That.Hat.

[bigdisz]

I heard a rumor that the 100 years of magic emblem of MGM is comin down! has anyone else heard that rumor? is it true?

 

[ToddS]

I wish it were. I've said it here before, but I'm pretty sure that the main reason the hat is there is because of PhotoPass. If I understand correctly, DIsney does not have the rights to sell anything with the image of the Chinese Theater on it. So if the hat were not there, they could not have their photographers taking PhotoPass pictures in that direction down Hollywood Boulevard, because they cannot legally sell pictures that show the theater. (Same is true for the Brown Derby, incidentally.) Hence the hat -- to block the (much more attractive, IMO) view of the theater.

If the image rights for the theater are ever rectified, I would think the hat would be gone pretty quick. I would love to see it moved to the semi-circular area on the water outside of the turnstiles. I don't think it's a bad icon for the park, I just don't like its location.

 

[golf4miami]

If the image rights for the theater are ever rectified, I would think the hat would be gone pretty quick. I would love to see it moved to the semi-circular area on the water outside of the turnstiles. I don't think it's a bad icon for the park, I just don't like its location.

But then where would the Christmas tree go!?

 

[YoHo]

When did Disney start having photographers in the parks?

I'm pretty sure you used to be able to buy Disney/MGM postcards with the theater on them. And slides. I mean, the place existed for 10-11? years before that stupid thing was put in. Surely Disney put it in pictures before that time.

 

[DanBoris]

I wish it were. I've said it here before, but I'm pretty sure that the main reason the hat is there is because of PhotoPass. If I understand correctly, DIsney does not have the rights to sell anything with the image of the Chinese Theater on it. So if the hat were not there, they could not have their photographers taking PhotoPass pictures in that direction down Hollywood Boulevard, because they cannot legally sell pictures that show the theater. (Same is true for the Brown Derby, incidentally.) Hence the hat -- to block the (much more attractive, IMO) view of the theater.

If the image rights for the theater are ever rectified, I would think the hat would be gone pretty quick. I would love to see it moved to the semi-circular area on the water outside of the turnstiles. I don't think it's a bad icon for the park, I just don't like its location.

The "rights issues" over the Chinese Theater are an urban legend that has been repeated so many times that it's almost accepted as fact.

 

[tjkraz]

When did Disney start having photographers in the parks?

I'm pretty sure you used to be able to buy Disney/MGM postcards with the theater on them. And slides. I mean, the place existed for 10-11? years before that stupid thing was put in. Surely Disney put it in pictures before that time.

It's possible that Disney was able to reduce or eliminate any royalties paid by blocking the theater as a photo backdrop. Knowing how Disney operates ($$$), IMO that makes a lot more sense than theories about the hat being a better park icon.

 

[tjkraz]

The "rights issues" over the Chinese Theater are an urban legend that has been repeated so many times that it's almost accepted as fact.

Is there a source which refutes this supposed urban legend?

 

[YoHo]

http://www.yesterland.com/removehat.html


Urban Legend.

 

[DanBoris]

Is there a source which refutes this supposed urban legend?

http://www.yesterland.com/removehat.html

 

[hopemax]

But then where would the Christmas tree go!?

Before the Big Hat, the Christmas Tree used to go where the hat is now.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VkqXgjEVV..._4GIfPXtLY8/s1600/disney-mgm-studios-2000.png

 

[tjkraz]

I've said this before and I'll say it again: With all due respect to Werner and Yesterland, he doesn't provide any proof that it is an urban legend. Nowhere in that story does it confirm or deny the existence of an agreement to replicate the Chinese Theater.

The piece contains a lot of deductive reasoning which may or may not be accurate. Just because the argument sounds good doesn't make it true.

Personally I think the photography angle makes perfect sense...particularly if the agreement didn't properly address digital photography and PhotoPass. There are countless examples of rights disputes arising when emerging technologies are applied to legacy contracts.

Assuming for the moment that some contract does (did) exist, it's one thing for Disney to agree to pay a few pennies per hardcopy photo purchased when the contract was written in the late '80s. But if its terms were successfully applied to millions of digital PhotoPass images viewed online, purchased on CD and displayed on a wide range of personalized merchandise, suddenly the bill gets much larger.

 

[YoHo]

How much do they pay for the image used on the Disneyworld.com website?

