"Walt Would NEVER Approve", My A$$!!! (Rant)

[KieranDotW]

Advance apologies for the language in the title, and the cross-board posting. Anyway, came across this thread today in my usual Disney-centric web browsing and felt I needed to get something off my chest.

I don't hate the direction the Walt Disney Company (we'll just call them "Disney" for now, no need to be formal) is going these days. What I hate is how people generalize about said direction. If you take a look at the above link, you'll see the same old B.S. I hear everyday -- that Disney's going downhill, that Uncle Walt is turning over in his grave, that it's nothing but a vehicle to make sl*tty teen stars famous, etc. I get it all the time and I'm sick of it.

On that note, I suppose I should introduce myself to make this all more relevant. I'd say I'm the average high school student, but I'm not. I've been an aspiring screenwriter with a huge love for animation for as long as I can remember, and I have been a bit of an addict to Disney Parks ever since I re-discovered them in 2009 after a seven-year hiatus (not counting a 2005 trip to DCA, when I was a bit of an SG myself TBH) and have been visiting them on an annual basis ever since, culminating in my sister's employment in the college program this past summer. All in all, I'd say Disney's been a pretty big part of my life recently, and needless to say I'm a huge fan of Disney and its rich history, and see Walt as a veritable film and entertainment god. The reason I bring this all up is; it's tough being a teenager who looks up to Disney like I do. You know why? Because of this B.S. Every other person my age thinks of Disney in the same ignorant way -- everything the company has ever made or stands for is for for five-year-old wimps who look up to made-up celebrities and bad role models for growing up too fast. And I hate it.

Has no one else realized that it's not true? Has anyone else out there managed to look past this insignificant part of the company to see the good that remains? Most of what people talk about when they discuss Disney going downhill is the Disney Channel. Well, I don't know about you, but there's a whole lot more to Disney than the Disney Channel. Look at Disney Parks. Beloved attractions have come and gone, some of the classic retro nostalgia has been traded in for the latest technology and maybe even the occasional business-minded cash grab (I admit I'd love to have seen EPCOT in the 80's, or Disneyland during Walt's lifetime), but IMO the magic is still there as always. Here we have just about the only amusement parks on this planet that really aim to take you out of your humdrum lives and into a world of yesterday, tomorrow, and fantasy. Who base themselves on appealing to all the senses on top of mindless thrills. Who really care about their guests and the experiences and memories they leave with. This all sounds like their advertisements have gone to my head, but this is really how I feel. And what about Disney's film and animation department? I don't see how they could have "lost the magic". Films like UP and the Toy Story trilogy have touched my heart and proven much more entertaining than whatever half-baked comedies the other studios are coming up with these days, the ones that are supposedly directed to my age group. And it's not just Pixar; I can't tell you how much I commend Disney for going ahead with the Princess and the Frog despite traditional animation supposedly falling out of favor. Heck, Disney even went so far to announce their withdrawal from traditional animation with the release of Chicken Little -- what a relief that didn't last long, but we don't see any other animated film studios doing the same.

(Too long, continued below)

[KieranDotW]

And let's talk about this Disney Channel. As far as I can remember (and do bear in mind I'm very young), the Disney Channel was never spectacular during my lifetime. There are people I know who claim the Disney Channel "died" after Hannah Montana was cancelled or whatever. If you're going to argue that the Disney Channel is pulling the rest of Disney down with it, at least argue for something different. Hannah Montana definitely wasn't the highlight of the Disney Channel's run. But that being said, from what I read the Disney Channel was never the pinnacle of the company as a whole. Yes, they produced many memorable programs, but no matter what kind of hate I get for saying this IMO the reason many people look at past Disney Channel programming with admiration is the nostalgia of growing up with it. Though there has been a decline in the quality of the Disney Channel's programming, I do not think it is as severe as people make it out to be. For every good show on TV, there's always going to be some forgettable ones -- it has, and always will be that way. And you might not agree, but I do believe there are still some quality Disney Channel shows. Phineas and Ferb, to name one -- I've never watched it myself, but by the looks of things it seems to be rather successful (and enjoyable!). Jake and the Neverland Pirates seems to be going somewhere from what I've heard, and I have to give Disney some credit for bringing back classic characters from Peter Pan. And Mickey Mouse Clubhouse may make vintage Mickey fans cringe, but by no means is it an awful show (though I would prefer if they laid off the CGI).

