The "Walt" in Walt Disney bad for Disney today?

Has Walt Disney the man become a monkey on the company's back?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 10.4%
  • No

    Votes: 60 89.6%

  • Total voters
    67

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Given Disney nowadays, would you say that the people in charge of Disney are viewing "Walt Disney", the man, as some kind of monkey on their backs? By that, I mean, has Walt the man become a nuisance to the company?
 

tizzo

Member
Advertisement
Huh?
 

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
In layman's terms, is Walt's ideology and wholesome brand that many people associated with shown as a nuisance to the current company from having them go full out? Does the current company view Walt as a millstone dragging the company down and preferring to just bury him and everything he stands for in history?
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
In layman's terms, is Walt's ideology and wholesome brand that many people associated with shown as a nuisance to the current company from having them go full out? Does the current company view Walt as a millstone dragging the company down and preferring to just bury him and everything he stands for in history?
Sometimes I wonder about that myself. Walt left a legacy and an expectation that IMO, Michael Eisner and Robert Iger both fail to fully understand. Eisner wouldn't have bought the Muppets, and Iger wouldn't have bought Marvel, if they did. True Disney does things the Disney way! It creates its own version of a book, a character, a concept, and plusses it; it doesn't just buy something and stick it as is into the parks or the Disney pantheon. I saw a Disney poster not long ago that showed Kermit and Miss Piggy right next to Mickey, Minnie, Donald, the Disney version of Peter Pan, Cinderella, Lady and the Tramp etc. It made me want to hurl. The only thing that would have made it worse would have been if The Incredible Hulk was shown next to the Incredibles. :hurl:
 

tizzo

Member
In layman's terms, is Walt's ideology and wholesome brand that many people associated with shown as a nuisance to the current company from having them go full out? Does the current company view Walt as a millstone dragging the company down and preferring to just bury him and everything he stands for in history?
You mean "have they grown bored with money"? ;)
 

Mammymouse

Well-Known Member
Sometimes I wonder about that myself. Walt left a legacy and an expectation that IMO, Michael Eisner and Robert Iger both fail to fully understand. Eisner wouldn't have bought the Muppets, and Iger wouldn't have bought Marvel, if they did. True Disney does things the Disney way! It creates its own version of a book, a character, a concept, and plusses it; it doesn't just buy something and stick it as is into the parks or the Disney pantheon. I saw a Disney poster not long ago that showed Kermit and Miss Piggy right next to Mickey, Minnie, Donald, the Disney version of Peter Pan, Cinderella, Lady and the Tramp etc. It made me want to hurl. The only thing that would have made it worse would have been if The Incredible Hulk was shown next to the Incredibles. :hurl:
Boy you took the words right out of my mouth!! Walt and his brother Roy made a great team. Sure they had some misses but the fact that they were brothers drove them to make it all work. And with Walt's keen enthusiastic vision for family fun and "plus-ing it" they hit the bullseye overall. Running a company as huge as Disney and doing it consistently with the founders is an awesome challenge for anyone. I haven't always agreed with Mr. Eisner but I think Mr. Iger has been more effective in capturing the right atmosphere in the Parks. The less "suits" in the Park the better. And introducing new characters is very tricky. I am still trying to warm up to Stitch, and I doubt I ever will.
 

unkadug

Follower of "Saget"The Cult
No, I mean, have they been wishing that could just treat Walt's company like any other stereotypical company?
I don't think any one but the Board of Directors can answer that question with any certainty.

It's kinda like saying "what would Walt do?" Nobody but a dead man can answer that question for sure.
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
Think about it. Why ask a philosophical question if you can't take the answer?

Here's a hint:

There is no answer.
Yes, but there are educated guesses. One can extrapolate what Walt might do in a given situation if he were alive today by looking at his past behavior. He had a philosophy and a way of doing things that were proven to be winning strategies. Given his past methods, the notion that Walt would buy entities like Marvel and the Muppets and just stick them as is into his creative stable seems unbelievable and absurd. He just didn't operate that way. Some here seem to believe that because the world has changed, that Walt would change, possibly into a typical CEO. But Walt resisted that kind of thing all his life. If he were alive today, why would he morph into a Michael Eisner or Robert Iger? It makes no sense.
 

unkadug

Follower of "Saget"The Cult
Yes, but there are educated guesses. One can extrapolate what Walt might do in a given situation if he were alive today by looking at his past behavior. He had a philosophy and a way of doing things that were proven to be winning strategies. Given his past methods, the notion that Walt would buy entities like Marvel and the Muppets and just stick them as is into his creative stable seems unbelievable and absurd. He just didn't operate that way. Some here seem to believe that because the world has changed, that Walt would change, possibly into a typical CEO. But Walt resisted that kind of thing all his life. If he were alive today, why would he morph into a Michael Eisner or Robert Iger? It makes no sense.
People seem to forget the Walt himself acquired the rights to Winnie the Pooh, so it's not THAT absurd.

You CANNOT, with any certainty, know what a dead man would do.
 

mharrington

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
People seem to forget the Walt himself acquired the rights to Winnie the Pooh, so it's not THAT absurd.

