The Different Kinds of Disney Fans

[pap64]

I do agree with the idea that the first Disney film you see in a theater is going to be one that sticks with you. Everyone I know who is into Disney has that one movie they remember seeing as a kid. For me, that was Hunchback. I was four, and I only vaguely remember the experience, but it did stick with me. All these years later, that's still the film I have the biggest connection with. And I don't think it has anything to do with nostalgia, because while Hunchback was the first theatrical Disney I ever saw, I was part of the VHS generation, and Aladdin was the first film I remember seeing. As a kid, Aladdin was the special one that I watched and re-watched and had all the merchandise for, but as an adult, I like it less, and see a lot of flaws in it, whereas with Hunchback, my appreciation only grew the older I got.

Funny, I feel the same way, but with the situations in reverse.

I was born in 1982, meaning that I was born in the right decade as the VHS revolution was on fire, and Disney had gotten on it greatly. Meaning that I was introduced to Disney very early in life, and by 1985-86 or so, I had seen Dumbo, Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, Robin Hood and more like Mary Poppins and even Song of the South.

Yet, my very first movie in theaters was The Lion King. When I saw it, I was in the middle of Lion King mania, where everyone and their grandmother seemingly loved the movie to death and there was a ton of merchandise out. I fell in love with it and was my favorite Disney movie or all time... until 2003 when I saw it on DVD and picked up on too many of its flaws.

A year prior, I had re-discovered Beauty and the Beast on DVD, and even though I loved it as a kid, as an adult I fell in love with it all over again. It was a movie that deeply moved me as a kid, and revisiting it made me realize that the movie was responsible for inspiring in me ideas about love, relationships and most importantly how they would be portrayed in fiction.

So by then, Lion King had fell down from its top spot and Beauty and the Beast has settled in and has not moved since. Basically, what I am saying is that while the theatrical experience can indeed lend to a film's presence, for me it was the emotional reactions I got watching the movies at different stages in my life.

[Disney's Divinity]

I hate the people who act so uppity and stuck-up if you happen to say, "Yeah, I think Disney's best and most consistent period of films came from that era." Most of my favorites are from 89-99. (Mermaid, Beauty, Hunchback, Hercules...)

I agree. That tends to happen a lot on most Disney boards I've been to. Which is always seen as no big deal, but if you say you don't care about their older films, people moan and groan about how you just can't see beyond your nostalgia blinders. Maybe some people just enjoy musicals? (I know I do)

[qindarka]

I've really only started being a Disney fan last year, going on a marathon for the entire canon. Before that, I've only had memory of watching The Jungle Book, The Lion King, Tarzan, Lilo and Stitch and Treasure Planet.

The 90s are by far my favorite period and I didn't grow up with them. I do like most of the canon, such as the ones in the so called 'Dark Age and certain films in the early 2000s.

[David S.]

Even still, watching just old Wonderful World of Color or Disneyland episodes makes me feel all tingly and happy inside. I can't explain it though. It feels like nostalgia.. but.. I wasn't there during this time. So it isn't.

An EXCELLENT point. I'm a 70's/80's kid myself, but I've always loved the Disney films, tv, music, and park attractions from before my time. I can remember eagerly waiting for Sunday night to arrive every week so I could watch The Wonderful World of Disney, or for another Animated Classic to be reissued to theatres. And I collected Disney soundtracks from the films and parks (first on vinyl, and later CD).

I still love all this stuff today, and like you said, it isn't about "nostalgia" for me, as so much of it was created before I was born! Walt Disney himself passed away before I was born, and yet his era is the "Disney" I love most. (and yet I do enjoy the newer DACs and park attractions more than a lot of "Walt purist" do)

But I definitely don't consider my love of the older stuff "nostalgia", as I wasn't even alive then! I enjoy it on it's own MERIT. It's kind of a pet peave when some people bash older attractions and films (which happens a lot on the park boards I read) and say they are only good for "nostalgia". IMO this marginalizes and cheapens things that IMO are still TIMELESS and entertaining today.

