Rumor Dropping the "Walt" from "Walt Disney World"

[LittleBuford]

In Disney's case, even if they shorten the name to Disney it is still Walt Disney's surname

This is a crucial point that keeps being overlooked. Not only is it his surname, but he—no-one else—is the person that comes to mind whenever we hear or see it. He has joined the likes of Shakespeare, Picasso, and Churchill in basically claiming a whole surname for himself in the public’s consciousness. The idea that Walt-less “Disney” branding is a form of erasure makes no sense.

 

[Disney Analyst]

This is a crucial point that keeps being overlooked. Not only is it his surname, but he—no-one else—is the person that comes to mind whenever we hear or see it. He has joined the likes of Shakespeare, Picasso, and Churchill in basically claiming a whole surname for himself in the public’s consciousness. The idea that Walt-less “Disney” branding is a form of erasure makes no sense.

Precisely. Disney is forever tied to Walt. His image has always be associated with Disney, and Disney continues to ensure he stays part of the brand.

Now when it comes to media, shortening to a simple “Disney” made sense.

It is still the Walt Disney Company, and Walt Disney World.

And as noted, most refer to it as Disney World, so even if for some reason they randomly decided to simplify the name (which there is no evidence they have planned), it would make little difference.

 

[MisterPenguin]

It’s been in front of us for a few years now...We aren't paying attention..

Nah, it began when Walt created the "wonderful world of disney" , as the sign of him canceling himself.

 

[SteveAZee]

I just typed waltdisneyworld.com into my browser, which is clearly woke, and it lopped the 'walt' clean off.

Proof positive. Case closed.

(yes, I'm joking)

 

[Goofyernmost]

The use of the word (name) Disney invokes different images in everyone's mind. It might be movies, cartoons, theme parks or Walt Disney himself. The name Disney cannot be removed because it is an indelible part of the image of the company. Give it another generation and it will have to be explained to that generation just who in the hell Walt is and why they see his image and name. No they are not trying to obliterate their meal ticket identity now or ever. What would they name it anyway Welcome to Iger/Chapek World or maybe "Saudi Fun Park?

 

[Tom P.]

Precisely. Disney is forever tied to Walt. His image has always be associated with Disney, and Disney continues to ensure he stays part of the brand.

Now when it comes to media, shortening to a simple “Disney” made sense.

It is still the Walt Disney Company, and Walt Disney World.

And as noted, most refer to it as Disney World, so even if for some reason they randomly decided to simplify the name (which there is no evidence they have planned), it would make little difference.

I actually find that most just refer to Walt Disney World as "Disney" as in "we're going to Disney." And yes, of course, in the United States that could mean either Walt Disney World or Disneyland. But, c'mon, let's be honest, the average Joe has no idea which is which if they are even aware that they are two different places.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I actually find that most just refer to Walt Disney World as "Disney" as in "we're going to Disney." And yes, of course, in the United States that could mean either Walt Disney World or Disneyland. But, c'mon, let's be honest, the average Joe has no idea which is which if they are even aware that they are two different places.

The thing that seems to not be noticed or mentioned is that the fact that we may call it "just" Disney is because we are all basically lazy and adding two extra words is unnecessary. We know it is Walt Disney World. That fact has not left us, it is just that it is unnecessary to spell it all out. Even if we are talking to others we say Disney and if they want to know which one, they will ask and we will tell them. I also think that if anyone doesn't know that there are two Disney's in the US have been living under a rock.

The key thing is that there are still many people that still call Hollywood Studio's "Disney MGM Studio's" and MGM isn't even, now and never has been, a Disney property. So changing the name, plus every single thing that is listed as WDW would be useless and cost a lot of money to do. There is a reason why they call it "branding". Rebranding would be expensive, serve no purpose and be ignored anyway.