I mean come on your jumping through a lot of hoops here.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

How much do they pay for the image used on the Disneyworld.com website?

I mean come on your jumping through a lot of hoops here.

Good point!

https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/attractions/hollywood-studios/great-movie-ride/

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Personally I think the photography angle makes perfect sense...particularly if the agreement didn't properly address digital photography and PhotoPass. There are countless examples of rights disputes arising when emerging technologies are applied to legacy contracts.

The reason so many people believe so many urban legends is they tend to "make perfect sense," at least on the surface.

The burden of proof should be to prove that there IS such an agreement with the owners of the Chinese Theater.

 

[raidermatt]

I've said this before and I'll say it again: With all due respect to Werner and Yesterland, he doesn't provide any proof that it is an urban legend. Nowhere in that story does it confirm or deny the existence of an agreement to replicate the Chinese Theater.

Conversely though, is there any proof that the agreement is the reason? As far as I know, there is not, but I could be wrong.

In the absence though, I have a hard time getting firmly behind either possibility. Though I will say that I would think Disney could find a way to resolve the contract dispute short of having to build a BAH and stick it in front of the theater.

IMO that makes a lot more sense than theories about the hat being a better park icon.

Keep in mind, however, that this occurred around the same time they put a giant 2000 on Spaceship Earth. That was bad enough, but then instead of just taking it down in 2001, they chose to put a giant Epcot sign up there.

So, the idea that they thought the BAH (that is the proper name, btw), was a better icon is not far-fetched at all. Even less so when you consider the synergistic implications.

 

[tjkraz]

How much do they pay for the image used on the Disneyworld.com website?

Whatever they pay to put the theater on their website is peanuts compared to the potential royalties involved if there's some sort of guest photo rider in the agreement.

I mean come on your jumping through a lot of hoops here.

Take a step back and really think about this for a moment.

SOME contract certainly exists between the parties. The did not simply co-opt the design and name without paying SOMETHING to SOMEONE. Disney even refers to it as "Grauman's Chinese Theater" on their own website.

Given the existence of some agreement, frankly it's irresponsible to state matter-of-factly what's in that agreement without first-hand knowledge.

As I said, there are many examples of older contracts which did not take newer technologies into account. Classic television shows like WKRP in Cincinnati and Miami Vice have only seen release on DVD and digital in dramatically altered form because music licensing agreements didn't take that tech into account. Vintage material from the 80s rock band Def Leppard is not yet available on iTunes or other digital platforms because the band would not receive any compensation per its original agreement, and the record label isn't willing to change that agreement.

Similar agreements held up the digital film releases for years over disputes between studios and producers. Typically those agreements are overcome when all of the parties realize the dollars which stand to be made.

Remember the agreement Disney had with MGM? Remember how the MGM name and lion logo was digitally removed from all of Disney's marketing materials? Disney was prohibited from using the MGM logo in such promo materials. That's one example of a sticky contract term--and it's no urban legend.

Consider some of the terms of the agreement between Marvel and Universal Florida over use of their characters. That has been discussed all too often on these forums given the Disney connection. And if you've participated in those discussions, you probably know that Marvel (now Disney) has a lot of say in how the characters are used, which characters are used, the materials in which they are presented, etc.

All of the Disney parks have a central icon--a "weenie" as Walt liked to call it. Despite the existence of the Earful Tower, the Chinese Theater was played-up as the central icon for many years. Is it really so inconceivable that the licensing agreement contains specific terms surrounding the usage of that icon--and that Disney would eventually take steps to minimize its long-term payouts under that agreement?

I'm not claiming that I know what's in those agreements any better than others. But what I am saying is that there are many possibilities which would easily justify Disney wanting to eliminate Grauman's Chinese Theater as a central park icon.

 

[tjkraz]

The reason so many people believe so many urban legends is they tend to "make perfect sense," at least on the surface.

Unless I'm missing something here, all we're talking about is one man's "perfect sense" against another's "perfect sense". Not sure why one carries any more weight than the other.

The burden of proof should be to prove that there IS such an agreement with the owners of the Chinese Theater.

If anything, all I'm doing is presenting alternatives which contradict the unsupported "urban legend" claim.

Matter-of-factly stating that it's an "urban legend" should bear the burden of proof.

