The American Adventure closing for refurbishment

[MerlinTheGoat]

Yes, people keep asserting that Disney is trying to cancel Walt, but it's hard to see any evidence for it. For one thing, they're not only not tearing down their existing Walt statues, but in fact building a new one that will look across the park toward American Adventure.

That he looks like he's on the toilet is a separate issue.

It's a bit complicated, but there are in fact people in high places who consider Walt to be problematic and believe in a long term plan to gradually phase him out in the company. Some of this isn't even related to politics I gather, but ego and discomfort with how his business practices clash with the way the company is being run today.

The roadblock to enacting this plan is that not everyone in executive leadership is fully on board with this. At least not yet. There are also still tons of people who were alive during and immediately after the Walt era (when his cultural significance and exposure was at its peak) that would be very angry by such a purge. Or even younger generations like millennials who were still raised with content from that era by their parents. It's still going to be a while before Walt (the man) diminishes enough from culture to be able to initiate a full-on purge. Executive leadership also still see value in Walt's image for branding and sales purposes. Even if that comes packaged with a large degree of whitewashing to try and portray him as more myth than man. I don't know if these anti-Walt people will eventually get their wish. If they do, it'll probably take a long time and will be a very slow "boiling the frog" situation with little things seen here and there.

For the record though, I doubt the removal of this particular Walt quote (if it WAS removed and not just temporarily covered up) was a case of cancelation. He's still in the finale montage. Unfortunately so are Musk and Zuck...

 

[LittleBuford]

Some of this isn't even related to politics I gather, but ego and discomfort with how his business practices clash with the way the company is being run today.

Which of Walt’s business practices still hold sway today?

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Which of Walt’s business practices still hold sway today?

None, that's the point and also the problem. Walt's policy was to treat customers with respect and provide them with an exceptionally high quality product at great value. He also had a very low opinion towards anti creative greedy bean counters. That is antithetical to what the modern Disney corporate structure (or rather modern American corporate structure as a whole) believes in. So there is ample reason to want to erase Walt unrelated to perceived problematic elements.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

It's a bit complicated, but there are in fact people in high places who consider Walt to be problematic and believe in a long term plan to gradually phase him out in the company. Some of this isn't even related to politics I gather, but ego and discomfort with how his business practices clash with the way the company is being run today.

To some extent, I think it's natural that the emphasis on Walt Disney will diminish the further we move from the content produced under Walt Disney and the more "Disney" comes to mean Beauty & the Beast, The Lion King, Moana, and Encanto over Snow White, Cinderella, and Peter Pan, for example. I know a lot of people don't like the idea that process could occur, but I suspect it is inevitable. It's honestly remarkable that films from the 1940s and 1950s are still so widely watched by children today.

The company is named after him, though, and at this point he is basically a historical figure. I don't see how there's much in it for them to purge the Walt mythology from the company. As long as the company is called "Disney" and they're still promoting characters developed under his watch (with Mickey even originally voiced by Walt), it's in their best interests to try and shape perceptions of Walt rather than disowning him.

At any rate, they still seem to refer to him a lot, particularly in regard to the parks. I'm in Melbourne, Australia for the holidays and the theme for a city department store's big annual Christmas window displays is Disney's 100th anniversary. That whole display, which has had healthy crowds queuing up every time I walk past, ends with a quote by Walt Disney.

Executive leadership also still see value in Walt's image for branding and sales purposes. Even if that comes packaged with a large degree of whitewashing to try and portray him as more myth than man.

I think that was the case even in Walt's time, to be fair. There is a quote that may be apocryphal of him telling someone that he as a human being wasn't Walt Disney anymore but that Walt Disney was a thing/concept. I think that's the only way he really works as an icon for the company, concentrating on his creative genius rather than aspects of his personality or actions that perhaps don't sound so warm and fuzzy brought up in the evening fireworks show.

 

[LittleBuford]

None, that's the point and also the problem.

