Stop the "If Walt was alive"!!!

[Walt Disney1955]

FTFY... My opinion is that Walt would not have survived if he wouldn't have changed his outlook on things. We can hate good ole Bobby for many thing, but, he diversified the Disney Company and in the process was able strengthen it by gigantic amounts, financially. Walt was focused which really wouldn't have lent itself to the diversity. Any money he had would have just gone into what he knew how to do. He created a solid and memorable base to build on, but, I don't think he had the tools in his tool box to take some of the eggs out of the single basket he created. It was needed at that time, but, as much as I hate to say it, I really do not believe that there would even be a Disney Co. anymore had he lived long enough to actually build EPCOT.

Oh wow.............no, strongly disagree there. Walt didn't "diversify"? Other than his movies in the parks, the Matterhorn, Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Tom Sawyer Island, Tomorrowland, etc. That's a lot of stuff crammed into one park. The guy was an innovator, he was an idea man, constantly looking at ways to improve. The base of Disneyland would have always been there, but he would have kept on making ideas. Carousel of Progress, Small World, Mr. Lincoln...........what do those attractions have in common? Nothing really. They are all fresh ideas. We just didn't see them after 1966 because he was dead. Let's not forget the incredible lull of animated features after he died.

Either way, even the modern Disney movies have lost a bit of innocence to them. Watch Snow White, there aren't those "hidden" adult jokes in there that kids wouldn't get. It was truly all about family his movies.

 

[graphite1326]

So if Walt was alive?

He is alive.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Oh wow.............no, strongly disagree there. Walt didn't "diversify"? Other than his movies in the parks, the Matterhorn, Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Tom Sawyer Island, Tomorrowland, etc. That's a lot of stuff crammed into one park. The guy was an innovator, he was an idea man, constantly looking at ways to improve. The base of Disneyland would have always been there, but he would have kept on making ideas. Carousel of Progress, Small World, Mr. Lincoln...........what do those attractions have in common? Nothing really. They are all fresh ideas. We just didn't see them after 1966 because he was dead. Let's not forget the incredible lull of animated features after he died.

Either way, even the modern Disney movies have lost a bit of innocence to them. Watch Snow White, there aren't those "hidden" adult jokes in there that kids wouldn't get. It was truly all about family his movies.

I understand what you are saying, but, my definition of diversify is quite different for yours. In this case I am talking about putting money in other places that were strong on their own and adding to a already strong base and fortifying against the likelihood the not everything will remain great forever. Investing in other things like Pixar or Star Wars or Marvel even though they can't use some of it in the parks. That is a hedge against one aspect of a business going out of favor and leaving nothing to hold it all together. It is more of a company venturing out of their own comfortable things and investing in stuff that they are not as well versed in.

 

[Tom P.]

If Walt were alive today, what would he be doing?

a. Overseeing changes to the theme parks.
b. Working on the next animated feature film.
c. Developing a new, innovative idea none of us have thought of.
d. Clawing at the inside of his casket and screaming to be let out.

 

[Walt Disney1955]

I understand what you are saying, but, my definition of diversify is quite different for yours. In this case I am talking about putting money in other places that were strong on their own and adding to a already strong base and fortifying against the likelihood the not everything will remain great forever. Investing in other things like Pixar or Star Wars or Marvel even though they can't use some of it in the parks. That is a hedge against one aspect of a business going out of favor and leaving nothing to hold it all together. It is more of a company venturing out of their own comfortable things and investing in stuff that they are not as well versed in.

Or..........does Disney need this? They were always at the top of their craft when he was alive. They didn't team up with Warner Brothers in the 1940s or 1950s. They were always the cream of the crop. It took Roy Disney Jr. to save Disney from an animated standpoint. I think since Walt was such a perfectionist he'd always have the pedal to the metal. Just a hunch. He was a tough man to work for, and because of that you got the best product. Were there groups that openly boycotted Disney back in Walt's day? Not that I recall. So there still would be that base there where almost everyone would still be enjoying his movies.

In a way this is like asking would Babe Ruth or Wayne Gretzky still be the best at their craft in the modern times if you put them in today with all of the advantages. I have to lean on the side of what we saw, and that answer is yes.

 

[Minthorne]

Walt is alive, well at least his head is. It lives on an animatronic body in the utilidors and feeds on lost children.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Or..........does Disney need this? They were always at the top of their craft when he was alive. They didn't team up with Warner Brothers in the 1940s or 1950s. They were always the cream of the crop. It took Roy Disney Jr. to save Disney from an animated standpoint. I think since Walt was such a perfectionist he'd always have the pedal to the metal. Just a hunch. He was a tough man to work for, and because of that you got the best product. Were there groups that openly boycotted Disney back in Walt's day? Not that I recall. So there still would be that base there where almost everyone would still be enjoying his movies.

In a way this is like asking would Babe Ruth or Wayne Gretzky still be the best at their craft in the modern times if you put them in today with all of the advantages. I have to lean on the side of what we saw, and that answer is yes.

