DVDizzy Forum

The mock-up to the Cinderella Blu-Ray cover currently reads:

Disney "Cinderella"

-- but should read:

Walt Disney's "Cinderella"

-- as this is not product "branding" but the film producer's (a real person, a film maker) possessive above-the-title credit - - see also all the films actually made by Walter Elias Disney during his lifetime.

Even if the company does own the name and likeness and is not required to do it, legally, this is only right thing to do, ethically -- IMHO.

Same thing happened on the recent Dumbo release. And of course they've stopped caring about proper grammar and punctuation for a few years now, like how Disney's California Adventure became Disney California Adventure.

It is my understanding that dropping "Walt" and all possessives was an effort to mimick other brand titling to modernize and stregthen Disney's brand image.

My question to that is, when did the "Walt Disney" brand stop being strong in recognition or economic value? What ultimately made the company decide to not only ignore its founder, but waste money altering things like the "Walt Disney Pictures" logo to just read "Disney"?

It should read "Walt Disney's Cinderella", that is what the movie is. "Disney Cinderella" just sounds like the cheaply made, poorly done "Princess" product knock-off.

The main reason Roy O. Disney named the Florida theme park "WALT Disney World" was so everyone could remember his brother.

Are people really THAT stupid they can't see beyond a brand name?

Semaj wrote:The main reason Roy O. Disney named the Florida theme park "WALT Disney World" was so everyone could remember his brother.

Are people really THAT stupid they can't see beyond a brand name?

Yes. Hell, some people think Walt Disney wasn't a real person, but made up like Betty Crocker.

I also agree, though there's sadly little we can do about it. Everybody associates the Disney font so much that they don't need to slap the word "Disney" down like it were some product label (note the lack of possessive). I think the real kick in the teeth came from reducing "Walt Disney Pictures" to just "Disney" on the castle logo before films. If it were up to me, all Disney films would use proper possessives (i.e. Walt Disney's/Disney's, Walt Disney Pictures Presents, Walt Disney's Classic etc). Either that, or (at least for home media purposes), put things into collections where the branding seems more purposeful (such as "Walt Disney Classics").

unfortunately this was inevitable. I think the current "formula" gives credit to Disney as a company, credit that should be given to Walt.

First it was "Disney" for the films that were created after he died and now this. It's not just Cinderella.

It's Lady and the Tramp, Dumbo, Cinderella, The Aristocats (the last one he was involved in) and the new edition of Pinocchio has also dropped Walt's name

Just another reason why I prefer custom DVD covers. Then I can put whoever's name I want on the dang cover!

I think I'm ok with something like "John Carter" not having Walt's name on it. But the films he actually worked on or oversaw should have his name on them, period. I understand that Bob Iger wants to use his time at Disney for political gain later. Something about him doing right by this great American brand. If I was in New York and he was running for anything, just off of his time at Disney, I would not vote for him. The brand just isn't what it used to be, and it saddens me how far away from Walt things have gotten.

Yes, they even had an article about how they thought making everything say "Disney" would be a great re-branding. But I don't think it's doing anything at all. And yes, at least on Walt's films (and Walt Disney Pictures and Walt Disney World), you need to have the "Walt Disney's" just to be morally right and respectful. I'm actually surprised that it isn't breaking some law.

milojthatch wrote:I think I'm ok with something like "John Carter" not having Walt's name on it. But the films he actually worked on or oversaw should have his name on them, period. I understand that Bob Iger wants to use his time at Disney for political gain later. Something about him doing right by this great American brand. If I was in New York and he was running for anything, just off of his time at Disney, I would not vote for him. The brand just isn't what it used to be, and it saddens me how far away from Walt things have gotten.

How come you don't help me talk about how far the company is losing the Disney Essence?

The new Disney essence is to make you feel betrayed, dirty, and wallet-raped.

Haha, I actually really like that joke and think it's really funny! The slightly true ones are...

Lnds500 wrote:unfortunately this was inevitable. I think the current "formula" gives credit to Disney as a company, credit that should be given to Walt.

First it was "Disney" for the films that were created after he died and now this. It's not just Cinderella.

It's Lady and the Tramp, Dumbo, Cinderella, The Aristocats (the last one he was involved in) and the new edition of Pinocchio has also dropped Walt's name

You really just reminded me of how weird and weirdly nostalgic it was a few years ago for me to see a local video store branding Enchanted as "Walt Disney's Enchanted".

milojthatch wrote:Just another reason why I prefer custom DVD covers. Then I can put whoever's name I want on the dang cover!

I think I'm ok with something like "John Carter" not having Walt's name on it. But the films he actually worked on or oversaw should have his name on them, period. I understand that Bob Iger wants to use his time at Disney for political gain later. Something about him doing right by this great American brand. If I was in New York and he was running for anything, just off of his time at Disney, I would not vote for him. The brand just isn't what it used to be, and it saddens me how far away from Walt things have gotten.

I still dont think corporate higher-ups of any company should be allowed in politics.

Disney Duster wrote:Yes, they even had an article about how they thought making everything say "Disney" would be a great re-branding. But I don't think it's doing anything at all. And yes, at least on Walt's films (and Walt Disney Pictures and Walt Disney World), you need to have the "Walt Disney's" just to be morally right and respectful. I'm actually surprised that it isn't breaking some law.

While I agree that Disney should use some proper possessives when labelling their films, and using Walt's name where appropriate, what they are doing is ultimately far from breaking any law. Indeed, though it may be mindless branding, they can still claim they are using Walt's namesake as his surname is visible. In fact, I can imagine that would probably be the defence.

But that could be anyone's surname could it not?

Disney Duster wrote:But that could be anyone's surname could it not?

Not really. There are guys named Harry Potter, but Disney is not at all a common surname. If it werent for Walt, Disney would've been practically unheard of as a family name. There's the really common ones like Smith and Johnson, then you have Rowland, and frankly almost all others are a rarity.

I don't mind the "Disney" branding so much on packaging for videos/games and toys, but to change the name of the studio to just Disney instead of "Walt Disney Pictures" in front of the actual films, is NOT going to make anyone who wasn't a fan of Walt Disney before, all of the sudden convert. It was a dumb move that does NOTHING but annoy hard core fans of the legacy that Walt established. People who didn't care before, still don't.

ajmrowland wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:But that could be anyone's surname could it not?

Not really. There are guys named Harry Potter, but Disney is not at all a common surname. If it werent for Walt, Disney would've been practically unheard of as a family name. There's the really common ones like Smith and Johnson, then you have Rowland, and frankly almost all others are a rarity.

I was talking technically, it could be anyone's surname, to make a case that they should legally be required to use Walt Disney.

Disney Duster wrote:

ajmrowland wrote: Not really. There are guys named Harry Potter, but Disney is not at all a common surname. If it werent for Walt, Disney would've been practically unheard of as a family name. There's the really common ones like Smith and Johnson, then you have Rowland, and frankly almost all others are a rarity.

I was talking technically, it could be anyone's surname, to make a case that they should legally be required to use Walt Disney.

yeah, i guess. And I was implying the likelihood of two households named Disney.

Today is the day I came to know about switching of Walt Disney's to Disney. I'm one of those who only looks at the movie name and when watching the movie, skip the starting & credits. As someone said above

People who didn't care before, still don't.FM WhatsApp

True. It leaves no impression on me before.
But after reading these posts, i realize what it is about. And i, too, agree that they should have used Disney's instead of only Disney to show their possessiveness on their titles. Disney Cinderella - no sense.
Even the Marvel is good in that regard. They always MARVEL's or MARVEL STUDIO's in both, movies & games' names.