Getting annoyed by the misused expression "It's not Disney"

[ChrisFL]

I've been seeing this more frequently in certain threads, both on these boards and elsewhere.

It's odd to me, because often the thing that is claimed to be "not Disney" have a lot of the most uniquely Disney elements, either with some nearly direct lineage back to Walt himself (EPCOT Center....YES I know there's caveats to that) or that are incredibly themed and elaborate areas like Tokyo DisneySea that have been projects that Imagineering had developed for decades before finally getting the green light to add them to a park.

I don't know what people are expecting when they say those are "not Disney" enough. Is it characters? Disney movies/IP? Princesses? Or basically the kind of stuff that Disney has been promoting for the past few decades of advertising (mostly appeal to families of little kids). This is I believe way different than what people thought of as "Disney" in the 50's and 60's or even in the 80's and 90's

Disney means many things to many people and to pigeonhole it into someone's own narrow definition very short sighted IMO.

 

[Berret]

Disney is constantly evolving and changing. Some changes bring praise, and others consternation. And sometimes, or maybe many times, both. I haven't personally seen the "not Disney" comment myself, having not been on the boards in a week or two. People come up with their own definitions of what is and isn't Disney, and I'm willing to bet that no two definitions are alike. Without Walt's vision, none of this would be here. Also, none of us can speak for him, but some people like to think they can, hence calls for saying things "aren't Disney."

 

[celluloid]

I've been seeing this more frequently in certain threads, both on these boards and elsewhere.

It's odd to me, because often the thing that is claimed to be "not Disney" have a lot of the most uniquely Disney elements, either with some nearly direct lineage back to Walt himself (EPCOT Center....YES I know there's caveats to that) or that are incredibly themed and elaborate areas like Tokyo DisneySea that have been projects that Imagineering had developed for decades before finally getting the green light to add them to a park.

I don't know what people are expecting when they say those are "not Disney" enough. Is it characters? Disney movies/IP? Princesses? Or basically the kind of stuff that Disney has been promoting for the past few decades of advertising (mostly appeal to families of little kids). This is I believe way different than what people thought of as "Disney" in the 50's and 60's or even in the 80's and 90's

Disney means many things to many people and to pigeonhole it into someone's own narrow definition very short sighted IMO.

Here I think the issue is that Disney as a brand means family friendly quality if it had to be in a nutshell. It can be any medium in that umberella. In the theme park sense, it has changed instead from being well done and themed to any emotion or lesson to Disney now being themed to itself. Not just IPs but to the sense of lifestyle, which has its place but more anand more it seems like a parody of itself.

 

[ChrisFL]

Here I think the issue is that Disney as a brand means family friendly quality if it had to be in a nutshell. It can be any medium in that umberella. In the theme park sense, it has changed instead from being well done and themed to any emotion or lesson to Disney now being themed to itself. Not just IPs but to the sense of lifestyle, which has its place but more anand more it seems like a parody of itself.

That's a good point. I suppose if I had seen it in that context it would make more sense to me.

I could understand, for example, if people said Alien Encounter was "not Disney" in the family friendly sense, or if there's any Fox properties that get built in Disney.

It just felt odd in the context they were using it for.

 

[celluloid]

That's a good point. I suppose if I had seen it in that context it would make more sense to me.

I could understand, for example, if people said Alien Encounter was "not Disney" in the family friendly sense, or if there's any Fox properties that get built in Disney.

It just felt odd in the context they were using it for.

For the record I am with you. And i think it is a vile problem with the resorts in particular.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I've been seeing this more frequently in certain threads, both on these boards and elsewhere.

It's odd to me, because often the thing that is claimed to be "not Disney" have a lot of the most uniquely Disney elements, either with some nearly direct lineage back to Walt himself (EPCOT Center....YES I know there's caveats to that) or that are incredibly themed and elaborate areas like Tokyo DisneySea that have been projects that Imagineering had developed for decades before finally getting the green light to add them to a park.

I don't know what people are expecting when they say those are "not Disney" enough. Is it characters? Disney movies/IP? Princesses? Or basically the kind of stuff that Disney has been promoting for the past few decades of advertising (mostly appeal to families of little kids). This is I believe way different than what people thought of as "Disney" in the 50's and 60's or even in the 80's and 90's

Disney means many things to many people and to pigeonhole it into someone's own narrow definition very short sighted IMO.