I will also say on a broader note that the "90s Fans" irk me the most because of their supreme lack of knowledge about anything (not just movies) Disney related outside of that decade, and even within (don't see much love for The Rocketeer among that group, although those fans have started to figure out what Newsies is because of the Menken connection). This may make me sound "elitist" or "snobbish", but I know that I would not be as big a fan as I am today if I knew the company's catalogue was so limited, or thought so little of everything else.

You bring up an interesting point, and thinking back to my own childhood in the 70's and 80's, one reason it was so easy for me to get into the Walt era stuff from before my time was that the company made it so ACCESSIBLE.

Sure, they promoted new films and tv shows, but there was never a sense that they were sending a message of "like this shiny new stuff and forget all that 'old' stuff". In those days, there was more of a sense that the current offerings were simply the next chapter in the Disney continuum of timeless family entertainment.

For instance, the anthology series served up a healthy helping of Walt-era episodes as well as newer episodes. And both DACs AND live action from Walt's time were regularly reissued to theatres.

And then in the 80's, you had the Disney Channel keeping the Walt-era stuff alive there, which lasted into the 90's and "Vault Disney". So I never consciously thought of the Walt stuff as "old stuff". It was "Disney", and Disney meant quality.

But today's generations don't have the exposure to the Walt era material the way I did. A whole generation has now grown up with NO classic-era Walt content on the Disney Channel (and its 2 newer sister channels) other than the occasional token DAC.

Young people today will only be exposed to this stuff if they seek it out themselves or if a family member or friend exposes them to it. Modern Disney has thrown their classic film and tv library under the bus as far as television airings go, and as a result the thread of this material being passed from generation to generation as "timeless family entertainment" is unraveling.

I think this is a significant factor in why younger generations (as a whole) don't know the older stuff like my generation did.

Allow me to amend my previous statement from "all" to most of the magic in the parks stemming from the films that inspired the core concept of the park in the first place.

Wasn't the "core concept" a place "where the parents and the children could have fun together"? Not really anything to do with the movies. Alot of insipration came from European parks, World Fairs, and Walt's own take on American nostalgia.

Up until the 80s most Disney park related offerings involving characters were either in Fantasyland or areas of entertianment. Post-Eisner is when they became more prevelant eleshere because it was an easier to bank a concept on a known moneymaker than come up with something original (which is also why more non-Disney properties, like Star Wars, were sought out).

I agree with the fact that not all the inspiration for the parks came from Walt's films. World's Fairs, parks like Tivoli Gardens, and Walt's own idealized boyhood "Main Street" memories were huge influences.

Still, I interpreted JustOneBite87's post a little differently.

I look at it like this: Without the success of Mickey and the shorts there would be no Snow White. And without the success of Snow White and the DACs that followed, there would be no "Disney Parks".

So in that sense, I do see Mickey, the DACs, and the characters as the "roots" and "core" of the parks.

Also, so many of the key early Imagineers (including fan faves like Mark Davis, Claude Coats, and Mary Blair) got their start in the Animation department.

The same brilliant songwriters who wrote original park classics like "It's a Small World", "Yo Ho (A Pirate's Life For Me)" and "In the Tiki Tiki Tiki Room" all started out writing songs for the Disney films.

Also, even though the animated classics were initially just represented in Fantasyland, the other lands clearly had influences in other Walt-era film and tv productions. For instance, Frontierland took inspiration from Davy Crockett and other western-themed Disney-produced films and tv programs. Adventureland was initially inspired by the True-Life Adventures and soon hosted the Swiss Family Treehouse, based on the Disney classic film "Swiss Family Robinson". And Tomorrowland took some of its inspiration from anthology episodes like "Man In Space" and "Magic Highway USA".

For all these reasons, I've always viewed the parks as "cut from the same cloth" as the films, and part of the same spectrum/continuum/aesthetic body of work.

