<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Lake Neuron - Latest Comments in WALL-E (No spoilers)</title><link>http://lakeneuron.disqus.com/</link><description>John I. Carney's home on the web</description><atom:link href="https://lakeneuron.disqus.com/wall_e_no_spoilers/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:16:19 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: WALL-E (No spoilers)</title><link>http://lakeneuron.com/2008/06/27/wall-e-no-spoilers/#comment-768094</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Yes, but if you read the rest of that Wikipedia entry, the theme park agreement a) was the subject of litigation, and b) has expired, so the Disney-MGM Studios theme park is now the Disney's Hollywood Studios theme park.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">LakeNeuron</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:16:19 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: WALL-E (No spoilers)</title><link>http://lakeneuron.com/2008/06/27/wall-e-no-spoilers/#comment-768056</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Disney and MGM have at least one agreement:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;"In 1985, Disney and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer entered into a licensing contract that gave Disney worldwide rights to use the MGM name and logo for a yet-to-be-built backlot studio theme park." -Wikipedia&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;So it stands to reason they have some branding crossover agreements here or there.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">metazai</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:08:33 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>