Sponsored Links


Random Topics - Disney

The Walt Disney Company (NYSE: DIS) is the largest media and entertainment corporation in the world. Founded on October 16, 1923, by brothers Walt and Roy Disney as an animation studio, it has become one of the biggest Hollywood studios, and owner and licensor of eleven theme parks and several television networks, including ABC and ESPN. Disney's corporate headquarters and primary production facilities are located at The Walt Disney Studios in Burbank, California. The company has been a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average since May 6 1991. Mickey Mouse serves as the official mascot of The Walt Disney Company.

Wikipedia Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company
eBay Link: View Disney on eBay

Boned When... (Login to Submit a Reason)

1 No more ink and paint films Computer animation the only animation? No!!
Please Login to Vote
2 Michael Eisner It became all about money
Please Login to Vote
3 May-June 2002 It became "teenage"
Please Login to Vote
4 Copyrights Fights to keep materials out of Public Domain
Please Login to Vote
5 Lousy sequels Ruins the magic of the classic films
Please Login to Vote
6 Death: Walt Disney Lost its vision without Walt
Please Login to Vote
7 Bought Marvel Entertainment Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Please Login to Vote
8 DTV Sequels Don't mess with the classics!
Please Login to Vote
9 Exit, Stage Left-Mickey Mouse Became a videogame-only character/not in TV/Movies
Please Login to Vote
10 Never Boned Still rocks.
Please Login to Vote
11 Pocahontas Just not that great
12 Became Family UNfriendly Complete opposite of what it was decades ago.
13 Day 1 Sucked from the start.
14 Over-Releasing Classic movies.
15 Always Partially Boned WD's anti-Semitism, loss of vision, etc.
16 Bought star wars plans more movies
17 Buying Lucas-Films First Marvel, now Lucas-Films? Stop, Disney!
18 Lazy Character Designers Every female in their new movies has the same face
(hide reasons) 
(view all reasons) 

Disney Comments (You must Login to Comment)

