I think what the debate centers on is what you enjoy/enjoyed as WDW. To be highly general, many people go to WDW for the Disney; others go for the parks themselves. Even as a kid, I was never a huge fan of the Disney movies. They were good, better than most animated films. But, they just never appealed to me and always had a "kid" focus.
Disney World, on the other hand, offered something completely different. It felt like an entirely created picture story book. The stories weren't written; hadn't been written. They were presented with great detail, but great subtlty. Whether most people realized it or not, if they let themselves be kids, your imagination starts running. What is the backstory to these pirates? Who are these ghosts? What does this family do when they aren't talking on their videophone to their desert-dwelling daughter? What other figments of Dreamfinder's imagination are around? The details were placed so you could do this. There wasn't a set plot; that was up to YOU as a guest. The one exception: Fantasyland. I never liked it as a kid. I still don't really like it today. When the story has already been told to you, it kinda kills the fun for me. It was like standing in a city where you knew what it was about, its element, and trying to figure out its history by interacting with people, architecture, etc. The major premise was really easy to decipher. Everything fit. However, you had to figure out the details of their relationship. That made me really appreciate it and, much more importantly, want to come back. Same held true (if not more so) for Epcot. Go see the future, a pretty attractive proposition to this 7 year old.
Now, is this the absolute way it should be? Not at all. There are many guests, especially with young children, that expect to go to Disney just for them. The kids want the characters, so give 'em to 'em. We'll deal with it and maybe enjoy them having a good time. They WANT that. If Jack Sparrow isn't in pirates, the kids don't understand, so put him in! I can't claim to understand this sentiment just because I don't have it. But, Disney certainly cannot be blamed for going this route.
However, I also think there is a line of calling people who don't like this trend whiners. While I can respect the enjoyment of this, it looks and feels like a disease to me. For me, and perhaps others that seem to share similar sentiments, it is taking the part of WDW that you dealt with "for the kids only" and expanding it exponentially at the sacrifice of the things we enjoyed. It is sacrificing this overlay of a city of tomorrow that never was. Do the attractions need to be replaced, yes. I will certainly not say Timekeeper had not lived its run. But, that is not the issue. It's what is going in there, only.
And, Walt's Disneyland was absolutely a giant commercial. However, the things he chose were not necessarily his major creations. Many were chosen because they fit the theme he was going for. Then, with the theme set, it was time spent creating major attractions that were great as attractions. Not themes and characters that could be turned into attractions. So, I guess I see the attempt, but in actuality I think it goes toward NOT putting something like Monsters in. After all, Walt was the one who made sure leather straps were on the Stagecoach because the guests would feel and know the difference of authenticity and fit, even if they didn't realize it.
Bottom Line: There are many that love the Disney of it. They want to see the Disney brand everywhere. That's the magic. However, there are others who found the subtlety of Disney World as what represented the Disney brand moreso than anything. Having a believable "make believe" land that you could pretend is real (even though you really knew better). The blatant marketing and inclusion of characters is against that Disney as seen in WDW.
Eisner's gone 