So I think the parks can continue to present a mix of film-based attractions and original content, as that's what they've always done. Even though the characters and DACs can now be found beyond Fantasyland and the Magic Kingdom, there is still a lot of original content in the parks. For instance, most of the attractions in Epcot and Animal Kingdom are not based on or tied to an existing film property.

Some of my all-time favorite WDW attractions are original creations not based on films - It's A Small World, the Tiki Room, the Country Bears, the Kitchen Kabaret, Killamanjaro Safaris, and the first and third versions of Imagination.

At the same time, a lot of my favorites (like Splash Mountain, the Fantasyland dark rides, Gran Fiesta Tour, The Seas With Nemo and Friends) are based on DACs and Pixar films. So as a HUGE fan of the DACs and Pixar films, it doesn't bother me one bit that characters from these films are expanding beyond Fantasyland. IMO, these characters made attractions like the ride portion of The Seas, Gran Fiesta Tour, and Circle of Life more fun and entertaining than they were prieviously.

I know on sites like the WDWmagic forums, there is a tremendous backlash against the characters and DAC films existing outside of Fantasyland. While I know that money/marketing is a big reason for this phenomenon, I can't help the fact that as a HUGE fan of these films and characters, I enjoy seeing them added to the parks and attractions!

In fact, if WDW were to ever add a fifth park, my wish would be one based exclusively on DACs and Pixar films. After all, there are so many DACs not represented or underrepresented in the parks. And since Future World can be viewed as Tomorrowland taken to the scale of carrying half a park, and Animal Kingdom can be viewed as Adventureland taken to the scale of carrying a whole park, my concept would do the same for Fantasyland, the DACs, and their classic characters, songs, stories, and settings that are the first and foremost thing I think of when I hear the word "Disney".

PS. None of this is meant as an arguement with Flanger-Hanger, BTW. His post just got me thinking about a lot of these issues!

PPS. For those interested, here is one of my posts from a few years ago from a thread in which the question was asked if the spread of the characters beyond the Magic Kingdom to the other 3 WDW parks was causing those parks to lose their identity. This is my defense of the spreading of the characters:

http://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewtopic. ... ht=#516053

[FigmentJedi]

Somewhere between nutcase and realist. I know full well that a lot of the DTV sequels are schwarbage and am always skeptical of management when they're making bad decisions. But I consume a lot of various Disney media between the parks, animation and comics and have a love for some of the more underappreciated sections within that media, like how Atlantis the Lost Empire and Meet the Robinsons are in my top 10 Canon movies or how Phantom Blot's one of my favorite Disney villains. I've made the pilgrimage to Marceline, Missouri and I've been to the Family Museum in San Francisco in addition to multiple trips to the stateside parks.

I'm the sort of guy that on the two times that the Epic Mickey Facebook has question time with Warren Spector, I ask about stuff I believe should show up in Epic Mickey 2 (Wait and see on Western River Expedition content, no Fifinella) and I surprised him both times.

And I find it incredibly frustrating how hesitant Disney is to do crossovers knowing that stuff like that happened in Walt-era comics all the time. Those limitations are why I consider Kingdom Hearts to be a big failure in terms of a crossover because unless you're a Mickey and pals/world neutral character like Merlin, nothing ever actually crosses over

[thelittleursula]

I was born in the 90's but I think that I'm a a Disney Realist. But sort of a 90's Disney gal at the same time. Expect I realize that things change, taste-buds in animated movies change with each different generations so a movie that might be considered poor via 1985 standards example The Black Cauldron might be considered to be one of Disney's best movies ever made in the upcoming future.

Things change and we don't always want it or like it, but they do. I don't really want or enjoy 3D animated flicks; but they're happening. And Disney is a company and they're going to be greedy and selfish sometimes and just do things for a chance at more money.

[ajmrowland]

I'm a proud 90's kid, but even I think 90's Disney fans are obnoxious.

