• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

The Changing Demographics of Disney Fans

xdan0920

Think for yourselfer
Woah dude. Come on. It's not a big deal to tell personal stories.
It’s not. Actually none of this is a big deal. It’s a WDW forum after all. However in the context of a WDW forum, it’s pretty aggravating to have every thread be about one posters personal life.
 

tigerlight

Well-Known Member
Disney Pulitzer Prize post. This single piece of explanatory literature (yes, literature) encompasses all that we, as 35 year Disney World veterans, have been commiserating about for years. Disney is losing it's uniqueness, it's quiet dignity, it's superiority, because a generation of hip thrill seekers want the slow dark ride, which, if they weren't careful, might have actually taught them something, to die a quick death. It has become obvious, of late, that imagineering has given way to roller coater construction. That Mickey is diminished by new intellectual property. We just returned from a 2 week WDW vacation. We spent the least amount of time in the parks, as we ever have. For the first time in 35 years, we discussed an alternate vacation destination. Why? Because Disney has become a Six Flags type of resort, with thrill rides replacing attractions, with cartoons dumbing down every attraction. Additionally, costs are soaring, with rules outweighing magical experiences, ghastly pylons appearing everywhere for inefficient overhead transportation ruining the pristine beauty, crowds making many experiences disastrous, and the list goes on.
I'd like to thank this poster for identifying the problem. The fanbase has changed, and by no means for the better. It is sad. And to serve them, Disney will willingly give up what made it unique and great. Disney has lost it's courage, and it's cowardice to try to retain the integrity of Epcot Center and other park attractions, is showing through.
Happy that you won’t be coming back. More room for us, and plenty to do on your side of the pond.
 

tigerlight

Well-Known Member
Great writeup.
I'm a new -old fan... only Disneyfied back in 2011 and yet being near 50 I feel more of a connection to the older IP/stuff in WDW/DL than the newer IP for everything. I guess I understand why Disney is focusing more on the newer IP but I would be nice if the Parks/ Resort group would try something non-IP for something. I'm not saying kill Star Wars:GE or Toys Story Land as the larger IP endeavors makes sense. But the smaller things getting a retheme just to retheme, Flights of Wonder to UP? Totally unneeded. Frozen in Norway? I like the ride but I'm not sure that still wouldn't have been better in MK and just kept Maelstrom. I never saw Figment in its original design, just online stuff, but there isn't a reason they couldn't refurb that back to the original concept.
I do think you're spot on on how social media has changed the Disney fanbase. It's gotten larger with more casual fans and Disney like many corporations today is just taking massaged marketing data and targeting stuff based upon the data with no real thought to the future or its own past. Used to be marketing was done by people who were looked at as the company genius for getting some product to market. Old school marketers used to develop a deeper understanding of their market and taylor things to the market that way and plan a long term roadmap. Our man Walt was fantastic at that. He knew his audience and was willing to take risks. He failed plenty of times and even many of his failures later became successes. The Disney Co. has lost a lot of that skill form CEO down through marketing sadly.
Maybe its the era we are begining to enter with social media or something else but like my father and grandfathers before me, they didn't like some of the new fangled innovations and changes in the world that were coming along and neither do I. :p
Seriously, Walt? Every time his name comes up I have to vomit a little. Do know anything real about Walt? Almost everything about him is marketing hype....

Was a great business leader? Sure.

But was he someone who deserves near-deity status? Absolutely not. Research “animators strike and Walt” to learn more. Oh and McCarthyism and Walt.... oh and he didn’t create Mickey, either.... he arguably stole Mickey (not unlike how Bill Gates “acquired” MS DOS which would lead to Windows).

Not saying he was some sort of devil but the endless glorification of him and how he was just “some Dad that wanted to make his daughters happy” does not reflect the truth. He loved making money and there’s really no way to guess how he would run Disney post 1966... but if he’d built Epcot as planned he probably would have run them out of business.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Walt.... oh and he didn’t create Mickey, either.... he arguably stole Mickey.
Really, since you think that is arguable, how about enlightening us on that new revelation. I know about Oswald, being stolen from him, but, this is completely new to me. How about explaining that statement so I can be righteously indignant myself.
 

tigerlight

Well-Known Member
Really, since you think that is arguable, how about enlightening us on that new revelation. I know about Oswald, being stolen from him, but, this is completely new to me. How about explaining that statement so I can be righteously indignant myself.
Widely known that Ub Iwerks actually invented Mickey. Tons of documentation, books, and other research on this. You’ll find articles if you google a bit.
 

Demarke

Well-Known Member
I agree with you on most of your points... they should definitely continue to make non IP attractions. To me, that has defined Disney just as much as the movies. With RR, I think that the main point was to make Mickey’s first attraction the focal point of the “retheming” of Hollywood Studios. I would’ve loved to see GMR get updated rather than removed, but I can see Disney’s logic for why they removed it; I just don’t like it. And I believe that the reason that they’re leaning on IPs more is the competition from parks such as Universal. Disney still controls the theme park industry for the most part, but Universal is becoming increasingly popular, and they solely use IPs. Families that make these once-in-a-lifetime trips may be weighing which resort gives their children more familiar characters and content. If Disney hadn’t started making the IP push, some may start to believe that they were falling behind. Hopefully after the 50th anniversary, WDI will spend a few years developing non-IP attractions after this massive splurge on IP attractions.
I don’t disagree with giving Mickey an iconic/focal point location for a ride, but if you’re doing that, why not use an iconic version of the character? I get that the “edgy” look is the new thing, but that seems more like fad than icon status. The look of the new characters just strike me as what someone trying to draw edgy satire would make them look like and Goofy looks like he has a meth problem.
349000
 
