MGM/Disney relations?

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Thu Aug 21, 2003 9:18 pm

Someone told me today that MGM was part of Disney. I said "NO WAY!" but then started to wonder. What is their relationship? MGM has land right next to Disneyworld in Florida, does it not? And can anyone explain how Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is related to Disney? It has all those Disney characters, the Sherman bros., and in some Disney pop song they mention "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" at Disneyland...

Any help will be appreciated.

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Thu Aug 21, 2003 9:42 pm

Captain Hook wrote:Someone told me today that MGM was part of Disney. I said "NO WAY!" but then started to wonder. What is their relationship? MGM has land right next to Disneyworld in Florida, does it not? And can anyone explain how Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is related to Disney? It has all those Disney characters, the Sherman bros., and in some Disney pop song they mention "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" at Disneyland...

Any help will be appreciated.

No MGM/UA is not part of the Walt Disney Company! I think they have a deal to put MGM movies in MGM Studios Disney park. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is not related to Disney, the songs were written by Disney veterans Sherman Brothers also Dick Van Dike was in the movie.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 5:44 pm

Thank you! I wondered. Someone told me AGAIN today that they are the same company. I didn't think so. Oh, and the actor who plays Mr. Scrumptious is in The Story of Robin Hood as Little John.

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 2:55 am

Well, United Artists has a complicated, but interesting history.

As the name would suggest United Artists was actually created in 1919 by filmstars themselves (or the Artists) who wanted to break away from the studio system of the time (each filmstar was under contract to a studio and had to make the films the studio assigned to them - personal choice didn't come into the equation).

I believe some of the artists who formed the studio were Charlie Chaplin and Douglas Fairbanks. However, at that time it was not a studio as such, and therefore was not a major rival for studios like Universal or Paramount.

Instead of making films, United Artists would simply distribute and promote films made by independent producers - including films financed by their founders.

However, over time the company expanded to include some production facilities. However the company was still run with the aim of supporting films which had no distribution facilities of their own. It is undoubtably why the Disney Studios decided at some point to have their films distributed by United Artists for a period - at the time I would imagine that they offered the best return to Disney.

However by the early 1940's the company was in trouble - it had expanded too fast, buying more and more buildings to use as prodution facilities. In order to buy or construct some of these buildings they had accepted financing from Samuel Goldwyn (of MGM fame). When United Artists experienced more financial troubles Samuel Goldwyn basically bought out both the company and the production lot making it part of MGM (much to the dismay of some of the original founders).

United Artists however did manage to remain distinct from MGM for a number of years, and also negotiated some of the first co-productions between rival hollywood studios (perhaps a legacy from their 'independent' beginnings) - some of these financial arrangements being kept secret. I can find no record, but perhaps UA and Disney did co-finance some films during this time. There is no record that I can find on Chitty Chitty Bang Bang having any Disney financing, and I doubt that by 1968 when the film was made Disney would need to co-finance a film from another studio - having a wide range of successful live-action films of their own.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Sat Sep 06, 2003 5:39 pm

2099net wrote:Well, United Artists has a complicated, but interesting history.

As the name would suggest United Artists was actually created in 1919 by filmstars themselves (or the Artists) who wanted to break away from the studio system of the time (each filmstar was under contract to a studio and had to make the films the studio assigned to them - personal choice didn't come into the equation).

I believe some of the artists who formed the studio were Charlie Chaplin and Douglas Fairbanks. However, at that time it was not a studio as such, and therefore was not a major rival for studios like Universal or Paramount.

Instead of making films, United Artists would simply distribute and promote films made by independent producers - including films financed by their founders.

However, over time the company expanded to include some production facilities. However the company was still run with the aim of supporting films which had no distribution facilities of their own. It is undoubtably why the Disney Studios decided at some point to have their films distributed by United Artists for a period - at the time I would imagine that they offered the best return to Disney.

However by the early 1940's the company was in trouble - it had expanded too fast, buying more and more buildings to use as prodution facilities. In order to buy or construct some of these buildings they had accepted financing from Samuel Goldwyn (of MGM fame). When United Artists experienced more financial troubles Samuel Goldwyn basically bought out both the company and the production lot making it part of MGM (much to the dismay of some of the original founders).

United Artists however did manage to remain distinct from MGM for a number of years, and also negotiated some of the first co-productions between rival hollywood studios (perhaps a legacy from their 'independent' beginnings) - some of these financial arrangements being kept secret. I can find no record, but perhaps UA and Disney did co-finance some films during this time. There is no record that I can find on Chitty Chitty Bang Bang having any Disney financing, and I doubt that by 1968 when the film was made Disney would need to co-finance a film from another studio - having a wide range of successful live-action films of their own.