I have more sympathy for the ‘90s fan because there’s an aspect of me that understands that higher affection for the films released when they were born. I would dismiss it as all nostalgia, but are there fans who only liked the movies released around the time they were born from the ‘60s and ‘70s? I'm sure there are, of course, but it such a large quantity like with the '90s? I think a large factor that created the nostalgia comes from the ‘90s films being high quality Disney, where the studio meandered through the '60s/'70s to the '80s.

I also have to admit that, while I have opened up to older Disney films as I’ve got older and I recognize the greatness of most of them, only 2 or 3 Walt-era films give me the same interest one of the ‘90s films would, partly because I find many of them so old-fashioned and sometimes dull. Of course the ‘90s films have their own egregious flaws (particularly the beginning of “side kicks” who never allowed one silent moment), but I get more satisfaction from them than I would get from, say, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs which is one of the most boring films to me. Some degree of Disney films are timeless, but they are also grounded in the period they were made in, and the newer films are (obviously) more tied to my time period than the older ones are.

of course. I was born in 1990 and did some amount of growing up in that era. I can recognize the points that many fans make in saying 90s disney was better. When they start saying that the new cartoons are crap by comparison, I write it off as nostalgia talk.

[Wonderlicious]

The Disney Fangirl: Similar to the nutcase, but this one's far worse since it is a fangirl at the helm. You know, the kind that spends 12 hours a day on Tumblr searching for Disney stuff, create stuff based on Disney (I'm talking to you Simple Disney Things ) and just dream, think and live Disney. I believe Mooky (or was it Wondy?) did an excellent mockery of the fangirl a few years back... If only she would come on down and show us what she is capable of...

I wish I could take the credit for that stroke of genius, but it was all Wonderlicious .

hey guyz! Sorry i havent bin on here in suuuuch a looooong while, ive bin so buzy hangin out on tumblr instead of hacking into wondys account, especailly wiv all the memes 2 do wiv disney prinsess and tangled! anywy, i rlly wud say after all that i am a disney fangirl! my favourite disney movies are tangled and all the disney princess films, including the dtv sequesl (cinderella 2 is rlly touching ).. tumblr is a great site to be a disney fan as there are lots of diffrent blogs to do stuff on. seriously, tho i work 9-5 in a pooch parlor (puppies! ), i still tumblr so much on my iphone, and make the little chiwawas and terriors i pamper watch disney movies thru youtube (including bervely hills chiwawa! such a great movie! )! anyway, i know that ppl claimed i wasnt welcome here, but if u guyz evr want me to come bak, i am all urs.

ps, really p**ed off by the comments over the cinderella diamond transfer. duh, its an old movie, of course the lines r gonna disappear, the film stokc is rottin away.

[pap64]

I wish I could take the credit for that stroke of genius, but it was all Wonderlicious .

hey guyz! Sorry i havent bin on here in suuuuch a looooong while, ive bin so buzy hangin out on tumblr instead of hacking into wondys account, especailly wiv all the memes 2 do wiv disney prinsess and tangled! anywy, i rlly wud say after all that i am a disney fangirl! my favourite disney movies are tangled and all the disney princess films, including the dtv sequesl (cinderella 2 is rlly touching ).. tumblr is a great site to be a disney fan as there are lots of diffrent blogs to do stuff on. seriously, tho i work 9-5 in a pooch parlor (puppies! ), i still tumblr so much on my iphone, and make the little chiwawas and terriors i pamper watch disney movies thru youtube (including bervely hills chiwawa! such a great movie! )! anyway, i know that ppl claimed i wasnt welcome here, but if u guyz evr want me to come bak, i am all urs.

ps, really p**ed off by the comments over the cinderella diamond transfer. duh, its an old movie, of course the lines r gonna disappear, the film stokc is rottin away.

Yes!! The fangirl returns!

[Christopher_TCUIH]

I'm a Disney Broke Bitch fan. I love animation/cartoons in general. I just can't afford them anymore. I'm hanging in there though. I scraped all of my pennies together to see Brave in August

[KACENAID]

As a couple others have said as well, I agree with a lot of what enigmawing has written, so I'll try not to repeat what she has said in what I'll add.

