Yeah, there's a balance to be struck when discussing past vs. present.
There are times when it is absolutely appropriate to point out a divergence from past practices, or even what is often called a "rupture" in historical terms, and to compare and contrast how these practices have impacted outcomes. For example, when discussing the development of EPCOT Center for 1982 it's fair to point out how it was a park with a very unique and specialized focus, and one of the first projects that ever involved completely new ideas at every turn: new characters, settings, music, etc. all designed specifically for EPCOT. It's fair to compare and contrast that with current practices, where things have homogenized somewhat across the parks, and what that has done to the overall status and artistic/technological/financial impact of the parks. If a person can research and find a true rupture point that brought about these changes (in this case, things like the folding of WED into the Disney corporate umbrella and changing it to WDI, among other factors), then an argument concerning the superiority of one era or set of practices to the other can be completely warranted.
When that point can't be located, however, too often we, as human beings and not just as Disney theme park fans, fall into the traps of nostalgia. I think of this when people get older and try to say things like "Man, children's TV/cartoons are so awful these days, remember how great they were when WE were young?"...so often, that's either pure nostalgia talking, or it's not taking into account changes in the environment in which something is produced (e.g. older children's shows were often produced for local broadcast, vs. today's more ubiquitous cable and online distribution formats) that made changes necessary in the first place. I mean, I can look to some children's films of the 80s or TV shows in the 90s and make my case for why what I grew up with has superior aspects to it, but if I sit here and pretend there are no good youth-oriented shows/films today then I'm just deluding myself. I can argue changes in styles, and I can argue within the context of another rupture, but just a blanket "it's new, so it stinks" gets me nowhere (I exaggerate for effect).