Anyway, for those who actually read through this I hope I'm not alone in seeing the good that remains in the Disney company, and while they have had their ups and downs and always will the worst we can do is be ignorant and focus on the negative. At least they'll always have a few diehard fans to keep them going strong.

(End Rant)

[hobie16]

Well said.

[Goofyernmost]

I understand what your saying but believe me the people that are the most critical of the direction Disney is going are not basing it on the Disney Channel. I have been a Disney fan for over 30 years and I can go on record right now and say that I have never even tuned into the Disney Channel much less know what is on now compared to whatever time ago. It is relatively insignificant to those that are true fans of Disney.

The complaints are about the parks mostly and those are coming from people that did see Epcot in the 80"s and did see Disneyland during Walt's time. Knowing what I know about Walt's obsession with quality I should say that I did see a short segment of a Mickey Mouse cartoon from Disney Channel, I believe, that my granddaughter was watching and my first impression is that Walt would have cancelled that cartoon so fast that the wind would still be felt from the withdrawal. In the cartoon, Mickeys head would turn and his ears would stay in the same place, sort of like a swivel, for gods sake.

Some complaints are legitimate but very little attention is being paid to the Disney Channel, IMHO! Pixar, although inspired by Walt Disney, was not a property of Disney until recently. Toy Story was not an original Disney Property, to my knowledge.

[TeamUBR]

Wow Kieran.W.

You are one of the most articulate high schoolers I've read in a long time. Unfortunately, you are a little young to appreciate the parks when they originally opened. You'd recognize some of the changes in the parks that us 'old' folks have seen. I agree with your assessment of the Disney Channel. I have a 14 year old son that occasionally watches Dis, Nik and some of the other 'kid' channels. Most of it is pathetic. As is noted above, the perceived decline in the parks us unrelated to the Disney Channel though.

You sound like a smart kid. Most of us on here are too old to be able to impact the parks much, other than visiting with our kids or grandkids. You sound young enough and bright enough to get into a position to make an impact. Good luck.

j

[KieranDotW]

In the cartoon, Mickeys head would turn and his ears would stay in the same place, sort of like a swivel, for gods sake.

Correct me if I'm mistaken in my understanding, but I always believed it was part of Mickey's physicality that his ears would always face the same direction -- toward the viewer. However, you might be talking about something else entirely (and I know that the ears were indeed an issue when adapting Mickey to CGI) in which case I'll definitely take your word for it.

Pixar, although inspired by Walt Disney, was not a property of Disney until recently. Toy Story was not an original Disney Property, to my knowledge.

My apologies, you are correct. Though Disney distributed Pixar's films, I'm pretty sure their involvement in production itself was relatively minimal up until the purchase. I was tired when I wrote this (still not a good excuse not to do my research, but just to put that out there).

I think all in all this is really just a matter of knowing what you're talking about prior to making an opinion, good or bad. Kinda ironic that I say this, growing up in the "wrong generation" I suppose when it comes to Disney's best. I truly am no expert, I just read up on Disney trivia whenever I get the chance, really just to build up an appreciation for all that Walt and the remainder of the Company have done for all of us. As I mentioned before, I really wish I had the opportunity to see some of these milestones with my own eyes, though from what I do know and what I have read or seen, things have changed for better and for worse but all in all Disney still has enough going for it to keep itself alive and prosperous.

[WEDFan]

I usually scrunch up my face whenever some very earnest person starts telling me what Walt would think of something. I just have trouble buying it. The people who actually knew him could probably make a very good case for what he would have thought of something *then*, but what he would have thought of it in the context of *now* is a different question. Assuming that I'm still alive in 50 years, I'm not really confident that I could tell anyone what I will think of the goings on then. Things change, and I like to think that people as intellegent and creative as Walt Disney would evolve, so who can really say.