Babe Ruth would have been thrown off the teams because he was always drunk and struck out more then he hit homeruns, couldn't run the bases and was the best of his time. Wayne Gretzky played hockey and almost nothing in his field has changed since he was playing, so I will agree that were he to show up today, youth restored, with nothing really changed there is no reason to think he wouldn't be great today as well.

Walt's world has changed a lot. I know he was a genius, but, do you really think that he could have kept a handle on the company as an individual, that he was able to do then when comparatively it was maybe an eighth of the size that it is today. At the end of the day, genius or not, he was a human. He had is strong points and he had his weak point, but, unless he changed his whole outlook on "who is in complete charge" he would have sunk to the competition quite fast. Even in the 60's, when he was absorbed in EPCOT, he almost completely abandoned the rest of his empire. I'm sure he was briefed on what was happening and still had the final say, but, his focus was elsewhere and he had just started to enter the world of partial delegation.

 

[Walt Disney1955]

Babe Ruth would have been thrown off the teams because he was always drunk and struck out more then he hit homeruns, couldn't run the bases and was the best of his time. Wayne Gretzky played hockey and almost nothing in his field has changed since he was playing, so I will agree that were he to show up today, youth restored, with nothing really changed there is no reason to think he wouldn't be great today as well.

Walt's world has changed a lot. I know he was a genius, but, do you really think that he could have kept a handle on the company as an individual, that he was able to do then when comparatively it was maybe an eighth of the size that it is today. At the end of the day, genius or not, he was a human. He had is strong points and he had his weak point, but, unless he changed his whole outlook on "who is in complete charge" he would have sunk to the competition quite fast. Even in the 60's, when he was absorbed in EPCOT, he almost completely abandoned the rest of his empire. I'm sure he was briefed on what was happening and still had the final say, but, his focus was elsewhere and he had just started to enter the world of partial delegation.

First, I got to stick up for the Babe here. He stole 123 bases in his career. It surprises people, but he could run, and did run. The last 2-3 years of his career his body caught up to him and and it slowed him down significantly. Other than that, he'd have a personal trainer today, he'd have a better chance to have a handle on his boozing ways and he'd have other advantages (night games in cooler temperature, etc.). Either way, he'd adjust.

With Walt, yeah I think he does the same because we saw that he did. He's a cartoonist at first. Then he breaks into motion pictures (look at the difference between Steamboat Willie in 1928 to Snow White in 1937). Then TV arrives and instead of ignoring it he embraces it and uses it for more products. We only have up until 1966 with Walt. But he was willing to do things that the guests wanted like adding the Matterhorn in 1959. I think evidence shows he would have known how to adjust to the changes around him. It isn't like he forgot about Disneyland in the 1960s. Up until his death he approved Pirates two months before he died. Plus he'd have plenty of help still. I think he'd have been fine.

 

[Goofyernmost]

First, I got to stick up for the Babe here. He stole 123 bases in his career. It surprises people, but he could run, and did run. The last 2-3 years of his career his body caught up to him and and it slowed him down significantly. Other than that, he'd have a personal trainer today, he'd have a better chance to have a handle on his boozing ways and he'd have other advantages (night games in cooler temperature, etc.). Either way, he'd adjust.

With Walt, yeah I think he does the same because we saw that he did. He's a cartoonist at first. Then he breaks into motion pictures (look at the difference between Steamboat Willie in 1928 to Snow White in 1937). Then TV arrives and instead of ignoring it he embraces it and uses it for more products. We only have up until 1966 with Walt. But he was willing to do things that the guests wanted like adding the Matterhorn in 1959. I think evidence shows he would have known how to adjust to the changes around him. It isn't like he forgot about Disneyland in the 1960s. Up until his death he approved Pirates two months before he died. Plus he'd have plenty of help still. I think he'd have been fine.

Well, we will never know. Just like we will never really know what he would be like today (age discounted). We don't know, we can't know, but, many do use it as an argument as if it is fact. I will repeat, we don't know. He was genius, but, he made mistakes and many of them were costly. It is not his creativity that is in question it is his method of operation that he insisted on, that I feel would have made all the difference. But, he died before anything like that happened, all our memories are warm and fuzzy so we like to think that everything would be drastically different. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't, I repeat we don't know and never will.

 

[Walt Disney1955]

Well, we will never know. Just like we will never really know what he would be like today (age discounted). We don't know, we can't know, but, many do use it as an argument as if it is fact. I will repeat, we don't know. He was genius, but, he made mistakes and many of them were costly. It is not his creativity that is in question it is his method of operation that he insisted on, that I feel would have made all the difference. But, he died before anything like that happened, all our memories are warm and fuzzy so we like to think that everything would be drastically different. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't, I repeat we don't know and never will.

When you combine his quotes, the things he did while he was alive and just in general his vision for the company and the cleanliness overall of the company you can at least come up with some probable ideas for how he may portray things today. I don't lose sleep over it though because it is purely hypothetical.

