Sorcerer's hat finally coming down at Disney Hollywood Studios

Posted Saturday, October 25, 2014 8:48 AM | Contributed by Jeff

The well-known – yet much-maligned – sorcerer's hat at Disney's Hollywood Studios will come down early next year. Disney confirmed the giant hat's impending demise Friday. The company said it is "reimagining" the area where it stands. Disney would not provide details about what will replace the hat.

Read more from The Orlando Sentinel.

Saturday, October 25, 2014 8:49 AM

I always thought it was temporary, much like the hideous sign they had perched over Spaceship Earth for a number of years. Then ten years passed...

Saturday, October 25, 2014 2:37 PM

Great, I never thought that hat went with the theme in that area of the park!

Every time I see a DHS article, I am awaiting an announcement to what they are going to add. However, most of these are about them removing stuff.

Saturday, October 25, 2014 3:26 PM

Happy to see that go.

Sunday, October 26, 2014 2:35 AM

Yea. Now the Chinese Theater can be seen unobstructed again.

Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:43 AM

Would you rather see a model of the completed, or under construction Death Star take its place?

Sunday, October 26, 2014 11:52 AM

I always thought the construction version was now interesting.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:03 AM

I thought the hat was placed there to block the Chinese Theater due to dropping the MGM name and copyright purposes.

Last edited by jkpark, Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:04 AM
Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:29 AM

That doesn't even make sense. You don't copyright a building, and it's still there to see, and the theater isn't owned by MGM.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014 11:29 AM

You can copyright the design of a building. You can also trademark it.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014 12:21 PM

Neither of which apply here.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:01 PM

Not so much MGM, but the owners of the real theatre may have asked for royalties from Disney for use of the iconic facade? Anyway, good to see the hat coming out of there. Didn't like it since day one.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:56 PM

I sincerely doubt Disney would have built a replica of the Chinese Theater without checking in with the owners of the theatre.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014 2:10 PM

Which has also changed hands several times. Besides, it's not entirely clear how landmarks fit into the landscape (no pun intended).

Tuesday, October 28, 2014 2:57 PM

It was originally Grauman's (though Sid Grauman never actually owned the theater), later Mann's Chinese Theater and is currently TCL Chinese Theaters (it gained a multiplex in 2001).

Tuesday, October 28, 2014 4:40 PM

Jeff said:
Neither of which apply here.

No, but I was correcting the statement that you can't copyright a building when you can.

As for the hat coming down, that's great. Hated it!

Tuesday, October 28, 2014 4:47 PM

Except registering for copyright for architecture is pretty new, and this building predates the law by more than 60 years, so it would not apply here.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014 5:04 PM

A hallmark of most Disney parks is the "main street to iconic structure" thorofare entrance, and I've always heard that Disney was unhappy with the way the Chinese Theatre turned out. It just wasn't iconic enough, grand enough, or something like that. Hence, the ridiculous giant hat as a misguided attempt to redesign the look of the place and give it the wow factor. Ugh.
I like the look of the theater at the end of the street. I also thought the hat was cool, but it was so totally wrong for the area it kind of ruined everything. So I'm glad it's going.

Wait... Where am I gonna buy my silly hats and trading pins now?

Tuesday, October 28, 2014 5:05 PM

I never said it did apply. I'm saying your blanket statement was wrong. And the building could be trademarked, though that also doesn't apply in this case. Regardless, saying that you can't do it, when you can was incorrect.

Last edited by Tekwardo, Tuesday, October 28, 2014 5:06 PM
Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:05 PM

Jesus Christ... do you do anything but argue just for the sake of argument? It's exhausting.


You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2019, POP World Media, LLC