I look around the parks and I'm fairly confident that there are things Walt would want to do differently, but it's just not that easy to say what, and to what extent. Walt advocated quality, but we know it was, at least in part, a business strategy. From what I've read, Walt believed that quality would bring in the guests and customers, and that the quality would keep them coming back. How much has that eroded, though? The furthest back I remember questioning whether quality would win out was in the 1970's. Sony Betamax was the quality standard and VHS was the less expensive rival. Sony refused to reduce their pricing becuase they were convinced that quality would win. Anyone remember the results? (For the record, I owned a Betamax) There are other examples, too, but in general low cost will often beat out quality in our disposable society, and the cost of quality can be huge. So if quality is not a guarantee as a business strategy, how strongly would Walt have held to that? I have to think it's at least possible that Walt the businessman would look closely at what level of quality would create demand without overpricing the product.

Also, how would Walt deal with realities of public companies? Stock investment is largely about ROI and quarterly results today. I would bet that Disney still has a huge number of stock holders who own the stock because they believe in the company. It's probably true of *most* of the stock hodlers, I think -- but not the majority of the shares. Large swaths of shares are owned by retirement plans or mutual funds. Those shares vote according to business results. Again, I think Walt would understand these things. What cost of quality will still satisfy the demands of the stock holders?

Disney is now huge, and that means it gets at least some of the downsides of large corporations (okay, most of them.) The thing I look at, is whether they are still able to entertain me at a price I think is fair. There are a number of things in the parks I miss or wish they did like they used to, but am I still getting a good value? For me, the answer is yes. There's still alot of quality there that I think Walt would like, but I can't even begin t guess what he'd really think.

[hobie16]

The furthest back I remember questioning whether quality would win out was in the 1970's. Sony Betamax was the quality standard and VHS was the less expensive rival. Sony refused to reduce their pricing becuase they were convinced that quality would win. Anyone remember the results? (For the record, I owned a Betamax)

You also need to consider content availability. In Beta vs. VHS the porn industry went with VHS. That may not have been the final nail in the consumer level Beta machines but it sure helped.

To Sony's credit, they took a superior technology and went pro. If you were shooting or editing tape it was with Sony cameras and editing systems.

[WEDFan]

You also need to consider content availability. In Beta vs. VHS the porn industry went with VHS. That may not have been the final nail in the consumer level Beta machines but it sure helped.

No doubt. I simplified to make the point. Another early advantage to VHS was the recording time. Of course, the price and the recording time both factored in to the Porn industry's decision as I understand it.

To Sony's credit, they took a superior technology and went pro. If you were shooting or editing tape it was with Sony cameras and editing systems.

That's how I first got involved with the Betamax format. I was doing Public Access stuff with equipment loaned from the local cable company which was made available becuase of their contract with the communities. It was fun to play with the stuff. Especially the portable video recorder. You know, the camera the size of a couple of tissue boxes with cables running down to the carryon-sized recorder and external battery pack. :D:

[CA Screamin Dude]

:lecture: What we must recall is Disney's target demographic consists of 4-12-year-old boys and girls, including 24.8 million individuals in the target range or approximately 8.5% of the US population. By 2015, those figures are expect to remain 4-12/26m/5%. Disney's secondary market remains parents aged 35-55.

Because of this, there is a nearly certain chance that every person, at one point (likely for at least 23 years) in their adolescent or adult life, will be outside of Disney's primary and secondary target demos. As such, Disney will not especially be catering to these people, so one generation's "jump the shark" moment might be the cancellation of the Anthology Television Series or Vault Disney while another's might be Dumbo's Circus, Duck Tales, Kim Possible, Hannah Montana, etc.

By virtue of falling out of the target demo, many individuals will feel that Disney has gone downhill because it hasn't kept up with the individual's age, failing to realize, of course, that Disney's target demographics do not age over time.