A Spirited Perfect Ten

[Bairstow]

The Disney fanfare and the Disney name have been watered down so significantly under Iger's watch to really matter. In fact after removing the "Walt" from the Disney fanfare removing the fanfare altogether is the logical next step. Iger's contempt for the legacy with which he was entrusted is quite apparent.

You're being ridiculous.
The Disney brand name is one of their strongest assets. No one ever bothered to say the "Walt" part of the company name before, and no one really cared until fanboys started to pretend to be outraged after it was dropped. In the age of Google searches and Twitter tags, dropping it was absolutely the right thing to do.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You're being ridiculous.
The Disney brand name is one of their strongest assets. No one ever bothered to say the "Walt" part of the company name before, and no one really cared until fanboys started to pretend to be outraged after it was dropped. In the age of Google searches and Twitter tags, dropping it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Eh, The screen size reasoning that got trotted out has been completely undone by the trends in the industry.

 

[Bairstow]

Eh, The screen size reasoning that got trotted out has been completely undone by the trends in the industry.

That's why I didn't mention it.

 

[Goofyernmost]

This is nothing new. They do the same thing with Marvel.

In the case of Star Wars, it will be greatly appreciated by a lot of hard core fans who are (seriously!) already upset that there won't be a 20th Century Fox logo as their has traditionally been before every Star Wars film.

It really is silly to say it's about contempt for anything, because one of the things most appreciated by both Marvel and Lucasfilm fans is how the integrity of the property is maintained and not just having "DISNEY" splashed all over everything.

If he had said "sure we're gonna slap it right up there! In fact, we're calling it "Disney's Star Wars: The Force Awakens" you would have had criticism as well.

I don't for a minute think that Disney cares where or to what degree the Disney name is prominent. What they care about is will the money get to the Disney bank account and I can assure you that it will.

 

[Lee]

You're being ridiculous.
The Disney brand name is one of their strongest assets. No one ever bothered to say the "Walt" part of the company name before, and no one really cared until fanboys started to pretend to be outraged after it was dropped. In the age of Google searches and Twitter tags, dropping it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Wow....I disagree with that to an alarming degree.

 

[Bairstow]

Wow....I disagree with that to an alarming degree.

On which point?

 

[Next Big Thing]

Just got back from seeing Off-Kilter at the Winter Garden Music Festival (I live minutes from where they performed) and now that i've seen them live outside of Disney, I have to say that while I certainly miss them playing at Epcot, they are much better off on their own.

Under the mouse they had many restrictions, most of which they are free from now. The show was incredibly fun and high energy as always. They were able to play a full show with an encore. It's less touristy in feel - everyone there seemed to be a big Off Kilter fan, leading to crowds singing along and a whole dance floor opening up.

Basically, the show was what Off Kilter SHOULD be. Makes me question whether it was OK that wanted out from Epcot and not the other way around. Oh, and if you live in Orlando and may have wanted to see them tonight, don't worry. They're playing the Celebration Fall Fest on 10/24 and they'll be at Pat O'Brien's in CityWalk... on St. Patty's Day (3/17/16) no less!

Here's some pics I took at the show:

Even Elvis decided to show up!

 

[Lee]

On which point?

These parts here:

...no one really cared until fanboys started to pretend to be outraged after it was dropped. In the age of Google searches and Twitter tags, dropping it was absolutely the right thing to do.

I think people (fans of the man, fans of the product, and fans of the company's history) cared all along that the company bore the name of its founder. No need to be vocal about it when it was not an issue. I for one wasn't "outraged" with the change. I was...disappointed, though not surprised at yet another unnecessary move to reimagine the company/brand.

And I don't give two craps about Google searches or Twitter tags. Removing the founder's name from the logo and name was a classless move.

 

[Next Big Thing]

Oh, and a VERY similar act to "The Jammitors" opened for Off-Kilter. I couldn't tell if it was actually them, but they did call themselves the "Percustodians" (terrible pun, but obviously similar to the Jammitors pun).

 

[Bairstow]

These parts here:

I think people (fans of the man, fans of the product, and fans of the company's history) cared all along that the company bore the name of its founder. No need to be vocal about it when it was not an issue. I for one wasn't "outraged" with the change. I was...disappointed, though not surprised at yet another unnecessary move to reimagine the company/brand.

And I don't give two craps about Google searches or Twitter tags. Removing the founder's name from the logo and name was a classless move.

That's funny.
I always thought the founder's name was Disney.

 

[MKCP 1985]

That's funny.
I always thought the founder's name was Disney.

You were mistaken. Disney is a brand like Sony, Toyota, Coca-Cola or any other registered trade mark. I will bet you less than 1 in 100 people can give you the first name of the Warner Brothers. Less than 1 in 25 probably know the last names of the men who constituted MGM.

Right now, people are being born into this world who will not grow up knowing that "Disney" is anything more than a place where you go to see a castle and have a magical day.

 

[Lee]

You were mistaken. Disney is a brand like Sony, Toyota, Coca-Cola or any other registered trade mark. I will bet you less than 1 in 100 people can give you the first name of the Warner Brothers. Less than 1 in 25 probably know the last names of the men who constituted MGM.

Right now, people are being born into this world who will not grow up knowing that "Disney" is anything more than a place where you go to see a castle and have a magical day.