But if Walt’s business practices are already irrelevant to how today’s Disney is run, what exactly are the anti-Walt faction you’re referring to fighting for?

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

But if Walt’s business practices are already irrelevant to how today’s Disney is run, what exactly are the anti-Walt faction you’re referring to fighting for?

Increased control over the public's perception of the company. And the ability for current and future execs to further gut the creative and quality standards the company was built on.

His influence in the company is rapidly dying (has been for a long time now), but I would not say it is 100% gone. As long as the company holds onto Walt Disney's image and name, his influence will remain to some degree and they have to at least maintain a facade that they still adhere to some of his standards. Whenever standards dip though, people can point and use the "Walt would be ashamed at this" line. Walt functions as a standard of comparison whenever things go wrong, and that comparison is bad for business. PR is everything to the company.

I'll point to the comment Bob Chapek made earlier this year where he claimed animation was only for young children and adults don't like it. Unbelievable stupid and wrong comment aside, it WAS a comment that likely every single executive at the company shares. The problem is that you're not supposed to tell people that, he ripped off a carefully constructed mask. And as a result, there were countless "Walt's head is spinning in its tube" takes.

Walt Disney even today is STILL what people rally around whenever the company screws up. It'll be a very long time before the memories of him naturally fade away too. That said, as the so-called "spirit" of Walt fades from the company, so too have the important standards he set. That IS something that is attractive to executives. Disassociating the company entirely from Walt gives future leaders virtually limitless wiggle room to hollow out whatever standards remain without being placed in the constant comparative shadow of Walt. Or at least that WAS something that some hoped would happen. I've recently wondered if Chapek's stunts taught anyone a lesson for what happens when the company outright admits that they don't like Walt Disney or his ideas.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Increased control over the public's perception of the company. And the ability for current and future execs to further gut the creative and quality standards the company was built on.

As long as the Disney company holds onto Walt Disney's image and name, they have to at least maintain a facade that they still adhere to some of his standards. Whenever standards dip though, people can point and use the "Walt would be ashamed" line. Walt functions as a standard of comparison whenever things go wrong, and that comparison is bad for business. PR is everything to the company.

So the "anti-Walt" faction wants to purge the company of Walt Disney's memory so they can make the company's output worse? That doesn't seem very plausible to me.

 

[LittleBuford]

So the "anti-Walt" faction wants to purge the company of Walt Disney's memory so they can make the company's output worse? That doesn't seem very plausible to me.

Moreover, I don’t see how they could ever do away with his memory given that his name is stamped all over the company and its products. He has already been effectively transformed into a mythologised figure that is easily manipulated for corporate purposes. It’s not as if Disney has held back from some pretty unpopular moves of late in deference to Walt’s way of doing things.

 

[marni1971]

I’ve never seen a thread drift so quickly.

Or have I...

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Moreover, I don’t see how they could ever do away with his memory given that his name is stamped all over the company and its products. He has already been effectively transformed into a mythologised figure that is easily manipulated for corporate purposes. It’s not as if Disney has held back from some pretty unpopular moves of late in deference to Walt’s way of doing things.

Indeed. To take one example of how his legacy hasn't stopped executives from doing whatever they wanted in the past, Walt Disney Studios Paris opened with the lightest of theming and very few attractions regardless of the fact "Walt Disney" was right there in the name.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

So the "anti-Walt" faction wants to purge the company of Walt Disney's memory so they can make the company's output worse? That doesn't seem very plausible to me.

I don't see why that's so unbelievable. Every time standards dip, a lot of people bring up Walt's name to elaborate a point/comparison. His name became a powerful force in turning the public against Michael Eisner during the early 2000s. This influence is still present even today and even popped up in the media against Chapek.

Moreover, I don’t see how they could ever do away with his memory given that his name is stamped all over the company. He has already been effectively transformed into a mythologised figure that is easily manipulated for corporate purposes. It’s not as if Disney has held back from some pretty unpopular moves of late in deference to Walt’s way of doing things.

