to use the MGM name and logo licensed to it under the 1985 agreement. That and Disney was afraid the theme park MGM was building at the MGM Grand in Vegas would impact Disney's reputation. And the park opened in May 1989, so things were rocky from the day Disney decided to start operating a working studio. Had to go back and look all this stuff up to satisfy my curiosity. It was Meg Crofton who announced the change in the name in 2007 to more accurately reflect what the park had become.

So all you who think Disney cannot do anything with that theatre because of the MGM connection, so sad, too bad, you are wrong and the 1992 court decision settling the litigation says so. The only connection with the theatre is the separate licensing agreement allowing Disney to use MGM content in the Great Movie Ride. Nothing precludes Disney from changing the façade of the theatre, tearing it down or dumping the GMR. Other than our cries of despair if they did so.

... not to mention that MGM doesn't own the original Chinese Theater name or design, and the MGM movies featured in the attraction are protected by completely separate contractual agreements. Nothing about MGM prevents Disney from using the facade or operating The Great Movie Ride.

In the end, it was just the MGM name and the logo featuring Leo the Lion that were held as a license from MGM in the now-expired contract.

 

[ParksAndPixels]

http://www.yesterland.com/removehat.html

Thanks

 

[epcotWSC]

Star Wars land would be really cool, but I don't know what they would make it of. A specific place (e.g., Mos Eisley) or a whole assortment of places? Star Wars is just so big with so many locations.

 

[LAKid53]

Contracts. The MGM name was held until the contract ran out. MGM sued Disney from using it as advertising when they were building their own theme park that shuttered long before the contract expired. That's why the planning videos called it simply Disney Studios.

Actually, MGM sued in 1988 because Disney was operating a functioning studio at the resort and MGM felt this was in violation of the 1985 agreement. And Disney countersued over its perception that MGM was prohibiting Disney from using the licensed name and logo and Disney wanted to stop MGM from constructing the theme park at the MGM Grand. The 1992 court ruling allowed (1) Disney to continue to use the Disney-MGM name on film productions at the park and (2) MGM could build its theme park. Disney was prohibited comtractually in using the Disney-MGM name in certain marketing contexts.

 

[LAKid53]

... not to mention that MGM doesn't own the original Chinese Theater name or design, and the MGM movies featured in the attraction are protected by completely separate contractual agreements. Nothing about MGM prevents Disney from using the facade or operating The Great Movie Ride.

In the end, it was just the MGM name and the logo featuring Leo the Lion that were held as a license from MGM in the now-expired contract.

Precisely. So I hope that rumor about the theatre will finally be put to bed....

 

[Cesar R M]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but if the Uni/Disney contract does indeed say something to the effect of, "If 'Character X' was ever a member of The Avengers, they cannot appear in an American Disney park east of the Mississippi", then Guardians of the Galaxy will never appear in Disney World. The GotG were made honorary members of The Avengers in the late 1970's. Now if Disney really wants a GotG attraction at WDW, I'm sure they've considered lawyering-up by saying, "But they were only 'honorary members', not 'real members'!" I don't know if it's worth the cost, but just sayin'.

Oh, and here's my source: Marvel's official list of every superhero who has ever, at one time or another, been a member of The Avengers: http://marvel.com/universe/Avengers

Relevant quote from the page: "the group attracted associates such as the aging speedster Whizzer, Wonder Man, the robotic Jocasta, the time-spanning 31st century Guardians of the Galaxy, and Ms. Marvel (later Warbird), all of whom helped the team oppose the mad man-god Korvac and his wife Carina."

You mean, the old Guardians.. not the current rooster.

the older team (1970) as little to do with the Star Lord group. (which was founded to combat the post-annihilation wave problems)

Not to beat this dead, decaying horse of the Marvel contract BUT...

The Guardians of the 60s/70s are not the same iteration of the Guardians rebooted in 2007/8 by Dan Abnett in which the runaway hit of the movie is based on so technically... THESE Guardians have never been members of The Avengers proper.

exactly my opinion!

The only difference is, Iron man and Flash Thompson were temporal members of the Guardians.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

 

[zarpman]

Actually, MGM sued in 1988 because Disney was operating a functioning studio at the resort and MGM felt this was in violation of the 1985 agreement. And Disney countersued over its perception that MGM was prohibiting Disney from using the licensed name and logo and Disney wanted to stop MGM from constructing the theme park at the MGM Grand. The 1992 court ruling allowed (1) Disney to continue to use the Disney-MGM name on film productions at the park and (2) MGM could build its theme park. Disney was prohibited comtractually in using the Disney-MGM name in certain marketing contexts.

Yes. All of this. I knew someone would fill in all the details. MGM thought they their name was being used as a theme park license, and did not like that their name was tied to productions at the park.

I believe those "certain marketing contexts" were anything nationally, as to not confuse visitors planning a trip to MGM Grand, so billboards in Florida could still use the full name while national marketing (including the planning videos) used the "Disney Studios" moniker.

 

[CJR]

Happy to hear about the hat! About time! I didn't dislike it, but I hated the location of it. Should it ever return elsewhere, in a better area, I won't be mad.

Today is a good day!

 

[Cesar R M]

Too bad. It's been fun watching Apple and Samsung argue over who invented a geometric shape with rounded corners....

Which ironically... was "invented" by the simpsons (in the episode of the lemon tree).

 

[DisneyRoy]

Nice to see a 5 year old thread still maintaining traction. Although the end appears near...all for the better. I have yet to see the Studios view with the Chinese theatre in person and I can't wait!

 

[Cesar R M]

Why Oswald? Disney only made Oswald cartoons for about a year. People act like he was Disney's star from 1923 until November 1928, and he wasn't.

Because it was the prototype character mascot that later evolved to be Mickey?

 

[zarpman]

Unless it shows up in a landfill, I won't be happy. It's too big to be placed anywhere else, and while I love Mickey in Fantasia, it just doesn't fit in thematically anywhere on property... like the wand, it's too large and imposing for its cartoonish design.

 

[FutureCEO]

More threads tomorrow about what will MGM put in the park. (the park will be always known as MGM to me).

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

They could turn it sideways and make it into a slide at one of the water parks.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Disney spokesman CONFIRMS to me the Hat is going away in early 2015
"Work continues on bringing new experiences to life at Disney's Hollywood Studios, and we look forward to sharing more information at a later date."

 

[LAKid53]

You mean, the old Guardians.. not the current rooster.

the older team (1970) as little to do with the Star Lord group. (which was founded to combat the post-annihilation wave problems)




exactly my opinion!

The only difference is, Iron man and Flash Thompson were temporal members of the Guardians.

Why do I get the feeling this is going to be a source of contention and potential litigation between Comcast and Disney. These properties are much more valuable to either company than the MGM name/logo dispute. Disney now owns two extremely valuable and profitable properties. Comcast holds the rights to use a piece of one. Both have money. And if Comcast is allowed to purchase Time/Warner, what does that bring in terms of valuable properties into the Comcast stable. Isn't Warner Brothers part of Time/Warner? And what extremely lucrative movie rights does Warner own that Comcast will now own? Yeah. And Comcast will also own HBO, giving the largest cable company a massive amount of very valuable content. If I were Iger, I'd be very careful in taking on Comcast. Wouldn't want that cash cow called ESPN to suddenly have few eyeballs looking at it...