All of that is all well and said Karushifa, but it doesn't explain why
Sleeping Beauty is so well-recieved today and why a - quite frankly (plot wide) rather trivial character like Maleficent can win a UD Countdown. If anything, it proves all these people who continue to say "the story is what's important" wrong.
And you say recent WDFA films have been lacking character development, but I honestly cannot see that. Some have been a little bland, such as Fish Out of Water (comic relief), Kenai (who basically became a straight man, but still had an "arc"), and Pacha (who again was basically a straight man, but it was a role/character type needed for the film).
Outside of those, I think we've had some of the strongest character development from Disney yet - from say
Mulan onwards. Mulan was the first film which took the time to actually craft a multi-dimensional character to the main character. Compare Mulan with Aladdin and there's a world of difference.
All the films since (except
Fantasia 2000 
) have strong leading characters, yes, even
Atlantis. That film's biggest failing character wise is Princess Kida. Buy Milo is a good character who visibly evolves as the film progresses. Vinny and the Mole are wonderful creations, and even Rourke betrayal is nicely played (and unexpected). How can you say
Atlantis had no character development. It had, more development than most other Disney films up to that point. People grow, decieve others, turn on each other. And yet there's still room for comedy creations. I accept the Mole, for example may grate with some people, but, you know, I never really liked Robin Williams as the Genie in
Aladdin. I just kept waiting for him to shut up for a few seconds. He was great in small doses, but way too exposed in the film.
You can't mistake Kuzco with another Disney character, or Chicken Little, or Maggie from Home on the Range. They are all unique, different and clearly thought through.
As for
Treasure Planet is has the best scripted, most emotive and multi-dimensional "villian" of them all in John Silver. And talking of villains, Yzma is just as strong - if not stronger - than the bulk of Disney Villains, as is Hades. Clayton and Alameda Slim maybe smaller villains with smaller goals, but at least their goals are defined and logical.
If anything problem isn't lack of character development, it's too much character development. I find, as with a lot of things, people don't really want what they ask for. They're just throwing using the words because they sound good. As an older viewer, I find it all very dishearting and too some extent depressing. In not picking on you Karushifa, but I'm talking about in general.
They say they want good stories, but they reject complex plots, character interplay and revelations like
Atlantis, and settle for rehashes of the generally familiar. Atlantis isn't the greatest film ever, but it's by far the worst. It tries something new, and succeeds and fails at the same time. If you compare it to a "Summer Blockbuster", which is basically what it is - just in an animated form - it compares incredibly well with the vast majority of similar releases before, and since. As champions of animation as an art form, we should have been supportive... and who knows, learning from
Atlantis, Disney's next attempt at an animated adventure could have been outstanding.
They say they want character development, but turn away from Kenai's development from lazy human to responsible "parent", saying "it misses something". I'm not picking on
Monsters, Inc., but did Scully or Mike actually change at all during the film? The only development we got was a short lived falling out. Other than that, Mike was the likable by wacky one, and Scully was the likable but sensible one (aka. the straight man).
As for originality, the demand most people want, they turn away from it, even before seeing the film in question. How many people automatically decided they didn't like
Home on the Range before seeing a single frame? "A film about cows capturing a criminal for the bounty to save their farm? How stupid. Disney must be on drugs."
HOTR isn't the only example though.
Treasure Planet ("Treasure Island in space? WTF?") is another. (although I think "Robin Hood with animals?" is a much bigger WTF concept myself). As is too some extent
The Emperor's New Groove was rejected by the public too. (No doubt because of its Disney ties. I'm positive the film would have been more successful had it been a Dreamworks film for example).
True,
Home on the Range was a huge disappointment (sorry Ichabod) but there's a reason for that, beyond even the sad sorry story of management tinkering behind the scenes. It's because originality is always fine balance between hitting or missing. If originality was always such a winner for the studios, why do we have to suffer from endless remakes, reimaginings and sequels?
So when people say they want a good story, they appear to mean a fresh retread of an old one. When they say they want character development, they want funny characters who don't really change but have witty conversations with each other, and when they say they want originality, they mean the same as what they want for a good story.
So how can Disney win? Rehash too much and they get slammed for doing the same old thing. Do something new, and they get slammed for not making a "Disney" film.
Disney have been trying to please their critics. They have been trying to genuinely expand the genre of animation. They have been trying to travel down different paths. Last time Disney was in competition, they resorted to their musical roots (so much for originality eh?), this time, rightly or wrongly, they have attempted to have another form of ressurection.
Perhaps rightly, because even now some critics lambast Disney for making films to similar to their biggest hits. I mean, was
Brother Bear really a copy of
The Lion King at all? It was totally different, their wasn't even a villain in
Brother Bear but lots of critics still accused Disney of "copying their highest grossing film for easy money"
Or they complained about Phil Collins doing the songs again, after
Tarzan. Odd, nobody complains about Randy Newman at Pixar. Doesn't they tell you how hard Disney has to work to come up with something acceptable?
I see you like Studio Ghibli films. As good as they are, do you think for that a Western audience would repond positively to a Disney animated
Spirited Away or, heaven forbid a Disney animted
Grave of the Fireflies? I would wager that they wouldn't - even if the story and the characters were exactly the same. The Disney name just has too much baggage, history and expectations.
They are, quite frankly, in an impossible situation, and nothing will please the critics.
And trust me, if
Cars, which is already attracting some critical malaise, and concequently is going into hype overload and damage limitation, isn't a huge departure from the "safe"
Buddy Movie formula Pixar specialises in, the same could happen to Pixar too.
That's only a step above dismissing a project based on a brief unofficial reported premise.
I thought you didn't make mistakes!