They've distanced themselves from Walt Disney where they think they can get away with it. With mixed results overall i'd say. For the most part, I don't think the general public has any problems with Disney supporting LGBTQ+ people. But alterations/removals of attractions have been far less well received.

But you still won't see the company allowing overt and direct criticism of Walt publicly. At least not without massive diversion. It's still risky to do something like that, as Chapek demonstrated. Can get you into serous trouble. So again, Walt's name still has some degree of political power.

Indeed. To take one example of how his legacy hasn't stopped executives from doing whatever they wanted in the past, Walt Disney Studios Paris opened with the lightest of theming and very few attractions regardless of the fact "Walt Disney" was right there in the name.

Not sure where you were, but Studios Paris was VERY strongly ripped apart when it opened and for many years after until it started getting a few investments. As were DCA and Hong Kong Disneyland when they first opened. It took years before anyone considered them decent parks. Eisner was very much cast in a dark shadow and given the "Walt would be ashamed" backlash from the public regarding the latter half of his tenure.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

I’ve never seen a thread drift so quickly.

Or have I...

I guess they did some work on the show elements (including AA's) based on reports from those who have seen it?

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I don't see why that's so unbelievable. Every time standards dip, a lot of people bring up Walt's name to elaborate a point/comparison. His name became a powerful force in turning the public against Michael Eisner during the early 2000s. This influence is still present even today and even popped up in the media against Chapek.

Not sure where you were, but Studios Paris was VERY strongly ripped apart when it opened and for many years after until it started getting a few investments. As were DCA and Hong Kong Disneyland when they first opened. It took years before anyone considered them decent parks. Eisner was very much cast in a dark shadow and given the "Walt would be ashamed" backlash from the public regarding the latter half of his tenure.

I think people criticise Disney for falling below "Disney"-level quality more than "Walt"-level quality. Moreover, it wouldn't make business sense to purge Walt from the company as a strategy to make people accept lower quality products. If anything, the Disney name (with or without a direct reference to Walt) has enough of an aura around it that people will pay more and potentially accept a lower quality product because they believe Disney equals quality. Why would Disney executives want consumers to stop thinking that even if they actually wanted to lower the quality of the products they were offering?

 

[LittleBuford]

I don't see why that's so unbelievable. Every time standards dip, a lot of people bring up Walt's name to elaborate a point/comparison. His name became a powerful force in turning the public against Michael Eisner during the early 2000s. This influence is still present even today and even popped up in the media against Chapek.


They've distanced themselves from Walt Disney where they think they can get away with it. With mixed results overall i'd say. For the most part, I don't think the general public has any problems with Disney supporting LGBTQ+ people. But alterations/removals of attractions have been far less well received.

But you still won't see the company allowing overt and direct criticism of Walt publicly. At least not without massive diversion. It's still risky to do something like that, as Chapek demonstrated. Can get you into serous trouble. So again, Walt's name still has some degree of political power.


Not sure where you were, but Studios Paris was VERY strongly ripped apart when it opened and for many years after until it started getting a few investments. As were DCA and Hong Kong Disneyland when they first opened. It took years before anyone considered them decent parks. Eisner was very much cast in a dark shadow and given the "Walt would be ashamed" backlash from the public regarding the latter half of his tenure.

I took you to be talking about internal friction concerning Walt, but now you’re framing it in terms of public vs. corporate sentiment. If anything, the latter framing bears out what @Sir_Cliff and I are saying: that Disney is already happy to act in defiance of the “What Would Walt Do?” mantra.

 

[marni1971]

I guess they did some work on the show elements (including AA's) based on reports from those who have seen it?

Yes. Technical overhaul including attention to the mechanics.

 

[SteveBrickNJ]

So IDF is virtually impossible to see, O‘Canada is evicted, and AmAd is closing at the same time.

Brilliant.

I read this post and then googled Canada World Showcase.
Closing Jan. 27th.
Seriously? I liked Canada's show!
What's going on?
Any additional details?