I think I'm closest to being a Disney Realist as well, although I'll fine tune a little bit further from the original description. While I can notice flaws in a Disney movie and point them out, I still embrace those flaws and can overlook them and enjoy each individual film on their own merits. Even though I like some films more than others (and I'm mostly talking about DACs when I say this and less about DTVs and live action), I can find things to enjoy about each of them, even the ones I rank the lowest.

I think being a product of the 80s worked out very well for me (like it also did for pap64) as I was able to be exposed to a lot of earlier DACs on VHS in that timeframe while also being able to build up to the late 80s and eventually the 90s. I think it was a great time to be exposed to everything and I was at a great prime age to see a lot in theaters and be at an age to truly remember them well and appreciate them.

[pap64]

Guess I forgot to explain which Disney fan am I...

Well, enigmawing already elaborated a lot of my thoughts, but I think I fit the Disney Realist the best, with elements of the Disney Nutcases involved in some cases. Let me elaborate on that...

Like I already stated, being born in the early 80s gave me the advantage of being exposed to Disney very early on, way before the big golden age of the 90s. But the 80s served as an introduction to Disney for me, and it was in the 90s when I was finally able to fully understand Disney, what it mean for people and what it meant for me. I watched the Disney Channel religiously, which introduced me to classic Disney in a way I never realized before. Yeah by then I had seen most of the classic movies and a great deal of the classic shorts. But by then I finally understood why it has such a huge presence in people's life, as well as what the company means to me as a person.

I was also introduced to the Disney parks that way. I was honestly blown away by the fact that a place for everything Disney existed, a place I could meet Mickey and friends as well as other characters. So by the mid-90s or so, I had a far wider understand of Disney and gained a HUGE appreciation and respect for the company.

So why do I consider myself part realist and part nutcase? Well, since Disney means A LOT to me, I tend to love it and appreciate it more than anyone else. I love collecting Disney stuff, I have seen every Disney Animated Classic more than once, I heavily discuss anything Disney across several forums, and have made incredible friends thanks to Disney. So in the eyes of many, I am a Disney Nutcase.

But the reason I consider myself a realist too is because I also hate the mentality that Disney fans are automatically better than anyone else in life just because they loyally follow some of the teachings the Disney company preaches about. Yeah, I am willing to confess that some things about Disney truly mean a lot to me. But I don't consider myself to be a better person that someone else, nor do I flip my switch whenever someone mentions DreamWorks (I am serious, I have heard people openly say that anyone that likes Shrek should never have friends). There are some things the company does that baffles me, and I often point them out to people.

At the same time, I don't flip whenever Disney changes something. Yeah, I miss classic Disney Channel all the time, but I don't write three page long rants about it, and are quick to claim that Disney has lost the magic. I find that sort of fanaticism to be illogical too: how do you expect the Disney company to grow and evolve into better ideas if we forbid them from doing so. Yes, I can see some ideas being bad (Avatarland for starters), but I won't have a heart attack if Disney does something different that I disagree with either.

In other words, I hate it when people go either extreme way. I dislike it when people do nothing but bash and criticize Disney using the same old tired arguments over and over again, but I don't like it either when fans start to believe that Disney was a messiah and that Disneyland was his holy ground.

[Alphapanchito]

But I definitely don't consider my love of the older stuff "nostalgia", as I wasn't even alive then! I enjoy it on it's own MERIT. It's kind of a pet peave when some people bash older attractions and films (which happens a lot on the park boards I read) and say they are only good for "nostalgia". IMO this marginalizes and cheapens things that IMO are still TIMELESS and entertaining today.

Totally agree. I guess most of what I feel really is from the pure quality of the older stuff. I feel like there is something else there, but I can't quite name it. Maybe thats part of what makes it so good?

And yeah, that bothers me too. People use the phrase "it's only good for nostalgia" WAY too often, because most of the time I find myself enjoying these things that I have never seen before.

