DVDizzy Forum

MichaeLeah wrote:I think you are on to something here. I think Disney's downfall really started in the 70's when they eliminated creativity.

Although perhaps somewhat harsh, that is an interesting way to put it. Seems to coincide with the fact that Walt and his people were pretty much gone by then...

Wonderlicious The number one for me is simple; trying to be the company with a perfect image. Disney has had an obsession with looking practically perfect. That's one of the reasons why I think they get slammed a lot; their desire for an unoffending image and brand (like Loomis, I think that Disney are becoming this) has lead to a number of bad creative things; the editing of numerous films both feature length and short, the refusal to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11 (I know that it's a controversial film from many political viewpoints, yet do most non-Disney fans actually know that Miramax is owned by Disney?) and of course, the abandonment of Song of the South. It also attracts many people to see bad in Disney; by trying to be the most perfect thing outside of divinity, even the slightest fault can garner the most harsh of criticism and spite from some. I really don't think the likes of the supposed appearance of "SEX" in The Lion King and the rumour of the priest's errection in The Little Mermaid would have even surfaced if the film was released by another major studio.

Don't you think that one of the reasons why this is, stems from the fact that Walt Disney himself may be part of this problem?

I mean take a look at the last few decades. They've played up the mythology of Walt Disney more than the actual person.

And don't get me started on that documentry they did about him a few years ago, it was terrible. They still played up the myth about him, rather than going into the financial problems he faced during the 1940s regarding Fantasia, Bambi and Pinnocio. And the fact that Disneyland almost didn't happen because Walt himself was in debt at the time of its opening!

I've seen better documentries about famous people, and they strive to go into every nuance about the paticular famous person, they didn't do that with Walt. Instead they just talked about his accomplishments, but didn't go into all the heartache he faced in realizing his vision.

Its kinda ironic isn't it?

The person who nurtured creativity and using one's own imagination in his lifetime, is the same person that puts limits on our own creativity and imaginations in the present day!

So what to do about it? I'll just say that I'm working on his bio pic.

I Am Clark Kent wrote:Don't you think that one of the reasons why this is, stems from the fact that Walt Disney himself may be part of this problem?

Are saying here that "Walt himself" is to blame, or rather the "mythical Walt"?

I Am Clark Kent wrote:They still played up the myth about him, rather than going into the financial problems he faced during the 1940s regarding Fantasia, Bambi and Pinnocio. And the fact that Disneyland almost didn't happen because Walt himself was in debt at the time of its opening!

It IS somewhat ironic that the "safe-playing" company that carries his name and is constantly trying to create and preserve a saint-like image, would have been nothing or something quite different from what it is if Walt Disney had not repeatedly been ready to risk everything financially for his "vision".

I Am Clark Kent wrote:The person who nurtured creativity and using one's own imagination in his lifetime, is the same person that puts limits on our own creativity and imaginations in the present day!

Are you saying that Walt Disney puts limits on our creativity today because of the sheer "size" of his image?

I get confused when I read DTV for those 'younger' posters which I keep thinking means Disney Television Videos, which is what it originally meant. Nowadays it is used to be a short for Direct-to-Video because some people are to lazy to spell it all out. Okay enough of that.

The biggest Disney mistake was closing down "Country Bear Jamboree" at Disneyland. That was one of the best attractions in Frontierland. I really miss that attraction.

Another big mistake is all the Direct-to-Video sequels. If they don't have faith enough that they are going to do well in the theater, then why should be shell out our hard-earned cash for these titles. If they are going to insist on this trend, then make them all $9.99 titles and that would boost sales to all the non-believers, like me.

If Disney put their mind to it, they could put a new Disney film, animated or live action, in the theater each and every month.

As far as people who wait to buy Disney titles, why not get them when they come out, if you know that they are putting things in the "vault" so quickly. I would rather double-dip a Disney title before buying a movie like "Brokeback Mountain" or "The Dukes of Hazzard". A Disney movie release title would come before these any day of the week, any week in the year.

Biggest Disney Mistakes:

1. Hiring Adriana Caselotti to be the shrilly voice of Snow White - I'm sorry, but the mere fact that he went with this squeaky squealing voice makes me grind my teeth anytime the girl talks. I know he wanted a child's youthful voice, but this is an unnaturally high and very unappealing voice for what should be a very innocent and loving character.