You CANNOT, with any certainty, know what a dead man would do.
He also acquired the rights to "Peter Pan". He acquired rights to a lot of things.
 
Sometimes I wonder about that myself. Walt left a legacy and an expectation that IMO, Michael Eisner and Robert Iger both fail to fully understand. Eisner wouldn't have bought the Muppets, and Iger wouldn't have bought Marvel, if they did. True Disney does things the Disney way! It creates its own version of a book, a character, a concept, and plusses it; it doesn't just buy something and stick it as is into the parks or the Disney pantheon. I saw a Disney poster not long ago that showed Kermit and Miss Piggy right next to Mickey, Minnie, Donald, the Disney version of Peter Pan, Cinderella, Lady and the Tramp etc. It made me want to hurl. The only thing that would have made it worse would have been if The Incredible Hulk was shown next to the Incredibles. :hurl:
Like OP stated, Walt Disney did buy the rights to Winnie the Pooh and I don't quite understand what your grudge against the purchase of The Muppets is? The Muppets was bought because it's a great franchise that was created by a man who in many ways was similar to Walt. It shares alot of the same values that Walt Disney instilled in his movies and his theme parks. The Disney Company had everything to gain and nothing to lose from this purchase. As far as the marvel purchase? It doesn't make sense unless you look at it purely from a $$$ standpoint. I don't believe it's a deal that Walt would have made but theirs nothing that we can do about except hope and pray that some day someone with similar thinking and heart like Walt takes over the reins at the Disney Company.
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
Like OP stated, Walt Disney did buy the rights to Winnie the Pooh and I don't quite understand what your grudge against the purchase of The Muppets is? The Muppets was bought because it's a great franchise that was created by a man who in many ways was similar to Walt. It shares alot of the same values that Walt Disney instilled in his movies and his theme parks. The Disney Company had everything to gain and nothing to lose from this purchase. As far as the marvel purchase? It doesn't make sense unless you look at it purely from a $$$ standpoint. I don't believe it's a deal that Walt would have made but theirs nothing that we can do about except hope and pray that some day someone with similar thinking and heart like Walt takes over the reins at the Disney Company.
I think the Muppet and Marvel acquisitions are both out of character for the Disney company, at least the Disney company Walt was in charge of. Walt did buy the rights to Winnie the Pooh, but he then took the Pooh stories and characters and reinterpreted them in the Disney style, just like he did the stories and characters from 101 Dalmatians, Pinocchio, Jungle Book, etc. That's where the phrase "the Disney version" came from - those interpretations weren't slavish translations of the source material, but new creations that became some of Walt and co.'s most innovative and memorable films, from which everything else in the Disney company arose. It's those interpretations that made Disney Disney. The Muppets, on the other hand, are already fully formed and are unlikely to be recreated into a Disney version. So in no way can they ever truly be part of the Disney pantheon. And anyway, trying to bring them back is, to me, kinda reminiscent of those cheapquels Eisner was so fond of; the Muppets can never again be as good or as popular as they were originally, so why bother trying to revive them? And I don't think Disney ought to be a retirement home for old characters someone else created; if the characters can't survive on their own, maybe they ought to fade away. As for Marvel, I agree with you completely, and I share your hope that someday SOMEBODY will take over Walt's company and understand that it's not just another corporate empire, but an entity with a legacy that sets it apart from other entertainment companies. But I really wonder if there's anyone out there with that kind of understanding, now that Roy's gone... :(
 
I have to disagree. With a new Muppets movie in the works everything I've heard about it has me looking forward to it (especially Jason Segal being a big part of it). Disney can't create a Disney version of The Muppets because there's nothing to "plus" as far as the Muppets are concerned. I hope that the Muppets don't have one foot in the grave because I never thought of Disney as a cementary for old franchises. As far as Holllywood Studios is concerned I just think that aquisition made total sense.

As for the rest I can't imagine the company ever being quite the same because the people who get to that position in the corporate empire don't have the same love for it that the Disney family had. It's ashame.:(
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
I have to disagree. With a new Muppets movie in the works everything I've heard about it has me looking forward to it (especially Jason Segal being a big part of it). Disney can't create a Disney version of The Muppets because there's nothing to "plus" as far as the Muppets are concerned.
That's a very good point, and that, in my opinion, is exactly why they don't belong with Disney. Walt Disney made his fortune and built his company's reputation with the way he "plussed" the properties he bought the rights to. Properties that he couldn't plus, he abandoned - like the "Hiawatha" movie he never made. So to me, the Muppets will always lack the Disney magic and always be the unwanted intruders in the parks and the Disney pantheon. Ditto with the Marvel characters, which is an acquisition that, if anything, is more outrageous than the Muppets deal. The idea of the Incredible Hulk appearing ANYWHERE in the parks makes me cringe. Bleah. Pardon me while I hurl :hurl:

But anyway, what's done is done. Until somebody with a creative vision instead of a corporate resume takes over Disney, the crassness, the penny-pinching, the short-sightedness and the debasement of what made the company great will continue, I'm afraid. :(
 
There's also the big issue of the fact that Walt Disney lived and ran his business in a very different era. Things have changed so much in every aspect that we can't really say how Walt Disney himself would have changed with them.
 
Top Bottom