[JustOneBite87]

I dare say we could come up with another description for the 90s Fans that emphasizes their views of the parks based on what they've known in their lifetimes in visiting them starting in that decade, and this view could be applied to older people too if they never went before then.

My overall view of the parks doesn't stem from what I have known during my lifetime, nor from recent first-hand visits, nor am I a "90's Disney Fan" if that's what you were insinuating. I may have grown up during the prime of the company's animation renaissance but I was just as quick to embrace films and TV series from from every decade.

I know the history of Disneyland. I've read books about it from cover to cover, seen and own multiple documentaries and vintage pieces about the park thanks to the Treasures DVD line. I've visited the archives at the studio and seen pieces of now defunct rides and floats. I've had lengthy discussions with well-known Disney historians, not to mention Dianne Disney Miller herself while visiting the Walt Disney Family Museum. In short I know what I am talking about and I stand by my statement that the foundation of the park stems from the films that Walt Disney created and that while yes, there are many original attractions at the theme parks, none of that would exist if it wasn't for the films which were and continue to be utilized to form the majority of new attractions at every park. Therefore I continue to be puzzled by people who are absolutely obsessed with the theme parks but haven't watched many of the films that inspired their creation in years.

[Flanger-Hanger]

I dare say we could come up with another description for the 90s Fans that emphasizes their views of the parks based on what they've known in their lifetimes in visiting them starting in that decade, and this view could be applied to older people too if they never went before then.

My overall view of the parks doesn't stem from what I have known during my lifetime, nor from recent first-hand visits, nor am I a "90's Disney Fan" if that's what you were insinuating.

I was talking about "90s Disney Fans" in the broader context, not you specifically.

[David S.]

At the same time, I don't flip whenever Disney changes something. Yeah, I miss classic Disney Channel all the time, but I don't write three page long rants about it, and are quick to claim that Disney has lost the magic. I find that sort of fanaticism to be illogical too: how do you expect the Disney company to grow and evolve into better ideas if we forbid them from doing so. Yes, I can see some ideas being bad (Avatarland for starters), but I won't have a heart attack if Disney does something different that I disagree with either.

Not being argumentative here, but I just wanted to point out that there is room for BOTH classic and new content on the airwaves. Showing some classic Walt-era stuff once in awhile (besides the token well-known DAC every now and then) would not prevent them from developing new programming. ("growing and evolving").

In the early days of the Disney Channel "classic-era" material represented a large percentage of what was shown. Yet right from the beginning, there was all-new content as well.

By the late 90's up until the end of Vault Disney in September 2002, the classic content was maginalized almost exclusively in the overnight early-AM block, but at least it was made available. People who couldn't stay up all night could always record it.

But for the last 10 years, fans of the classic Walt material (or even 70's and 80's content) are not thrown one bone by the Disney Channel except the occasional well-known DAC from those earlier eras.

And since then, Disney has developed TWO more cable channels and still gives the classic material the cold shoulder.

So we went from Classic Disney content representing about 50% of the early days of Disney Channel, to about 25 to 33 % during the Vault Disney era, to basically ZERO percent now. ZERO percent of 72 hours a day worth of programming over their 3 cable networks is pathetic!

I don't think it is asking too much at all, or ranting or whatever, to expect them to show Disneyland/Walt Disney Presents/Wonderful World Of Color/Wonderful World of Disney episodes on just ONE of those channels. After all, the show ran for 29 consecutive seasons on mainstream primetime network tv and the company steadfastly REFUSES to release season sets on DVD. So how else are fans of this content supposed to access it? It wouldn't hurt them to air a small block on one their channels (overnight, if need be), consisting of an anthology episode, some classic shorts, episodes of Zorro and/or Mickey Mouse club, and a classic feature film.

And if they DID do this, it wouldn't stop them from "growing" or "changing" or remaining "hip" and "relevent" to their precious "tween" demographic during the rest of the hours of the day.