 

[MisterPenguin]

None, that's the point and also the problem. Walt's policy was to treat customers with respect and provide them with an exceptionally high quality product at great value. He also had a very low opinion towards anti creative greedy bean counters. That is antithetical to what the modern Disney corporate structure (or rather modern American corporate structure as a whole) believes in. So there is ample reason to want to erase Walt unrelated to perceived problematic elements.

This has got to be one of the crazier conspiracy theories I've seen.

When the "rumor was leaked" a few months ago that a faction within Disney Corp. wanted to remove "Walt" from the name of Walt Disney World, according to this rumor, it was because this faction was "too woke" and saw Walt as a dinosaur of a previous generation whose smoking and casual racism, misogyny, and anti-labor attitude was "problematic." The PC police was cancelling Walt!!

But now, you say there is indeed a faction that is looking to cancel Walt Disney, not because he's un-PC, but because he is too consumer-centric? And this faction just wants to run Disney Corp like a dystopian corporate hegemony wherein care for the customer (which is their business model) is jettisoned to wring out from the suckers their last dollar? And consequently, they're looking to "erase him." That is what you said...

The Walt quote can and should return. No idea why they removed it. I gather that there is indeed a faction in the company who considers Walt Disney "problematic" (much of which isn't for the reasons you might think when you see that word) and would like to erase him.

Your 'evidence' is stupid stuff Chapek has said, and the 'erasure' of his American Adventure quote, even though you see signs of them embracing Walt, such as the statue of him going up in EPCOT...

But at the same time, i'm not sure how much power they wield at the moment, or if this was why his AA quote was removed. For as many examples that you can find of them removing traces of Walt, they've added new ones such as statues and other exposure.

So, in summary, unlike the previous "cancel Walt" conspiracy theory which purported to be from 'inside information,' you have no evidence at all for this 'cancel Walt' movement except what you have observed. And you admit that what you have observed includes contradictory evidence.

Do I have that right?

 

[castlecake2.0]

Were the paintings that were removed for that exhibition ever brought back?

Yes I believe the exhibit has left and original paintings have returned

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

I think people criticise Disney for falling below "Disney"-level quality more than "Walt"-level quality. Moreover, it wouldn't make business sense to purge Walt from the company as a strategy to make people accept lower quality products. If anything, the Disney name (with or without a direct reference to Walt) has enough of an aura around it that people will pay more and potentially accept a lower quality product because they believe Disney equals quality. Why would Disney executives want consumers to stop thinking that even if they actually wanted to lower the quality of the products they were offering?

The Disney=Quality sentiment from the public is also (unfortunately) becoming less prevalent, especially from younger generations. That's not me trashing those generations. It's a mixture of lack of accessibility in regards to the parks, and parents not raising their children on the classics in regards to TV and film. Not even just the Walt era content, I've come across a lot of kids who aren't even being shown Eisner era content either (just Tangled and onward). And unless you're at least 35-40 years or older (or visit one of the non-US park like especially Tokyo), the odds of experiencing legitimate classic Disney theme park standards are very low.

I took you to be talking about internal friction concerning Walt, but now you’re framing it in terms of public vs. corporate sentiment. If anything, the latter framing bears out what @Sir_Cliff and I are saying: that Disney is already happy to act in defiance of the “What Would Walt Do?” mantra.

I spoke of both the public and corporate sentiment. There are executives who outright view Walt as a liability/nuisance to their success and would be happy to see his presence scaled back or removed if it were possible. It would take a very long time though and may well not be feasible. The neutral execs don't really like him either, but at least value his image from a marketing standpoint.

If there was an eventual attempt to purge Walt from the company, it would be a very slow "boiling frog" process. Like decades of extremely quite and careful work. As it stands, they've got a million things on their plate to deal with as it is without foolishly kicking a hornet nest.

 

[LittleBuford]

Yes I believe the exhibit has left and original paintings have returned

Thanks!