Some people have been conditioned to think the parks and resorts should be like Universal Studios, but with Disney movies.

Things like Wilderness Lodge and The Living Seas are not "Disney" to these people until they have known movie characters added.

It's a shame, but when you're selling characters and movies and only think of the resorts as an advertising arm for them, and not their own creative medium, your customers will to.

 

[Kram Sacul]

Basically anyone that says Not Disney should not be taken seriously. Yes, including the two Bobs.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Basically anyone that says Not Disney should not be taken seriously.

Except Bob Chapek has that attitude and is unfortunately in a high enough position of authority to spread that philosophy.

Same with Bob Iger and his appallingly honest dismissive remark of the "nondescript coaster in India or whatever" .

 

[lazyboy97o]

It is a good bit nonsensical. The best definition I think that can be given is “Something previously known at this moment that was created by or is now owned by Disney, preferably from another business unit.” It’s why something like The Haunted Mansion is still “Disney” even though if pitched today it would be claimed as “not Disney,” because it is already known at this immediate moment in time. It also does not apply outside of the theme parks. Ultimately though it is a saying that comes from people who do not like theme parks or themed entertainment as their own, legitimate medium of storytelling. It’s how the head of the parks can spend billions of dollars on a completely ridiculous mission statement of “More Epcot, More Disney” as though EPCOT Center was somehow not Disney.

 

[Model3 McQueen]

I'll just say this.. Disney is magical, beloved by all, high-quality, and truly holds a formula to strive for.

Bob Chapek and his style is everything opposite.

 

[bUU]

I don't know what people are expecting when they say those are "not Disney" enough.

What you're seeing is a ridiculous bit of envy manifesting as a dual delusion on the part of those critics that they have higher standing to say what is and is not Disney more than the millions of customers and guests that appreciate what Disney is offering, and that they have higher standing to say what is and is not Disney more than those who actually own the company.

Disney means many things to many people and to pigeonhole it into someone's own narrow definition very short sighted IMO.

Precisely correct. Put that "not Disney enough" noise in its proper place - the trash heap.

 

[larryz]

It’s why something like The Haunted Mansion is still “Disney” even though if pitched today it would be claimed as “not Disney,” because it is already known at this immediate moment in time.

It would, instead, be realized as Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway Scary House Adventure.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

People state having Dance parties in the park "Is Not Disney"....But, not to Walt it wasn't. Shown here in the Carnation Plaza at DL..

 

[Animaniac93-98]

People state having Dance parties in the park "Is Not Disney"....But, not to Walt it wasn't. Shown here in the Carnation Plaza at DL..

Big difference between a live swing band and a DJ with foamheads IMO.

 

[SeaCastle]

I've been seeing this more frequently in certain threads, both on these boards and elsewhere.

It's odd to me, because often the thing that is claimed to be "not Disney" have a lot of the most uniquely Disney elements, either with some nearly direct lineage back to Walt himself (EPCOT Center....YES I know there's caveats to that) or that are incredibly themed and elaborate areas like Tokyo DisneySea that have been projects that Imagineering had developed for decades before finally getting the green light to add them to a park.

I don't know what people are expecting when they say those are "not Disney" enough. Is it characters? Disney movies/IP? Princesses? Or basically the kind of stuff that Disney has been promoting for the past few decades of advertising (mostly appeal to families of little kids). This is I believe way different than what people thought of as "Disney" in the 50's and 60's or even in the 80's and 90's

Disney means many things to many people and to pigeonhole it into someone's own narrow definition very short sighted IMO.

Disney is a multinational conglomerate and owner of many different intellectual properties. Disney owned Miramax which put out Quentin Tarantino movies, Fahrenheit 9.11 etc. Disney also owns the Snow White and Star Wars and ESPN. The gatekeepers of the Disney company surely have interesting ideas about what they think Disney is. The rest of us are just projecting what we want Disney to be.
Which isn't to say there isn't a core set of "Disney values" or mission statement or legacy or whatever but what "Disney" means is increasingly irrelevant as its holdings have gotten more diverse and its business has expanded.