 

[Goofyernmost]

When you combine his quotes, the things he did while he was alive and just in general his vision for the company and the cleanliness overall of the company you can at least come up with some probable ideas for how he may portray things today. I don't lose sleep over it though because it is purely hypothetical.

Yes, I agree for the most part and it depends on what topic one is talking about. For example, the cleanliness aspect. Yes, he probably would have insisted that everything remain pristine, however, the degree of that possibility is quite different now then it was back then. He is credited with the quote... "We will keep it so clean that people will be embarrassed to throw anything on the ground". Not a chance of that actually happening today. He might say it, just like they claim now, but, whether or not it would be possible is the question. This is not the public of the 1950's. There was a time when people respected the property of others, some still do, but, no where near the numbers that existed back then. People had more class back then.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Yeah, entitled white men who upheld segregation and wouldn't let women work sure were classier. So sick of that crap way of thinking.

There are so many easier and more plausible explanations for Disney parks feeling dirtier these days, like a) There are way more people going to them than in the 1950s and custodial staff hasn't grown at the same rate, or b) You're just remembering that time through very rose-colored glasses.

But sure, go with the "In my day...." speech, even though your generation was racist, sexist and left millennials a steaming pile of crap for their economic future. That'll hold up.

What in the possible hell does picking up after ourselves have to do with segregation or any of the other faults that humans have no matter what date you care to choose. That is a completely different discussion and not for this board or topic because then we would have to admit the Walt carried some of those same prejudices because of the time he lived in. We cannot possibly think that in the giant range of things that those times were better for everyone, what we can look at are that some of the things were good, but, it doesn't make me want to be there, even though it appears that is where we are headed. Back to the days when we duck and cover for a nuclear blast. Just stay on topic and don't let your justifiable anger about portions of the past interfere with logic.

Believe me there is nothing about that past that I look at with rose colored glasses, but, also don't tell me that people today care about anything but their entitled little selves. The current generations are racist, sexist and didn't leave millennial's a steaming pile of crap. What I see is that they are mostly unwilling to do anything about except worry that they are being blamed for the faults of mankind. That is paranoia in its strongest sense. My generation altered a lot of stuff, they didn't solve it all because people still tend to see life only through their own eyes. If you were old enough you would know what the rivers were like, what the segregated facilities were like, what sexism was like you would know that we did what we could to change that by enacting laws and making attempts to alter the stupidity of leaders or generally of people. Now we are in a crisis and all that wants to be returned to that time and what are you doing about that other then whining. Millennial's are the generation that needs to put things back on track, because miracles do not happen overnight they are a continuous fight. If you just throw your hands up in despair and blame the people before you for the mess it will stay a mess. Fix it, if you know how. Don't roll over and play dead and nitpick what others before you might have done or not done. The example that I gave was absolutely not connected with all that other stuff, you have tried to connect it, but, it remains unconnected. It is a completely different ballgame. Either swing for the fences or go sit in the dugout and pout.

 

[Walt Disney1955]

Yes, I agree for the most part and it depends on what topic one is talking about. For example, the cleanliness aspect. Yes, he probably would have insisted that everything remain pristine, however, the degree of that possibility is quite different now then it was back then. He is credited with the quote... "We will keep it so clean that people will be embarrassed to throw anything on the ground". Not a chance of that actually happening today. He might say it, just like they claim now, but, whether or not it would be possible is the question. This is not the public of the 1950's. There was a time when people respected the property of others, some still do, but, no where near the numbers that existed back then. People had more class back then.

True enough. We know one thing, Walt would probably roll over in his grave if he knew about the disrespect people had for others' property, or their parents or elders............of course, so would my grandpa! So that's an easy prediction.

Another thing I could add is that none of the Disney family is involved in the company anymore. Last I checked they don't have shares either. Roy Disney Jr. seems to be the last one that had a hand in things. This tells me a thing or two. It tells me that the family knows Walt better than any of us, and they seem to have some objections with how things are operated.

 

[Walt Disney1955]

Yeah, entitled white men who upheld segregation and wouldn't let women work sure were classier. So sick of that crap way of thinking.

There are so many easier and more plausible explanations for Disney parks feeling dirtier these days, like a) There are way more people going to them than in the 1950s and custodial staff hasn't grown at the same rate, or b) You're just remembering that time through very rose-colored glasses.

But sure, go with the "In my day...." speech, even though your generation was racist, sexist and left millennials a steaming pile of crap for their economic future. That'll hold up.

I was born in 1980..........so I am generation X. Talk to someone who is, say, 65 years old. Ask them if they ever had a discussion when they were in high school about how to curb high school shootings. They never did. That tells you all we need to know. There weren't broken families like there are today. Society, black, white, whatever all had the same mentality that the family unit was important. So did Walt if you hear his quotes. I'm 37, and there is no way I'd talk to my parents the way kids to today. Imagine adding 30 years onto that.