1 To be fair about the princess thing, when The Princess and the Frog came out, it had been quite a while since Disney released a princess movie to theaters. Additionally, it should be worth mentioning that, in the Disney animated canon (i.e. theatrically released animated Disney movies, not counting Pixar), Disney hasn't released a critically panned animated movie since John Lasseter became the CCO of the Disney Animation Studios in 2006. -- Submitted By: (cartooner) on May 2, 2013, 8:43 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
2 I totally agree with Travoltron. Enough with the princesses already! Yes Disney, we get it, princesses sell well because they appeal to the 2 to 7 year old female demographic. This is America, you have a right to make a buck or two, but good God-you have overloaded us with princesses. PLEASE! You're capable of so much more. You have the money. You have access to the talent. Just give us some really cool 2D animated movies that AREN'T trying to cram princess merchandise down our throats and we might pay to go see it. And mark my words Disney, if you even TRY to princess-up Star Wars, I will loathe you forever. -- Submitted By: (Friedrich_Feuerstein) on April 30, 2013, 9:54 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
3 Word is that they've axed their entire 2D department because Princess and the Frog underperformed. Obviously other countries like Japan can still turn out 2D animated movies that turn a profit. It's the worn-out formula of princesses, song & dance numbers, and "hip" sidekicks with celebrity voices that needs axing, not hand-drawn animation. -- Submitted By: (Travoltron) on April 18, 2013, 11:01 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
4 Yeah, Pixar too. I remember when they were going to go off and do their own thing, then Disney turned around and just bought them out. Anyhow, I really don't know what to make of the Lucasfilms purchase. On one hand, George Lucas ruined the original trilogy with those loathed digital re-edits. Since he's so addicted to CGI, maybe it's a good thing. Another plus is Disney might know there's Hell to pay if they DARE Disney-fy the Star Wars trilogy. On the other hand, there's Disney sequelitis, and we could someday see Star Wars XIV: The Search for More Money. Oh, wait...that was Spaceballs II. -- Submitted By: (Robert) on November 3, 2012, 10:43 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
5 Truth be told, I'd feel more optimistic re the news of the purchase of Lucasfilm were Uncle Walt still at the helm inasmuch as HE would have done his derndest to have steered the 'Star Wars' enterprise away from the pointless track of cynicism,evil celebrated and sadism that's pervaded it ever since Lucas gave the EU writers free rein after 'ROJ' 's original release.Under Uncle Walt the original themes of good triumphing over evil, redemption and mercy would have been brought back but with whoever's running Disney these days, I'm not so sure! -- Submitted By: (Pelirojo) on November 3, 2012, 4:15 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
6 Let's not forget that they own Pixar as well. Pixar, Lucasfilms, Jim Henson, Marvel and Disney's own brand... -- Submitted By: (kingbk) on November 2, 2012, 9:46 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
7 I just found out today that Disney's buying Lucasfilms for $4 Billion. So now, Disney will own Jim Henson, Marvel, and Lucasfilms. -- Submitted By: (Robert) on October 30, 2012, 9:59 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
8 I understand that kids and teens will force the parents to buy hefty amounts of merchandise of their favorite teen show, but would it hurt to spare a little bit of work for us who grew with Goofy & friends? -- Submitted By: (Saunich) on November 17, 2010, 3:21 pm - (1 votes) - Login to Vote
9 The Disney channel no longer airs classic cartoons (or even classic movies!), but rather live-action shows aimed at teenagers. -- Submitted By: (Robert) on November 11, 2010, 8:05 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
10 What is it exactly that people mean when they say "Disney became teenaged" ? -- Submitted By: (ExplodingConsole) on November 6, 2010, 4:26 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
11 Yes, I know Disney's a company,etc. which can spend its resources any legal way it sees fit, but that doesn't mwan I have to LIKE every spending decision they make. OK? Besides, I seriously doubt that the single decision of joining the ranks of every other major studio in distributing shopworn copies virtually ready to be melted down to institution for longterm care patients to see would have tipped the scale to put Disney in the poorhouse. And I'm no tax expert but wouldn't that have qualified with Uncle Sam as a Charitable Deduction back then? -- Submitted By: (Pelirojo) on September 25, 2009, 11:46 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
12 Disney is first and foremost a company, not a charity organisation. They nearly went bankrupt (twice) after the war. And if they should have spend extramoney in anything, than into the pay of their own workers. -- Submitted By: (Swanpride) on September 23, 2009, 3:28 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
13 Swanpride, Boiled down to essentials,(unlike every other major studio in that time), perhaps maybe Disney decided that putting out funds for tea cup rides was a better expenditure than allowing crippled children in institutions to see grainy, overspliced films that were considered too worn for drive-ins! By the way, speaking of merchandising, at the end of World War II, Mickey Mouse watches were so prized that Soviet soldiers could buy SIX COWS on the black market for one watch! -- Submitted By: (Pelirojo) on September 23, 2009, 7:01 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