2. Turning the Disneyland TV show into an ongoing western series - I haven't seen that many vintage Disneyland episodes, but from what I read, it got to a point where ABC kept telling them "more westerns, more westerns", because at the time, westerns were hot. Disney had to comply, more or less, and produced western after western.

3. Stretching themselves too thin in Florida - Four theme parks, two marketplaces, a nightclub island, and countless hotels and several golf courses. No wonder it takes people a week to see everything.

4. Putting TOO MUCH emphasis on the Vault - Ah yes, the vault. So many conflicting opinions. But in the end, it's a clever marketing strategy. Take a product a lot of consumers want, give it to them for a limited time at a fair price, then take it off the market for a few years. Let there be a buildup and buzz for how necessary it is to have the product again, and re-release it a couple years later. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. A clever marketing strategy, but Disney made the mistake of overpromoting the strategy. They shot themselves in the foot by making every release they have be a candidate for the Vault. They've made the vault not a place to respect because of what it holds, but an EVIL EVIL place that consumers will blame because they missed the boat on buying Beauty and the Beast: Platinum Edition. It's one thing to simply discontinue a product to build buzz for it later. It's another to say "ONE OF OUR MOVIES IS COMING OUT OF THE DISNEY VAULT FOR ONLY SUCH-AND-SUCH TIME AFTER WHICH WE'LL PUT IT BACK IN AGAIN, NA-NA-NA-NA-NA SUCKS TO BE YOU IF YOU DIDN'T GET IT YET!".

5. Buying ABC - As much as I've loved several of the shows that's come (and gone) since Disney bought ABC, at the same time they've completely watered down the network. Not gonna bother bitching about Daytime programming since no one else would care, but their primetime programming has been the pits for the past four years or so. One of the few good things Disney did for ABC was their attempt at the Happy Hour (8 pm weeknights), when family-friendly program (and only family-friendly program) would be scheduled. Sure, you got a lot of half-baked sitcoms or dramas, but it was some attempt at being the "nice" network to turn to. I'm just grateful they decided not to take a show genre and create spin-off after spin-off (read: Law & Order and CSI ad nauseum).

6. The Disney Channel post-Lizzie McGuire - Ever since Lizzie McGuire, every show since then has always been a stepping stone or a vehicle for some other tween wannabe popstar. Family programming ended with Even Stevens, most of the shows and movies afterwards have been produced with the kids and tweens in mind. It's entirely un-Disney (but then again, what really is Disney?).

7. Milking their cash cows with only one udder - Winnie the Pooh. Direct-to-Video sequels. The Princess Line. (Insert Adjective) Mountain.

8. The de-diversification of Disney Stores (parks and retail) - Before, you could go to the parks and browse their stores for park-exclusive merchandise. Stuff besides t-shirts and toys. Now, essentially every park store is one huge mall Disney Store. Sure, it's got a different label on it ("Walt Disney World" instead of "The Disney Store"), but in the end, you're paying more for a t-shirt you might as well can get at your mall and stitch a label over. And beyond that, you've also got each Disney store in the malls either closing or getting a makeover, making it look more like a kiddie store than something that genuinely says DISNEY. But of course, that's likely due to the Disney Store chain being bought by The Children's Place, and they only stock Disney merchandise now.

9. The move to CGI - won't do much to mention Chicken Little (which I personally love and don't see as a Disney mistake), but the fact that WDFA decides "Okay, our animated movies are only going to be in CGI" is like saying "Okay, I'm making a pie, but instead of using my trusty old recipe that lasted for years, I'm gonna try this new one that everyone else is using.". Maybe that's a bad analogy, but the fact is, 2D has worked for Disney. It's always worked for them. I don't mind that they're branching out into CGI now, but to totally dump 2D for their DAC's is pretty much a slap in the face.

And finally...

10. Putting less emphasis on Mickey Mouse - I know that he reached a point where storymen and animators couldn't figure out what to do with him. After all, they couldn't make him evil. They couldn't make him mad. They couldn't make him clueless. They painted themselves into a corner by making Mickey too nice of a guy. And so what happens? Less emphasis on him. Less for him to do. He's not quite as popular these days as other characters. I think a report once said that Stitch has become more recognizable than Mickey.

