"What would Walt do?"

[mharrington]

This is going to be hard to talk about without me rambling. But before I begin, I just want to say how perplexing it is that everyone seems to know what Walt wouldn't do, yet no one knows what Walt would do. I will also be paraphrasing David Koenig's excellent books on Disney history for this, just so you know...

Ever since Walt Disney passed away in 1966, a question that seems to be asked a lot is "Walt would Walt do?" In that period between Walt's passing and the arrival of Michael Eisner in 1984, the powers that be in Burbank were afraid of doing anything that Walt wouldn't like, and as such, every decision they made was usually precipitated by asking the question, "What would Walt do?", because they were afraid of arousing his wrath (for which he was notorious). As such, they wouldn't do anything that didn't receive Walt's blessing. Creativity was stifled, especially when it came to the movies they produced, of which many were either sequels (such as for the myriad sequels to "The Love Bug") or reissues of older films. Of course, while the parks did relatively better (to the point where they became the main breadwinners for the company for a time), they were not immune either, in part because the movies often provided inspiration for the rides, but if the movies flopped (such as "The Island At the Top of the World", the inspiration for the never-built Discovery Bay), they obviously wouldn't build them.

Eventually, this mindset of living in fear of a dead guy took its toll on the company and its finances, and stock declined, to the point where, by 1984, it was threatened by raiders from Wall Street. Fortunately, Roy E. Disney was able to remove the powers that be in Burbank and replace them with a new management team, led by Michael Eisner. For more on this saga, you can watch Midway To Main Street's long miniseries. To keep this post from getting too long, however, I will just post the first and last videos:



Anyway, although Eisner did save the company, the question of "What Walt would do?" never really went away. Instead of the company asking that question, now it was being asked by the fans. More to the point, it was being asked by Disney purists, particularly as they started utilizing (if not (yet) buying) non-Disney properties like Star Wars or the Muppets. As far as the parks in particular were concerned, purists accused the Imagineers of becoming lazy and unimaginative, that Walt wouldn't have rented the Muppets, but would have created his own characters instead.

Apparently, even Tony Baxter was not immune to such criticism, as he apparently claimed that what they were doing now was sacrilege, though he countered that if the purists want to get technical, Walt Disney was long dead, so everything that Disney does nowadays is not really Disney anymore. If, say, Robert Zemeckis did a movie for Disney, says Baxter, then it was just his own film released with the Disney name.

Anyway, with the constant usage of (often non-Disney) IPs, particularly in the parks, but also in the company as a whole, it seems that the cries of "What Walt would do?" are not going away, but are only getting louder, particularly online. It's just not being asked by the company itself anymore, but rather by its fans. The fans seem to think that Walt himself is still at the helm, when he clearly isn't. They seem to think that he would never accept Star Wars, Marvel, the Muppets or the like in his company.

The company has evolved since 1984, but it seems not everyone who likes Disney are evolving. Admittedly, I'm as guilty as anyone. I too pine for the good old days of Disney, back when The Disney Channel was not a basic cable choice, but a premium subscription option. I too wish more vintage material was on the Disney Plus streaming service. I too sometimes get annoyed with Star Wars and Marvel every which way you look at Disney. I too am not happy with the company constantly raising prices on everything. And I too am not always happy with what the company does. But I realize that the company has grown up considerably, and I try not to think about it too much. I try to keep a plethora of vintage material on hand (once on videotape, but now usually online (often YouTube or Archive.org)) and have that to keep my sanity, even though it's not always easy.

But all that aside, how is it that no one seems to know what Walt would do, yet everyone seems to know what he wouldn't do?

 

[Disstevefan1]

What Walt would do, or what Walt would not do, does not matter any more.

Today, TWDC only does, or does not do, what (it thinks) will be the best for the share price at that moment in time.

 

[Goofyernmost]

What would Walt do... is not about being afraid of Walt's wrath (which btw, is creepy) it is because the company was made successful because of the leadership singularly provided by Walt. No one wanted to be the one that flushed the company down to bankruptcy. They had all followed his lead, they made suggestions and he either approved them or shot them down. Those that had been there as he was building the company would ask that question because they knew him well and could be the most able to guess what kind of reaction he might have had.

Fewer asked that question after Eisner arrived because he felt he was on the same wave length as Walt. And imagineers asked that question because they knew that what he did was successful and they wanted to be successful too. Now so many people use that question to give themselves some sort of street cred before they say what they think he would have thought.

What that means is nothing anymore because Walt's life was filled with success and almost an equal amount of mistakes. So it is useless to even try and speculate. After all, it was Walt that came up with EPCOT which is considered by most something that would have been the downfall of the company. A wonderful (in some degree) idea but one that had way to many flaws and requirements that I don't think would have been achieved even by the man himself. So it is what should they do that aligns with what made the company successful. Different time completely. Now all the executives consider themselves way smarter then Walt was. They may be right, but Walt had a gift that they do not.

 

[Goofyernmost]

What Walt would do, or what Walt would not do, does not matter any more.

Today, TWDC only does, or does not do, what (it thinks) will be the best for the share price at that moment in time.

I don't know how true this is but I was reading on Microsoft news items that Wall Street is not at all happy about the "grab every nickel" company policy currently being done from the top. They didn't seem to think that it had long term promise of success.

 

[mharrington]

What would Walt do... is not about being afraid of Walt's wrath (which btw, is creepy) it is because the company was made successful because of the leadership singularly provided by Walt. No one wanted to be the one that flushed the company down to bankruptcy. They had all followed his lead, they made suggestions and he either approved them or shot them down. Those that had been there as he was building the company would ask that question because the new him well and could be the most able to guess what kind of reaction he might have had.

Unfortunately, they followed that mindset a little too literally, as if he was still alive when he clearly wasn't. And that had a hand in threatening the company's very existence until Eisner arrived.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

Even during Eisner’s reign, there was still quite a few employees that worked for the company while Walt was alive and had first hand knowledge what made Uncle Walt tick..
Just like with current events, the further removed from the event, the less important that person or event is. We could use Pearl Harbor or 9/11 as examples…now after almost 21 years after that fateful day, it doesn’t hold the same importance as it did ten years ago.
Every original imagineer that retired or passed away just left the connection to Walt more of a distant memory. I had the opportunity to have some great discussions with Marty Sklar before he passed and as enthusiastic as he was in the future of Disney, you could hear in his voice and his mannerisms that it just wasn’t the same.
Even when we look at more contemporary imagineers like Tony Baxter and Joe Rhode, the jury is still out IF the new creative side of the company will have the same honor and respect as the men and women in the “glory years”…
Now, more then ever, the conflict between the financial and the creative has never been more obvious…the shortening of Kali River Rapids, the shoehorning in of IPs, even the massive changes in how Galaxy’s Edge was finished and opened compared to conceptual drawings and ideas and the jury is still out on if Tiana will be better, the same or worse than Splash Mountain.
It’s human nature that battle lines are drawn, and heated discussions will be made and we will never honestly know what Walt would do…

 

[MaryJaneP]

It is CALLED TWDC, that does not mean it ACTS as if it is still run by WED himself. It might as well be called General Entertainment for a Profit Inc and the question of what Walt would or would not do becomes as irrelevant as it appears to be today.

 

[Disstevefan1]

What would Walt do... is not about being afraid of Walt's wrath (which btw, is creepy) it is because the company was made successful because of the leadership singularly provided by Walt. No one wanted to be the one that flushed the company down to bankruptcy. They had all followed his lead, they made suggestions and he either approved them or shot them down. Those that had been there as he was building the company would ask that question because the new him well and could be the most able to guess what kind of reaction he might have had.

Fewer asked that question after Eisner arrived because he felt he was on the same wave length as Walt. And imagineers asked that question because they knew that what he did was successful and they wanted to be successful too. Now so many people use that question to give themselves some sort of street cred before they say what they think he would have thought.

What that means is nothing anymore because Walt's life was filled with success and almost an equal amount of mistakes. So it is useless to even try and speculate. After all, it was Walt that came up with EPCOT which is considered by most something that would have been the downfall of the company. A wonderful (in some degree) idea but one that had way to many flaws and requirements that I don't think would have been achieved even by the man himself. So it is what should they do that aligns with what made the company successful. Different time completely. Now all the executives consider themselves way smarter then Walt was. They may be right, but Walt had a gift that they do not.

It’s easy to rationalize today that Walt’s EPCOT would have failed.

We will never know what Walt’s EPCOT would have been if Walt was there to make the day to day decisions.

 

[Lilofan]

It’s easy to rationalize today that Walt’s EPCOT would have failed.

We will never know what Walt’s EPCOT would have been if Walt was there to make the day to day decisions.

As a long term investor I would be concerned on Walt’s business acumen

“ I don’t make movies to make money , I make money to make more movies “.

 

[mharrington]

When I brought up this topic, it wasn't necessarily to talk about whether or not Walt's EPCOT would have worked (maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't), but rather to try and figure out why people think that the company should still be run as if Walt was still alive and in charge when he clearly wasn't, that all those who in charge of the company now should be more like Ron Miller or Card Walker or Don Tatum (i.e., those who actually had good intentions for the company (granted, intentions that would hurt, not help, the company, but good intentions nevertheless)).

As I said before also, another reason I brought this up is because I was inspired by a blurb from David Koenig's "Mouse Under Glass", in which, after the Eisner regime began, the Imagineers felt the need to look outside of Disney for inspiration, which led to collaborations with Michael Jackson and George Lucas, resulting in things like Captain EO and Star Tours. Unfortunately, as I said, while the company was starting to change again, Disney purists did not necessarily want to change with it. They accused the Imagineers of becoming lazy and unimaginative. Walt, they argued, wouldn't have borrowed the Muppets, he would have invented his own characters. That was the main reason I brought this up: what Walt would do, would not be to use other people's properties, but to invent his own from scratch.

According to Koenig, not even Tony Baxter was immune to this criticism, that what was happening in the parks was borderline sacrilegious. He in turn said that if the purists wanted to get technical, when Walt died, any so-called "Disney" movie made afterwards shouldn't be considered a "Disney" movie at all. According to Baxter, if, say, Robert Zemeckis made a movie at Disney, then that was just his own movie released with the Disney name.

Even during Eisner’s reign, there was still quite a few employees that worked for the company while Walt was alive and had first hand knowledge what made Uncle Walt tick..
Just like with current events, the further removed from the event, the less important that person or event is. We could use Pearl Harbor or 9/11 as examples…now after almost 21 years after that fateful day, it doesn’t hold the same importance as it did ten years ago.
Every original imagineer that retired or passed away just left the connection to Walt more of a distant memory. I had the opportunity to have some great discussions with Marty Sklar before he passed and as enthusiastic as he was in the future of Disney, you could hear in his voice and his mannerisms that it just wasn’t the same.

So the fans of Walt are quite literally all that the connection to Walt has left? I'm sorry for the weird wording, I'm having a hard time articulating.

 

[disneyfireman]

Well. Night of Joy would not have been done away with. That is probably one of the most sickening things Disney has done the last several years. Splash would not have been changed or even thought of something as that silly… Tron would have done 2 years ago…. The list goes on. We wouldn’t have seen the moral rot we have seen. I love DW and DL. Go all the time and always will. But it would be nice if the company remembered its roots. And certainly Toad would have never been removed from Magic Kingdom. That to this day. Other than the Splash possible redo. Is the dumbest decision. Ever. Splash will become number 1. Untill then. Toad reigns. I truly believe Walt would have fired a lot of useless people at Disney. Lol. So many. You want to redo Splash? Ah. No. You are fired. Like yesterday.

 

[Disstevefan1]

As a long term investor I would be concerned on Walt’s business acumen

“ I don’t make movies to make money , I make money to make more movies “.

Well, that's true.

Today it's all about what the TWDC (thinks) is best for the share price at any moment in time.

In my opinion, today, long term investors should be concerned.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

When I brought up this topic, it wasn't necessarily to talk about whether or not Walt's EPCOT would have worked (maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't), but rather to try and figure out why people think that the company should still be run as if Walt was still alive and in charge when he clearly wasn't, that all those who in charge of the company now should be more like Ron Miller or Card Walker or Don Tatum (i.e., those who actually had good intentions for the company (granted, intentions that would hurt, not help, the company, but good intentions nevertheless)).

As I said before also, another reason I brought this up is because I was inspired by a blurb from David Koenig's "Mouse Under Glass", in which, after the Eisner regime began, the Imagineers felt the need to look outside of Disney for inspiration, which led to collaborations with Michael Jackson and George Lucas, resulting in things like Captain EO and Star Tours. Unfortunately, as I said, while the company was starting to change again, Disney purists did not necessarily want to change with it. They accused the Imagineers of becoming lazy and unimaginative. Walt, they argued, wouldn't have borrowed the Muppets, he would have invented his own characters. That was the main reason I brought this up: what Walt would do, would not be to use other people's properties, but to invent his own from scratch.

According to Koenig, not even Tony Baxter was immune to this criticism, that what was happening in the parks was borderline sacrilegious. He in turn said that if the purists wanted to get technical, when Walt died, any so-called "Disney" movie made afterwards shouldn't be considered a "Disney" movie at all. According to Baxter, if, say, Robert Zemeckis made a movie at Disney, then that was just his own movie released with the Disney name.



So the fans of Walt are quite literally all that the connection to Walt has left? I'm sorry for the weird wording, I'm having a hard time articulating.

IMHO, I feel yes, the closeness and connection to Walt kept drifting further and further away as each person who worked for Walt or even if they worked WITH someone who worked with Walt. The further the connection, it just seemed that connection drifted away. Of course the obligation to satisfy shareholders is the company’s number one obligation and I totally understand that. Millions of stockholders who rely on 401K’s for their retirement funds are dependent on the success of Disney.

As a parks super fan it just sucks that the parks seem to be at the bottom of the priority list. As I have said before, Walt always wanted his imagineers to plus things…now the only things that seem to get plussed are
LL plus
Genie plus
Photo pass plus
Magic Band plus…you get the idea…

 

[MaryJaneP]

The meaning of "plus" has been co-opted as a way to make more $ as any business is likely to do. Perhaps it is time to either change the word for increasing the value of your WDW experience than simply falling into their trap of what "plus" means today.

 

[Goofyernmost]

It’s easy to rationalize today that Walt’s EPCOT would have failed.

We will never know what Walt’s EPCOT would have been if Walt was there to make the day to day decisions.

With or without Walt, the whole world changed with the advent of the internet. Companies would not be anxious to help finance and support the concept when they had easy access to something that would give them the ability to display and promote their products via the experimental prototype city of tomorrow. It might have worked for a few years, but ultimately it would have gone the same route as sponsorship of the pavilions in the current EPCOT.

 

[Mickey5150]

Well if the imagineers followed the "What would Walt do?" idea then the Haunted Mansion would have been a horrible attraction. Walt basically had 2 different teams working on different ideas for the attraction, but once Walt died they decided to work together and give us the epic attraction that still wows to this day. Also, without Roy, Walt wouldn't have been able to do much of anything.

 

[Disstevefan1]

With or without Walt, the whole world changed with the advent of the internet. Companies would not be anxious to help finance and support the concept when they had easy access to something that would give them the ability to display and promote their products via the experimental prototype city of tomorrow. It might have worked for a few years, but ultimately it would have gone the same route as sponsorship of the pavilions in the current EPCOT.

For sure because of the WWW there would be less desire for companies to sponsor but who knows what kind of solutions Walt would have dreamed up.

They told Walt Snow White would fail. They told Walt that Disneyland would fail.

It's so easy to, from the sidelines, say that things will fail.

We will never know.

 

[Goofyernmost]

For sure because of the WWW there would be less desire for companies to sponsor but who knows what kind of solutions Walt would have dreamed up.

They told Walt Snow White would fail. They told Walt that Disneyland would fail.

It's so easy to, from the sidelines, say that things will fail.

We will never know.

That was 1952-1955 and animation/entertainment was his career at the time. EPCOT would have been built through the end of the 60's and the entire 70's just when technology was ramping up and he had only a vision of what he wanted and the same, I made it work before so I am now an expert on how to build a completely different type of urban society and all the companies needed to support the idea will be happy to give me millions with no solid, logical argument as to how they were going to profit from that venture. Not to mention the fact that in order to make it work he would have needed a city full of Stepfords, male and female, willing to have someone dictate their every move. I admire Walt Disney, but this is something that ultimately was way above his skill and experience. Some things are predicable.

 

[Disstevefan1]

That was 1952-1955 and animation/entertainment was his career at the time. EPCOT would have been built through the end of the 60's and the entire 70's just when technology was ramping up and he had only a vision of what he wanted and the same, I made it work before so I am now an expert on how to build a completely different type of urban society and all the companies needed to support the idea will be happy to give me millions with no solid, logical argument as to how they were going to profit from that venture. Not to mention the fact that in order to make it work he would have needed a city full of Stepfords, male and female, willing to have someone dictate their every move. I admire Walt Disney, but this is something that ultimately was way above his skill and experience. Some things are predicable.

You know this would have been way above his skill and experience level? Wow. OK.

 

[Goofyernmost]

You know this would have been way above his skill and experience level? Wow. OK.

And you know it was in his level? Wow, OK. Sometimes, in fact quite a few times, he bit off more then he could chew and Roy had to save his butt. Roy couldn't have saved him on this one. My opinion and my reasons why, no one is forcing you to accept it. Snarkiness, not with.standing.