 

[John park hopper]

Begin to worry if they change it to Chapek's World. It will always be Walt Disney World or just Disney not to worryy

 

[JoeCamel]

Begin to worry if they change it to Chapek's World. It will always be Walt Disney World or just Disney not to worryy

Bobland

 

[JohnD]

The thing that seems to not be noticed or mentioned is that the fact that we may call it "just" Disney is because we are all basically lazy and adding two extra words is unnecessary. We know it is Walt Disney World. That fact has not left us, it is just that it is unnecessary to spell it all out. Even if we are talking to others we say Disney and if they want to know which one, they will ask and we will tell them. I also think that if anyone doesn't know that there are two Disney's in the US have been living under a rock.

The key thing is that there are still many people that still call Hollywood Studio's "Disney MGM Studio's" and MGM isn't even, now and never has been, a Disney property. So changing the name, plus every single thing that is listed as WDW would be useless and cost a lot of money to do. There is a reason why they call it "branding". Rebranding would be expensive, serve no purpose and be ignored anyway.

When I tell some people I'm going to WDW, they'll ask me to the effect, "Which parks are you visiting? Disney, Epcot, etc.?" In their minds "Disney" is MK.

 

[Tom P.]

The thing that seems to not be noticed or mentioned is that the fact that we may call it "just" Disney is because we are all basically lazy and adding two extra words is unnecessary. We know it is Walt Disney World. That fact has not left us, it is just that it is unnecessary to spell it all out. Even if we are talking to others we say Disney and if they want to know which one, they will ask and we will tell them. I also think that if anyone doesn't know that there are two Disney's in the US have been living under a rock.

The key thing is that there are still many people that still call Hollywood Studio's "Disney MGM Studio's" and MGM isn't even, now and never has been, a Disney property. So changing the name, plus every single thing that is listed as WDW would be useless and cost a lot of money to do. There is a reason why they call it "branding". Rebranding would be expensive, serve no purpose and be ignored anyway.

While many people are aware there are two Disney locations in the United States, very few, in my experience, know which one is Disneyland and which one is Walt Disney World.

 

[Rambozo]

I don't understand why they want to act like Walt was a Nazi.

 

[HMF]

I don't understand why they want to act like Walt was a Nazi.

You would be amazed how many people I have had to explain to that Walt and the Company created propaganda films for the ALLIES during World War II

 

[MisterPenguin]

People call Disney "Disney" because that's what Walt did: "Disneyland." "The Wonderful World of Disney."

Except for Magic Kingdom, every castle park is called 'Disneyland.'

That's why people say "I'm going to Disney" or "I'm going to Disneyland" and not "I'm going to Walt Disney."

There is no conspiracy here.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

In a world of OMG, LOL, ROTFLMAO, FTFY, KFC, and even WDW…”Disney” is pretty freaking long!

 

[donaldtoo]

You would be amazed how many people I have had to explain to that Walt and the Company created propaganda films for the ALLIES during World War II

It was the only Hollywood studio to ever be occupied by the US military, and they made many propaganda, instructional, safety, etc., films between ‘41 and ‘45. Everything from “Der Fuehrer’s Face” to “Victory Through Air Power”.
Those films actually saved the Studio financially, as they were in dire straits going into the winter of ‘41.
Wasn’t much better directly after the war, as much Disney money was tied up in England and had to be spent there to help with post-war economic revival.
That’s where “Treasure Island” came from, and the rest you all know.

 

[LittleBuford]

You would be amazed how many people I have had to explain to that Walt and the Company created propaganda films for the ALLIES during World War II

I don’t understand. Are you suggesting that there are people who believe Disney made films for the Axis?

 

[Sharon&Susan]

I don’t understand. Are you suggesting that there are people who believe Disney made films for the Axis?

They are out there, thanks mainly to out of context screenshots from Der Fuhrer's Face.

 

[LittleBuford]

They are out there, thanks mainly to out of context screenshots from Der Fuhrer's Face.

Sure, you can find individuals who subscribe to all sorts of crazy things out there, but the implication of the post was that many, many people are under the misconception that Disney produced propaganda for the Axis and are surprised to learn the opposite. I have a hard time believing that such people can be found beyond the fringes of the internet.