Last edited:

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Widely known that Ub Iwerks actually invented Mickey. Tons of documentation, books, and other research on this. You’ll find articles if you google a bit.
Ub fleshed out Mickey. But, even if he did come up with the idea, he was an employee of Walt Disney. That's the way it works, BTW, I have never heard it put that way before. That isn't stealing if it happened, which every indication I have, contradicts that statement. You can't steal from your own company. Walt Disney's name was on everything produced by Disney Bros. and later Walt Disney Company.
 

tigerlight

Well-Known Member
Ub fleshed out Mickey. But, even if he did come up with the idea, he was an employee of Walt Disney. That's the way it works, BTW, I have never heard it put that way before. That isn't stealing if it happened, which every indication I have, contradicts that statement. You can't steal from your own company. Walt Disney's name was on everything produced by Disney Bros. and later Walt Disney Company.
I said "arguably" on purpose. Regardless, my understanding is that it is a bit more complicated than that. For example, is everything an employee does (even in his/her spare time) the property of the Company they work for? No. Read some of the books and come up with your own opinion (or it sounds like you already have). Different people can disagree, and we will never really know for sure.

Just one opinion:
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
I said "arguably" on purpose. Regardless, my understanding is that it is a bit more complicated than that. For example, is everything an employee does (even in his/her spare time) the property of the Company they work for? No. Read some of the books and come up with your own opinion (or it sounds like you already have). Different people can disagree, and we will never really know for sure.

Just one opinion:
In about the third paragraph of that it was stated that they were brainstorming and WALT suggested a mouse. That's the creation point. Ub worked for Walt as an animator and formed the body and looks of the mouse that was to eventually be Mickey. There is no mistaking that even if the story about coming up with it on the train, which by the way was confirmed by Walt's wife, Lillian. She also was the one that talking him out of calling the character Mortimer and suggested Mickey, also confirmed by her. The character was created before a single drawing hit the paper. So if you want to say that Walt came up with the character and Ub made it a physical drawing that would be closer to correct, but, like I said... When you employ someone to draw a picture of something that you suggest that doesn't mean that artist created anymore then a visual image that then was approved by the boss, one Walter E. Disney. How that get twisted into he stole it from Ub is a mystery to me. Does that mean that he also stole, Donald Duck, Daisy Duck, Minnie Mouse, Goofy, Pluto and the other assorted cartoon characters in the Disney Inventory?
 

tigerlight

Well-Known Member
In about the third paragraph of that it was stated that they were brainstorming and WALT suggested a mouse. That's the creation point. Ub worked for Walt as an animator and formed the body and looks of the mouse that was to eventually be Mickey. There is no mistaking that even if the story about coming up with it on the train, which by the way was confirmed by Walt's wife, Lillian. She also was the one that talking him out of calling the character Mortimer and suggested Mickey, also confirmed by her. The character was created before a single drawing hit the paper. So if you want to say that Walt came up with the character and Ub made it a physical drawing that would be closer to correct, but, like I said... When you employ someone to draw a picture of something that you suggest that doesn't mean that artist created anymore then a visual image that then was approved by the boss, one Walter E. Disney. How that get twisted into he stole it from Ub is a mystery to me. Does that mean that he also stole, Donald Duck, Daisy Duck, Minnie Mouse, Goofy, Pluto and the other assorted cartoon characters in the Disney Inventory?
You said you you've "never heard it put that way" and so I showed one example of it being put that way. You are quoting stories that I have heard as well, and I also know other stories are out there that paint a very different picture... in the end you won't be convinced that you are wrong and I accept that. I don't know what the truth is, all I know is that it is alleged that Walt essentially stole the idea for Mickey from Ub Iwerks and I've put up an example of someone else, besides me, saying that.

Whether or not he did or didn't is probably matter of opinion.. my view is that if someone came up with an idea for something/invented something then they should be given credit for it (regardless of who the legal owner is), but regardless, one thing is certain: the company has been extremely careful to cultivate an certain image of Walt over many decades. They commissioned/edited books, repeated stories, created employees trainings, created all sorts of other content, and done everything possible to bolster the man.... THIS was a marketing decision made to generate profits... historical accuracy has never been the priority.
 
Last edited:

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
You said you you've "never heard it put that way" and so I showed one example of it being put that way. You are quoting stories that I have heard as well, and I also know other stories are out there that paint a very different picture... in the end you won't be convinced that you are wrong and I accept that. I don't know what the truth is, all I know is that it is alleged that Walt essentially stole the idea for Mickey from Ub Iwerks and I've put up an example of someone else, besides me, saying that.

Whether or not he did or didn't is probably matter of opinion.. my view is that if someone came up with an idea for something/invented something then they should be given credit for it (regardless of who the legal owner is), but regardless, one thing is certain: the company has been extremely careful to cultivate an certain image of Walt over many decades. They commissioned/edited books, repeated stories, created employees trainings, created all sorts of other content, and done everything possible to bolster the man.... THIS was a marketing decision made to generate profits... historical accuracy has never been the priority.
Me I've heard rumours that Walt is already dead despite the company trying to convince the audience he filmed the latest Marvel movie all on his own by putting Disney's name on it.
 
Top Bottom