14 The fact that the first themepark opened in 1954 is more a point for the "they were short on money" theory than against. After all, this was a huge investment. And yes, it would be nice to show "some children" the movies...but, knowing Disney, they surely didn't do the program only in one hospital but in as many as possible. If they had shown the movies in all this hospitals, too, they would have lost a lot of regular audience. And really, I think it is admirable that they even bothered to make sure that the children were able to watch anything at all. It is not like they have to give any freebees to anyone. -- Submitted By: (Swanpride) on September 23, 2009, 2:04 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
15 Swanpride, Of course I know that movie making has been rather expensive for virtually every major studio- especially since the invention of 'talkies'. As to Disney not being able to afford 'freebies' such as 3rd run movies for folks who were stuck in longterm care hospitals and institutions? Put it this way, Disney was the ONLY studio who had its own THEME PARK back in the 1950's so if they could put out the monies for that venture, they weren't exactly having to resort to bake sales to stay afloat-and let's not forget the incredible amount of merchandising for Mickey,etc. that Disney's done all the way back to at least the early 30's ! And I'd have thought that such a 'kid friendly' studio such as Disney would have happy for crippled children to see the 3rd run movies, but my late friend claimed otherwise! -- Submitted By: (Pelirojo) on September 22, 2009, 9:54 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
16 @Pelirojo You obviously have no idea how expensive the old movies were in the 50th. Save for Snowwhite, each and everyone of them was a loosing deal for Disney initially...and some of them still are. The Disney-Company was on the brink of ruin more often then not...back then, they couldn't afford those freebees.[br] I think, Disney had good and bad times concerning the movies...the first "bad time" began when the original team was gone. Crappy movies like Taran or Oliver and Co nearly ruined Disney for me, luckily they found back to their roots with Arielle. At least partly. They never found the courage of Walt Disney to do movies which where not overly sugary. I am sure, he would have killed the Hunchback of notre dame and while he would have set treasure Island in the space too, he would never made Long John Silver a redeemed character. [br] For me, there is such a long list of boning moments that I can't decide what to vote for. 1. Making cheap and crappy sequels to the classics (The rescuers down under is the exeption, but the production wasn't exactly cheap, so it doesn't count. A real exception is Fantasia 2000), 2. Putting new dubbings on the movies (the "new" german version of Arielle is not watchable), 3. Cutting (supposedly) racistic scenes and the cigarettes/cigars out of the old short movies (how about a version for adults?), 4. Stopping the production in the MGM studios, 5. Destroying the sea behind the castle in the Magic Kindome (Orlando) in favor of a fast food restaurant, 6. Building some really ugly hotels which don't fit into the "disney illusion", 7. Replacing the old merchandise which cheap crap, 8. High school musical and similiar stupid series, 9. When they stopped to send a the classic ink and paint movies around christmas...I looked forward to them every year, I never missed one out, but I never manage to see the ones they show in the summer.[br] Well, with "Princess and the frog" they will go back to the roots and I quite like what I have seen of "Rapunzel" so far. Let's hope that they will stay on course, now that Roy Disney has finally managed to oust Eisner... -- Submitted By: (Swanpride) on September 22, 2009, 4:52 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
17 If I sound foolish with this question then I apologize. However, how would one define Disney becoming Teenaged? -- Submitted By: (ExplodingConsole) on September 21, 2009, 7:24 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
18 Hannah Montana, HSM and The Jonas Brothers have ruined Disney. The only great thing about Disney now is that Pixar is still making amazing movies and hopefully they won't bone anytime soon. -- Submitted By: (marcosementilli) on August 20, 2009, 10:31 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
19 Oh, I can think of another boning time for Disney. A late friend of mine had been paralyzed by polio back in the 1950's and grew up spending summers getting therapy in Warm Springs, Georgia (yes, the very same place President Roosevelt vacationed at and eventually died in). Anyway, my friend said that every other studio would let the facility run '3rd run' movies for free so those patients who never would have had the opportunity to be leave the facility to watch the movies in 'first run' theatres (full price when they'd first premiere) or 'second run' showings (discounted prices- usually at drive-ins) could view them in their insitutions. However: according to my late friend, NEVER did Disney allow the crippled patients see any of their movies at Warm Springs! Why? Evidently, they didn't want to take the chance of patients' families, insitutional staff,etc. skipping those showings in which the studio would charge for to see grainy, skipping and badly spliced versions for free that the patients had no choice to see. Yep, if what my late friend said was true,Disney seemed to care more about not chancing freebies than letting badly crippled children see their movies! -- Submitted By: (Pelirojo) on August 1, 2009, 3:42 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
20 Eisner expanded the company, made tons of money, and killed the magic. Now that he's gone maybe things will debone. -- Submitted By: (msweller) on June 7, 2009, 12:12 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote

Login to See the QUICK COMMENT Box


Log in to BTF

Register - Forgot password?

Follow on Twitter!

App on Facebook


Related eBay Auctions

Powered By: TempusMedia - (Page load took:0.358 seconds)