Wondy wrote:I should also note that I don't like how Disney causes people to be in poor working conditions. I'm not just talking about them using some cold and harsh workhouse in Sri Lanka. I'm talking about the conditions used in the US Disney theme parks, especially on the college programme, which from what I've read, don't seem great.

The treatment you hear about the college program comes from either:

1. People who actually had a good time on the program and looked beyond the underpayment and overwork.

or

2. People who had a shitty time on the program and liked to bitch to anyone about the underpayment and overwork.

After all, it's hard to keep the magic when you're paid a-little-over-minimum-wage in a thankless job where guests call you smiling drones, sheepherders, drugged-by-the-mouse eternal optimists, etc. and you gotta wear a bright and colorful costume and do a repetitive job day in and day out for however long you signed on and make sure you don't say or do things that get you terminated.

Escapay

Escapay wrote: 4. Putting TOO MUCH emphasis on the Vault - They shot themselves in the foot by making every release they have be a candidate for the Vault.

Except for Mary Poppins which is the only Disney film that has NEVER gone into the vault at one point!

8. The de-diversification of Disney Stores (parks and retail) - Before, you could go to the parks and browse their stores for park-exclusive merchandise. Stuff besides t-shirts and toys. Now, essentially every park store is one huge mall Disney Store. Sure, it's got a different label on it ("Walt Disney World" instead of "The Disney Store"), but in the end, you're paying more for a t-shirt you might as well can get at your mall and stitch a label over. And beyond that, you've also got each Disney store in the malls either closing or getting a makeover, making it look more like a kiddie store than something that genuinely says DISNEY. But of course, that's likely due to the Disney Store chain being bought by The Children's Place, and they only stock Disney merchandise now.

Speaking of which, I just remembered of another thing: The Disney Stores are incredibly unimpressive! I mean there's one near by me(in Denver though) and while there are SOME cool stuff, there's basically a lot of baby clothes and toys! They don't even have a HUGE selection of plushies anymore! I know Disney is great for kids, but c'mon, OLDER PEOPLE LIKE US LIKE IT TOO!

I agree with you on everything else you said to some extent. Though to be honest, I don't mind Disney "overmarketting" as some do.

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:

Escapay wrote: 4. Putting TOO MUCH emphasis on the Vault - They shot themselves in the foot by making every release they have be a candidate for the Vault.

Except for Mary Poppins which is the only Disney film that has NEVER gone into the vault at one point!

You got me there.

But with Mary Poppins it's a live-action title, which brings up another point. Less Live-Action movies get into the vault than Animated Ones. When was the last time you heard "Hurry up and buy Pete's Dragon before it goes into the vault!" or "Coming out of the vault is Old Yeller!" Disney doesn't seem to care much for the vault status of their Live-Action films unless it contains the words "Song", "of", "the", and "South", in that specific order.

Escapay

Taking down the skyways at Disneyland and Disneyworld.

The Little Mermaid

Aladdin

After reading y'all's posts, I agree with some of you and disagree with others.

1. The Disney Vault What can I say about the Disney Vault? I think that the titles that they put in there, are some titles that needed to be out longer in the market. For example, The Lion King Trilogy. But I don't think that the Vault itself is bad. Disney is wanting us to need to have these movies that cannot be found. Making consumers more eager to buy the titles when they first come out rather than wait for them, and then they will be gone in the vault. However, I think that since some of these titles aren't out on the market too long, us consumers would have to go to other sources to buy these products. For example, eBay, Overstock, etc. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Vault has some good qualities, and yet some bad qualities that greatly influence them.

2. Song of the South I have personally never seen this movie, but always have wanted to. There are more racial stuff in Peter Pan, and it's been released at least three times, and is going to be re-released again next year (which I think is really dumb and that it should have been kept in the Platinum line). I would probably really want Disney to release Song of the South because it is a movie that I have never seen before, and will probably never see it because Disney hasn't released it yet. So I guess what I'm trying to say is:

Disney Get Off Of Your Lazy Bums And Release Song of the South!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lars Vermundsberget What I was pointing out is that the company is not as creative as it should because of the image that Walt protrayed himself as.