That.
Thanks for that, saved me some typing.

 

[Bairstow]

You were mistaken. Disney is a brand like Sony, Toyota, Coca-Cola or any other registered trade mark. I will bet you less than 1 in 100 people can give you the first name of the Warner Brothers. Less than 1 in 25 probably know the last names of the men who constituted MGM.

Right now, people are being born into this world who will not grow up knowing that "Disney" is anything more than a place where you go to see a castle and have a magical day.

And this is some kind of great tragedy?
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is, wasn't it Iger's regime that greenlit a film like, "Saving Mr. Banks," that cast America's favorite actor as Disney?
Henry didn't have to put his name on his cars for people to remember who founded Ford. Same goes this company.

 

[AEfx]

I don't for a minute think that Disney cares where or to what degree the Disney name is prominent. What they care about is will the money get to the Disney bank account and I can assure you that it will.

As it should, of course. They are the ones who were willing to believe in Star Wars enough to have another go-round, and put their money where their mouth was to the tune of 4 billion bucks.

 

[AEfx]

Right now, people are being born into this world who will not grow up knowing that "Disney" is anything more than a place where you go to see a castle and have a magical day.

Which, ultimately - is probably a good thing. I can think of so many reasons. From the deification of the unrealistic, mythic man that never existed (could never have existed) on down. He will always be who he is and his importance remains. They aren't tearing down his statue. But the truth is, the man has been dead 50 years now, and to be honest - at the risk of being one of those people who use the myth as reasoning, as long as we still know who Mickey Mouse is, I really don't think he'd much mind.

There is a difference between respecting history and wallowing in it, and after his death the company was so terrified at losing without the face that they dove in the deep end of it. But the company has now been without Walt much longer than it was with him, there comes a point where I think it's reasonable that he isn't assigned as the one solely responsible for the everything now in 2015.

 

[HMF]

And I don't give two craps about Google searches or Twitter tags. Removing the founder's name from the logo and name was a classless move.

Not to mention those things are a major factor in the dumbing down of American culture.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Henry didn't have to put his name on his cars for people to remember who founded Ford. Same goes this company.

Not to mention, Disney wasn't founded by Walt. Disney was founded by Walt and Roy. The first name of Disney's founder has been absent since forever from the company name. The Disney Brothers Cartoon Studio decided that for marketing purposes it was better to trim the name down by omitting its founder.

 

[MKCP 1985]

And this is some kind of great tragedy?
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is, wasn't it Iger's regime that greenlit a film like, "Saving Mr. Banks," that cast America's favorite actor as Disney?
Henry didn't have to put his name on his cars for people to remember who founded Ford. Same goes this company.

I'm not looking for an argument here, but let me respond to 3 points:

When talking about a change of the name of the company, "tragedy" is probably an overstatement, but as these forums focus primarily on the Walt Disney World resort, ask yourself what makes the Disney parks any different than their competition. If you think "a demand for a quality product above all else," I submit that impression came from standards Walt Disney the man demanded of the operations at "his park," Disneyland. For a long time, those standards were required of cast members and operations at the Walt Disney World resort parks which opened after his death. If you say there is no difference or you think the difference is something other than quality, some people would say the company now operates under new priorities and expectations. Where I come down on this is really simple. Keeping "Walt Disney" visible and teaching cast the quality demands he required is good for park operations.

Second, the movie "Saving Mr. Banks" came and went and there is little to show for it today or tomorrow. On the other hand, the exhibit "Walt Disney, One Man's Dream" is being removed from the Studios Park. Do you think making "Saving Mr. Banks" has more of a positive effect of preserving the memory of Walt Disney than the negative effect of moving that exhibit?

Last, I am not aware of the car company ever having been named the Henry Ford Company. While people may generally know the founder of the Ford Motor Company was Henry Ford, few people know much about him and most people associate "Ford" with cars and trucks and nothing else. Personally, I want more for my children and grandchildren when it comes to that little entertainment company that trades on the New York Stock Exchange.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

As it should, of course. They are the ones who were willing to believe in Star Wars enough to have another go-round, and put their money where their mouth was to the tune of 4 billion bucks.

Surely soon to be considered the bargain of the decade.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

Which, ultimately - is probably a good thing. I can think of so many reasons. From the deification of the unrealistic, mythic man that never existed (could never have existed) on down. He will always be who he is and his importance remains. They aren't tearing down his statue. But the truth is, the man has been dead 50 years now, and to be honest - at the risk of being one of those people who use the myth as reasoning, as long as we still know who Mickey Mouse is, I really don't think he'd much mind.

There is a difference between respecting history and wallowing in it, and after his death the company was so terrified at losing without the face that they dove in the deep end of it. But the company has now been without Walt much longer than it was with him, there comes a point where I think it's reasonable that he isn't assigned as the one solely responsible for the everything now in 2015.

I watched a PBS documentary on Walt Disney and it was interesting. He is like Jobs and Lucas - would come to the forefront to take 100% of the credit when there was success for the company ( and keep the money ). A lot of his staff left because they were treated horrible. Walt was lucky he had his brother Roy because he was the businessman who kept the company going when it was in horrible shape. Plus' Walt had a very dark side to him.