People who complain about Disney (as a company) today need to stop comparing it with Disney in the 50s, 60s or 70's.
Like it or not Business has moved on. Disney has to move on too, or it becomes a target for a take over (remember ComCast? It can even still happen now). It's just a reflection on the dog-eat-dog world of business today. Everything has changed, from Globalisation to the expectations of shareholders.
GM in the 50's used to be a good employee, with lots of employees, family values and a interest of promoting the American way of life. Working for GM was seen as an ideal job, the workers had pride in their work, and the company looked after them. It was a company compariable to Disney in almost all respects, promoting the American way of life, not only in its advertising but also to its workers. And it used to do this while keeping its shareholders happy.
And what is it now? It's a company making billions of dollars profit each year, but it still shuts down factories, opens new ones up in Mexico for cheap labour and continues to reduce the workforce while it introduces more and more automation. Does it need to do this? Not really, it's making billions upon billions of dollars profit each year. According to a quick Google, GM made $3,822m profit. Surely some of that money could be used to employ a US workforce? Look at their earnings per share? Does it really have to be that high?
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/p/g/gm.html
Ahhh. You say. But GM has more competition these days - it has to compete with the Japanese and German car makers. Yeah, so Disney has more competition these days too - more TV, more music, more Computer Games etc. The world never stands still, and in fact GM's changed business practices seem to be working dandy for them. Who needs responsibility when you can be making more money? After all, the shareholders always want more and more, for doing nothing.
The other aspect of business these days is the "short termism" syndrome. It's something that affects Disney, but it also affects all major companies. Basically, people don't care to look ahead 3 or more years. In general a C.E.O. doesn't look far into the future, as he may not be running the company then (on average a C.E.O. stays with a company for 5.7 years). Shareholders don't care to look any further into the future, as they just want to buy shares cheap and sell them for a profit later (normally within 2-3 years of buying). So why should anyone care about what will happen to the company in 10 years time, if they can make a quick buck in 2 years time?
This "short termism" explains acts such as closing the Secret Lab CGI unit at Disney (it made the figures look good for that annual report) and I suppose it also explains the traditional animation shut-down. But it's not just Disney - it's all business.
Look at the slew of reality programmes on TV these days. It may be fine in the short term, so shareholders and executives are happy - they're making their money now. But what of the future. Networks won't have a library of programmes to fall back on. What's going to run in syndication in a few years time? What are they going to sell on home video in a few years time? They're thowing away future revenue for the increased revenue they get today.
The same can be said for the energy firms today. Most are unwillling to invest in the maintenance needed, because it will show on their annual reports. So they get away with doing the minimum to keep things running. Yet they all know at some point they will have to do the maintenance, and when they do, it will be worse and cost more than it would if they did it today with regular maintenance and check-up work. But again, they are throwing away future revenue for the increased revenue they get today. Who cares about how much it will cost in 10 years time? It will be someone else's problem then!
I'm not a fan of big business, but not all big business is "evil". Take Disney for example. They may (in some people's opinion) be churning out 90% rubbish, but they're still going, and they're still making lots of films which do still contain the Disney "magic".
Disney had to move on with the rest of the world. The old Disney was failing. It was only Eisner's appointment that stopped a buy-out in the 80's - proof that the old Disney way just wasn't working any more.
for some reason he couldn't keep the site up and it has ended. 
Then I came here to UD!
Also that Rapunzel reminds me of Fiona, especially with the square-neck dress 
Watch some of 
That's great news! Tell him I said Congratulations!