May 22, 2008: Please Remove Your Hat

[Werner Weiss]

Instead of leading up to a detailed replica of a replica of the world's most famous movie theater, Disney’s Hollywood Boulevard in Florida now leads up to something that looks like a very large blue plastic cone.

Link to Please Remove Your Hat, at Yesterland

Please discuss it here.

[Monorail Man]

Got to disagree about the fact that it was ONLY built for the 100 Years celebration. While that's the idea on paper, I still think it was built because MGM lacked a Disney icon that it could call it's 'own'. The overly tacky hat allowed Disney to have an easily accessible (and identifiable) icon for the park. Yes, the Earful Tower was an icon, but it wasn't easy for guests to get pictures of it, or to show it off (since it was the back of the park). Putting the hat at the end of the Boulevard allowed for many pictures, and for the area to be marked 'Disney', instead of just looking like a street with a theater on the end (that Disney doesn't own).

Corporate branding at it's best.

[PragmaticIdealist]

I have no interest in visiting the Disney MGM Studios or Disney's Hollywood Studios as long as that hat is there.

[pussnboots]

Originally Posted by Monorail Man

Got to disagree about the fact that it was ONLY built for the 100 Years celebration. While that's the idea on paper, I still think it was built because MGM lacked a Disney icon that it could call it's 'own'. The overly tacky hat allowed Disney to have an easily accessible (and identifiable) icon for the park. Yes, the Earful Tower was an icon, but it wasn't easy for guests to get pictures of it, or to show it off (since it was the back of the park). Putting the hat at the end of the Boulevard allowed for many pictures, and for the area to be marked 'Disney', instead of just looking like a street with a theater on the end (that Disney doesn't own).

Corporate branding at it's best.

First of all, can we -- everyone, everywhere -- please stop putting an apostrophe in the possessive pronoun "its"? Thank you.

Second of all, I agree. WDW's parks all had enormous, unmistakable weenies -- except MGM. In the late '90s, it was not uncommon in travel brochures etc. to actually see the Tower of Terror alongside Cinderella Castle, Spaceship Earth and the Tree of Life. Apparently, the Earful Tower just didn't do. The hat was obviously their quick solution, as well as a nice centerpiece for the 100 Years celebration.

What I'm not so sure of is whether anyone actually minded the fact that the park had no 60 ft golf ball or similar. It must be some Disney executive form of Body Dysmorphic Disorder, the Hat being their awful boob job.

[danyoung]

Werner, I could not agree more with your article. I've always thought the hat itself was kinda cool and very well built. But it's simply in the wrong location. There's a terrific spot out in front of the main gates, over towards the boat docks, that would be perfect for the hat and whatever tchotchkie store they want to put under it. But it so hurts the entire vibe of Hollywood Blvd.

OT - And pussnboots, I'm with you on the apostrophe thing. My favorite (or least favorite?) boo boo that many people make is the misspelling of definitely (definately). I don't know why this is, or why so many people have the wrong spelling locked in their fingers, but it makes me crazy!!!

[animagusurreal]

Originally Posted by pussnboots

First of all, can we -- everyone, everywhere -- please stop putting an apostrophe in the possessive pronoun "its"? Thank you.

Second of all, I agree. WDW's parks all had enormous, unmistakable weenies -- except MGM. In the late '90s, it was not uncommon in travel brochures etc. to actually see the Tower of Terror alongside Cinderella Castle, Spaceship Earth and the Tree of Life. Apparently, the Earful Tower just didn't do. The hat was obviously their quick solution, as well as a nice centerpiece for the 100 Years celebration.

What I'm not so sure of is whether anyone actually minded the fact that the park had no 60 ft golf ball or similar. It must be some Disney executive form of Body Dysmorphic Disorder, the Hat being their awful boob job.

The Chinese Theatre may not have been enormous compared to Cinderella Castle or Spaceship Earth, but it was unmistakably designed to be the weenie at the end of Hollywood Boulevard until they stuck that hat in front of it. (I think I remember it being explicitly stated on the "Making of Disney MGM" TV special that Hollywood Boulevard and the theatre were this park's answer to Main Street and the castle.) Anyhow, since the theatre appears to peek out from behind the hat, the hat can't be that enormous, either.

I'm with Werner and others who say move or remove the hat. It looks temporary and tacked on.




OT -

On the subject of "its" - I comply with that rule (when I remember to) but it bugs the heck out of me. If something belongs to a person, you use an apostrophe "s" (as in Mann's Chinese Theatre). So why don't you use an apostrophe when something belongs to an "it." Seems like the same basic principle. "Its," with no apostrophe, looks plural and seems to imply multiple "its".