Who knows, maybe some of those tweens would even discover how great movies like The Three Lives of Thomassina, Pollyanna, Big Red, and Swiss Family Robinson are, (like I did at that age), if they were only allowed to see them over the air.

Heck, I'd even upgrade my cable package from expanded basic to add all the digital-only channels if they would do this (where I live, only regular Disney Channel comes with expanded basic).

But since Disney refuses to do so, it is only natural for fans with a strong preference for "Classic Disney" to feel disillusioned, disenchanted, and disenfranchised with the current state of Disney Channel and it's 2 siblings.

Again, this is not an argument with Pap64, I only quoted his post to point out that they could still "grow" and "evolve" while still showing some respect for the classic older programming, and the fans who love it.

From Wikipedia's article on Disney Channel:

On September 16, 2002, the Vault Disney block was discontinued in favor of same-day repeats of the channel's original and off-network series, primarily to contribute to the network's then-upcoming "hip" image; the removal of the block resulted in Disney Channel not featuring any programming targeted at adult audiences for the first time in the channel's history – with the only programming that intentionally targets the entire family being the channel's primetime feature films; as of June 2011, Disney Channel is the only one of the largest American children's cable networks that does not target both kids during the daytime, and a family/adult audience at night (Nickelodeon, The Hub and Cartoon Network each feature program blocks that target such a dual audience).

Full article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Channel

[shellysunfish]

I'm a small mix of "Casual fan" and "90s-Kid"!

[merlinjones]

The odd thing about being an admirer of Walt Disney and his works these days is that one is expected to sign-on to being interested in all of this un-related product from a diversified conglomerate that just happens to have the same name. The man has been lost in the brand.

It's not so much a matter of being a "purist" fan -- it's that Walt was a specific filmmaker and entertainment producer with a specific body of work, artists, aesthetics, style, themes, mediums, actors, music. That's what I like -- increasingly, it really has nothing to do with all of the rest of this stuff. Though some of the new(er) material is related to or inspired by Walt's work (like Mermaid, Beauty, Aladdin, Pixar, et al), and the old-timeless properties/characters still drive the gravy train because they continue to resonate -- it's not all the same thing just because it says "Disney" (and the vast majority of it, like ABC, the Channel, TV animation, Marvel, etc. has nothing to do -- at heart -- with Walt's work whatsoever).

For example, no one expects an Alfred Hitchcock admirer to love and buy into everything NBC/Universal makes or does today simply because they own so many of his films and TV shows. Would you call a Hitchcock fan closed-minded because they weren't interested in a modern remake, the Today Show, Despicable Me, or the latest must-see-tv sitcom? It's unrelated -- a separate body of work.

[Semaj]

For example, no one expects an Alfred Hitchcock admirer to love and buy into everything NBC/Universal makes or does today simply because they own so many of his films and TV shows. Would you call a Hitchcock fan closed-minded because they weren't interested in a modern remake, the Today Show, Despicable Me, or the latest must-see-tv sitcom? It's unrelated -- a separate body of work.

The other network properties are only related to Hitchcock by having the same ownership, so no Hitchcock purist would be "required" to enjoy the modern network or any non-Hitchcock Universal film.

Plus, Hitchcock doesn't have a posthumous empire like Disney does. NBC just happens to own his films. But Disney owns all of Walt's films, as well as their modern products. However, I really don't think that Disney fans should be "required" to like Marvel comics, because they already have a brand name that had been separate from Disney decades prior to their 2009 purchase. Same goes for ABC, in spite of their association with the Disney legacy. They still had their own identity and heritage long before the 1996 purchase, and even pre-dating the first broadcast of the Disneyland TV show. No one back in 1954 had thought about Disney ever owning a television network.

[Disney's Divinity]

The odd thing about being an admirer of Walt Disney and his works these days is that one is expected to sign-on to being interested in all of this un-related product from a diversified conglomerate that just happens to have the same name. The man has been lost in the brand.

That’s a good point. Even going beyond Walt Disney, modern Disney films often do not share the same directors from project to project.