A Spirited Perfect Ten

lobelia

Well-Known Member
And I would further argue that what person, who influenced change, hasn't ruffled some feathers. What would anyone's personal legacy be? Does every body agree with you and like you? Rhetorical questions I know, but are we judging Walt Disney based on our current historical, political, and economic environment? Might he have done things differently knowing what we know today. One shouldn't chose to decide whether he was good person or not to judge his legacy under this lens.
 

HauntedMansionFLA

Well-Known Member
Agree on this.. Ms Travers never liked the movie and feel "betrayed" in reality.. refusing to give his subsequent books to anyone else.
I remember reading about this after watching the movie. They sugarcoated the movie a lot. Just says a lot of how unlikable in real life Ms travers was.
I liked at the very end of the movie when they played the actual tapes that Dick Sherman still had on hand after all of these years. It gave you a taśte of how PL was with the Disney team -'very tough lady.
 

HauntedMansionFLA

Well-Known Member
No, he wasn't a saint.

Nonetheless, he changed the world.
Yes, he did. It would have been interesting to see what might had happened if he lived into the 1970's/1980's. Plus' we don't know what Walt would have thought about the current WDW. Yes, they keep raising prices. But it cost a lot money to maintain some 40 acres and everything in it. People will argue like politicians about this subject but that's okay. Everyone is allowed their own opinion - which is good.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
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.

You just completely miss the mark...

Henry Ford didn't create a brand of himself and the name 'henry ford' - Walt Disney did. Walt wasn't just the boss - he was the figurehead they built this company image around. The name "Walt Disney" was a brand in itself that mere association with conveyed all kinds of valuable prejudice.

It's not about any old dropping of a first name.. its about rebranding and changing a corporate identity.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
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

Are you trying to troll by saying Roy's name has been missing? The history is pretty clear there that there is no contention over that 'omission'.. and Roy was never the public front or brand of the company... so what does he have to do with any of this besides some ill-attempt at playing semantics without actually getting the point?
 

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
Are you trying to troll by saying Roy's name has been missing? The history is pretty clear there that there is no contention over that 'omission'.. and Roy was never the public front or brand of the company... so what does he have to do with any of this besides some ill-attempt at playing semantics without actually getting the point?
Manners manners!
hammer1.gif


Contention over it is not the issue. The issue is that there is precedent for omitting the first name of the founder of TWDC. Walt and Roy themselves decided that the name of the company, and its public front, could be detached from its founder.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Manners manners!
hammer1.gif


Contention over it is not the issue. The issue is that there is precedent for omitting the first name of the founder of TWDC.

And that line of argument means you are completely missing the point. It's not about the guy's name or who is a founder or not.. it's about the image and brand the company built and projected.. and what the audience got from that association.

Trying to nitpick about whose name is shown as first and last in different instances means you don't get it at all... just like the stupid attempt at drawing parallels to Ford.
 

tribbleorlfl

Well-Known Member
That's really misleading, though. It's a web graphic, because yes, Star Wars is part of the Disney Infinity platform, just like Marvel - and it's the outlier exception only because the entire platform is called Disney Infinity. Just like the Disney Store Exclusive posted earlier. With so many thousands of products, there are going to be exceptions in specific circumstances. And I am not even sure that is official Disney, the guy from that site (I know him, I can ask) or the community team may have made it.

Trust me, because I own most of the stuff we are talking about. Disney branding on almost all Star Wars merchandise is extremely unobtrusive and in some cases actually difficult to find. Look at the flagship product, action figures. You can't even find a Disney logo on the front or sides, you have to flip them over and in among the trademark information, manufacturing location, assorted safety warnings in various languages, you see a tiny "Disney" which appears once, by itself, while Hasbro and Star Wars are all stamped at least 3 times prominently in various large fonts.

That's how the majority of the product looks - you have to look to find Disney in most cases, and the few where it is on the front, it's tiny and far away from Star Wars. I think the closest I've seen the two together it is on clothing or softgoods tags (but given that they are usually a few square inches, that's kind of difficult not to at least have them in proximity). But at no time have they ever had "Disney's Star Wars" or anything like that, and it goes right along with what they have been doing with Marvel, and what they said they were going to do when they bought Lucasfilm.

In any case, people (not you LOL) would be complaining if they did brand it right up together. Because when people are out for Darth Iger blood, they don't care where they smell it from. Because of course he's approving every package, surely, as well, LOL...everything and anything is evidence of his evilness, even when it's respectful fan service which if it is actually is specifically Iger's call, is the same as most of his decisions - so darn smart that people have to invent things wrong with it because they just can't stand how the guy makes one great move after another.
I get what you're saying, but I also understand @lazyboy97o 's concerns, as well. For exmple, the Publix by me this weekend had a display w/ both SW and A:AoU Cheezit crackers. The SW box has the small, unobtrusive Disney logo on the bottom of the box you're referring to. The Avengers box, though, had no Disney logo.
 

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
And that line of argument means you are completely missing the point. It's not about the guy's name or who is a founder or not.. it's about the image and brand the company built and projected.. and what the audience got from that association.

Trying to nitpick about whose name is shown as first and last in different instances means you don't get it at all... just like the stupid attempt at drawing parallels to Ford.
I'm not advocating the dropping of Walt's name. I'm advocating precision of argument.


Imcidentally, I see nothing stupid about the example of Henry Ford's company being named Ford. Or André Citroën's. Or John Harvey Kellog's. Or dropping the Walter from Walter Knott's Berry Farm. Or George opting not to use the name Georgelucasfilm.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Imcidentally, I see nothing stupid about the example of Henry Ford's company being named Ford

Because you aren't even in the same discussion. Replace 'Walt Disney'/'Disney' with 'Walt Disney Pictures'/'Touchstone Pictures' and think about it a bit more... then you can stop worrying about people behind the scenes... and start looking at corporate identity and branding.
 

WendyGirl1979

New Member
I liked the movie but the thing that bothered me is this build up to the aunt coming to save the day, aka Mary Poppins. She arrives too late and any relationship between her and PL Travers was never fully explored. The movie is almost over by that point.
I kinda felt that was the point of "Mary Poppins" the book as set up in the movie. In real life, Mary can't save Mr Banks, but in fiction everything wraps up nicely.
I read all of the critical articles before going to see "Saving Mr Banks"- pretty much every Disney blog had one- it added to my enjoyment, knowing the actual happenings behind the scenes. I'm a weirdo that way. There was one that pointed out objects in Walt's office and the differences between the actual thing and the movie set. That's nerdery I can get behind!
 

Phil12

Well-Known Member
Yes, he did. It would have been interesting to see what might had happened if he lived into the 1970's/1980's. Plus' we don't know what Walt would have thought about the current WDW. Yes, they keep raising prices. But it cost a lot money to maintain some 40 acres and everything in it. People will argue like politicians about this subject but that's okay. Everyone is allowed their own opinion - which is good.
I agree. I would have liked to see the outcome of EPCOT and how Walt would have covered up or put a massive spin on the indentured servant aspect of the entire Florida project. Walt was a master at that sort of thing!
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom