CJ, I am so, so, so, so, so sorry to hear about aaaallll that has happened to you! And all that happening to someone as nice and great as you?!?!!! Well, thanks for letting us know, actually, because I think it did help us to understand more and I think it will add to some kind of peace. It sounds like locking threads is the best option, except that I actually thought removing problem posts would have worked if the problem-post thread hadn't been locked so I had nowhere to commend on that offending post which, well, I'm sorry I broke rules with myself. Maybe those actually could work in the future.
PS. I hate the dog for attacking you but love that you called him Kujo! LOL!
PPS. I hope things do get waaay better for you. They just have to now! They freakin' have to!
The_Iceflash, I don't think I can thank you enough for how you have time and time again been concerned about my treatment on this forum and tried to defend me, too. I thank you very much, but I can also assure you that even though sometimes I do feel like it's me against so many, I am fine, at least this and the religion thread have been fine so far. But thank you. You've been really kind.
Disney'sDivinity, I must say you sadden me. What if I said the Disney essence is just the Disney identity, the kind of things Walt imagined in his mind, or the thing that makes, say, Disney's version of The Little Mermaid different (and better) than other animated film versions?
Milojthatch, thanks for what you said, except, well, if this does catch your eye, my main arguing points now are: There are some traditional "things in the past" we know Walt always, always had his foot in so to speak, and those were the character backgrounds (like if they're royal, commoner, magic or ordinary) and the titles being exactly or almost exactly the original ones.
Dr Frankenollie, there are three possibilities: either you are wrong in your definition of a character background, I am wrong in that, or a character background is just too subjective a word anyway. But what
I meant was whether characters were commoners, nobility, royalty, magical/supernatural, or ordinary. Roger stayed a commoner, he still kept
that kind of background. And it's more than just "who your parents are", the sense of being, say, royalty or magical makes a feel for the character, it is one thing that adds to their idenitity, who they are. At least it
can and it certainly does in many Disney films, so many Walt ones. Would Aurora move as perfectly and elegantly as she did if she wasn't really a born princess, for instance?
As for Hercules, there are two things: when I was young and my mother told me about how Hera originally hated Hercules and wasn't his real mother before we saw the movie, I actually watched the movie seeing her as not being his real mother but just accepting him anyway. Maybe he really was botn of Zeuz and another? There is nothing in the film that outright proves Hera couldn't have just been acting as his real mother.
The second thing is that by Hercules drinking the potion, that is also how he becomes a demi-god! So that is also keeping his character background!
DisneyAnimation88, did you miss how I tried to compromise by saying Flynn could be a prince that left his home to become a thief, so then he could be a thief still in the movie? That was an example of me compromising, because I didn't want to do that at first. So now will you please try for me, too?
And I know it's not just trying to please me, because I do think it's neat to have a thief and a lost princess and a magic gold flower from the sun. It is to please the tradition of Walt Disney which has been around since the company became what it was. That is what it is meant for, not just me. You do know other fans have complained, too right, including some here? I am just the most vocal, but others have written about it, a good example being the "Your version of Rapunzel" thread.
Also, I did say at one point that Walt never made major changes, but if you want, I will say I was wrong. I will say Walt made big changes. That should finally make people happy even though I swear I admitted that arguments ago. The reason I probably didn't seem to admit it because they were big changes but they still weren't as big as...
He still didn't make the same kind of changes Tangled made, and Tangled is still the most changed Disney film from the original source material. When even one site agreed with me on this, I think it is reasonable to see this one as true, that we can agree on it, but at least I know I'm not the only one who sees it. This is an example: The hunting tiger villain who thinks himself like a king of the jungle but has a lame leg and is laughed at becomes the hunting tiger villain who thinks he is like a king of the jungle but everyone in the jungle also thinks that in the Walt Disney version. Now, in Tangled, a traveling prince who goes to Rapunzel's tower to be with his love becomes a thieving bandit who goes to Rapunzel's tower to hide in the "new Disney" version. Now I think ya see what I mean.

And remember, I still would be willing to compromise and have him be a prince, but have that exploring bandit-like personality or whatever, or even become a thief, then back to a prince by the end as the film goes.
Anyway,
everyone didn't answer this question: Which would be more right: keeping the things Walt kept in all his films, or doing whatever they want?
You invented a third option around it instead. :/
And remember one more thing: In order to make a Disney film, you would have to at least have seen some films from Disney's past to know what a Disney film even is or is like.