Thanks for all the information 2099net! As usual, you know tons on the subject!

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 11:46 pm

So, did they just strike up a deal outta the blue to build a theme park? Does MGM have a hand in running that park? Do they share in the profits? Is Disney licensed to create new attractions based on MGM films, since it is the MGM theme park, after all. Maybe a show or ride for, say, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang? But then there's Star Wars... maybe it should be Disney-MGM-BuenaVista-LucasfilmLtd. Studios.

-Aaron

Disney Guru · Post by **Disney Guru** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:32 am

When MGM/UNITED ARTSITS made Chitty Chitty Bang Bang they asked Walt to loan them Dick Van Dyke for the role! Walt agreeded to it as long as they would let the Sherman Brothers do the music for the movie!

Chernabog · Post by **Chernabog** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 11:41 am

Disney Guru wrote:When MGM/UNITED ARTSITS made Chitty Chitty Bang Bang they asked Walt to loan them Dick Van Dyke for the role! Walt agreeded to it as long as they would let the Sherman Brothers do the music for the movie!

Where do you get that info?

wwwjim · Post by **wwwjim** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:55 pm

Hasn't the name of the park changed from Disney-MGM Studios to Disney Studios back to Disney-MGM Studios a few times?

I distinctly remember going to the studios about three years ago and seeing the MGM missing from the entryway arch -- the next time I returned the MGM letters had been re-added...

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 4:11 pm

I hear it called Disney-Studios a lot, but the Disney site still called it Disney-MGM last I checked, and the Magical Gatherings DVD refers to it as that... and yeah, when I was there, MGM was still on the entry way.

DisneyGuru, it's not as if Walt owned Dick van Dyke... were they under contract or something?

-Aaron

Maerj · Post by **Maerj** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:59 pm

The theme park is still called the Disney/MGM Studios. Disney does NOT have the rights to use the MGM name on videos, so if you order one of those travel planning DVDs they simply refer to it as the Disney Studios.

I don't think that MGM really has anything to do with the park except for the use of thier name. The only attraction there I can think of that uses MGM movies and even mentions them is the Great Movie Ride. I think they are really missing out and should exploit the relationship a bit more. For example, a James Bond themed ride would be a very welcome addition to the park.

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 2:12 pm

Yeah, you're right... it doesn't say that on the DVD, dunno why I was thinking it did.

I really think the park would benefit from making use of its MGM name. Why was MGM ever included in the park if they didn't do antyhing with them?

Also, Wizard of Oz starts off with the MGM logo, and is a part of the Great Movie Ride at the park, but it's distributed by Warner Brothers, so what's the deal with that?

-Aaron

wizzer · Post by **wizzer** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 2:54 pm

i just opened my mickey mouse in living color tin and there is a lithograph inside that says "a united artists picture" it made me think of this thread. maybe i missed something.

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:27 am

Bumping this b/c I'm sure someone knows the answer to my question

... what's the deal with Wizard of Oz? Is it MGM or WB?

-Aaron

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:21 am

It's Warner Bros. It was bought by Warner Bros, along with all the MGM films pre-a certain date (1986?)*.

It is interesting to note that the terms of this deal was that the MGM opening logo would never be removed or replaced from the prints.

* Some pre-a certain date (which is probably 1986) MGM films are owned by Turner due to an earlier sale. But I think Turner is basically a Time Warner subsidiary anyway.

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:22 am

wizzer wrote:i just opened my mickey mouse in living color tin and there is a lithograph inside that says "a united artists picture" it made me think of this thread. maybe i missed something.

Disney had their films distributed by United Artist for a period of time. See my earlier post for the origins of United Artists. Presumably Disney felt happier having United Artists distribute his films than a major competing studio at the time.

toonaspie · Post by **toonaspie** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:27 am

there's a really good article at www.savedisney.com that talks about how certain studios change from what they were half a century ago. You should read it. It's very touching and it's a desperate cry to save disney from what has happened to these major studios in the past

Disney Guru · Post by **Disney Guru** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:59 am

I didn't mean that Walt Disney owned DIck Van Dyke I meant that they had him on a contract! And that is true! Disney loaned him to MGM/United Artists but they said that they wanted to have the Sherman Brothers doing the music for the movie or no dice! This is What I heard!

goofystitch · Post by **goofystitch** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 4:26 pm

Didn't Warner Bros. have a video distribution deal with MGM for a while? I seem to remember that all of the James Bond DVD's where pulled from the shelves and re-released with nothing different, but at a higher price and that the reason was because MGM got their home video rights back. Anybody know more?

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

MGM/Disney relations?

MGM/Disney relations?

Re: MGM/Disney relations?

MGM part of Disney

Re: MGM part of Disney

disney mgm

Walt and DIck Van Dyke