He himself even admitted on more than one occasion that the saint like image also put limits on what he could do with the films that he made.

Its the same situation today.

And the fact that he died suddenly, only added to the problem.

dvdjunkie wrote:The biggest Disney mistake was closing down "Country Bear Jamboree" at Disneyland.

I agree, that was one of Disney's biggest mistakes.

dvdjunkie wrote:I would rather double-dip a Disney title before buying a movie like "Brokeback Mountain" or "The Dukes of Hazzard".

Make that triple-dip on the Dukes of Hazzard.

dvdjunkie wrote:As far as people who wait to buy Disney titles, why not get them when they come out, if you know that they are putting things in the "vault" so quickly. I would rather double-dip a Disney title before buying a movie like "Brokeback Mountain" or "The Dukes of Hazzard". A Disney movie release title would come before these any day of the week, any week in the year.

Took the words right out of my mouth. All of us here know that Disney stuff goes out of print; why not buy it the week it comes out? If money is an issue, let me ask you this: if owning your favorite Disney movie is so important to you, why don't you just save up $20 and put it in a "NO TOUCHIE, [insert Disney title here] FUND!" envelope ?

I Am Clark Kent wrote:Lars Vermundsberget What I was pointing out is that the company is not as creative as it should because of the image that Walt protrayed himself as.

He himself even admitted on more than one occasion that the saint like image also put limits on what he could do with the films that he made.

Quite true - for instance, already by the late 30s it was established that they could not do just whatever they pleased with Mickey Mouse, the character most closely "related" to Walt Disney personally.

PatrickvD wrote:

deadmanjeff wrote:putting the lion king movies in the vault only a couple of months after the lion king 2 came out i wanted to wait to buy tlk1 1/2 but they put it in the vault so fast

funny you mention the Lion King sequels... they are high on my list of Disney's biggest mistakes

You forgot to mention that Nathan Lane's Timon is such a fantastic character that after 90 minutes or so millions of viewers didn't want it to end. It's all fun fun fun! And the sequels have more of that fun (well, 1.5 has more fun! than 2, but...)

Finchx0rz wrote:Took the words right out of my mouth. All of us here know that Disney stuff goes out of print; why not buy it the week it comes out? If money is an issue, let me ask you this: if owning your favorite Disney movie is so important to you, why don't you just save up $20 and put it in a "NO TOUCHIE, [insert Disney title here] FUND!" envelope ?

I suppose a lot of us here just are really tired of the empty threats to buy a movie before it's "OMG GONE FOREVER!!!1!!" It just comes off as a bit arrogant these days to maintain this air of exclusivity around their movies when Disney is really the only company that follows this tight of an OOP policy. Also, keeping movies on the shelves for a longer period of time might reduce piracy, which seems to be a very hot issue among entertainment companies right now.

There is also the legitimate concern that whenever a new home video format (DVD, hi-def DVD etc.) starts up, Disney's narrow release windows might not afford those who are waiting to invest in the new format enough time to buy the movies they want before they are vaulted. See the DVD release of Snow White, for example.

Finchx0rz wrote:

dvdjunkie wrote:As far as people who wait to buy Disney titles, why not get them when they come out, if you know that they are putting things in the "vault" so quickly. I would rather double-dip a Disney title before buying a movie like "Brokeback Mountain" or "The Dukes of Hazzard". A Disney movie release title would come before these any day of the week, any week in the year.

Took the words right out of my mouth. All of us here know that Disney stuff goes out of print; why not buy it the week it comes out? If money is an issue, let me ask you this: if owning your favorite Disney movie is so important to you, why don't you just save up $20 and put it in a "NO TOUCHIE, [insert Disney title here] FUND!" envelope ?

I agree with the both of you. The Vault doesn't really apply to me anymore because now I am buying the new releases on the day they come out. If I'm really short on money, the Disney titles go at the very top of my wishlist to be bought within 1-2 months time.