[Baloo]

If it is true and some felt that DHS needed an icon other than the Earful tower than something should be done to the Grauman theater. The attraction is basically a large big box with a facade on it. Why not tear down the Facade and put a new one.

Maybe a replica of the Disney studios headquarters with the dwarfs pillars. Even a stylized replica of the "EL Capitan" theater would be better. If they want a hat, then how about a replica of the Disney Animation studio with the hat above.

Any other iconic buildings that could be built to better fit the theme of the rest of the street.


Anything would be better than the aweful temporary pin structure that destroyed the whole look of the parks entrance.

[HBG2]

I've heard about this hat, but never seen a picture.

Now I have to go bleach my brain.


Oh, and can we do something about "alot" while we're at it? It's two words, people.

A



LOT

[sir clinksalot]

I agree that they needed an icon for the park, and this is what they came up with.

I don't mind it being the icon for the park, but I just wish it would have been done either.

I think they should just remove the chinese theatre, have the "Hat" be the entrance to the great movie ride but make it a more permanent looking thing, rather than the temporary looking structure they have now.

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by animagusurreal

OT -

On the subject of "its" - I comply with that rule (when I remember to) but it bugs the heck out of me. If something belongs to a person, you use an apostrophe "s" (as in Mann's Chinese Theatre). So why don't you use an apostrophe when something belongs to an "it." Seems like the same basic principle. "Its," with no apostrophe, looks plural and seems to imply multiple "its".

I used to have that same complaint, but then I finally pounded it into my mind that it's actually in line with "his" and "hers" but is non-gender specific. And we don't use "hi's" (or "him's") and "her's", so likewise we don't use "it's" for possessive in this case. That's when it finally clicked for me. What really bugs me is that it's becoming very common to see 's just when making something plural. Argh!

[kirbilicious]

I agree that while the hat itself looks cool, but it is in the completely wrong location. I'm not sure what the proper location would be - outside of the park perhaps? It definitely does not belong at the end of Hollywood Boulevard though.

In regard to this...

Originally Posted by animagusurreal

OT -

On the subject of "its" - I comply with that rule (when I remember to) but it bugs the heck out of me. If something belongs to a person, you use an apostrophe "s" (as in Mann's Chinese Theatre). So why don't you use an apostrophe when something belongs to an "it." Seems like the same basic principle. "Its," with no apostrophe, looks plural and seems to imply multiple "its".

"It's" is already a contraction meaning "it is". Using "it's" as a possessive will just become confusing. Also, "its" isn't a word that is really ever used to mean multiple its. It is less confusing to have two different words rather than have one word with two meanings.

[tjcjr]

If it is true and some felt that DHS needed an icon other than the Earful tower than something should be done to the Grauman theater. The attraction is basically a large big box with a facade on it. Why not tear down the Facade and put a new one.

There had long been talk of replacing the Great Movie Ride and even more so once the Studios lost the MGM in the name and if it was decided that the theater itself should be changed as well, the hat in front would provide a great cover for any construction going in back. It would also always remain an iconic symbol no matter what changes were made behind it.
As for the structure itself being less than what it could be, if you look at the other Disney weenies, they not only provide an icon for each of their parks but they also serve to house some pretty imaginative attractions/restaurants/eye candy. The hat simply provides a backdrop for the stage and a small retail venue underneath.

Now then, do I like the hat?
Yes, very much it's a cool structure.
Do I like where it is?
Absolutely not, it needs to either go elsewhere on the property, like as an entryway to Fantasmic or maybe moved over to the All Star-Pop Century Resorts where the rest of the larger than life Disney icons live.

[scasta86]

Is there any specific information as to whether Disney owns the rights to the Chinese theater, or if it's just licensed to them?
While I agree with the points raised in the article The Hat has been prominently featured in Disney advertisements and what not, it's also in the park's merchandise, so it seems unlikely that it will be moved anytime soon....which is unfortunate.

[JiminyCricketFan]

As to copyright restrictions... Anyone can take a picture of the REAL Chinese theater in Hollywood without having to pay royalties. It is maybe a question of selling postcards of the Chinese theater, but I am not sure. I have never heard of copyrighting a building. I an not sure if it is possible. You can copyright a logo but architecture?

[WDWImagineer]

Werner, your story and explanantion for this 'hat' make sooo much more sense then the other legends going around. THANKS for another great Yesterland Entry!