BAH...

[dbrWDW]

What do we think about what???

Lol sorry. What do you think about the current view of the HS strip with the Big Hat as opposed to the original without the Big Hat?

 

[DinoInstitute]

Hollywood Blvd's theme has nothing to do with the production studio. Being Walt Disney World has nothing to do with being self referential. Far more of Walt Disney World is still not about Disney. Almost none of the hotels are about Disney. Most of the rides are still not about Disney. Should Spaceship Earth and the Tree of Life be blocked with something irrelevant but Disney? Maybe put something in front of the Magic Kingdom since that train station isn't Disney?

I bet with a bit of construction we can get a stage to block the view of SE

 

[aladdin2007]

What do we think about what???

your avatar lol, hi walter,,where is peanut and bubba j?

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Both Grauman's and Earful were icons.

See some of The Magical World of Disney specials, they promoted Grauman's and Earful, they just couldn't use Grauman's in advertising. They also couldn't use the Disney-MGM Studios name in advertising.

It was known as the Disney Studios.

Regarding advertising, your post is wrong on both points. Disney could (and did) use both the theater and the name "Disney-MGM Studios" in its advertising.



You are correct that both the tower and the theater were used as park icons (in merchandise, etc).

 

[Marc Gil]

Regarding advertising, your post is wrong on both points. Disney could (and did) use both the theater and the name "Disney-MGM Studios" in its advertising.



You are correct that both the tower and the theater were used as park icons (in merchandise, etc).

Actually, you're partially correct.

Back in 1988, MGM tried to sue the Walt Disney Company because Disney was using the MGM name in their films (credits, eg. "filmed at the Disney-MGM Studios)

Disney eventually won the lawsuit, then filed a counter lawsuit in 1992 in which they tried to ban MGM from using the MGM name in their new newest theme park in Las Vegas (MGM Grand).

Later, it was decided that both parks got to keep their name and logos, but on certain instances, Disney could not use the MGM name or logo in certain areas of marketing (On planning videos, TV Specials, and advertisements it was know as "The Disney Studios Fl")

The MGM Grand theme park ended up closing in the early 2000's and MGM's contract with Disney expired in 2007, thus forcing Disney to name and advertise the park as Disney's Hollywood Studios.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Actually, you're partially correct.

Back in 1988, MGM tried to sue the Walt Disney Company because Disney was using the MGM name in their films (credits, eg. "filmed at the Disney-MGM Studios)

Disney eventually won the lawsuit, then filed a counter lawsuit in 1992 in which they tried to ban MGM from using the MGM name in their new newest theme park in Las Vegas (MGM Grand).

Later, it was decided that both parks got to keep their name and logos, but on certain instances, Disney could not use the MGM name or logo in certain areas of marketing (On planning videos, TV Specials, and advertisements it was know as "The Disney Studios Fl")

The MGM Grand theme park ended up closing in the early 2000's and MGM's contract with Disney expired in 2007, thus forcing Disney to name and advertise the park as Disney's Hollywood Studios.

I believe your information to be incorrect (at least as it pertains to advertising). From the day the park opened, until 20 years later (the length of the contract), Disney had the right to name the park Disney MGM Studios and to advertise it as such; this was upheld by the judge in the original lawsuit ending in 1992. The reason the planning videos stopped using the name "Disney MGM Studios" is that the contract never mentioned them - MGM claimed Disney never had a license to use the name in videos (unlike the park name, and television and print advertising, on which the contract was explicit).

As for Grauman's? The theater itself has neither copyright nor trademark protection. The name "Grauman's Chinese Theater" has trademark protection since the mid-00s (I think 2003). So while Disney is prohibited from calling the theater "Grauman's Chinese Theater", there is nothing stopping them from using images of the park's replica in advertising (or anything else).

 

[Marc Gil]

I believe your information to be incorrect (at least as it pertains to advertising). From the day the park opened, until 20 years later (the length of the contract), Disney had the right to name the park Disney MGM Studios and to advertise it as such; this was upheld by the judge in the original lawsuit ending in 1992. The reason the planning videos stopped using the name "Disney MGM Studios" is that the contract never mentioned them - MGM claimed Disney never had a license to use the name in videos (unlike the park name, and television and print advertising, on which the contract was explicit).

As for Grauman's? The theater itself has neither copyright nor trademark protection. The name "Grauman's Chinese Theater" has trademark protection since the mid-00s (I think 2003). So while Disney is prohibited from calling the theater "Grauman's Chinese Theater", there is nothing stopping them from using images of the park's replica in advertising (or anything else).

Now I've gone cross-eyed... Haha

You may be correct on the Grauman's standpoint, but as for the MGM Studios name, I'm not entirely sure.

And I distinctly remember seeing TV ads and programs use the Disney Studios FL name, not Disney-MGM Studios back in the 1990s.