However - I am now an aggressive collector (though not to the point where I have to own everything, for example - I have no interest what-so-ever in the Dinosaurs: Seasons 1 & 2 release so I won't be getting it ever), average DVD-buyers might not even be aware that the DVD has been released at all. That's how I missed out on Snow White - DVD's weren't a priority in my life back then.

dvdjunkie wrote:I get confused when I read DTV for those 'younger' posters which I keep thinking means Disney Television Videos, which is what it originally meant.

Me too! I thought maybe it was just me. Man I miss those!

ok, I think there are a lot of things disney has done wrong. Most of them have already been posted but I'll go ahead and agree and throw in my 2 cents.

-Disney has lost their innovation. They're no longer on top of the game, they used to stand for cutting-edge, superior and high-quality enterntainment. Now all they do is slap their brand name on virtually everything under the sun and its good to go.

-They've lost a huge chunk of their market
They need to wake up and realize their is a huge demographic of consumers they are no longer reaching. I can't see how dulling themselves down and only focusing on one demographic (preteens) could be good for them. There is so much more they could to re-establish the quality of the disney name. It may take a little more effort and money (which means they'll never be for it) but think of all the wonderful things they could do! They need to bring back disney entertainment from ALL eras. People would appreciate if it was out there, it just needs another chance.

-Disney Channel
Hannah montana anyone? I really don't know what I'm talking abour here cuz I've never seen it but to me it just looks like something to really symbolize how far they've slipped. Remember when it used to premium? and even after it was a regular channel it was still pretty good for a while. Now they should be paying us to watch it. Its great if you're into all the cheaply manufactured series they use as star vehicles for they're resident "talent" but the bottom line is that it should have a little variety. Remember when they at least had vault disney on at night? The least disney could do is compromise and give us a new "classic" disney channel. With programming from the early days up to the 90s and everything in between. I'm not saying its bad to like the shows they have now, but shouldn't they have some variety?

-Advertising
I'm not really sure how to articulate this, which is quite ironic considering I took advertising a couple quarters ago and should know how to say what I mean lol. I'll give it a try. It just seems that lately all the marketing they use for movies and dvd releases is really gimmicky. If you watch their ads for movies up until the mid/late 90s or so they always held some sort of esteem over there brand. They were so proud to announce their product. I feel like they wanted us to take them seriously and the don't anymore. On a slighty off topic note, it seems a lot of movie companies are doing this now. Notice how all the comparisons are like "its the greatest movie since shrek 2!" which is such a low comparison point. Anyways, Its like they don't take themeselves seriously anymore so neither can we.

-Art
they need to remember to focus on the artistic aspects. Movies like beauty and the beast for example are stunning and rare and do require more time and money but its so breath taking! it can be taken on so many levels and are so well-rounded. It was even competing for best picture before they even had a "best animated picture" category at the oscars. They need to bring back their integrity and the sophistication.

and yes...I do think the disney princesses are still ok. Its like they're afraid to go down that road again because its not entirely p.c. to have a princess.

"Innovation" and "Art" -

Highly valid points, in my opinion.

The spirit of the man who was once ready to "risk all" for something good is all gone, it seems.

As far as I'm concerned, this all doesn't really upset me. I've considered the "Disney" that I appreciate "basically dead" (or "really dead") for years. I just hope we'll get the remaining "classic theatrical animated shorts" and some more good material in the "Treasures" line. Apart from that I guess I really don't care.

i just want to remphasize what i was saying about the lion king 1 1/2 being put in the vault i was saying that it's stupid that a new movie(at the time) was only available for half a year while lion king 1 and 2 were available for like 2 years each or so when they first came out

deadmanjeff wrote:i just want to remphasize what i was saying about the lion king 1 1/2 being put in the vault i was saying that it's stupid that a new movie(at the time) was only available for half a year while lion king 1 and 2 were available for like 2 years each or so when they first came out

Shelf-time:

The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride - Limited Issue: November 1999 to January 2000
The Lion King PE: October 2003 to January 2005
The Lion King 1 1/2: February 2004 to January 2005
The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride - Special Edition: August 2004 to January 2005

Hardly half a hear for TLK 1.5, it's more like "nearly a year". Perhaps you were referring to the new edition of The Lion King 2, which was only out for approx. 4 months of the year (which is twice as long as its original 2-month release)

Escapay