Conversely though, is there any proof that the agreement is the reason? As far as I know, there is not, but I could be wrong.

See above.

In the absence though, I have a hard time getting firmly behind either possibility. Though I will say that I would think Disney could find a way to resolve the contract dispute short of having to build a BAH and stick it in front of the theater.

That's assuming Disney has a desire to resolve the situation AND that both parties can come to a new agreement.

Disney is certainly paying the Grauman's people SOMETHING given the name and image use on Disney.com. Re-negotiating the contract opens the door for both parties to change terms.

Again, the Def Leppard example. It's been discussed but no resolution reached.

Disney may very well have broached the subject, only to be rebuffed. And the easiest solution became to just block the darn thing and eliminate a chunk of compensation.

Keep in mind, however, that this occurred around the same time they put a giant 2000 on Spaceship Earth. That was bad enough, but then instead of just taking it down in 2001, they chose to put a giant Epcot sign up there.

So, the idea that they thought the BAH (that is the proper name, btw), was a better icon is not far-fetched at all. Even less so when you consider the synergistic implications.

I never said that the icon angle was far-fectched. It may be one of several factors which contributed to the hat's construction. At the same time, both the Earful Tower and Chinese Theater served as park icon a wide range of merchandise and promotional materials. It was not a gaping need at DHS.

I really don't see how anyone disallow the possibility of other contributing factors without first-hand knowledge.

 

[raidermatt]

I really don't see how anyone disallow the possibility of other contributing factors without first-hand knowledge.

I didn't disallow anything. In fact, I said I have a hard time getting firmly behind either possibility. If you are indeed not actually leaning toward the contract side, we are on the same page.

 

[Lewisc]

The rumor I heard is slightly different. The issue wasn't with guests taking pictures but with professional photographers (Disney) taking pictures with guests. Was Disney even using digital cameras and photpass when the hat was put up? I've been in building and places which had a sign stating professional photographers have to get a permit before shooting.

Grauman's Chinese Theatre was sold to Paramount and Warner Bros as part of the bankruptcy of Mann's. I've heard the bankruptcy court decided the agreement didn't include permission for professional photography, the agreement was up for renewal and finally Disney wouldn't agree to whatever terms Paramount and Warner Bros wanted.

JMO but given the "decoration" of Spaceship Earth at around the same time the most likely explanation may be Disney thought the hat was an improvement. This was done when Disney was pushing pin sales and pin trading.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

The rumor I heard is slightly different. The issue wasn't with guests taking pictures but with professional photographers (Disney) taking pictures with guests. Was Disney even using digital cameras and photpass when the hat was put up? I've been in building and places which had a sign stating professional photographers have to get a permit before shooting.

Grauman's Chinese Theatre was sold to Paramount and Warner Bros as part of the bankruptcy of Mann's. I've heard the bankruptcy court decided the agreement didn't include permission for professional photography, the agreement was up for renewal and finally Disney wouldn't agree to whatever terms Paramount and Warner Bros wanted.

JMO but given the "decoration" of Spaceship Earth at around the same time the most likely explanation may be Disney thought the hat was an improvement. This was done when Disney was pushing pin sales and pin trading.

these are sound points...

while the bankruptcy and sale of Mann's undoubtedly caused headaches due to licensing/promotional material for the mouse...i'm sure they will employ the same tactic they always due with their third party licenses - strong arm them and if that doesn't work - wait and delay.

but i think the hat was built because they honestly thought people would be in love with. Eisner was crazy like that in his later years. He lost his mind somewhere between 1998-2000 (i can't prove it yet...but there are doctors out there somewhere that have it written down in an old chart)...and he really went for corny stuff like this. think of all the T-shirts that puppy would sell?

It was just another notch in the headboard on a string of bad ideas and poorly constructed rides/parks.

The "2000" on Spaceship was a neat, simplistic idea that made sense when they came up with it. And remember that that event at WDW was the most successful - pound for pound - period in their history. I worked there then - it was great. Very crowded...but the crowd excitement level was off the charts. fun times.

so they used what "worked" then - the icon and the "15 month celebration" and then drove them into the ground quickly. hence the hat and the "100 years of magic"...plus all the stupid marketing gags they've tried since. my favorite being the "Happiest Celebration on Earth"...which roughly translates into every other known language/dialect on earth as NOTHING!!!